As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 23, 2018

Registration No. 333-220234​

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

Amendment No. 4
to
Form F-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd.
7 Golda Meir St., Weizmann Science Park
Ness Ziona, 7403650, Israel
Tel: +972 8 931 3433

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of Registrant’s principal executive offices)

Cogency Global Inc.
10 E. 40th Street, 10th floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone No.: +1 800 221-0102

(Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service)

Copies to:

Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after effectiveness of this registration statement.

If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, check the following box. ☐

If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933. Emerging growth company ☒

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, 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 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act. ☐

The registrant hereby amends this registration statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this registration statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the registration statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.

The information in this preliminary prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This preliminary prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and we are not soliciting offers to buy these securities in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.

Subject to Completion, dated January 23, 2018

Preliminary Prospectus

5,000,000 Ordinary Shares

Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd.

Ordinary Shares

This is the initial public offering of our ordinary shares.

No public market currently exists for our ordinary shares. The initial public offering price is expected to be between $11.00 and $13.00 per ordinary share.

We have applied to list our ordinary shares on The Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “SLGL”.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 and will be subject to reduced public company reporting requirements. See “Prospectus Summary — Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company and a Foreign Private Issuer.”

Upon the closing of this offering, we will be a “controlled company” within the meaning of Nasdaq’s corporate governance listing standards.

Investing in our ordinary shares involves a high degree of risk. See “Risk Factors” beginning on page 12 of this prospectus for a discussion of information that should be considered in connection with an investment in our ordinary shares.

Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

(1)

We have agreed to reimburse the underwriters for certain expenses. See “Underwriting.”

​

Our controlling shareholder, M. Arkin Dermatology Ltd., which is wholly owned by the chairman of our board of directors, has indicated an interest in purchasing up to an aggregate of $25.0 million of our ordinary shares in this offering at the initial public offering price. However, because indications of interest are not binding agreements or commitments to purchase, the underwriters may determine to sell more, fewer or no ordinary shares offered in the offering to this shareholder, or this shareholder may determine to purchase more, fewer or no ordinary shares offered in the offering. The underwriters will receive the same underwriting discounts and commissions on any ordinary shares purchased by this shareholder as they will on any ordinary shares sold to the public in this offering. See “Prospectus Summary — The Offering.”

Delivery of the ordinary shares is expected to be made on or about            , 2018. We have granted the underwriters an option for a period of 30 days to purchase up to an additional 750,000 ordinary shares. If the underwriters exercise the option in full, the total underwriting discounts and commissions payable by us will be $               , and the total proceeds to us, before expenses, will be $               .

The date of this prospectus is            , 2018

Neither we nor any of the underwriters have authorized anyone to provide information different from that contained in this prospectus, any amendment or supplement to this prospectus or in any free writing prospectus prepared by us or on our behalf. When you make a decision about whether to invest in our ordinary shares, you should not rely upon any information other than the information in this prospectus, any amendment or supplement to this prospectus and any free writing prospectus prepared by us or on our behalf. Neither the delivery of this prospectus nor the sale of our ordinary shares means that information contained in this prospectus is correct after the date of this prospectus. This prospectus is not an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy these ordinary shares in any circumstances under which the offer or solicitation is unlawful.

For investors outside of the United States: Neither we nor any of the underwriters have done anything that would permit this offering or possession or distribution of this prospectus in any jurisdiction where action for that purpose is required, other than in the United States. You are required to inform yourselves about and to observe any restrictions relating to this offering and the distribution of this prospectus.

i

​

1

​

2

​

3

4

​

5

​

6

7

8

​

9

​

​

​

Year Ended December 31,

​

​

Nine Months Ended September 30,

​

​

​

​

2015

​

​

2016

​

​

2016

​

​

2017

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

(Unaudited)

​

​

​

​

(in thousands, except share and per share data )

​

Statement of Operations Data:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Research and development expenses

​

​

​

$

7,184

​

​

​

​

$

17,023

​

​

​

​

$

13,097

​

​

​

​

$

21,389

​

​

General and administrative expenses

​

​

​

​

2,463

​

​

​

​

​

3,733

​

​

​

​

​

2,809

​

​

​

​

​

4,781

​

​

Total operating loss

​

​

​

​

9,647

​

​

​

​

​

20,756

​

​

​

​

​

15,906

​

​

​

​

​

26,170

​

​

Financial expenses, net

​

​

​

​

13

​

​

​

​

​

15

​

​

​

​

​

(1)

​

​

​

​

​

(52)

​

​

Loss for the year

​

​

​

$

9,660

​

​

​

​

$

20,771

​

​

​

​

$

15,905

​

​

​

​

$

26,118

​

​

Basic and diluted loss per ordinary share (1)

​

​

​

$

1.53

​

​

​

​

$

3.30

​

​

​

​

$

2.53

​

​

​

​

$

4.15

​

​

Weighted average number of ordinary shares outstanding – basic and diluted

​

​

​

​

6,290,242

​

​

​

​

​

6,290,242

​

​

​

​

​

6,290,242

​

​

​

​

​

6,290,244

​

​

Pro forma basic and diluted net loss per ordinary share (unaudited) (1)(2)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

$

1.77

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

$

2.23

​

​

Pro forma weighted average number of ordinary shares outstanding – basic and diluted (unaudited) (2)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

11,735,067

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

11,735,069

​

​

​

​

10

​

​

​

September 30, 2017

​

​

​

​

Actual

​

​

Pro Forma (1)

​

​

Pro Forma As Adjusted (2)

​

​

​

​

(Unaudited, in thousands)

​

Balance Sheet Data:

​

​

​

​

Cash and cash equivalents

​

​

​

$

12,491

​

​

​

​

$

12,491

​

​

​

​

$

66,491

​

​

Total assets

​

​

​

​

22,782

​

​

​

​

​

22,782

​

​

​

​

​

76,782

​

​

Total liabilities

​

​

​

​

71,767

​

​

​

​

​

6,429

​

​

​

​

​

6,429

​

​

Accumulated deficit

​

​

​

​

(89,811)

​

​

​

​

​

(89,811)

​

​

​

​

​

(89,811)

​

​

Total shareholders’ equity (capital deficiency)

​

​

​

​

(48,985)

​

​

​

​

​

16,353

​

​

​

​

​

70,353

​

​

​

11

RISK FACTORS

Investing in our ordinary shares involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below and all other information contained in this prospectus before you decide to buy our ordinary shares. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the trading price of our ordinary shares would likely decline and you might lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We are a clinical stage company and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We are a clinical stage pharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We have incurred net losses since our formation in 1997. In particular, we incurred net losses of  $9.7 million in 2015 and $20.8 million in 2016, respectively, and $15.9 million and $26.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2017, respectively. As of September 30, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of  $89.8 million. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development of our product candidates and from general and administrative expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure. We expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future as we continue to invest in research and development and seek to obtain regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates. The extent of our future operating losses and the timing of generating revenues and becoming profitable are highly uncertain, and we may never achieve or sustain profitability. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

•

initiate and conduct the Phase III clinical trials and long-term safety studies for TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED, which we refer to collectively as our branded product candidates, and continue the research and development of future branded product candidates;

​

•

continue the development, bioequivalence and other studies required for ANDA submissions for our generic product candidate ivermectin cream, 1% and other generic product candidates;

​

•

seek to enhance our technology platform;

​

•

seek regulatory approvals for any product candidate that successfully completes clinical development;

​

•

potentially establish a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure and commercial manufacturing capabilities to commercialize any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval;

​

•

maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio;

​

•

add clinical, scientific, operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our product development and potential future commercialization efforts and to support our transition to being a public company; and

​

•

experience any delays or encounter any issues with any of the above, including but not limited to failed studies, complex results, safety issues or other regulatory challenges.

​

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through private placements of equity securities and loans from our controlling shareholder. We have devoted a significant portion of our financial resources and efforts to developing our product candidates and conducting pre-clinical

12

studies and our clinical trials for TWIN, VERED, and ivermectin cream, 1%. We have not completed development of any of our product candidates. To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing product candidates that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing pre-clinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates, discovering and developing additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials, establishing manufacturing and marketing capabilities and ultimately selling any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical products, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. If we are required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to perform studies in addition to those we currently anticipate, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials, our expenses could increase and revenue could be further delayed.

Even if we do generate revenue from product sales or product royalties, we may never achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to sustain profitability would depress the market price of our ordinary shares and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations. A decline in the market price of our ordinary shares also could cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

Our recurring operating losses have raised substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have not commercialized any products or generated any revenue from our product candidates. Our recurring operating losses raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, for the year ended December 31, 2016, our independent registered public accounting firm has issued its report on our financial statements and has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We have no current source of revenue to sustain our present activities and we do not expect to generate revenue until, and unless, the FDA or other regulatory authorities approve, and we successfully commercialize, our product candidates. Accordingly, our ability to continue as a going concern will require us to obtain additional financing to fund our operations, such as the proceeds from this offering. The perception that we might be unable to continue as a going concern may make it more difficult for us to obtain financing for the continuation of our operations and could result in the loss of confidence by investors, suppliers and employees.

Even if this offering is successful, we will need substantial additional funding to meet our financial obligations and to pursue our business objectives. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to curtail our planned operations and the pursuit of our growth strategy.

Conducting pre-clinical studies and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years as we commence our Phase III clinical trials for TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED, seek marketing approval for TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED and advance our other product candidates. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our revenue, if any, will be derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for a number of years, if at all. If we obtain marketing approval for TWIN, SIRS-T or VERED or any other product candidates that we develop, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, distribution and manufacturing. We also expect an increase in our expenses associated with creating additional infrastructure to support operations as a public company. We expect that

13

our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments, together with anticipated net proceeds from this offering, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

•

the progress and results of our pivotal Phase III clinical trials for TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED ;

​

•

the scope, progress, results and costs of development, laboratory testing and clinical trials for our generic product candidates;

​

•

the cost of manufacturing clinical supplies and exhibition batches of our product candidates;

​

•

the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory reviews of any of our product candidates;

​

•

the costs and timing of future commercialization activities, including manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution, for any of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval;

​

•

the costs and timing of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights and defending any intellectual property-related claims by third parties that we are infringing upon their intellectual property rights;

​

•

the amount of revenue, if any, received from commercial sales of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval; and

​

•

the extent to which we acquire or invest in businesses, product candidates and technologies, including entering into licensing or collaboration arrangements for any of our product candidates.

​

If we are unable to raise sufficient additional capital, we could be forced to curtail our planned operations and the pursuit of our growth strategy.

We are largely dependent on the success of our branded product candidates for the treatment of topical dermatological conditions.

We have invested a majority of our efforts and financial resources in the research and development of TWIN and SIRS-T for the treatment of acne and VERED for the treatment of subtype II rosacea. We are currently investing a majority of our efforts and resources to bring TWIN and VERED to a position to commence Phase III clinical trials in the United States during 2018. The success of our business depends largely on our ability to fund, execute and complete the development of, obtain regulatory approval for and successfully commercialize our branded product candidates in the United States in a timely manner.

We have not obtained regulatory approval for any of our product candidates in the United States or any other country.

We currently do not have any product candidates that have obtained regulatory approval for sale in the United States or any other country, and we cannot guarantee that we will ever obtain such approvals. Our business is substantially dependent on our ability to complete the development of, obtain regulatory approval for and successfully commercialize product candidates in a timely manner. We cannot commercialize our product candidates in the United States without first obtaining regulatory approval to market each product candidate from the FDA. Similarly, we cannot commercialize product candidates outside of the United States without obtaining regulatory approval from comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

14

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any product candidate for a target indication, we must demonstrate in pre-clinical studies and well-controlled clinical trials that the product candidate is safe and effective for use for its target indication and that the related manufacturing facilities, processes and controls are adequate. In the United States, we are required to submit and obtain the FDA’s approval of a new drug application, or NDA, before marketing our product candidates. An NDA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate's safety and efficacy for each desired indication. We intend to submit NDAs that are subject to the requirements of section 505(b)(2) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, which will allow us to rely in part on published scientific literature and/or the FDA's prior findings of safety and efficacy in its approvals of similar products. The NDA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product candidate. The FDA will also inspect our manufacturing facilities to ensure that the facilities can manufacture each product candidate that is the subject of an NDA, in compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements, and may inspect our clinical trial sites to ensure that the clinical trials conducted at the inspected site were performed in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCP, and our clinical protocol.

Obtaining approval of an NDA is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process, and approval is never guaranteed. Upon submission of an NDA, the FDA must make an initial determination that the application is sufficiently complete to accept the submission for filing. We cannot be certain that any submissions will be accepted for filing and review by the FDA, or ultimately be approved. If the application is not accepted for review or approval, the FDA may require that we conduct additional clinical trials or pre-clinical studies, or take other actions before it will reconsider our application. If the FDA requires additional studies or data, we would incur increased costs and delays in the marketing approval process, which may require us to expend more resources than anticipated or that we have available. In addition, the FDA may not consider any additional information to be complete or sufficient to support approval.

Regulatory authorities outside of the United States also have requirements for approval of drugs for commercial sale with which we must comply prior to marketing in those countries. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and obtaining regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. However, the failure to obtain regulatory approval in one jurisdiction could have a negative impact on our ability to obtain approval in a different jurisdiction. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product candidate testing, development, validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking regulatory approval outside of the United States could require additional chemical manufacturing control data, pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, which could be costly and time consuming. Obtaining regulatory approval outside of the United States may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval.

Our business will be highly dependent on market perception of us and the safety and quality of our product candidates. Our business or products could be subject to negative publicity, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Market perception of our business is very important, especially market perception of the safety and quality of our product candidates. If any of our product candidates, if approved, or similar products that other companies distribute, or third-party products from which our product candidates are derived, are subject to market withdrawal or recall or are proven to be, or are claimed to be, harmful to consumers, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. Negative publicity associated with product quality, illness or other adverse effects resulting from, or perceived to result from, our product candidates could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Additionally, continuing and increasingly sophisticated studies of the proper utilization, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products are being conducted by the industry, government

15

agencies and others which could call into question the utilization, safety and efficacy of previously marketed products. In some cases, studies have resulted, and may in the future result, in the discontinuance of product marketing or other costly risk management programs such as the need for a patient registry.

We have a limited operating history in the dermatological prescription drug space which may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We have a limited operating history in the dermatological prescription drug space and have focused much of our efforts, to date, on the research and development of our product candidates, rather than commercialization. As such, we cannot provide you with any assurances as to when, if ever, we will obtain approvals or generate sufficient revenues to achieve sustained profitability. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and become profitable is subject to a number of challenges, including, among others, that:

•

we may not have adequate financial or other resources;

​

•

we may not be able to manufacture our product candidates in commercial quantities, in an adequate quality or at an acceptable cost;

​

•

we may not be able to establish adequate sales, marketing and distribution channels;

​

•

we may not be able to find suitable marketing partners;

​

•

healthcare professionals and patients may not accept our product candidates;

​

•

we may not be aware of possible complications from the continued use of our product candidates since we have limited clinical experience with respect to the actual use of our product candidates;

​

•

changes in the market, new alliances between existing market participants and the entrance of new market participants may interfere with our market penetration efforts;

​

•

third-party payors may not agree to reimburse patients for any or all of the purchase price of our product candidates, which may adversely affect patients’ willingness to purchase our product candidates;

​

•

uncertainty as to market demand may result in inefficient pricing of our product candidates;

​

•

we may face third-party claims of intellectual property infringement;

​

•

we may fail to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in our target markets or may face adverse regulatory or legal actions relating to our product candidates even if regulatory approval is obtained;

​

•

we are dependent upon the results of ongoing clinical trials relating to our product candidates and the products of our competitors; and

​

•

we may become involved in lawsuits pertaining to our clinical trials.

​

The occurrence of any one or more of these events may limit our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Consequently, there can be no guaranty of the accuracy of any predictions about our future success or viability.

16

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, including purchasers of ordinary shares in this offering, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenue, we may finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings and license and collaboration agreements. We do not currently have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as an ordinary shareholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Even if we are able to generate revenues from our operations in the future, our revenues and operating income could fluctuate significantly.

Even if we are able to generate future revenues, our operating income, and results may vary significantly from year-to-year and quarter-to-quarter. Variations may result from, among other factors:

•

the timing of FDA or any other regulatory authority approvals;

​

•

the timing of process validation for particular product candidates;

​

•

the timing of product launches and market acceptance of such products launched;

​

•

changes in the amount we spend to research, develop, acquire, license or promote new product candidates;

​

•

the outcome of our research, development and clinical trial programs;

​

•

serious or unexpected health or safety concerns related to our product candidates or the branded product candidates we have genericized;

​

•

the introduction of new products by others that render our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive;

​

•

the ability to maintain selling prices and gross margins on our product candidates;

​

•

the ability to comply with complex governmental regulations applicable to many aspects of our business;

​

•

changes in coverage and reimbursement policies of health plans and other health insurers, including changes to Medicare, Medicaid and similar government healthcare programs;

​

•

increases in the cost of raw materials used to manufacture our product candidates;

​

•

manufacturing and supply interruptions, including product rejections or recalls due to failure to comply with manufacturing specifications;

​

•

timing of revenue recognition related to our collaboration agreements;

​

17

​

•

the ability to protect our intellectual property and avoid infringing the intellectual property of others; and

​

•

the outcome and cost of possible litigation over patents with third parties.

​

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, cyber-attacks or deficiencies in our cyber-security.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions over the Internet, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our product development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, and damage to our reputation, and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.

Risks Related to Development and Clinical Testing of Our Product Candidates

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and clinical trials may not be predictive of future trial results, which could result in development delays or a failure to obtain marketing approval.

Clinical testing of generic products and the submission of new drug applications under the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway is expensive, time consuming and has an inherently uncertain outcome. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process, even with active ingredients that have been previously approved by the FDA as safe and effective. Favorable results in pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials for one or more of our product candidates may not be predictive of similar results in future clinical trials for such product candidate. Also, interim results during a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through pre-clinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in early-stage development. Accordingly, the results from the completed pre-clinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates may not be predictive of the results we may obtain in later stage trials for such product candidates. Our clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials. Clinical trial results may be inconclusive, or contradicted by other clinical trials, particularly larger clinical trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in pre-clinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain FDA, or other applicable regulatory agency, approval for their products. Additionally if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

•

regulatory authorities may withdraw approvals of such products;

​

•

regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the label;

​

18

​

•

we may be required to create a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients;

​

•

we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; and

​

•

our reputation may suffer.

​

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. Our future clinical trial results may not be successful.

We may experience delays in our clinical trials and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:

•

obtaining regulatory approval to commence a trial;

​

•

reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations, or CROs, and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

​

•

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

​

•

recruiting suitable patients to participate in a trial;

​

•

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

​

•

clinical sites deviating from trial protocol or dropping out of a trial;

​

•

adding new clinical trial sites; and

​

•

manufacturing sufficient quantities of a product candidate for use in clinical trials.

​

Furthermore, we rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and while we have agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance.

We may also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. If we experience delays in the completion of any clinical trial for our product candidates or if any clinical trials are terminated, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed.

Moreover, changes in regulatory requirements and guidance or unanticipated events during our clinical trials may occur, as a result of which we may need to amend clinical trial protocols. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols for review and approval, which may adversely affect the cost, timing and successful completion of a clinical trial. If we experience delays in the completion of, or if we terminate, any of our clinical trials, the commercial prospects for our affected product candidates would be harmed and our ability to generate product revenue would be delayed, possibly materially.

19

In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or other regulatory authorities. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval or rejection of our marketing applications by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

Any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidates’ development and regulatory review and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We have not evaluated SIRS-T in any clinical trials to date, and there can be no guarantee that the data obtained in our Phase II TWIN trial will be sufficient to support advancing SIRS-T into a Phase III clinical program.

SIRS-T is a topical cream containing silica-encapsulated tretinoin. We have not evaluated SIRS-T in any clinical trials to date. We evaluated silica-encapsulated tretinoin in two of the arms of our Phase II TWIN trial, and we intend to use this data to support the commencement of a Phase III clinical program in SIRS-T, subject to an End of Phase II meeting with the FDA. However, we expect that the tretinoin concentration that we select for SIRS-T will be different from the concentrations that we evaluated in the encapsulated tretinoin arms of the TWIN trial, in addition to other expected differences in the formulation. There can be no guarantee that the FDA will agree with our development plan for SIRS-T. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials for SIRS-T, this would cause us to incur significant additional expense, delay the development of SIRS-T and may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and prospects.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. It is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

•

the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;

​

•

we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate is safe and effective for its proposed 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;

​

20

​

•

we may be unable to demonstrate that a product candidate’s clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks;

​

•

the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from pre-clinical studies or clinical trials;

​

•

the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of an NDA or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere;

​

•

the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies; or

​

•

the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.

​

This lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our product candidates, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

We have limited experience using the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway to submit an NDA or any similar drug approval filing to the FDA, and we cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market one or more of our product candidates, our revenue will be dependent, to a significant extent, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval. If the markets for patients or indications that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, if approved.

Adverse side effects or other safety risks associated with our product candidates could delay or preclude approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, abandon product candidates, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could result in the delay, suspension or termination of clinical trials by us, our collaborators, the FDA or other regulatory authorities for a number of reasons. For example, to date, patients treated with TWIN and VERED have experienced drug-related side effects including moderate local site irritation such as dryness, erythema, scaling, pruritus, itching, stinging and burning. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. In such an event, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. If we elect or are required to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial for any

21

product candidates that we develop, the commercial prospects of such product candidates will be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials, and patients could discontinue their participation in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent clinical trials for our product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials for our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates. If patients are unwilling to participate in our clinical trials because of negative publicity from adverse events in the biotechnology or pharmaceutical industries or for other reasons, including competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting clinical trials and obtaining regulatory approval of potential product candidates may be delayed. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidates development, delays in testing the effectiveness of our technology or termination of the clinical trials altogether.

Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials. We may not be able to recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, which would impact our ability to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrollment may be affected by numerous factors, including:

•

severity of the disease under investigation;

​

•

size and nature of the patient population;

​

•

eligibility criteria for the trial;

​

•

design of the trial protocol;

​

•

perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under study;

​

•

physicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any drugs that may be approved for the same indications we are investigating;

​

•

proximity to and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients;

​

•

availability of competing therapies and clinical trials; and

​

•

ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment.

​

We face intense competition with regard to patient enrollment in clinical trials from other dermatological companies which also seek to enroll subjects from the same patient populations. In addition, patients enrolled in our clinical trials may discontinue their participation at any time during the trial as a result of a number of factors, including withdrawing their consent or experiencing adverse clinical events, which may or may not be judged related to our product candidates under evaluation. For example, 128 patients, or 17.6% of patients enrolled in our TWIN Phase II clinical trial, did not complete the study protocol. The most common reasons for subjects not completing the study were the withdrawal of informed consent (42 subjects), loss to follow-up (56 subjects) and adverse events (18 subjects). As a result, the FDA may require that we conduct additional Phase II trials or increase enrollment in our planned Phase III clinical trials for TWIN to support an NDA filing for regulatory approval of TWIN. The discontinuation of patients in any one of our trials may cause us to delay or abandon our clinical trial, or cause the results from that trial not to be positive or sufficient to support a filing for regulatory approval of the applicable product candidate.

22

There is a substantial risk of product liability claims in our business. We currently do not maintain product liability insurance and a product liability claim against us would adversely affect our business.

Our business exposes us to significant potential product liability risks that are inherent in the development, manufacturing and marketing of our product candidates. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in commercializing our product candidates, such claims could result in a recall of our product candidates or a change in the approved indications for which they may be used. While we intend to purchase and maintain product liability insurance that we believe is adequate for our operations upon commercialization of our product candidates, such coverage may not be adequate to cover any incident or all incidents. Furthermore, product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to maintain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business. These liabilities could prevent or interfere with our product development and commercialization efforts.

If the FDA does not conclude that our product candidates for which we intend to seek approval under Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act satisfy the requirements of the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway, or if the requirements for such product candidates under Section 505(b)(2) are not as we expect, the approval pathway for those product candidates will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and entail significantly greater complications and risks than anticipated, and in all cases may not be successful.

We are developing product candidates for which we intend to seek FDA approval through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, added Section 505(b)(2) to the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Section 505(b)(2), if applicable to us under the FDCA, would allow an NDA we submit to the FDA to rely in part on data in the public domain or the FDA’s prior conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of approved drugs, which could expedite the development program for our product candidates by potentially decreasing the amount of clinical data that we would need to generate in order to obtain FDA approval. If the FDA does not allow us to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway as anticipated, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information, and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for these product candidates, and complications and risks associated with these product candidates, would likely substantially increase. Moreover, any inability to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway may result in new competitive products reaching the market more quickly than our product candidates, which would likely materially adversely impact our competitive position and prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, our product candidates may not receive the requisite approvals for commercialization.

In addition, notwithstanding the approval of a number of products by the FDA under Section 505(b)(2) over the last few years, certain brand-name pharmaceutical companies and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2). If the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) is successfully challenged, the FDA may change its 505(b)(2) policies and practices, which could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2). In addition, the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. These requirements may give rise to patent litigation and mandatory delays in approval of our NDAs for up to 30 months or longer depending on the outcome of any litigation. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer of an approved product to file a citizen petition with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products. If

23

successful, such petitions can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. However, even if the FDA ultimately denies such a petition, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition. In addition, even if we are able to utilize the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, there is no guarantee this would ultimately lead to accelerated product development or earlier approval.

Even if our branded product candidates or our generic product candidates receive marketing approval, we may continue to face future developmental and regulatory difficulties. In addition, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review.

Even if we complete clinical testing and receive approval of any of our branded or generic product candidates, the FDA may grant approval contingent on the performance of additional post-approval clinical trials, risk mitigation requirements such as the implementation of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, and/or surveillance requirements to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product, which could negatively impact us by reducing revenues or increasing expenses, and cause the approved product candidate not to be commercially viable. Absence of long-term safety data may further limit the approved uses of our product candidates, if any.

The FDA also may approve branded product candidates or any of our generic product candidates for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we initially request, or may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, any such approved product will remain subject to extensive regulatory requirements, including requirements relating to manufacturing, labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, distribution and recordkeeping. These requirements include registration with the FDA, listing of our product candidates, payment of annual fees, as well as continued compliance with GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Application holders must notify the FDA, and depending on the nature of the change, obtain FDA pre-approval for product manufacturing changes. 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 requirements.

If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements of the FDA or previously unknown problems with any approved commercial products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes are discovered, we could be subject to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions or other setbacks, including the following:

•

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

​

•

the FDA could refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to applications;

​

•

the FDA could suspend any ongoing clinical trials;

​

•

the FDA could suspend or withdraw marketing approval;

​

•

the FDA could seek an injunction or impose civil or criminal penalties or monetary fines;

​

•

the FDA could ban or restrict imports and exports;

​

•

the FDA could issue warning letters or untitled letters or similar enforcement actions alleging noncompliance with regulatory requirements; or

​

•

the FDA or other governmental authorities could take other actions, such as imposition of product seizures or detentions, clinical holds or terminations, refusals to allow the import or export of products, disgorgement, restitution, or exclusion from federal healthcare programs.

​

24

In addition, if our branded product candidates or any of our other product candidates are approved, our product labeling, advertising and promotional materials would be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing review by the FDA. The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling, a practice known as off-label promotion. If we receive marketing approval for any of our branded product candidates or any of our generic product candidates, physicians may nevertheless prescribe the products to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability and government fines. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees of permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

Moreover, the FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay marketing approval, and the sale and promotion of our branded product candidates or any of our other product candidates, if approved. For example, in December 2016, the 21th century Cures Act, or Cures Act, was signed into law. The Cures Act, among other things, is intended to modernize the regulation of drugs and spur innovation, but its ultimate implementation is unclear. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability. In addition, costs arising out of any regulatory developments could be time-consuming and expensive and could divert management resources and attention and, consequently, could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. The Trump administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. Notably, on January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order, applicable to all executive agencies, including the FDA, that requires that for each notice of proposed rulemaking or final regulation to be issued in fiscal year 2017, the agency shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, unless prohibited by law. These requirements are referred to as the “two-for-one” provisions. This Executive Order includes a budget neutrality provision that requires the total incremental cost of all new regulations in the 2017 fiscal year, including repealed regulations, to be no greater than zero, except in limited circumstances. For fiscal years 2018 and beyond, the Executive Order requires agencies to identify regulations to offset any incremental cost of a new regulation and approximate the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation. In interim guidance issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB on February 2, 2017, the administration indicates that the “two-for-one” provisions may apply not only to agency regulations, but also to significant agency guidance documents. It is difficult to predict how these requirements will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

25

Even if our branded product candidates or our other product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may fail to achieve the broad degree of physician adoption and market acceptance necessary for commercial success.

Even if we obtain FDA approvals for our branded product candidates or any of our generic product candidates, the commercial success of such products will depend significantly on their broad adoption by dermatologists, pediatricians and other physicians for approved indications and other therapeutic or aesthetic indications that we may seek to pursue if approved.

The degree and rate of physician and patient adoption of our branded product candidates and any of our generic product candidates, if approved, will depend on a number of factors, including:

•

the clinical indications for which the product is approved;

​

•

the safety and efficacy of our product as compared to existing therapies for those indications;

​

•

the prevalence and severity of adverse side effects;

​

•

patient satisfaction with the results and administration of our product and overall treatment experience, including relative convenience, ease of use and avoidance of, or reduction in, adverse side effects;

​

•

patient demand for the treatment of acne and rosacea or other indications;

​

•

the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments, the extent to which these costs are reimbursed by third-party payors, and patients’ willingness to pay for our product candidates; and

​

•

the effectiveness of our sales and marketing efforts, including any head-to-head studies, if conducted, especially the success of any targeted marketing efforts directed toward dermatologists, pediatricians, other physicians, clinics and any direct-to-consumer marketing efforts we may initiate.

​

We expend a significant amount of resources on research and development efforts that may not lead to successful product candidate introductions or the recovery of our research and development expenditures.

We conduct research and development primarily to enable us to manufacture and market topical dermatological creams containing drugs in accordance with FDA regulations as well as other regulatory authorities. We spent approximately $7.2 million and $17.0 million on research and development activities during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016, respectively. We are required to obtain FDA approval before marketing our product candidates in the United States. The FDA approval process is costly, time consuming and inherently risky.

We cannot be certain that any investment made in developing product candidates will be recovered, even if we are successful in commercialization. To the extent that we expend significant resources on research and development efforts and are not able to introduce successful new product candidates as a result of those efforts, we will be unable to recover those expenditures.

Our clinical trials for our branded product candidates were not, and will not be, conducted head-to-head with the applicable leading products of our competitors, and the comparison of our results to those of existing drugs, and the conclusions we have drawn from such comparisons, may be inaccurate.

Our clinical trials for branded product candidates were not, and will not be, conducted head-to-head with the drugs considered the applicable standard of care for the relevant indications. This means that none of the patient groups participating in these trials were, and will not in the future be, treated with the applicable standard of care drugs alongside the groups treated

26

with our product candidates. Instead, we have compared and plan to continue comparing the results of our clinical trials with historical data from prior clinical trials conducted by third parties for the applicable standard of care drugs, and which results are presented in their respective product labels.

Direct comparison generally provides more reliable information about how two or more drugs compare, and reliance on indirect comparison for evaluating their relative efficacy or other qualities is problematic due to lack of objective or validated methods to assess trial similarity. For example, the various trials were likely conducted in different countries with different demographic features and in patients with different baseline conditions and different hygiene standards, among other relevant asymmetries. Therefore, the conclusions we have drawn from comparing the results of our clinical trials with those published in the product labels for these current standard of care drugs, including conclusions regarding the relative efficacy and expediency of our branded product candidates, may be distorted by the inaccurate methodology of the comparison. Moreover, the FDA generally requires head-to-head studies to make labeling and advertising claims regarding superiority or comparability, and our failure to collect head-to-head data may limit the types of claims we may make for our product candidates, if approved.

We may be subject to risk as a result of international manufacturing operations.

Certain of our product candidates may be manufactured at third-party facilities located in Canada and New Zealand, in addition to our facility in Israel, and therefore our operations are subject to risks inherent in doing business internationally. Such risks include the adverse effects on operations from corruption, war, international terrorism, civil disturbances, political instability, governmental activities, deprivation of contract and property rights and currency valuation changes.

If in the future we acquire or in-license technologies or additional product candidates, we may incur various costs, may have integration difficulties and may experience other risks that could harm our business and results of operations.

In the future, we may acquire or in-license additional product candidates and technologies. Any product candidate or technologies we in-license or acquire will likely require additional development efforts prior to commercial sale, including extensive pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, or both, and approval by the FDA or other applicable foreign regulatory authorities, if any. All product candidates are prone to risks of failure inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that the product candidate, or product developed based on in-licensed technology, will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. If intellectual property related to product candidates or technologies we in-license or our own know-how is not adequate, we may not be able to commercialize the affected product candidates even after expending resources on their development. In addition, we may not be able to manufacture economically or successfully commercialize any product candidate that we develop based on acquired or in-licensed technology that is granted regulatory approval, and such product candidates may not gain wide acceptance or be competitive in the marketplace. Moreover, integrating any newly acquired or in-licensed product candidates could be expensive and time-consuming. If we cannot effectively manage these aspects of our business strategy, our business may not succeed.

The time necessary to develop generic API or drug products may adversely affect whether, and the extent to which, we receive a return on our capital.

The development process, including drug formulation where applicable, testing, and FDA review and approval for generic drug products often takes many years. This process requires that we expend considerable capital to pursue activities that do not yield an immediate or near-term return. Also, because of the significant time necessary to develop a generic product, the actual market for a generic product at the time it is available for sale may be significantly less than the originally projected market for the generic product. If this were to occur, our potential return on

27

our investment in developing the generic product, if approved for marketing by the FDA, would be adversely affected and we may never receive a return on our investment in the generic product. It is also possible for the manufacturer of the brand-name product for which we are developing a generic drug to obtain approvals from the FDA to switch the brand-name drug from the prescription market to the over-the-counter, or OTC market. If this were to occur, we would be prohibited from marketing our generic product other than as an OTC drug, in which case our revenues could be significantly impacted.

Risks Related to Regulatory Matters

If we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business could be adversely affected.

Our research and development and manufacturing involve the use of hazardous materials and chemicals and related equipment. If an accident occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling of biohazardous materials. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability claims that may be asserted against us. Moreover, additional foreign and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with such regulations and pay substantial fines or penalties if we violate any of these laws or regulations.

With respect to environmental, safety and health laws and regulations, we cannot accurately predict the outcome or timing of future expenditures that we may be required to make in order to comply with such laws as they apply to our operations and facilities. We are also subject to potential liability for the remediation of contamination associated with both present and past hazardous waste generation, handling, and disposal activities. We will be periodically subject to environmental compliance reviews by environmental, safety, and health regulatory agencies. Environmental laws are subject to change and we may become subject to stricter environmental standards in the future and face larger capital expenditures in order to comply with environmental laws which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Healthcare reform in the United States may harm our future business.

Healthcare costs in the United States have risen significantly over the past decade. In March 2010, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” as amended by the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act,” collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act, was signed into law, which, among other things, required most individuals to have health insurance, established new regulations on health plans, created insurance exchanges and imposed new requirements and changes in reimbursement or funding for healthcare providers, device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. The Affordable Care Act also included a number of changes which may impact our product candidates, if approved:

•

revisions to the Medicaid rebate program by: (a) increasing the rebate percentage for branded drugs to 23.1% of the average manufacturer price, or AMP, with limited exceptions, (b) increasing the rebate for outpatient generic, multiple source drugs dispensed to 13% of AMP; (c) changing the definition of AMP; and (d) extending the Medicaid rebate program to Medicaid managed care plans, with limited exceptions;

​

•

the imposition of annual fees upon manufacturers or importers of branded prescription drugs, which fees will be in amounts determined by the Secretary of Treasury based upon market share and other data;

​

•

providing a 50% discount on brand-name prescriptions filled in the Medicare Part D coverage gap beginning in 2011;

​

28

​

•

imposing increased penalties for the violation of fraud and abuse laws and funding for anti-fraud activities;

​

•

creating a new pathway for approval of biosimilar biological products and granting an exclusivity period of 12 years for branded drug manufacturers of biological products before biosimilar products can be approved for marketing in the United States; and

​

•

expanding the definition of  “covered entities” that purchase certain outpatient drugs in the 340B Drug Pricing Program of Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act.

​

While the Affordable Care Act may have increased the number of patients who have insurance coverage for our product candidates, if approved by the FDA, the Affordable Care Act also restructured payments to Medicare managed care plans and reduced reimbursement to many institutional providers. Accordingly, the timing of the insurance mandate, the change in the Medicaid rebate levels, the additional fees imposed upon us if we market branded drugs, other compliance obligations, and the reduced reimbursement levels to institutional providers may result in a loss of revenue and could adversely affect our business. In addition, the Affordable Care Act contemplates the promulgation of significant future regulatory action which may also further affect our business.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. The new Presidential Administration and U.S. Congress have attempted and will likely continue to seek to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the Affordable Care Act. Most recently, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted, which, among other things, removes penalties for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health insurance. It is uncertain the extent to which any such changes may impact our business or financial condition.

Moreover, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions was signed into law. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This included reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and will remain in effect through 2025 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Recently there has also been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, reform government program reimbursement methodologies. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates, if approved, or additional pricing pressure.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Our continued growth is dependent on our ability to successfully develop and commercialize new product candidates in a timely manner.

Our financial results depend upon our ability to introduce and commercialize additional product candidates in a timely manner. Generally, revenue from new products is highest

29

immediately following launch and then declines over time, as new competitors enter the market. Furthermore, the greatest revenue is generally experienced by the company that is able to bring its product to the market first. Our growth is therefore dependent upon our ability to successfully introduce and commercialize new product candidates.

The FDA and other regulatory authorities may not approve our product applications at all or in a timely fashion for our product candidates under development. Additionally, we may not successfully complete our development efforts for other reasons, such as poor results in clinical trials or a lack of funding to complete the required trials. Even if the FDA approves our product candidates, we may not be able to market them successfully or profitably. Our future results of operations will depend significantly upon our ability to timely develop, receive FDA approval for, and market new pharmaceutical product candidates or otherwise develop new product candidates or acquire the rights to other products.

Our product candidates, if approved, will face significant competition and our failure to compete effectively may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration and expansion.

The facial aesthetic market in general, and the market for acne and rosacea treatments in particular, are highly competitive and dynamic, and characterized by rapid and substantial technological development and product innovations. These markets are also characterized by competitors obtaining patents to protect what they consider to be their intellectual property. We anticipate that TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED, if approved, will face significant competition from other approved products, including topical drugs, topical anti-acne drugs such as Acanya, Ziana, Epiduo, Epiduo Forte, Benzaclin, Aczone, Onexton and Differin and topical drugs for the treatment of rosacea such as Metrogel, Finacea and Soolantra, oral drugs such as Solodyn, Doryx, Dynacin and Minocin. If approved, TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED may also compete with non-prescription anti-acne products, as well as unapproved and off-label treatments. In addition, if approved, TWIN may compete with drug products utilizing other technologies that can separate two drug substances, such as dual chamber tubes, dual pouches or dual sachets. To compete successfully in the facial aesthetic market, we will have to demonstrate that our product is safe and effective for the respective treatment and has advantages over existing therapies. Competing in the facial aesthetic market could result in price-cutting, reduced profit margins and loss of market share, any of which would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Due to less stringent regulatory requirements in certain jurisdictions outside the United States, there are many more acne products and procedures available for use in those international markets than are approved for use in the United States. There are also fewer limitations on the claims that our competitors in international markets can make about the effectiveness of their products and the manner in which they can market them. As a result, we may face more competition in markets outside of the United States.

In addition, even if we are able to commercialize our product candidates, we may not be able to price them competitively with the current standards of care or other competing products for their respective indications or their price may drop considerably due to factors outside our control. If this happens or the price of materials and the cost to manufacture our product candidates increases dramatically, our ability to continue to operate our business would be materially harmed and we may be unable to commercialize our product candidates successfully.

We believe that our principal competitors are Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Galderma S.A., Allergan plc, Bayer HealthCare AG and Mylan N.V. These competitors are large and experienced companies that enjoy significant competitive advantages over us, such as greater financial, research and development, manufacturing, personnel and marketing resources, greater brand recognition, and more experience and expertise in obtaining marketing approvals from the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities.

In addition to the above listed competitors, some of our product candidates might face internal competition with other product candidates of ours, for the same markets and patient populations,

30

due to overlap in the required treatment and/or symptoms. For example, TWIN may compete with SIRS-T for treatment of acne and VERED may compete with ivermectin cream, 1%, for treatment of rosacea.

With respect to generic pharmaceutical products, the FDA approval process often results in the FDA granting final approval to a number of ANDAs for a given product at the time a relevant patent for a corresponding branded product or other regulatory and/or market exclusivity expires. For example, on December 30, 2016, Actavis Ltd. submitted an ANDA for ivermectin, 1%, cream, and therefore we will only be able to commercialize this product after Actavis Ltd.’s six month exclusivity period expires. Thus, we expect, in accordance with the standard practices in the industry, to face immediate competition when we introduce a generic product into the market. As competition from other manufacturers intensifies, selling prices and gross profit margins often decline. Accordingly, the level of market share, revenue and gross profit attributable to a particular generic product that we develop is generally related to the number of competitors in that product’s market and the timing of that product’s regulatory approval and launch, in relation to competing approvals and launches. Additionally, ANDA approvals often continue to be granted for a given product subsequent to the initial launch of the generic product. These circumstances generally result in significantly lower prices and reduced margins for generic products compared to brand products. New generic market entrants generally cause continued price and margin erosion over the generic product life cycle.

In addition to the competition we face from other generic manufacturers, we face competition from brand-name manufacturers related to our generic product candidates. Branded pharmaceutical companies may sell their branded products as “authorized generics” (an industry term that describes instances when an approved brand name drug is marketed, either by the brand name drug company, or by another company with the brand company’s permission, as a generic product without the brand name on its label, and potentially sold at a lower price than the brand name drug). Further, branded pharmaceutical companies may seek to delay FDA approval of our ANDAs or reduce generic competition by, for example, obtaining new patents on drugs whose original patent protection is about to expire, filing patent infringement suits that could delay FDA approval of generics, developing new versions of their products to obtain FDA market exclusivity, filing “citizen petitions” contesting FDA approvals of generics such as on alleged health and safety grounds, developing “next generation” versions of products that reduce demand for generic versions we are developing, changing product claims and labeling, and seeking approval to market as OTC branded products.

Moreover, competitors may, upon the approval of an NDA, or an NDA supplement, obtain a three-year period of exclusivity for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical trials (other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies) was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted/sponsored by the applicant. Such exclusivity may prevent the FDA from approving one or more of our product candidates that are being developed, and for which we would seek the FDA’s approval under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, if we were to seek approval for the same conditions of approval as that protected by the three-year period of exclusivity. Recent litigation against the FDA has affirmed the FDA’s interpretation of the scope of three-year exclusivity as preventing the approval of a 505(b)(2) NDA for the same change to a previously approved drug, regardless of whether or not the 505(b)(2) applicant relies on the competitor’s product as a listed drug in its 505(b)(2) application. Exclusivity determinations are highly fact-dependent and are made by the FDA on a case-by-case basis at the end of the review period for a 505(b)(2) NDA. As such, we may not know until very late in the FDA’s review of our 505(b)(2) product candidates whether or not approval may be delayed because of a competitor’s period of three-year exclusivity.

Other pharmaceutical companies may develop competing products for acne, rosacea and other indications we are pursuing and enter the market ahead of us.

Other pharmaceutical companies are engaged in developing, patenting, manufacturing and marketing healthcare products that compete with those that we are developing. These potential

31

competitors include large and experienced companies that enjoy significant competitive advantages over us, such as greater financial, research and development, manufacturing, personnel and marketing resources, greater brand recognition and more experience and expertise in obtaining marketing approvals from the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities.

Several of these potential competitors are privately-owned companies that are not bound by public disclosure requirements and closely guard their development plans, marketing strategies and other trade secrets. Publicly-traded pharmaceutical companies are also able to maintain a certain degree of confidentiality over their pipeline developments and other sensitive information. As a result, we do not know whether these potential competitors are already developing, or plan to develop other topical treatments for acne, rosacea or other indications we are pursuing, and we will likely be unable to ascertain whether such activities are underway in the future. These potential competitors may therefore introduce competing products without our prior knowledge and without our ability to take preemptive measures in anticipation of their commercial launch.

Furthermore, such potential competitors may enter the market before us, and their products may be designed to circumvent our granted patents and pending patent applications. They may also challenge, narrow or invalidate our granted patents or our patent applications, and such patents and patent applications may fail to provide adequate protection for our product candidates.

We currently have limited marketing capabilities and no sales organization. If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities on our own or through third parties, we will be unable to successfully commercialize TWIN, VERED or any other of our other product candidates, if approved, or generate product revenues.

We currently have limited marketing capabilities and no sales organization. To commercialize TWIN, VERED or any other of our other product candidates, if approved, in the United States and other jurisdictions we may seek to enter, we must build our marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. For instance, if TWIN and VERED receive regulatory approval from the FDA, we intend to market them in the United States through a specialized internal sales force or a combination of our internal sales force and distributors, which will be expensive and time-consuming. Alternatively, we may choose to collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize TWIN, VERED or any of our other product candidates.

There are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of our product candidates.

If we are not successful in establishing sufficient sales and marketing capabilities to commercialize TWIN, VERED or any of our other product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our revenues will suffer and we will incur significant additional losses.

Third-party payor coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for our product candidates, if approved, which could make it difficult for us to sell them profitably.

Sales of our product candidates, if approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, private health insurers and managed care organizations. Third-party payors generally

32

decide which drugs they will cover and establish certain reimbursement levels for such drugs. In particular, in the United States, private health insurers and other third-party payors often provide reimbursement for products and services based on the level at which the government (through the Medicare or Medicaid programs) provides reimbursement for such treatments. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates. Sales of our product candidates, and any future product candidates, will therefore depend substantially on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates, and any future product candidates, will be paid by third-party payors. Additionally, the market for our product candidates, and any future product candidates, will depend significantly on access to third-party payors’ formularies without prior authorization, step therapy, or other limitations such as approved lists of treatments for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. Additionally, coverage and reimbursement for therapeutic products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. As a result, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately and will be a time-consuming process.

Third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs and increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls and transparency requirements, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit our revenue and operating results. If these third-party payors do not consider our product candidates to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, they may not cover our product candidates once approved as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of reimbursement may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our product candidates on a profitable basis. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our product candidates once approved or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our product candidates could reduce or eliminate utilization of our product candidates and have an adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, state and federal healthcare reform measures have been and may be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates once approved or additional pricing pressures.

Our current and future relationships with investigators, health care professionals, consultants, third-party payors, and customers will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties.

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors and customers, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Such laws include:

•

the federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of

​

33

an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation; in addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act;

•

the federal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, impose criminal and civil penalties, including through 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, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government; in addition, the government may assert that a claim including items and services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act;

​

•

the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false or fraudulent statements relating to healthcare matters; similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

​

•

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, also imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information;

​

•

the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the government information related to certain payments or other “transfers of value” made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and requires applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually to the government ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members and payments or other “transfers of value” to such physician owners. Covered manufacturers are required to submit reports to the government by the 90th day of each calendar year; and

​

•

analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to our business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; and state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or that require the reporting of pricing information and marketing expenditures; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

​

34

Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable healthcare laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these or any other health regulatory laws that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired.

The illegal distribution and sale by third parties of counterfeit versions of our product candidates or of stolen products could have a negative impact on our reputation and a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Third parties could illegally distribute and sell counterfeit versions of our product candidates, which do not meet the rigorous manufacturing and testing standards that our product candidates undergo. Counterfeit products are frequently unsafe or ineffective, and can be life-threatening. Counterfeit medicines may contain harmful substances, the wrong dose of the active pharmaceutical ingredient or no active pharmaceutical ingredient at all. However, to distributors and users, counterfeit products may be visually indistinguishable from the authentic version.

Reports of adverse reactions to counterfeit drugs similar to our product candidates or increased levels of counterfeiting such products could materially affect physician and patient confidence in our authentic product candidates. It is possible that adverse events caused by unsafe counterfeit products will mistakenly be attributed to our authentic product candidates. In addition, thefts of our inventory at warehouses, plant or while in-transit, which are not properly stored and which are sold through unauthorized channels could adversely impact patient safety, our reputation and our business.

Public loss of confidence in the integrity of our pharmaceutical products as a result of counterfeiting or theft could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties

Any collaborative arrangements that we have or may establish in the future may not be successful or we may otherwise not realize the anticipated benefits from these collaborations. We do not control third parties with whom we have or may have collaborative arrangements, and we will rely on them to achieve results which may be significant to us. In addition, any current or future collaborative arrangements may place the development and commercialization of our product candidates outside our control, may require us to relinquish important rights or may otherwise be on terms unfavorable to us.

We are currently party to collaborative arrangements with respect to the development, manufacture, study and commercialization of certain of our product candidates including arrangements with Perrigo and Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Any current or future potential collaborative arrangements may require us to rely on external consultants, advisors, and experts for assistance in several key functions, including clinical development, manufacturing, regulatory and intellectual property. We cannot and will not control these third parties, but we may rely on them to achieve results, which may be significant to us. Relying upon collaborative arrangements to develop and commercialize our product candidates subjects us to a number of risks, including:

35

​

•

we may not be able to control the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators may devote to our product candidates;

​

•

should a collaborator fail to comply with applicable laws, rules, or regulations when performing services for us, we could be held liable for such violations;

​

•

our current or future collaborators may experience financial difficulties or changes in business focus;

​

•

our current or future collaborators’ partners may fail to secure adequate commercial supplies of our product candidates upon marketing approval, if at all;

​

•

our current or future collaborators’ partners may have a shortage of qualified personnel;

​

•

we may be required to relinquish important rights, such as marketing and distribution rights;

​

•

business combinations or significant changes in a collaborator’s business strategy may adversely affect a collaborator’s willingness or ability to complete its obligations under any arrangement;

​

•

under certain circumstances, a collaborator could move forward with a competing product developed either independently or in collaboration with others, including our competitors;

​

•

our current or future collaborators may utilize our proprietary information in a way that could expose us to competitive harm; and

​

•

collaborative arrangements are often terminated or allowed to expire, which could delay the development and may increase the cost of developing our product candidates.

​

In addition, if disputes arise between us and our collaborators, it could result in the delay or termination of the development, manufacturing or commercialization of our product candidates, lead to protracted and costly legal proceedings, or cause collaborators to act in their own interest, which may not be in our interest. As a result, there can be no assurance that the collaborative arrangements that we have entered into, or may enter into in the future, will achieve their intended goals.

If any of these scenarios materialize, they could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We also may have other product candidates where it is desirable or essential to enter into agreements with a collaborator who has greater financial resources or different expertise than us, but for which we are unable to find an appropriate collaborator or are unable to do so on favorable terms. If we fail to enter into such collaborative agreements on favorable terms, it could materially delay or impair our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates and increase the costs of development and commercialization of such product candidates.

We currently contract with third-party manufacturers and suppliers for certain compounds and components necessary to produce our product candidates for clinical trials and expect to continue to do so to support commercial scale production, if any, of our product candidates is approved. This increases the risk that if any of our product candidates are approved, we may not have access to sufficient quantities or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We currently rely on third parties for the manufacture and supply of certain compounds and components necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials, including API’s such as benzoyl peroxide and tretinoin and other active ingredients and excipients used in the formulation of our various product candidates, as well as primary and secondary packaging and labeling materials. We lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our product

36

candidates on a clinical or commercial scale, and we expect to continue to rely on third parties to support our commercial requirements if any of our product candidates is approved for marketing by the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities.

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our marketing applications to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements, known as current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers and suppliers entails a number of risks, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possible breach of the manufacturing or supply agreement by the third party, the possibility that the supply is inadequate or delayed, the risk that the third party may enter the field and seek to compete and may no longer be willing to continue supplying, and the possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. If any of these risks transpire, we may be unable to timely retain an alternate manufacturer or suppliers on acceptable terms and with sufficient quality standards and production capacity, which may disrupt and delay our clinical trials or the manufacture and commercial sale of our product candidates, if approved.

Our failure or the failure of our third-party manufacturers and suppliers to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates that we may develop. Any failure or refusal to supply or any interruption in supply of the components for any of our product candidates could delay, prevent or impair our clinical development or commercialization efforts.

We rely on third parties and consultants to assist us in conducting our clinical trials. If these third parties or consultants do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

We do not have the ability to independently perform all aspects of our anticipated pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories, collaborative partners and other third parties to assist us in conducting our clinical trials and studies for our product candidates. The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. However, these third parties are not employees, and except for contractual duties and obligations, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs.

In addition, the execution of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, and the subsequent compilation and analysis of the data produced, require coordination among these various third parties. In order for these functions to be carried out effectively and efficiently, it is imperative that these parties communicate and coordinate with one another, which may prove difficult to achieve. Moreover, these third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, some of which may compete with us. Our agreement with these third parties may inevitably enable them to terminate such agreements upon reasonable prior written notice under certain circumstances.

37

Although we rely on these third parties to conduct certain aspects of our clinical trials and other studies and clinical trials, we remain 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 these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. Moreover, the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities require us to comply with GCPs, which are the regulations and standards for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate, and that the trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. We also rely on our consultants to assist us in the execution, including data collection and analysis of our clinical trials. If we or any of our third-party contractors fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

If the third parties or consultants that assist us in conducting our clinical trials do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience work stoppages, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical trial protocols, regulatory requirements or GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials or enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties, which could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated or may need to be repeated. If any of the foregoing were to occur, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, regulatory approval for the product candidates being tested in such trials, and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize these product candidates.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products is complex and manufacturers often encounter difficulties in production. If we or any of our third-party manufacturers encounter any difficulties, our ability to provide product candidates for clinical trials or our product candidates to patients, once approved, and the development or commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed or stopped.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. We and our contract manufacturers must comply with cGMP requirements. Manufacturers of pharmaceutical products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up and validating initial production and contamination controls. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination.

We cannot assure you that any stability or other issues relating to the manufacture of any of our product candidates will not occur in the future. Additionally, we and our third-party manufacturers may experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disputes or unstable political environments. If we or our third-party manufacturers were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide any product candidates to patients in clinical trials and products to patients, once approved, would be jeopardized. Any delay or interruption in the supply of clinical trial supplies could delay the initiation or completion of clinical trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining clinical trial programs and,

38

depending upon the period of delay, require us to commence new clinical trials at additional expense or terminate clinical trials completely. Any adverse developments affecting clinical or commercial manufacturing of our product candidates may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, product withdrawals or recalls, or other interruptions in the supply of our product candidates. We may also have to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for products that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives. Accordingly, failures or difficulties faced at any level of our supply chain could materially adversely affect our business and delay or impede the development and commercialization of any of our product candidates and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We depend on our intellectual property, and our future success is dependent on our ability to protect our intellectual property and not infringe on the rights of others.

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain patent protection for our product candidates, maintain the confidentiality of our trade secrets and know how, operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We try to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, filing U.S., European, and other patent applications related to our product candidates, inventions and improvements that may be important to the continuing development of our product candidates. While we generally apply for patents in those countries where we intend to make, have made, use, or sell patented products, we may not accurately predict all of the countries where patent protection will ultimately be desirable. If we fail to timely file a patent application in any such country, we may be precluded from doing so at a later date. In addition, we cannot assure you that:

•

any of our future processes or product candidates will be patentable;

​

•

our processes or product candidates will not infringe upon the patents of third parties; or

​

•

we will have the resources to defend against charges of patent infringement or other violation or misappropriation of intellectual property by third parties or to protect our own intellectual property rights against infringement, misappropriation or violation by third parties.

​

Because the patent position of pharmaceutical companies involves complex legal and factual questions, we cannot predict the validity and enforceability of patents with certainty. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws may diminish the value of our intellectual property. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowable or enforceable in our patents (including patents owned by or licensed to us). Our issued patents may not provide us with any competitive advantages, may be held invalid or unenforceable as a result of legal challenges by third parties or could be circumvented. Our competitors may also independently develop formulations, processes and technologies or products similar to ours or design around or otherwise circumvent patents issued to, or licensed by, us. Thus, any patents that we own or license from others may not provide any protection against competitors. Our pending patent applications, those we may file in the future or those we may license from third parties may not result in patents being issued. If these patents are issued, they may not be of sufficient scope to provide us with meaningful protection. The degree of future protection to be afforded by our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford relatively limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage.

Patent rights are territorial; thus, the patent protection we do have will only extend to those countries in which we have issued patents. Even so, the laws of certain countries do not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as do the laws of the United States and the European Union. Therefore, we cannot assure you that the patents issued, if any, as a result of our foreign patent applications will have the same scope of coverage as our U.S. patents. Competitors

39

may successfully challenge our patents, produce similar drugs or products that do not infringe our patents, or produce drugs in countries where we have not applied for patent protection or that do not respect our patents. Furthermore, it is not possible to know the scope of claims that will be allowed in published applications and it is also not possible to know which claims of granted patents, if any, will be deemed enforceable in a court of law.

After the completion of development and registration of our patents, third parties may still act to manufacture and/or market products in infringement of our patent protected rights, and we may not have adequate resources to enforce our patents. Any such manufacture and/or market of products in infringement of our patent protected rights is likely to cause us damage and lead to a reduction in the prices of our product candidates, thereby reducing our anticipated cash flows and profits, if any.

In addition, due to the extensive time needed to develop, test and obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, any patents that protect our product candidates may expire early during commercialization. This may reduce or eliminate any market advantages that such patents may give us. Following patent expiration, we may face increased competition through the entry of competing products into the market and a subsequent decline in market share and profits.

We have granted, and may in the future grant, to third parties licenses to use our intellectual property. Generally, these licenses have granted rights to commercialize products outside the pharmaceutical field or to technology we no longer use or to otherwise use our intellectual property for a limited purpose outside the scope of our business interests. For example, in August 2013 we entered into an assignment agreement with Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Medicis”), according to which Medicis assigned to us its entire interest in one of the patents upon which we rely for our product candidate TWIN for the treatment of acne. As part of this assignment agreement, we granted to Medicis a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, perpetual, license to practice the inventions claimed under the patent.

However, our business interests may change or our licensees may disagree with the scope of our license grant. In such cases, such licensing arrangements may result in the development, manufacturing, marketing and sale by our licensees of products substantially similar to our products, causing us to face increased competition, which could reduce our market share and significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets or know-how, such proprietary information may be used by others to compete against us.

In addition to filing patent applications, we generally try to protect our trade secrets, know-how, technology and other proprietary information by entering into confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements with parties that have access to it, such as our development and/or commercialization partners, employees, contractors and consultants. We also enter into agreements that purport to require the disclosure and assignment to us of the rights to the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions of our employees, advisors, research collaborators, contractors and consultants while we employ or engage them. However, we cannot assure you that these agreements will provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information in the event of any unauthorized use, misappropriation or disclosure of such trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information because these agreements can be difficult and costly to enforce or may not provide adequate remedies. Any of these parties may breach the confidentiality agreements and willfully or unintentionally disclose our confidential information, or our competitors might learn of the information in some other way. The disclosure to, or independent development by, a competitor of any trade secret, know-how or other technology not protected by a patent could materially adversely affect any competitive advantage we may have over any such competitor.

To the extent that any of our employees, advisors, research collaborators, contractors or consultants independently develop, or use independently developed, intellectual property in connection with any of our projects, disputes may arise as to the proprietary rights to this type of

40

information. If a dispute arises with respect to any proprietary right, enforcement of our rights can be costly and unpredictable and a court may determine that the right belongs to a third party.

Legal proceedings or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement and other challenges may require us to spend substantial time and money and could prevent us from developing or commercializing our product candidates.

The development, manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale or importation of our product candidates may infringe on the claims of third-party patents or other intellectual property rights. The nature of claims contained in unpublished patent filings around the world is unknown to us and it is not possible to know which countries patent holders may choose for the extension of their filings under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or other mechanisms. Therefore, there is a risk that we could adopt a technology without knowledge of a pending patent application, which technology would infringe a third-party patent once that patent is issued. We may also be subject to claims based on the actions of employees and consultants with respect to the usage or disclosure of intellectual property learned at other employers. The cost to us of any intellectual property litigation or other infringement proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Any claims of patent infringement, even those without merit, could: be expensive and time consuming to defend; cause us to cease making, licensing or using products that incorporate the challenged intellectual property; require us to redesign, reengineer or rebrand our product candidates, if feasible; cause us to stop from engaging in normal operations and activities, including developing and marketing product candidates; and divert management’s attention and resources. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation or defense of intellectual property litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. Intellectual property litigation and other proceedings may also absorb significant management time. Consequently, we are unable to guarantee that we will be able to manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell or import our product candidates in the event of an infringement action.

In the event of patent infringement claims, or to avoid potential claims, we may choose or be required to seek a license from a third party and would most likely be required to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could potentially limit our competitive advantage. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement or other claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. This inability to enter into licenses could harm our business significantly.

In addition, because of our developmental stage, claims that our product candidates infringe on the patent rights of others are more likely to be asserted after commencement of commercial sales incorporating our technology.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

We employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants, and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

41

Although we believe that we take reasonable steps to protect our intellectual property, including the use of agreements relating to the non-disclosure of confidential information to third parties, as well as agreements that purport to require the disclosure and assignment to us of the rights to the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions of our employees and consultants while we employ them, the agreements can be difficult and costly to enforce. Although we seek to obtain these types of agreements from our contractors, consultants, advisors and research collaborators, to the extent that employees and consultants utilize or independently develop intellectual property in connection with any of our projects, disputes may arise as to the intellectual property rights associated with our product candidates. If a dispute arises, a court may determine that the right belongs to a third party. In addition, enforcement of our rights can be costly and unpredictable. We also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how that we seek to protect in part by confidentiality agreements with our employees, contractors, consultants, advisors or others. Despite the protective measures we employ, we still face the risk that:

•

these agreements may be breached;

​

•

these agreements may not provide adequate remedies for the applicable type of breach;

​

•

our trade secrets or proprietary know-how will otherwise become known; or

​

•

our competitors will independently develop similar technology or proprietary information.

​

International patent protection is particularly uncertain, and if we are involved in opposition proceedings in foreign countries, we may have to expend substantial sums and management resources.

Patent law outside the United States may be different than in the United States. Further, the laws of some foreign countries may not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, if at all. A failure to obtain sufficient intellectual property protection in any foreign country could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and future prospects. Moreover, we may participate in opposition proceedings to determine the validity of our foreign patents or our competitors’ foreign patents, which could result in substantial costs and divert management’s resources and attention. Additionally, due to uncertainty in patent protection law, we have not filed applications in many countries where significant markets exist.

An NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2) subjects us to the risk that we may be subject to a patent infringement lawsuit that would delay or prevent the review or approval of our product candidates.

In the United States, we expect to file NDAs for our product candidates for approval under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the submission of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by, or for, the applicant and on which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The 505(b)(2) application would enable us to reference published literature and/or the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness for the branded reference drug. For NDAs submitted under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, the patent certification and related provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act apply. In accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act, such NDAs may be required to include certifications, known as paragraph IV certifications, that certify that any patents listed in the Patent and Exclusivity Information Addendum of the FDA’s publication, Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book, with respect to any product referenced in the 505(b)(2) application, are invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of the product that is the subject of the 505(b)(2) NDA.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the holder of patents that the 505(b)(2) application references may file a patent infringement lawsuit after receiving notice of the paragraph IV certification. Filing of a patent infringement lawsuit against the filer of the 505(b)(2) applicant within 45 days of

42

the patent owner’s receipt of notice triggers a one-time, automatic, 30-month stay of the FDA’s ability to approve the 505(b)(2) NDA, unless patent litigation is resolved in the favor of the paragraph IV filer or the patent expires before that time. Accordingly, we may invest a significant amount of time and expense in the development of one or more product candidates only to be subject to significant delay and patent litigation before such product candidates may be commercialized, if at all. In addition, a 505(b)(2) application will not be approved until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, or NCE, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired. The FDA may also require us to perform one or more additional clinical trials or measurements to support the change from the branded reference drug, which could be time consuming and could substantially delay our achievement of regulatory approvals for such product candidates. The FDA may also reject our future 505(b)(2) submissions and require us to file such submissions under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA, which would require us to provide extensive data to establish safety and effectiveness of the drug for the proposed use and could cause delay and be considerably more expensive and time consuming. These factors, among others, may limit our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

Companies that produce branded reference drugs routinely bring litigation against ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicants that seek regulatory approval to manufacture and market generic and reformulated forms of their branded products. These companies often allege patent infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights as the basis for filing suit against an ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant. Likewise, patent holders may bring patent infringement suits against companies that are currently marketing and selling their approved generic or reformulated products.

Litigation to enforce or defend intellectual property rights is often complex and often involves significant expense and can delay or prevent introduction or sale of our product candidates. If patents are held to be valid and infringed by our product candidates in a particular jurisdiction, we would, unless we could obtain a license from the patent holder, be required to cease selling in that jurisdiction and may need to relinquish or destroy existing stock in that jurisdiction. There may also be situations where we use our business judgment and decide to market and sell our approved product candidates, notwithstanding the fact that allegations of patent infringement(s) have not been finally resolved by the courts, which is known as an “at-risk launch.” The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include, among other things, damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner and not necessarily by the profits earned by the infringer. In the case of a willful infringement, the definition of which is subjective, such damages may be increased up to three times. Moreover, because of the discount pricing typically involved with bioequivalent and, to a lesser extent, 505(b)(2), products, patented branded products generally realize a substantially higher profit margin than bioequivalent and, to a lesser extent, 505(b)(2), products, resulting in disproportionate damages compared to any profits earned by the infringer. An adverse decision in patent litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our ordinary shares to decline.

Risks Related to Our Operations in Israel

Our headquarters, manufacturing and other significant operations are located in Israel and, therefore, our business and operations may be adversely affected by political, economic and military conditions in Israel.

Our business and operations will be directly influenced by the political, economic and military conditions affecting Israel at any given time. A change in the security and political situation in Israel and in the economy could impede the raising of the funds required to finance our research and development plans and to create joint ventures with third parties and could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition. Although Israel has entered into various agreements with Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian

43

Authority, there have been times since October 2000 when Israel has experienced an increase in unrest and terrorist activity. The establishment in 2006 of a government in the Palestinian Authority by representatives of the Hamas militant group has created additional unrest and uncertainty in the region.

During the Second Lebanon War of 2006, between Israel and Hezbollah, a militant Islamic movement, thousands of rockets were fired from Lebanon up to 50 miles into Israel. In January 2009, Israel attacked, during three weeks, Hamas strongholds in the Gaza strip, in reaction to rockets that were fired from Gaza up to 25 miles into Israel. In November 2012, Israel launched a seven-day operation against Hamas operatives in the Gaza strip in response to Palestinian groups launching over 100 rockets at Israel over a 24-hour period. In July 2014, Israel launched an additional operation against Hamas operatives in the Gaza strip in response to Palestinian groups launching rockets at Israel. Major hostilities involving Israel or the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its present trading partners could result in damage to our facilities and likewise have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.

Popular uprisings in various countries in the Middle East and North Africa are affecting the political stability of those countries. Such instability may lead to deterioration in the political and trade relationships that exist between the State of Israel and these countries. Furthermore, several countries, principally in the Middle East, restrict doing business with Israel and Israeli companies, and additional countries may impose restrictions on doing business with Israel and Israeli companies if hostilities in the region continue or intensify. Such restrictions may seriously limit our ability to sell our product candidates to customers in those countries. Any hostilities involving Israel or the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its present trading partners, or significant downturns in the economic or financial condition of Israel, could adversely affect our operations and product development, cause our revenues to decrease and adversely affect the share price of publicly traded companies having operations in Israel, such as us. Similarly, Israeli corporations are limited in conducting business with entities from several countries.

Our commercial insurance does not cover losses that may occur as a result of an event associated with the security situation in the Middle East. Although the Israeli government is currently committed to covering the reinstatement value of direct damages that are caused by terrorist attacks or acts of war, there can be no assurance that this government coverage will be maintained, or if maintained, will be sufficient to compensate us fully for damages incurred. Any losses or damages incurred by us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Exchange rate fluctuations between the U.S. dollar, the New Israeli Shekel and other foreign currencies, may negatively affect our future revenues.

In the future, we expect that a substantial portion of our revenues will be generated in U.S. dollars, Euros and other foreign currencies, although we currently incur a significant portion of our expenses in currencies other than U.S. dollars, and mainly in NIS. Our financial records are maintained, and will be maintained, in U.S. dollars, which is our functional currency. As a result, our financial results may be affected by fluctuations in the exchange rates of currencies in the countries in which our prospective product candidates may be sold.

Our operations may be affected by negative labor conditions in Israel.

Strikes and work-stoppages occur relatively frequently in Israel. If Israeli trade unions threaten additional strikes or work-stoppages and such strikes or work-stoppages occur, those may, if prolonged, have a material adverse effect on the Israeli economy and on our business, including our ability to deliver products to our customers and to receive raw materials from our suppliers in a timely manner.

Our operations could be disrupted as a result of the obligation of our personnel to perform military service.

All of our executive officers and key employees reside in Israel and although most of them are no longer required to perform reserve duty, some may be required to perform annual military

44

reserve duty and may be called for active duty under emergency circumstances at any time. Our operations could be disrupted by the absence for a significant period of time of one or more of these officers or key employees due to military service. Any such disruption could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The termination or reduction of tax and other incentives that the Israeli Government provides to domestic companies may increase the costs involved in operating a company in Israel.

The Israeli government currently provides tax and capital investment incentives to domestic companies, as well as grant and loan programs relating to research and development and marketing and export activities. In recent years, the Israeli Government has reduced the benefits available under these programs and the Israeli Governmental authorities have indicated that the government may in the future further reduce or eliminate the benefits of those programs. We may take advantage of these benefits and programs in the future, however, there is no assurance that such benefits and programs would continue to be available in the future to us. If such benefits and programs were terminated or further reduced, it could have an adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.

The Israeli government grants that we have received require us to meet several conditions and may restrict our ability to manufacture some of our product candidates and transfer relevant know-how outside of Israel and require us to satisfy specified conditions, which are at present uncertain due to the enactment of a new regulatory framework.

We have received royalty-bearing grants from the government of Israel through the National Authority for Technological Innovation, or the Innovation Authority (formerly known as the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Economy and Industry, or the OCS), for the financing of a portion of our research and development expenditures in Israel. These Innovation Authority grants relate to a peripheral line of product candidates which forms a negligible part of our activities. When know-how is developed using Innovation Authority grants, the Encouragement of Research, Development and Technological Innovation in Industry Law 5744-1984, or the Innovation Law, the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines as well as the terms of these grants, restrict our ability to manufacture product candidates and transfer know-how developed as a result of the Innovation Authority’s funded R&D outside of Israel. Transfer of the Innovation Authority funded know-how outside of Israel where the transferring company remains an operating Israeli entity or where the transferring company ceases to exist as an Israeli entity, requires pre-approval by the Innovation Authority, which may, at its sole discretion, grant such approval and impose certain conditions, including payment of a redemption fee calculated according to the formulas provided in the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines, or Redemption Fee, which takes into account the consideration for such know-how paid to the transferring company in the transaction in which the know-how is transferred. The Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines establish a maximum payment of the Redemption Fee under the formulas provided in the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines and differentiates between certain situations, as further detailed in such rules and guidelines. In addition, the product candidates may be manufactured outside of Israel by us or by another entity only if prior approval is received from the Innovation Authority (such approval is not required for the transfer of less than 10% of the manufacturing capacity in the aggregate). In addition to the obligation to receive prior approval to manufacture outside Israel, a company will be required to pay increased royalties, as defined under the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines. The total amount of the increased royalties to be repaid to the Innovation Authority shall not exceed, in the aggregate, 300% of the amount of the grant received (dollar linked), plus interest at annual rate based on LIBOR, depending on the manufacturing volume that is performed outside Israel less royalties already paid to the Innovation Authority.

A company also has the option of declaring in its Innovation Authority grant application its intention to exercise a portion of the manufacturing capacity abroad, thus avoiding the need to obtain additional approval following the receipt of the grant.

Recently, the Innovation Authority has published new rules and guidelines with respect to the grant to a foreign entity of the right to use know-how that was developed using the Innovation

45

Authority’s grants, or Funded Know-How. According to these rules, the grant to a foreign entity of a right to use the Funded Know-How (which does not entirely prevent the Innovation Authority funded company from using the Funded Know-How) is subject to receipt of the Innovation Authority’s prior approval. This approval is subject to payment to the Innovation Authority in accordance with the formulas stipulated in these rules.

The restrictions under the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines continue to apply even after payment of the full amount of royalties payable pursuant to the grants. In addition, the government of the State of Israel may from time to time audit sales of products which it claims incorporate Funded Know-How and this may lead to additional royalties being payable on additional product candidates. Following an audit conducted by the Innovation Authority, the Innovation Authority recently confirmed to us that products based on encapsulation technology of solid material are exempt from royalty payment obligations to the Innovation Authority. Our product candidates TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED fall within the category of products based on encapsulation technology of solid material. However, there can be no guarantee that the Innovation Authority will not in the future attempt to claim royalties with respect to these products, or that future products will not be subject to royalties.

These restrictions may impair our ability to enter into agreements for Funded Know-How product candidates or technologies without the approval of the Innovation Authority. We cannot be certain that any approval of the Innovation Authority will be obtained on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Furthermore, in the event that we undertake a transaction involving the transfer to a non-Israeli entity of Funded Know-How pursuant to a merger or similar transaction, or in the event we undertake a transaction involving the licensing of Funded Know-How, the consideration available to our shareholders may be reduced by the amounts we are required to pay to the Innovation Authority. Any approval, if given, will generally be subject to additional financial obligations. Failure to comply with the requirements under the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines and the Innovation Law may subject us to mandatory repayment of grants received by us (together with interest and penalties), as well as expose us to criminal proceedings.

In August 2015, a new amendment to the Innovation Law was enacted, or Amendment No. 7, which came into effect on January 1, 2016. Since Amendment No. 7 has entered into force, the Innovation Authority was appointed to act as the entity which is responsible for the activity which was previously under the OCS’ responsibility. The Innovation Authority was granted wide freedom of action, and among other things, the authority to amend the requirements and restrictions which were specified in the Innovation Law before Amendment No. 7 became effective with respect to the ownership of Funded Know-How (including with respect to the restrictions on transfer of the Funded Know-How and manufacturing activities outside of Israel) as well as with respect to royalty payment obligations which apply to companies that received grants from the Innovation Authority. Although the Innovation Authority recently published rules, which for the most part adopted the principal provisions and restrictions specified in the Innovation Law prior to the effectiveness of Amendment No. 7, as of the date of this prospectus, we are unable to assess the effect on our business of any future rules which may be published by the Innovation Authority. See “Business — Government Regulation — Innovation Authority.”

Enforcing a U.S. judgment against us and our current executive officers and directors, or asserting U.S. securities law claims in Israel, may be difficult.

We are incorporated in Israel. All of our current executive officers and directors reside in Israel (although one of our nominees to serve as an external director, Jerrold S. Gattegno, resides in the United States) and most of our assets reside outside of the United States. Therefore, a judgment obtained against us or any of these persons in the United States, including one based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws, may not be collectible in the United States and may not be enforced by an Israeli court. It may also be difficult to effect service of process on these persons in the United States or to assert U.S. securities law claims in original actions instituted in Israel.

46

Even if an Israeli court agrees to hear such a claim, it may determine that Israeli, and not U.S., law is applicable to the claim. Under Israeli law, if U.S. law is found to be applicable to such a claim, the content of applicable U.S. law must be proved as a fact, which can be a time-consuming and costly process, and certain matters of procedure would be governed by Israeli law. There is little binding case law in Israel addressing these matters. See “Enforceability of Civil Liabilities” for additional information on your ability to enforce civil claim against us and our executive officers and directors.

Provisions of our amended and restated articles of association and Israeli law and tax considerations may delay, prevent or make difficult an acquisition of us, which could prevent a change of control and negatively affect the price of our ordinary shares.

Israeli corporate law regulates mergers, requires tender offers for acquisitions of shares above specified thresholds, requires special approvals for certain transactions involving directors, officers or significant shareholders and regulates other matters that may be relevant to these types of transactions. These provisions of Israeli law may delay, prevent or make difficult an acquisition of us, which could prevent a change of control and therefore depress the price of our ordinary shares.

Our amended and restated articles of association provide that our directors (other than external directors) are elected on a staggered basis, such that a potential acquirer cannot readily replace our entire board of directors at a single annual general shareholder meeting.

Furthermore, Israeli tax considerations may make potential transactions unappealing to us or to our shareholders, especially for those shareholders whose country of residence does not have a tax treaty with Israel which exempts such shareholders from Israeli tax. For example, Israeli tax law does not recognize tax-free share exchanges to the same extent as U.S. tax law. With respect to mergers, Israeli tax law allows for tax deferral in certain circumstances but makes the deferral contingent on the fulfillment of a number of conditions, including, in some cases, a holding period of two years from the date of the transaction during which sales and dispositions of shares of the participating companies are subject to certain restrictions. Moreover, with respect to certain share swap transactions, the tax deferral is limited in time, and when such time expires, the tax becomes payable even if no disposition of the shares has occurred.

We may become subject to claims for remuneration or royalties for assigned service invention rights by our employees, which could result in litigation and adversely affect our business.

We have entered into assignment of invention agreements with our employees pursuant to which such individuals agree to assign to us all rights to any inventions created during their employment or engagement with us. A significant portion of our intellectual property has been developed by our employees in the course of their employment for us. Under the Israeli Patent Law, 5727-1967, or the Patent Law, inventions conceived by an employee during the scope of his or her employment with a company and as a result thereof are regarded as “service inventions,” which belong to the employer, absent a specific agreement between the employee and employer giving the employee service invention rights. The Patent Law also provides that if there is no agreement between an employer and an employee with respect to the employee’s right to receive compensation for such “service inventions,” the Israeli Compensation and Royalties Committee, or the Committee, a body constituted under the Patent Law, shall determine whether the employee is entitled to remuneration for his or her service inventions and the scope and conditions for such remuneration. Although our employees have agreed to assign to us service invention rights, as a result of uncertainty under Israeli law with respect to the efficacy of waivers of service invention rights, we may face claims demanding remuneration in consideration for assigned inventions. As a consequence of such claims, we could be required to pay additional remuneration or royalties to our current and/or former employees, or be forced to litigate such claims, which could negatively affect our business.

The government tax benefits that we currently are entitled to receive require us to meet several conditions and may be terminated or reduced in the future.

Some of our operations in Israel may entitle us to certain tax benefits under the Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investments, 5719-1959, or the Investment Law, once we begin to

47

produce revenues. If we do not meet the requirements for maintaining these benefits, they may be reduced or cancelled and the relevant operations would be subject to Israeli corporate tax at the standard rate, which is set at 24% in 2017 and 23% in 2018 and thereafter. In addition to being subject to the standard corporate tax rate, we could be required to refund any tax benefits that we have already received, plus interest and penalties thereon. Even if we continue to meet the relevant requirements, the tax benefits that our current “Benefited Enterprise” is entitled to may not be continued in the future at their current levels or at all. If these tax benefits were reduced or eliminated, the amount of taxes that we pay would likely increase, as all of our operations would consequently be subject to corporate tax at the standard rate, which could adversely affect our results of operations. Additionally, if we increase our activities outside of Israel, for example, by way of acquisitions, our increased activities may not be eligible for inclusion in Israeli tax benefits programs. See “Material Tax Considerations — Israeli Tax Considerations and Government Programs — Tax Benefits Under the 2011 Amendment” for additional information concerning these tax benefits.

Your rights and responsibilities as a shareholder will be governed by Israeli law, which differs in some material respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders of U.S. companies.

The rights and responsibilities of the holders of our ordinary shares are governed by our amended and restated articles of association and by Israeli law. These rights and responsibilities differ in some material respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders in U.S. corporations. For example, a shareholder of an Israeli company has a duty to act in good faith and in a customary manner in exercising its rights and performing its obligations towards the company and other shareholders, and to refrain from abusing its power in the company, including, among other things, voting at a general meeting of shareholders on matters such as amendments to a company’s articles of association, increases in a company’s authorized share capital, mergers and acquisitions and related party transactions requiring shareholder approval. In addition, a shareholder who is aware that it possesses the power to determine the outcome of a shareholder vote or to appoint or prevent the appointment of a director or executive officer in the company has a duty of fairness toward the company. There is limited case law available to assist us in understanding the nature of these duties or the implications of these provisions. These provisions may be interpreted to impose additional obligations and liabilities on holders of our ordinary shares that are not typically imposed on shareholders of U.S. corporations.

Risks Related to Employee Matters

If we are not able to retain our key management, or attract and retain qualified scientific, technical and business personnel, our ability to implement our business plan may be adversely affected.

Our success largely depends on the skill, experience and effort of our senior management. The loss of the service of any of these persons, including the chairman of our board of directors, Mr. Moshe Arkin, and our chief executive officer, Dr. Alon Seri-Levy, would likely result in a significant loss in the knowledge and experience that we possess and could significantly delay or prevent successful product development and other business objectives. There is intense competition from numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, governmental entities and other research institutions, seeking to employ qualified individuals in the technical fields in which we operate, and we may not be able to attract and retain the qualified personnel necessary for the successful development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Under applicable employment laws, we may not be able to enforce covenants not to compete.

Our employment agreements generally include covenants not to compete. These agreements prohibit our employees, if they cease working for us, from competing directly with us or working for our competitors for a limited period. We may be unable to enforce these agreements under the

48

laws of the jurisdictions in which our employees work. For example, Israeli courts have required employers seeking to enforce covenants not to compete to demonstrate that the competitive activities of a former employee will harm one of a limited number of material interests of the employer, such as the secrecy of a company’s confidential commercial information or the protection of its intellectual property. If we cannot demonstrate that such an interest will be harmed, we may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of our former employees and our competitiveness may be diminished.

Risks Related to the Offering and Our Ordinary Shares

The price of our ordinary shares may be volatile and may fluctuate due to factors beyond our control.

The share price of publicly traded emerging biopharmaceutical and drug discovery and development companies has been highly volatile and is likely to remain highly volatile in the future. The market price of our ordinary shares may fluctuate significantly due to a variety of factors, including:

•

positive or negative results of testing and clinical trials by us, strategic partners and competitors;

​

•

delays in entering into strategic relationships with respect to development and/or commercialization of our product candidates or entry into strategic relationships on terms that are not deemed to be favorable to us;

​

•

technological innovations or commercial product introductions by us or competitors;

​

•

changes in government regulations;

​

•

developments concerning proprietary rights, including patents and litigation matters;

​

•

public concern relating to the commercial value or safety of any of our product candidates;

​

•

financing or other corporate transactions;

​

•

publication of research reports or comments by securities or industry analysts;

​

•

general market conditions in the pharmaceutical industry or in the economy as a whole; or

​

•

other events and factors, many of which are beyond our control.

​

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our ordinary shares to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent investors from readily selling their ordinary shares and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of our ordinary shares. In addition, the stock market in general, and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies.

You will experience immediate and substantial dilution in the net tangible book value of the ordinary shares you purchase in this offering.

The initial public offering price of our ordinary shares will substantially exceed the net tangible book value per share of our ordinary shares immediately after this offering. Therefore, based on the anticipated public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, if you purchase our ordinary shares in this offering, you will suffer, as of September 30, 2017, immediate dilution of  $7.80 per ordinary share, or $7.50 if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional ordinary

49

shares, in net tangible book value after giving effect to the sale of 5,000,000 ordinary shares in this offering at the assumed initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share (which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus), after deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. As a result of this dilution, as of September 30, 2017, investors purchasing ordinary shares from us in this offering will have contributed 38.6% of the total amount of our total gross funding to date but will own only 29.9% of our equity. In addition, if outstanding options to purchase our ordinary shares are exercised in the future, you will experience additional dilution. See “Dilution.”

There has been no prior public market for our ordinary shares, and an active trading market may not develop.

Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our ordinary shares. We cannot predict the extent to which an active market for our ordinary shares will develop or be sustained after this offering, or how the development of such a market might affect the market price for our ordinary shares. The initial public offering price of our ordinary shares in this offering will be agreed upon between us and the underwriters based on a number of factors, including market conditions in effect at the time of the offering, which may not be indicative of the price at which our ordinary shares will trade following completion of the offering. Investors may not be able to sell their shares at or above the initial public offering price.

The controlling share ownership position of Arkin Dermatology will limit your ability to elect the members of our board of directors, may adversely affect our share price and will result in our non-affiliated investors having very limited, if any, influence on corporate actions.

Arkin Dermatology is currently our sole shareholder, and after this offering is completed, we will continue to be controlled by Arkin Dermatology. Upon the closing of this offering, Arkin Dermatology will beneficially own approximately 70.1% of the voting power of our outstanding ordinary shares, or approximately 69.0% if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional ordinary shares in full, assuming the automatic conversion of our outstanding promissory note between us and our controlling shareholder, into an aggregate of                     ordinary shares immediately prior to the closing of this offering, and assuming an initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus. The Promissory Note will be assigned to Arkin Dermatology immediately prior to the automatic conversion thereof, and the ordinary shares issued pursuant to the automatic conversion will be held by Arkin Dermatology. Therefore, even after this offering, Arkin Dermatology will have the ability to substantially influence us and exert significant control through this ownership position. For example, Arkin Dermatology will be able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, and approval of any merger, amalgamation, sale of assets or other major corporate transaction. Arkin Dermatology’s interests may not always coincide with our corporate interests or the interests of other shareholders, and it may exercise its voting and other rights in a manner with which you may not agree or that may not be in the best interests of our other shareholders. So long as it continues to own a significant amount of our equity, Arkin Dermatology will continue to be able to strongly influence and significantly control our decisions.

Arkin Dermatology has indicated an interest in purchasing up to an aggregate of  $25.0 million of our ordinary shares in this offering. However, because indications of interest are not binding agreements or commitments to purchase, the underwriters may determine to sell more, less or no ordinary shares offered in the offering to Arkin Dermatology, or Arkin Dermatology may determine to purchase more, less or no ordinary shares offered in this offering. The foregoing discussion does not reflect any potential purchases by Arkin Dermatology in this offering.

We will be a “controlled company” within the meaning of Nasdaq listing standards and, as a result, will qualify for, and intend to rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements.

As a result of the number of shares owned by Arkin Dermatology, after the completion of this offering, we will be a “controlled company” under the Nasdaq corporate governance rules. A

50

“controlled company” is a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, group or another company. Pursuant to the “controlled company” exemption, we are not required to, and intend to not comply with the requirements that: (1) a majority of our board of directors consist of independent directors and (2) we have a nominating committee composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing such committee’s purpose and responsibilities. See “Management — Foreign Private Issuer and Controlled Company Status — Controlled Company.” Accordingly, you will not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the Nasdaq Global Market.

The market price of our ordinary shares could be negatively affected by future sales of our ordinary shares.

After this offering, there will be 16,735,069 ordinary shares outstanding. Sales by us or our shareholders of a substantial number of our ordinary shares in the public market following this offering, or the perception that these sales might occur, could cause the market price of our ordinary shares to decline or could impair our ability to raise capital through a future sale of, or pay for acquisitions using, our equity securities. Of our issued and outstanding shares, all of the ordinary shares sold in this offering will be freely transferable, except for any shares held by our “affiliates,” as that term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act.

Upon the closing of this offering, approximately 11,735,069 of our outstanding ordinary shares will be beneficially owned by shareholders that have agreed with the underwriters that, subject to limited exceptions, for a period of 180 days after the date of this prospectus, they will not directly or indirectly offer, pledge, sell, contract to sell, sell any option or contract to purchase or otherwise dispose of any ordinary shares or any securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for ordinary shares, or in any manner transfer all or a portion of the economic consequences associated with the ownership of ordinary shares, or cause a registration statement covering any ordinary shares to be filed, without the prior written consent of Jefferies LLC and BMO Capital Markets Corp., which may, at any time without notice, release all or any portion of the shares subject to the corresponding lock-up agreements. After the expiration of the lock-up period, these shares can be resold into the public markets in accordance with the requirements of Rule 144, subject to certain volume limitations.

In addition, we intend to file one or more registration statements on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, covering all of the ordinary shares issuable under our 2014 Share Incentive Plan or any other equity incentive plans that we may adopt, and such shares will be freely transferable, except for any shares held by “affiliates,” as such term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act. The market price of our ordinary shares may drop significantly when the restrictions on resale by our existing shareholders lapse and these shareholders are able to sell our ordinary shares into the market.

Upon the filing of the registration statements and following the expiration of the lock-up restrictions described above, the number of ordinary shares that are potentially available for sale in the open market will increase materially, which could make it harder for the value of our ordinary shares to appreciate unless there is a corresponding increase in demand for our ordinary shares. This increase in available shares could result in the value of your investment in our ordinary shares decreasing.

In addition, a sale by us of additional ordinary shares or similar securities in order to raise capital might have a similar negative impact on the share price of our ordinary shares. A decline in the price of our ordinary shares might impede our ability to raise capital through the issuance of additional ordinary shares or other equity securities, and may cause you to lose part or all of your investment in our ordinary shares.

51

We have broad discretion as to the use of the net proceeds from this offering and may not use them effectively.

We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering to fund our planned clinical trials of our branded product candidates, TWIN, and VERED. The remaining proceeds will be used for the preparation and scale-up for our planned Phase III clinical program for SIRS-T, other research and development activities, including the development of our generic product candidates, as well as for working capital and general corporate purposes. For more information, see “Use of Proceeds.” However, our management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds. Our shareholders may not agree with the manner in which our management chooses to allocate the net proceeds from this offering. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation. Pending their use, we may invest the net proceeds from this offering in a manner that does not produce income.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our ordinary shares for at least the next several years following this offering.

We do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our ordinary shares for at least the next several years following this offering. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our ordinary shares will be the investors’ sole source of gain for at least the next several years. In addition, Israeli law limits our ability to declare and pay dividends, and may subject us to certain Israeli taxes. For more information, see “Dividend Policy.”

If equity research analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they issue unfavorable commentary or downgrade our ordinary shares, the price of our ordinary shares could decline.

The trading market for our ordinary shares will rely in part on the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us and our business. The price of our ordinary shares could decline if one or more securities analysts downgrade our ordinary shares or if those analysts issue other unfavorable commentary or cease publishing reports about us or our business.

As a foreign private issuer whose shares are listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, we intend to follow certain home country corporate governance practices instead of certain Nasdaq requirements.

As a foreign private issuer whose shares will be listed on The Nasdaq Global Market, we are permitted to follow certain home country corporate governance practices instead of certain requirements of the rules of The Nasdaq Global Market. Pursuant to the “foreign private issuer exemption”:

•

we intend to establish a quorum requirement such that the quorum for any meeting of shareholders is two or more shareholders holding at least 331∕3% of our voting rights, which complies with Nasdaq requirements; however, if the meeting is adjourned for lack of quorum, the quorum for such adjourned meeting will be any number of shareholders, instead of 331∕3% of our voting rights;

​

•

we also intend to adopt and approve material changes to equity incentive plans in accordance with Israeli Companies Law, 5759-1999, or with the Companies Law, which does not impose a requirement of shareholder approval for such actions. In addition, we intend to follow Israeli corporate governance practice in lieu of Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 5635(c), which requires shareholder approval prior to an issuance of securities in connection with equity-based compensation of officers, directors, employees or consultants;

​

52

​

•

as opposed to making periodic reports to shareholders in the manner specified by the Nasdaq corporate governance rules, the Companies Law does not require us to distribute periodic reports directly to shareholders, and the generally accepted business practice in Israel is not to distribute such reports to shareholders but to make such reports available through a public website. We will only mail such reports to shareholders upon request; and

​

•

we will follow Israeli corporate governance practice instead of Nasdaq requirements to obtain shareholder approval for certain dilutive events (such as issuances that will result in a change of control, certain transactions other than a public offering involving issuances of a 20% or greater interest in us and certain acquisitions of the stock or assets of another company). Accordingly, our shareholders may not be afforded the same protection as provided under Nasdaq corporate governance rules.

​

Otherwise, we intend to comply with the rules generally applicable to U.S. domestic companies listed on the Nasdaq Global Market. However, we may in the future decide to use the foreign private issuer exemption with respect to some or all of the other Nasdaq corporate governance rules. Following our home country governance practices as opposed to the requirements that would otherwise apply to a U.S. company listed on the Nasdaq Global Market may provide less protection than is accorded to investors of domestic issuers. See “Management — Foreign Private Issuer and Controlled Company Status.”

In addition, as a foreign private issuer, we will be exempt from the rules and regulations under the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, related to the furnishing and content of proxy statements (including disclosures with respect to executive compensation), and our officers, directors, and principal shareholders will be exempt from the reporting and short-swing profit recovery provisions contained in Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In addition, we will not be required under the Exchange Act to file annual, quarterly and current reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as domestic companies whose securities are registered under the Exchange Act.

We may lose our foreign private issuer status which would then require us to comply with the Exchange Act’s domestic reporting regime and cause us to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses.

We are a foreign private issuer and therefore we are not required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers. In order to maintain our current status as a foreign private issuer, either (a) a majority of our ordinary shares must be either directly or indirectly owned of record by non-residents of the United States or (b)(i) a majority of our executive officers or directors may not be U.S. citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50 percent of our assets cannot be located in the United States and (iii) our business must be administered principally outside the United States. If we were to lose this status, we would be required to comply with the Exchange Act reporting and other requirements applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, which are more detailed and extensive than the requirements for foreign private issuers. We may also be required to make changes in our corporate governance practices in accordance with various SEC and Nasdaq rules. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws if we are required to comply with the reporting requirements applicable to a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher than the cost we would incur as a foreign private issuer. As a result, we expect that a loss of foreign private issuer status would increase our legal and financial compliance costs and would make some activities highly time consuming and costly. We also expect that if we were required to comply with the rules and regulations applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, it would make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our supervisory board.

53

We will incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

As a public company whose ordinary shares are listed in the United States, and particularly after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we will incur accounting, legal and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, including costs associated with our reporting requirements under the Exchange Act. We also anticipate that we will incur costs associated with corporate governance requirements, including requirements under Section 404 and other provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), as well as rules implemented by the SEC and the Nasdaq Global Market, and provisions of Israeli corporate law applicable to public companies. We expect that these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, introduce new costs such as investor relations and stock exchange listing fees, and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. Our board and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these initiatives. We are currently evaluating and monitoring developments with respect to these rules, and we cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur or the timing of such costs.

As an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, we may take advantage of certain temporary exemptions from various reporting requirements, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (and the rules and regulations of the SEC thereunder). When these exemptions cease to apply, we expect to incur additional expenses and devote increased management effort toward ensuring compliance with them. We cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur as a result of becoming a public company or the timing of such costs.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the related rules adopted by the SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, starting with the second annual report that we file with the SEC after the closing of this offering, our management will be required to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, once we no longer qualify as an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act and lose the ability to rely on the exemptions related thereto discussed above and depending on our status as per Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act, our independent registered public accounting firm may also need to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404. We have not yet commenced the process of determining whether our existing internal controls over financial reporting systems are compliant with Section 404 and whether there are any material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our existing internal controls. This process will require the investment of substantial time and resources, including by our chief financial officer and other members of our senior management. As a result, this process may divert internal resources and take a significant amount of time and effort to complete. In addition, we cannot predict the outcome of this determination and whether we will need to implement remedial actions in order to implement effective controls over financial reporting. The determination and any remedial actions required could result in us incurring additional costs that we did not anticipate, including the hiring of outside consultants. Irrespective of compliance with Section 404, any failure of our internal controls could have a material adverse effect on our stated results of operations and harm our reputation. As a result, we may experience higher than anticipated operating expenses, as well as higher independent auditor fees during and after the implementation of these changes. If we are unable to implement any of the required changes to our internal control over financial reporting effectively or efficiently or are required to do so earlier than anticipated, it could adversely affect our operations, financial reporting and/or results of operations and could result in an adverse opinion on internal controls from our independent auditors.

Changes in the laws and regulations affecting public companies will result in increased costs to us as we respond to their requirements. These laws and regulations could make it more difficult or more costly for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including director and officer liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur in order to comply with such requirements.

54

We are an “emerging growth company” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our ordinary shares less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies.” Most of such requirements relate to disclosures that we would only be required to make if we also ceased to be a foreign private issuer in the future, for example, the requirement to hold stockholder advisory votes on executive and severance compensation and executive compensation disclosure requirements for U.S. companies. However, as a foreign private issuer, we could still be required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We are exempt from such requirement for as long as we remain an emerging growth company, which may be up to five fiscal years after the date of this offering. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of: (a) the last day of our fiscal year during which we have total annual gross revenues of at least $1.07 billion; (b) the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the closing of this offering; (c) the date on which we have, during the previous three-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt; or (d) the date on which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” under the Exchange Act. We may choose to take advantage of some or all of the available exemptions. When we are no longer deemed to be an emerging growth company, we will not be entitled to the exemptions provided in the JOBS Act discussed above. We cannot predict if investors will find our ordinary shares less attractive as a result of our reliance on exemptions under the JOBS Act. If some investors find our ordinary shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our ordinary shares and our share price may be more volatile.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our ordinary shares.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our ordinary shares.

Our management will be required to assess the effectiveness of our internal controls and procedures and disclose changes in these controls on an annual basis. However, for as long as we are an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. We could be an “emerging growth company” for up to five years. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

We expect to be a passive foreign investment company for U.S. federal income tax purposes for the current tax year and possibly thereafter, which could result in materially adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. Holders of our ordinary shares.

Based on our anticipated income and the composition of our income and assets, we expect to be a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes at least until we start generating a substantial amount of active revenue. A non-U.S. entity treated as a

55

corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes will be a PFIC for any taxable year if either (i) at least 75% of its gross income for such year is passive income or (ii) at least 50% of the value of its assets (based on an average of the quarterly values of the assets) during such year is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income. A separate determination has to be made after the close of each taxable year as to whether we were a PFIC for that year. Because the value of our assets for purposes of the PFIC test will generally be determined by reference to the market price of our ordinary shares, our PFIC status may depend in part on the market price of our ordinary shares, which may fluctuate significantly. In addition, there are certain ambiguities in applying the PFIC test to us. If we are considered a PFIC, material adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences could apply to U.S. Holders (as defined in the section headed “Material Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences”) of our ordinary shares with respect to any “excess distribution” received from us and any gain from a sale or other disposition of our ordinary shares. Please see “Material Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

56

We make forward-looking statements in this prospectus that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements include information about possible or assumed future results of our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, plans and objectives. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “believe,” “may,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “should,” “plan,” “expect,” “predict,” “potential,” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. Forward-looking statements are based on information we have when those statements are made or our management’s good faith belief as of that time with respect to future events, and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual performance or results to differ materially from those expressed in or suggested by the forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause such differences include, but are not limited to:

•

the adequacy of our financial and other resources, particularly in light of our history of recurring losses and the uncertainty regarding the adequacy of our liquidity to pursue our complete business objectives;

​

•

our ability to complete the development of our product candidates;

​

•

our ability to find suitable co-development partners;

​

•

our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in our target markets and the possibility of adverse regulatory or legal actions relating to our product candidates even if regulatory approval is obtained;

​

•

our ability to rely on data from our Phase II TWIN trial to advance the development of SIRS-T;

​

•

our ability to commercialize our pharmaceutical product candidates;

​

•

our ability to obtain and maintain adequate protection of our intellectual property;

​

•

our ability to manufacture our product candidates in commercial quantities, at an adequate quality or at an acceptable cost;

​

•

our ability to establish adequate sales, marketing and distribution channels;

​

•

acceptance of our product candidates by healthcare professionals and patients;

​

•

the possibility that we may face third-party claims of intellectual property infringement;

​

•

the timing and results of clinical trials that we may conduct or that our competitors and others may conduct relating to our or their products;

​

•

intense competition in our industry, with competitors having substantially greater financial, technological, research and development, regulatory and clinical, manufacturing, marketing and sales, distribution and personnel resources than we do;

​

•

potential product liability claims;

​

•

potential adverse federal, state and local government regulation in the United States, Europe or Israel; and

​

•

loss or retirement of key executives and research scientists.

​

You should review carefully the risks and uncertainties described under the heading “Risk Factors” in this prospectus for a discussion of these and other risks that relate to our business and investing in our ordinary shares. The forward-looking statements contained in this prospectus are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements after the date of this prospectus to conform these statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations.

57

Solely for convenience, the trademarks, service marks, and trade names referred to in this prospectus are without the ® and ™ symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensors to these trademarks, service marks and trade names. This prospectus contains additional trademarks, service marks and trade names of others, which are the property of their respective owners. All trademarks, service marks and trade names appearing in this prospectus are, to our knowledge, the property of their respective owners. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trademarks, service marks or trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

58

This prospectus includes statistics and other data relating to markets, market sizes and other industry data pertaining to our business that we have obtained from industry publications and surveys and other information available to us. Industry publications and surveys generally state that the information contained therein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Market data and statistics are inherently predictive and speculative and are not necessarily reflective of actual market conditions. Such statistics are based on market research, which itself is based on sampling and subjective judgments by both the researchers and the respondents, including judgments about what types of products and transactions should be included in the relevant market. In addition, the value of comparisons of statistics for different markets is limited by many factors, including that (i) the markets are defined differently, (ii) the underlying information was gathered by different methods, and (iii) different assumptions were applied in compiling the data. Accordingly, the market statistics included in this prospectus should be viewed with caution. We believe that information from these industry publications included in this prospectus is reliable.

59

We estimate that the net proceeds from this offering will be approximately $54.0 million, or approximately $62.4 million if the underwriters exercise in full their option to purchase additional ordinary shares, based upon an assumed initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share would increase (decrease) the net proceeds we receive from this offering by $4.7 million, assuming that the number of ordinary shares offered, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions. We may also increase or decrease the number of ordinary shares we are offering. Each increase or decrease of 1.0 million in the number of ordinary shares we are offering would increase or decrease the net proceeds we receive from this offering by $11.2 million, assuming no change in the assumed initial public offering price and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions.

We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering as follows:

•

approximately $26.0 million to fund our planned Phase III clinical trials for TWIN for the treatment of acne;

​

•

approximately $20.0 million to fund our planned Phase III clinical trials for VERED for the treatment of subtype II rosacea; and

​

•

the remainder for the preparation and scale-up for our planned Phase III clinical program for SIRS-T for the treatment of acne, to fund other research and development activities, including the development of our generic product candidates, and for working capital and other general corporate purposes.

​

Our expected use of net proceeds from this offering represents our current intentions based upon our present plans and business condition, which could change in the future as our plans and business conditions evolve. As of the date of this prospectus, we cannot predict with certainty any or all of the particular uses for the net proceeds to be received upon the closing of this offering, or the amounts, if any, that we will actually spend on the uses set forth above. The amounts and timing of our actual use of the net proceeds will vary depending on numerous factors, including our ability to obtain additional financing, if needed, the progress, cost and results of our pre-clinical and clinical development programs, and whether we are able to enter into future product development partnerships and technology license arrangements. As a result, our management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds, which may include uses not set forth above, and investors will be relying on our judgment regarding the application of the net proceeds from this offering. The timing and amount of our actual expenditures will be based on many factors, including cash flows from operations and the anticipated growth of our business. We do not plan to use any proceeds from this offering for the repayment of any indebtedness.

Pending their use, we plan to invest the net proceeds from this offering in short and intermediate-term, interest-bearing obligations, investment-grade instruments, certificates of deposit or direct or guaranteed obligations of the U.S. government or to hold such proceeds as cash.

We believe that the net proceeds of this offering, together with our existing cash resources, will be sufficient to enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months. Based on our current plans, we believe that the anticipated net proceeds from this offering, together with our existing cash resources, will be sufficient for the completion of (i) our planned Phase III clinical program for TWIN for the treatment of acne and (ii) our planned Phase III clinical program for VERED for the treatment of subtype II rosacea. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be incorrect, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

60

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our ordinary shares and we anticipate that, for the foreseeable future, we will retain any future earnings to support operations and to finance the growth and development of our business. Therefore, we do not expect to pay cash dividends for at least the next several years.

The distribution of dividends may also be limited by the Companies Law, which permits the distribution of dividends only out of retained earnings or earnings derived over the two most recent fiscal years, whichever is higher, provided that there is no reasonable concern that payment of a dividend will prevent a company from satisfying its existing and foreseeable obligations as they become due. Our amended and restated articles of association provide that dividends will be paid at the discretion of, and upon resolution by, our board of directors, subject to the provisions of the Companies Law.

61

The following table sets forth our cash and cash equivalents and capitalization as of September 30, 2017, on:

•

an actual basis;

​

•

on a pro forma basis to give effect to (i) the automatic conversion of our outstanding promissory note between us and our controlling shareholder into an aggregate of 5,444,825 ordinary shares immediately prior to the closing of this offering, assuming an initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus and (ii) the effectiveness of our amended and restated articles of association, adopted in connection with this offering; and

​

•

on a pro forma as adjusted basis, to give further effect to the issuance and sale of 5,000,000 ordinary shares in this offering at the assumed initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, after deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

​

You should read this table in conjunction with our financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Each $1.00 increase or decrease in the assumed initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share (which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus) would increase or decrease the pro forma as adjusted amount of each of cash and cash equivalents, additional paid-in capital, total shareholders’ equity and total capitalization by approximately $4.7 million, assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same and after deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions. Each increase or decrease of 1.0 million in the number of ordinary shares we are offering would increase or decrease the pro forma as adjusted amount of each of cash and cash equivalents, additional paid-in capital, total shareholders’ equity and total capitalization by approximately $11.2 million, assuming no change in the assumed initial public offering price and after deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions.

62

The preceding table excludes (i) 991,402 ordinary shares issuable upon the exercise of options to purchase ordinary shares outstanding under our 2014 Share Incentive Plan as of September 30, 2017, at a weighted average exercise price of  $3.63 per ordinary share; and (ii) an additional 358,598 ordinary shares reserved for future issuance under our amended and restated 2014 Share Incentive Plan, which will become effective upon the pricing of this offering.

63

If you invest in our ordinary shares in this offering, your ownership interest will be immediately diluted to the extent of the difference between the initial public offering price per share and the net tangible book value per ordinary share after this offering. Our net tangible book value (deficit) as of September 30, 2017, was $(49.0) million, or $(7.79) per ordinary share. Net tangible book value per ordinary share was calculated by:

•

subtracting our liabilities from our tangible assets; and

​

•

dividing the difference by the number of ordinary shares outstanding.

​

Our pro forma net tangible book value as of September 30, 2017 was $16.4 million, corresponding to a pro forma net tangible book value of  $1.39 per ordinary share. Pro forma net tangible book value per ordinary share represents our pro forma net tangible book value divided by the total number of our ordinary shares outstanding as of September 30, 2017, after giving effect to the assumed automatic conversion of our outstanding promissory note between us and our controlling shareholder into an aggregate of 5,444,825 ordinary shares immediately prior to the closing of this offering, assuming an initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus.

After giving further effect to the issuance and sale of 5,000,000 ordinary shares in this offering at an assumed initial public offering price of  $12.00 per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value on September 30, 2017 would have been approximately $70.4 million, or $4.20 per ordinary share. This represents an immediate dilution in the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value of  $7.80 per ordinary share to investors purchasing our ordinary shares in this offering.

The following table illustrates the immediate dilution to new investors:

Each $1.00 increase or decrease in the assumed initial public offering price of  $12.00 per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase or decrease the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value as of September 30, 2017 by $0.28 per ordinary share, assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions.

Similarly, each increase or decrease of 1.0 million shares in the number of ordinary shares we are offering would increase or decrease the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value as of September 30, 2017 by $0.39 or by $0.44 per ordinary share, respectively, assuming the assumed

64

initial public offering price remains the same, and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions. The pro forma as adjusted information is illustrative only, and we will adjust this information based on the actual initial public offering price and other terms of this offering determined at pricing.

If the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares from us is exercised in full, and based on the assumed initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share (which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus), the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value would be $4.50 per ordinary share and the dilution per ordinary share to new investors in this offering would be $7.50, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions.

The table below summarizes, as of September 30, 2017, on the pro forma as adjusted basis described above, the differences for our existing shareholder and new investors in this offering, with respect to the number of ordinary shares purchased from us, the total consideration paid and the average price per ordinary share paid before deducting fees and offering expenses.

Each $1.00 increase or decrease in the assumed initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase or decrease the total consideration paid by new investors by $4.7 million, and increase or decrease the percent of total consideration paid by new investors by assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same.

The table and discussion above excludes (i) 991,402 ordinary shares issuable upon the exercise of options to purchase ordinary shares outstanding under our 2014 Share Incentive Plan as of September 30, 2017, at a weighted average exercise price of  $3.63 per ordinary share; and (ii) an additional 358,598 ordinary shares reserved for future issuance under our amended and restated 2014 Share Incentive Plan, which will become effective upon the pricing of this offering.

Our controlling shareholder, Arkin Dermatology, which is owned by the chairman of our board of directors, has indicated an interest in purchasing up to an aggregate of $25.0 million of our ordinary shares in this offering on the same terms as the other purchasers in the offering. However, because indications of interest are not binding agreements or commitments to purchase, the underwriters may determine to sell more, fewer or no ordinary shares offered in the offering to Arkin Dermatology, or Arkin Dermatology may determine to purchase more, fewer or no ordinary shares offered in the offering. The underwriters will receive the same underwriting discount on any ordinary shares purchased by Arkin Dermatology as they will on any ordinary shares sold to the public in the offering. For dilution purposes, the shares purchased and consideration paid by the potential purchaser in this offering at the initial public offering price set forth in the foregoing discussion and tables are reflected as shares purchased and consideration paid by new investors.

To the extent any options are issued under our equity incentive plans, or we issue additional ordinary shares in the future, there will be further dilution to investors participating in this offering. In addition, we may choose to raise additional capital because of market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. If we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the issuance of these securities could result in further dilution to our shareholders.

65

The following table sets forth our selected historical financial data, which is derived from our audited financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2015 and 2016 and our selected statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016 is derived from our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. The selected balance sheet data for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2017 and the selected statement of operations data as of September 30, 2017 have been derived from our unaudited financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus and have been prepared on the same basis as the audited financial statements. In the opinion of management, the unaudited data reflects all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair statement of the financial information in those statements. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that should be expected in the future, and results for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year ending December 31, 2017 or any other future period. You should read this selected financial data in conjunction with, and it is qualified in its entirety by, reference to our historical financial information and other information provided in this prospectus including “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our audited financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus.

(1)

Basic loss per ordinary share and diluted loss per ordinary share are the same because outstanding options would be anti-dilutive due to our net losses in these periods.

​

(2)

Reflects the automatic conversion of our outstanding promissory note between us and our controlling shareholder into an aggregate of 5,444,825 ordinary shares immediately prior to the closing of this offering, assuming an initial public offering price of  $12.00 per ordinary share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus. The actual number of shares to be issued upon conversion of the promissory note will be determined by dividing the principal amount of the promissory note at the time of conversion by the initial public offering price per ordinary share in this offering. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions — Loan Agreements with Our Controlling Shareholder.”

​

66

67

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

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. This discussion and other parts of the prospectus contain forward-looking statements based upon current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results and the timing of selected events could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of several factors, including those set forth under “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this prospectus. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

Overview

We are a clinical-stage dermatology company focused on identifying, developing and commercializing branded and generic topical drug products for the treatment of skin diseases. Our current product candidate pipeline consists of late-stage branded product candidates that leverage our proprietary, silica-based microencapsulation technology platform, and several generic product candidates across multiple indications. Our lead product candidate, TWIN, is a novel, once-daily, non-antibiotic topical cream that we are developing for the treatment of acne vulgaris, or acne. We recently completed a 726 subject, double-blind, placebo-controlled, six-arm, multi-center Phase II clinical trial designed to assess the safety and efficacy of TWIN in subjects with facial acne. In this trial, TWIN demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all pre-defined co-primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, as compared to vehicle. Subject to an End of Phase II meeting to be scheduled with the FDA, we plan to initiate two pivotal Phase III trials for TWIN in the United States in the second half of 2018 and expect to report top-line data from these trials in 2019. Our other branded product candidates are: SIRS-T, a topical cream containing encapsulated tretinoin for the potential treatment of acne; and VERED, a potential treatment for subtype II rosacea.

We designed our proprietary, silica-based microencapsulation technology platform to enhance the tolerability and stability of topical drugs while maintaining their efficacy. Topical drugs often struggle to balance achieving both high efficacy and high tolerability. Our technology platform entraps active ingredients in an inert, inorganic silica shell, which creates an unnoticeable barrier between the active ingredient and the skin. The resulting microcapsules are designed to allow the entrapped active ingredients to gradually migrate through the pores of the shell and deliver active ingredient doses onto the skin in a controlled manner, resulting in improved tolerability and stability without sacrificing efficacy. By separately encapsulating active ingredients within protective silica shells, our technology platform also enables the production of novel fixed-dose active ingredient combinations that otherwise would not be stable. We believe that our microencapsulation technology has the potential to be used for topical drug products to treat a variety of skin diseases. As a result of the FDA having already approved silica as a safe excipient for topical drug products, we expect the review process for each of our current branded product candidates to be conducted according to the FDA’s 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which may provide for a more efficient regulatory process by permitting us to rely, in part, upon the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy of an approved product.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. We incurred net losses of $9.7 million and $20.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016, respectively, and $15.9 million and $26.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2017, respectively. As of September 30, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of  $89.8 million. We expect to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future as we advance our product candidates from formulation development through pre-clinical development and clinical trials, seek regulatory approval and pursue commercialization of any approved product candidate. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to product manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution. In addition, we may incur expenses in connection with the in-license or acquisition of additional product candidates. Furthermore, upon closing of this offering, we expect to incur additional expenses associated with operating as a U.S. public company, including significant legal, accounting, investor relations and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company.

68

On August 4, 2014, our former shareholders entered into a securities purchase agreement with our current sole shareholder, Arkin Dermatology, or the Purchase Agreement. The Purchase Agreement detailed the terms and conditions for the sale of the company to Arkin Dermatology in exchange for a cash payment in the amount of approximately $10.5 million in addition to an earn-out payment of up to $17.0 million based on the achievement of certain development and revenue-related milestones. In connection with the Purchase Agreement, our executive officers and certain employees were entitled, subject to certain research and development milestones and other conditions, to a special bonus in an aggregate amount of up to $3.0 million, all of which has been paid, with $1.0 million paid in each of the years 2014, 2016 and 2017 to our executive officers and certain employees.

Collaboration Agreements

Perrigo

On April 27, 2015, we entered into a development, manufacturing and commercialization agreement, as amended on October 26, 2015, with Perrigo UK to work toward the objective of obtaining all FDA approvals necessary for the commercialization of ivermectin cream, 1%, in the United States. Under the terms of the agreement, Perrigo UK will conduct all regulatory, scientific, clinical and technical activities necessary to develop ivermectin cream, 1%, prepare and file an ANDA with the FDA, and gain regulatory approval to market ivermectin cream, 1%, in the United States. We granted Perrigo UK the right, title and interest in and to ivermectin cream, 1%, and agreed on each party’s portion of the costs, including the allocation of costs related to development and litigation expenses associated with performance under the agreement. As soon as reasonably practical after final approval by the FDA of the ANDA, if approval is granted, Perrigo UK is required to use diligent efforts to commercialize ivermectin cream, 1%, in the United States. Perrigo UK has the sole and exclusive right to establish and control the prices and all other terms and conditions for the sales of ivermectin cream, 1%, in the United States and is required to do so in good faith without derogating from our right to benefit from the commercialization of ivermectin cream, 1%. We will be entitled to 50% of Perrigo UK’s gross profits related to the sale of ivermectin cream, 1%, on a quarterly basis, for a period of 20 years following the first commercial sale of ivermectin cream, 1%, in the United States. The agreement may be terminated in the event of a material breach by one of the parties, certain potential infringement claims by third parties or an uncured insolvency or bankruptcy procedure of one of the parties. In addition, the agreement may be terminated if the gross profits relating to the sale of the product do not exceed a certain threshold or if the potential market for the product has been significantly reduced due to regulatory changes.

Each party is responsible for its own costs in relation to performance under the agreement.

We are obligated to finance all out-of-pocket trial expenses (including materials), and Perrigo UK is required to reimburse us for 40% of the out-of-pocket clinical trial expenses as follows (a) if we obtain FDA approval, by financing our share of the out-of-pocket litigation expenses, or (b) if FDA approval is not obtained, by reimbursing us an amount equal to 40% of our out-of-pocket expenses.

In connection with the transfer of an in-process generic product candidate to us by Arkin Dermatology on August 22, 2017, we assumed an agreement with Perrigo UK for the development, manufacturing and commercialization of this generic product candidate. Under the terms of the agreement, Perrigo UK will conduct all regulatory, scientific, clinical and technical activities necessary to develop the generic product candidate, prepare and file an ANDA with the FDA, and gain regulatory approval to market the generic product candidate. As soon as reasonably practical after final approval by the FDA of the ANDA, if approval is granted, Perrigo UK is required to use diligent efforts to commercialize the product in the United States. Perrigo UK has the sole and exclusive right to establish and control the prices and all other terms and conditions for the sales of the generic product candidate in the United States and is required to do so in good faith without

69

derogating from our right to benefit from the commercialization of the generic product candidate. We are responsible for 80% of all out-of-pocket clinical study costs related to the generic product candidate. We will be entitled to 50% of Perrigo UK’s gross profits related to the sale of the generic product candidate, on a quarterly basis, for a period of 20 years following the first commercial sale of the generic product candidate. The agreement may be terminated in the event of a material breach by one of the parties, certain potential infringement claims by third parties or an uncured insolvency or bankruptcy proceeding of one of the parties. In addition, the agreement may be terminated if the gross profits relating to the sale of the generic product candidate do not exceed a certain threshold or if the potential market for the product has been significantly reduced to regulatory changes.

Douglas Pharmaceuticals

On June 7, 2017, we entered into a Development, License, Supply and Marketing Agreement, with Douglas with respect to the development and commercialization of a generic product candidate for a drug that already has generic substitutions. Douglas will manufacture the product for non-clinical and clinical trial uses, and once approved for marketing, for commercialization by us in the countries we elect to commercialize the product. Douglas will also be responsible for completing the formulation of the product and providing chemistry, manufacturing and control support, conducting all steps for production and quality controls of the product, formulation development of the product in final finished form and supporting the ANDA or any other applicable registration application. We will be responsible for conducting the legal and regulatory review process, performing bioequivalence and clinical studies to obtain marketing approval for the product in the United States and preparing and filing the regulatory filings to obtain marketing approval in the United States. We have the right to commercialize the product in all countries in North America and any other country agreed with Douglas, and Douglas has the right to commercialize the product in Australia, New Zealand, the Southeast, East and North Asia region and the Middle East and North Africa region and any other country agreed to by the US and Douglas.

Each party granted the other an exclusive royalty free license under its related intellectual property with the right to grant sublicenses, to use and commercialize the product in the countries in which the other party has the right to commercialize the product. Any new intellectual property generated in the development plan will be jointly owned. We are responsible for patent prosecution and Douglas is required to reimburse us for 50% of our patent expenses.

Each party is required to pay the other party 50% of its net profits from the sale of the products during the term of the agreement. In addition, we or the third party commercializing the product on our behalf will pay Douglas a transfer price based on the cost of goods for the manufacture of the products. The term of the agreement is ten years, and either party may terminate the agreement (i) for breach, (ii) if the joint steering committee established by the parties determines that it is unlikely that marketing approval will be achieved or determines that the commercialization of the product becomes unfeasible or uneconomic, (iii) a patent injunction permanently prohibits the future commercialization of the product or (iv) in the case of force majeure.

Financial Operations Overview

Revenues

Since 2013, we have not recognized any revenue and we do not expect to generate revenue from the sale of products in the near future.

Operating expenses

Our current operating expenses consist primarily of research and development as well as general and administrative expenses.

70

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses consist principally of:

•

salaries for research and development staff and related expenses, including employee benefits and share-based compensation expenses;

​

•

expenses paid to suppliers of disposables and raw materials, including drug substances, and related expenses, such as, external laboratory testing and development of analytical methods;

​

•

expenses for production of our product candidates both in-house and by contract manufacturers;

​

•

expenses paid to contract research organizations and other third parties in connection with the performance of pre-clinical studies, clinical trials and related expenses;

​

•

expenses incurred under agreements with other third parties, including subcontractors, suppliers and consultants that conduct formulation development, regulatory activities and pre-clinical studies;

​

•

expenses incurred to acquire, develop and manufacture materials for use in pre-clinical and other studies;

​

•

expenses incurred from the purchase and transfer of product candidates; and

​

•

facilities, depreciation of fixed assets used to develop our product candidates, maintenance of equipment used to develop our product candidates and other expenses, including direct and allocated expenses for rent, maintenance of facilities, insurance and other operating expenses.

​

Research and development activities are central to our business model. Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development expenses than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. We expect our research and development expenses to increase significantly over the next several years as we increase personnel expenses, including share-based compensation, commence Phase III clinical trials for TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED and conduct pre-clinical studies and clinical trials and prepare regulatory filings for our product candidates.

Due to the inherently unpredictable and highly uncertain nature of clinical development processes, we cannot reasonably estimate the nature, timing and expenses of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the remainder of the development of our product candidates, or when, if ever, material net cash inflows may commence from any of our product candidates. Clinical development timelines, the probability of success and development expenses can differ materially from expectations. This is due to numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing drugs, including the uncertainty of:

•

the scope, rate of progress and expense of our research and development activities;

​

•

clinical trials and early-stage results;

​

•

the terms and timing of regulatory requirements and approvals;

​

•

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

​

•

the ability to market, commercialize and achieve market acceptance of any product candidate that we are developing or may develop in the future.

​

71

While we are currently focused on advancing our product development, our future research and development expenses will depend on the clinical success of our product candidates, as well as ongoing assessments of the candidates’ commercial potential. As we obtain results from clinical trials, we may elect to discontinue or delay clinical trials for one or more of our product candidates in certain indications in order to focus our resources on more promising product candidates. Completion of clinical trials may take several years or more, but the length of time generally varies according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use of a product candidate.

The lengthy process of completing clinical trials and seeking regulatory approval for our product candidates requires the expenditure of substantial resources. Any failure or delay in completing clinical trials, or in obtaining regulatory approvals, could cause a delay in generating product revenue and cause our research and development expenses to increase and, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our operations.

General and administrative expenses

Our general and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and related expenses, including employee benefits and share-based compensation expenses, legal and professional fees for auditors and other consulting expenses not related to research and development activities. Such expenses include the process of becoming a public company, patent registration expenses, depreciation of fixed assets related to general and administrative activities and other expenses, including rent, maintenance of facilities, insurance and office expenses.

We expect that our general and administrative expenses will increase as a result of increased personnel expenses, including share-based compensation, expanded infrastructure and higher consulting, legal and tax-related service fees associated with maintaining compliance with stock exchange listing and SEC requirements, accounting and audit fees, investor relations expenses and director and officer insurance premiums associated with being a public company. Additionally, if and when we believe a regulatory approval of a product candidate appears likely, we anticipate an increase in payroll and expense as a result of our preparation for commercial operations, especially as it relates to the sales and marketing of our product candidates.

Financial expenses, net

Our financial expenses consist primarily of expenses related to bank charges and foreign currency exchange transactions.

Results of operations

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the indicated periods:

Nine months ended September 30, 2016 compared to nine months ended September 30, 2017

Research and development expenses

The following table describes the breakdown of our research and development expenses for the indicated periods:

72

Our research and development expenses were $13.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016, compared to $21.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017. The increase of  $8.3 million is mainly attributed to an increase of  $5.8 million mainly due to acquiring an in-process research and development product candidate, offset by a decrease of  $0.4 million in clinical trial expenses, as well as $1.4 million due to accrued bonus expense and share-based compensation.

General and administrative expenses

Our general and administrative expenses were $2.8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016, compared to $4.8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017. The increase of  $2.0 million is mainly attributed to an increase of  $1.1 million in professional fees and $0.9 million due to accrued bonus expense and share-based compensation.

Financial income, net

Our financial income, net, were immaterial for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2017.

Year ended December 31, 2015 compared to year ended December 31, 2016

Research and development expenses

The following table describes the breakdown of our research and development expenses for the indicated periods:

Our research and development expenses were $7.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, compared to $17.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase of $9.8 million is mainly attributed to an increase of  $9.2 million in clinical trial expenses due to the Phase II clinical trials of TWIN and another product candidate no longer in development, the bioequivalence study of ivermectin cream, 1%, and to an increase of  $1.0 million in payroll and related expenses due to an increase in the number of our employees, as well as to bonuses granted

73

and paid during 2016 and to salary increases. These increases in clinical trial expenses were partially offset by a decrease in share-based compensation expenses and a decrease of  $0.4 million as a result of the transfer of an asset to us from an affiliated company in 2015.

General and administrative expenses

Our general and administrative expenses were $2.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, compared to $3.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase of  $1.2 million is mainly attributed to an increase of  $0.7 million in professional fees due to the initial public offering process and to an increase of  $0.4 million in payroll and related expenses due to bonuses that were recognized and paid during 2016 and salary raises that were partially offset by a decrease in share-based compensation expenses.

Financial expenses, net

Our financial expenses, net, were immaterial for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Overview

Since our inception, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to developing our product candidates, building our intellectual property portfolio, developing our supply chain, business planning, raising capital and providing for general and administrative support for these operations. We do not currently have any approved products.

From inception through September 30, 2017, we have funded our operations primarily through the issuance of equity securities and loans from our shareholder in the aggregate amount of  $65.3 million, funding received from the Innovation Authority in the aggregate amount of approximately $1.4 million and from amounts received pursuant to past collaboration agreements in the aggregate amount of  $28.5 million. We have agreed to automatically convert our outstanding promissory note between us and our controlling shareholder into an aggregate of                  ordinary shares immediately prior to the closing of this offering. For a description of the conversion of our shareholder loan agreement, see “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions — Loan Agreements with Our Controlling Shareholder.” As of September 30, 2017, our cash and cash equivalents was $12.5 million.

The table below summarizes our cash flow activities for the indicated periods:

Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities was $13.4 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2016, compared to $17.1 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2017.

Net cash used in operating activities in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 primarily resulted from our loss for the period of  $26.0 million during the period and $0.9 million used as advance payments for long-term receivables in connection with the collaboration agreement with

74

Perrigo for ivermectin cream. This amount was partially offset by $2.2 million of share-based compensation expenses, $0.3 million of depreciation of property and equipment, a net reduction of $1.4 million in working capital and $6.2 million from an acquired in-process research and development product candidate.

Net cash used in operating activities in the nine months ended September 30, 2016 primarily resulted from our loss of  $15.9 million during the period, and from $0.9 million used as advance payments for long-term receivables in connection with the collaboration agreement with Perrigo for ivermectin cream, 1%. This amount was partially offset by $0.8 million of share-based compensation expenses, a net reduction of  $1.8 million in working capital and $0.3 million of depreciation of property and equipment.

Net cash used in operating activities was $8.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2015, compared to $18.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2016.

Net cash used in operating activities in the year ended December 31, 2015 primarily resulted from our loss for the period of  $9.7 million and $0.6 million used as an advanced payment to our CRO in connection with the Phase II clinical trial for TWIN, partially offset by $1.1 million of share-based compensation expenses, a net reduction of  $0.4 million in working capital, $0.4 million in in-process research and development acquired due to the transfer of an asset and $0.3 million of depreciation of property and equipment.

Net cash used in operating activities in the year ended December 31, 2016 primarily resulted from our loss of  $20.8 million during the period, and from $1.4 million used as advance payments for long-term receivables in connection with the Phase II clinical trial for TWIN and the collaboration agreement with Perrigo UK for ivermectin cream, 1%. This amount was partially offset by $1.0 million of share-based compensation expenses, a net reduction of  $2.3 million in working capital and $0.4 million depreciation of property and equipment.

Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities was $0.3 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2016, compared to net cash used in investing activities of  $5.5 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2017. Net cash used in investing activities during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2017 was primarily related to investments in property and equipment.

Net cash used in investing activities was $0.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2015, compared to net cash used in investing activities of  $0.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2016. Net cash used for investing activities during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016 was primarily related to the purchase of property and equipment.

Financing Activities

Net cash from financing activities was $10.0 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2016, compared to $28.0 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2017. Financing activities in these years consisted of loans received from our controlling shareholder.

Net cash from financing activities was $13.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2015, compared to $20.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2016. Financing activities in these years consisted of loans received from our controlling shareholder.

Funding Requirements

Our primary uses of cash have been to fund working capital requirements and research and development. We expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future as we continue to invest in research and development and seek to obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize

75

our product candidates. We believe that the net proceeds of this offering, together with our existing cash resources, will be sufficient to enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months. Based on our current plans, we believe that the anticipated net proceeds from this offering, together with our existing cash resources, will be sufficient for the completion of (i) our planned Phase III clinical program for TWIN for the treatment of acne and (ii) our planned Phase III clinical program for VERED for the treatment of subtype II rosacea. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our ability to continue as a going concern will depend on our ability to generate positive cash flow from operations and obtain additional financing, both of which are uncertain.

In its report accompanying our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, included elsewhere in this prospectus, our independent registered accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph stating that our recurring losses from operations and lack of sufficient working capital raise substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern. In general, a “going concern” opinion means that our independent registered public accounting firm has substantial doubt about our ability to continue our operations without an additional infusion of capital from external sources, such as the proceeds from this offering. In addition, having a going concern qualification may make it less likely that investors or commercial banks will be willing to finance our operations. If we are unable to achieve these goals, our business will be in jeopardy and we may not be able to continue operations and may have to liquidate our assets. In such case, investors might receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our financial statements, and it is likely that investors in this offering would lose all or a part of their investment.

Developing drugs, conducting clinical trials, obtaining commercial manufacturing capabilities and commercializing products is expensive and we will need to raise substantial additional funds to achieve our strategic objectives. We will require significant additional financing in the future to fund our operations, including if and when we progress into additional clinical trials for our product candidates, obtain regulatory approval for one or more of our product candidates, obtain commercial manufacturing capabilities and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

•

the progress and expenses of our pre-clinical studies, clinical trials and other research and development activities;

​

•

the scope, prioritization and number of our clinical trials and other research and development programs;

​

•

the expenses and timing of obtaining regulatory approval, if any, for our product candidates;

​

•

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

​

•

the expenses of, and timing for, expanding our manufacturing agreements for production of sufficient clinical and commercial quantities of our product candidates; and

​

•

the potential expenses of contracting with third parties to provide marketing and distribution services for us or for building such capacities internally.

​

Until we can generate significant recurring revenues, we expect to satisfy our future cash needs through the net proceeds from this offering, debt or equity financings or by entering into collaborations with third parties in connection with one or more of our product candidates. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available to us on acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, the terms of any securities we issue in future financings may be more favorable to new investors and may include preferences, superior voting rights and the issuance of warrants or other derivative securities, which may have a further dilutive effect on the holders of any of our securities then outstanding. If we raise additional funds through collaborations with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams,

76

research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to obtain adequate funds on reasonable terms, we will need to curtail operations significantly, including possibly postponing anticipated clinical trials or entering into financing agreements with unattractive terms.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2016:

(1)

Operating lease obligations consist of payments pursuant to several lease agreements that are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2020. Starting from March 1, 2017, our total lease payments on all of our facilities increased to approximately $36,000 per month.

​

Under the specific terms of the funding arrangement between us and the Innovation Authority, royalties of 3.5% to 25% are payable on the sale of products developed with funding received from the Innovation Authority, which payments shall not exceed, in the aggregate, 300% of the amount of the grant received (dollar linked), plus interest at an annual rate based on LIBOR. Between the years 1998 and 2005, we received grants from the Innovation Authority in an aggregate amount of approximately $1.4 million (which, including accrued interest based on LIBOR, amounted to approximately $2.3 million as of February 14, 2017), and as of September 30, 2017, have paid royalties to the Innovation Authority in an aggregate amount of approximately $2.0 million (including amounts in respect of accrued interest).

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not have any, and during the periods presented we did not have any, off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in the rules and regulations of the SEC.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure about Market Risk

We are exposed to market risks in the ordinary course of our business. Market risk represents the risk of loss that may impact our financial position due to adverse changes in financial market prices and rates. Our market risk exposure is primarily a result of foreign currency exchange rates, which is discussed in detail below.

Interest Rate Risk

We do not anticipate undertaking any significant long-term borrowings. At present, our investments consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents. We may invest in investment-grade marketable securities with maturities of up to three years, including commercial paper, money market funds, and government/non-government debt securities. The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while maximizing the income that we receive from our investments without significantly increasing risk and loss. Our investments may be exposed to market risk due to fluctuation in interest rates, which may affect our interest income and the fair market value of our investments, if any.

Foreign Currency Exchange Risk

The U.S. dollar is our functional and reporting currency. Although a substantial portion of our expenses (mainly salaries and related costs) are denominated in NIS, accounting for almost half of our expenses in the year ended December 31, 2016, all of our financing has been in U.S. dollars

77

and the vast majority of our liquid assets are held in U.S. dollars. Furthermore, while we anticipate that a portion of our expenses, principally salaries and related personnel expenses in Israel, will continue to be denominated in NIS, we expect to incur an increasing amount of expenses in U.S. dollars as we progress in the development and the regulatory processes of our product candidates. Changes of 5% in the U.S. dollar/NIS exchange rate would have increased/decreased operating expenses by approximately 2% during the fiscal year ended on December 31, 2016. We also have expenses, although to a much lesser extent, in other non-U.S. dollar currencies, in particular the Euro.

Moreover, for the next few years we expect that the substantial majority of our revenues from the sale of our products in the United States, if any, will be denominated in U.S. dollars. Since a portion of our expenses is denominated in NIS and other non-U.S. currencies, we are exposed to risk associated with exchange rate fluctuations vis-à-vis the non-U.S. currencies. See “Risk Factors — Exchange rate fluctuations between the U.S. dollar, the New Israeli Shekel and other foreign currencies, may negatively affect our future revenues.” If the NIS fluctuates significantly against the U.S. dollar it may have a negative impact on our results of operations. As of the date of this prospectus and for the periods under review, fluctuations in the currencies exchange rates have not materially affected our results of operations or financial condition.

We do not hedge our foreign currency exchange risk. In the future, we may enter into formal currency hedging transactions to decrease the risk of financial exposure from fluctuations in the exchange rates of our principal operating currencies. These measures, however, may not adequately protect us from the material adverse effects of such fluctuations.

Inflation-related risks

We do not believe that the rate of inflation in Israel has had a material impact on our business to date, however, our costs in Israel will increase if the inflation rate in Israel exceeds the devaluation of the NIS against the U.S. dollar or if the timing of such devaluation lags behind inflation in Israel.

Significant Accounting Policies and Estimates

We prepare our financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP. We describe our significant accounting policies and estimates more fully in Note 2 to our financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, included elsewhere in this prospectus. We believe that the accounting policies and estimates below are critical in order to fully understand and evaluate our financial condition and results of operations. In preparing these financial statements, our management has made estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of expenses during the reporting periods recognized in our financial statements. Actual results may differ from these estimates. As applicable to the financial statements included in this prospectus, the most significant estimates and assumptions relate to the fair value of share-based compensation.

Share-based Compensation

Share-based compensation reflects the compensation expense of our share option programs granted to employees which compensation expense is measured at the grant date fair value of the options. The grant date fair value of share-based compensation is recognized as an expense over the requisite service period, net of estimated forfeitures. We recognize compensation expense for awards conditioned only on continued service that have a graded vesting schedule using the accelerated method based on the multiple-option award approach, and classify these amounts in our statement of operations based on the department to which the related employee reports.

Options Valuation

We selected the Black-Scholes option pricing model as the most appropriate method for determining the estimated fair value of the shared based compensation.

78

For the purpose of the evaluation of the fair value and the manner of the recognition of share-based compensation, our management is required to estimate, among others, various subjective and complex parameters that are included in the calculation of the fair value of the option as well as our results and the number of options that will vest. These parameters include the expected volatility of our share price over the expected term of the options, the risk-free interest rate assumption, the share option exercise and forfeitures behaviors and expected dividends.

Fair value of ordinary shares. Our ordinary shares are not publicly traded, thus, the fair value of the ordinary shares, for purpose of determining the exercise price for share-based payment awards, was determined in good faith by our management and approved by our board of directors. Our management considered the fair value of our ordinary shares based on a number of objective and subjective variables, consistent with the methodologies outlined in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Practice Aid, Valuation of Private-Held-Company Equity Securities issued as Compensation, referred to as the AICPA Practice Aid.

Volatility. The expected share price volatility is based on the historical volatility of comparable companies.

Risk-free interest rate. The risk-free interest rate is based on observed interest rates appropriate for the expected term of the options granted in dollar terms.

Expected term. The expected term of options granted represents the period of time that the options are expected to be outstanding. Since adequate historical experience is not available to provide a reasonable estimate, the expected term was computed by averaging the vesting schedule of the options and the last available exercise date (the contracted expiry date).

Expected dividend yield. We have never declared or paid any cash dividends and we do not plan to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

The underlying data used for computing the fair value of the options are as follows:

These assumptions represent our best estimates and involve inherent uncertainties and the application of our judgment. As a result, if we use significantly different assumptions or estimates, our share-based compensation expense could be materially different.

79

The following table presents the grant dates, number of underlying shares and related exercise prices of options granted to employees and service providers, as well as the estimated fair value of the underlying ordinary shares on the grant date.

Based on the assumed initial public offering price of  $12.00 per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, the intrinsic value of the awards outstanding as of December 31, 2017 was $8.3 million, of which $3.3 million related to vested options and $5.0 million related to unvested options.

2015 awards. In March and April 2015, we granted 312,192 options to our executive officers to purchase ordinary shares. Our board of directors set an exercise price of  $1.59 per share for these options. Twenty-five percent of the options vest on the first anniversary of the vesting commencement date (August 4, 2014) and the rest vest quarterly over the following three years. The options expire on the tenth anniversary of the grant date.

In preparation for our initial public offering, we performed in April 2016 a retrospective valuation, with the assistance of a third-party valuation firm, of our ordinary shares as of March and April 2015, which determined that their fair value at that time was $6.31 per share. For the purpose of determining our enterprise value, we used the discounted cash flow, or DCF, method. Under the DCF method, our projected after-tax cash flows available to return to holders of invested capital were discounted back to present value, using the discount rate. Since it is not possible to project our after-tax cash flows beyond a limited number of years, the DCF method relies on determining a “terminal value” representing the aggregate value of the future after-tax cash flows after the end of the period for which annual projections are possible. The discount rate, known as the weighted average cost of capital, or WACC, accounts for the time value of money and the appropriate degree of risk inherent in a business. The DCF method requires significant assumptions, in particular, regarding our projected cash flows and the discount rate applicable to our business. For the purpose of that valuation we applied a discount rate of 18%, and projected after-tax cash flows based on the probabilities of the realization of the scenario in which we receive FDA approval.

Having determined our enterprise value, we allocated it among the different elements of our share capital using the option pricing method, or OPM. Under the OPM, each security — ordinary shares and options — is treated as a call option having an exercise price based on the amount and optimal conversion price. The value of the call option is determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The Black-Scholes model requires significant assumptions, in particular, the time until investors in our company would experience an exit event and the volatility of our ordinary shares.

2016 awards. In August 2016, we granted 90,760 options to our executive officers to purchase ordinary shares. Our board of directors set an exercise price of  $1.59 per share for these options. Twenty-five percent of the options vest on the first anniversary of the vesting commencement date and the rest vest quarterly over the following three years. The options expire on the tenth anniversary of the grant date.

80

In September 2016, we performed a retrospective valuation, with the assistance of a third-party valuation firm, of our ordinary shares as of August 2016, which determined that their fair value at that time was $11.99 per share. For the purpose of determining our enterprise value, we used the discounted cash flow, or DCF, method. Under the DCF method, our projected after-tax cash flows available to return to holders of invested capital were discounted back to present value, using the discount rate. Since it is not possible to project our after-tax cash flows beyond a limited number of years, the DCF method relies on determining a “terminal value” representing the aggregate value of the future after-tax cash flows after the end of the period for which annual projections are possible. The discount rate, known as the weighted average cost of capital, or WACC, accounts for the time value of money and the appropriate degree of risk inherent in a business. The DCF method requires significant assumptions, in particular, regarding our projected cash flows and the discount rate applicable to our business. For the purpose of that valuation we applied a discount rate of 20%, and projected after-tax cash flows based on the probabilities of the realization of the scenario in which we receive FDA approval.

Having determined our enterprise value, we allocated it among the different elements of our share capital using the OPM. Under the OPM, each security — ordinary shares and options — is treated as a call option having an exercise price based on the amount and optimal conversion price. The value of the call option is determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The Black-Scholes model requires significant assumptions, in particular, the time until investors in our company would experience an exit event and the volatility of our ordinary shares.

2017 awards. In February 2017, we granted 53,831 options to one of our executive officers to purchase ordinary shares. Our board of directors set an exercise price of  $1.59 per share for these options. Twenty-five percent of the options vest on the first anniversary of the vesting commencement date and the rest vest quarterly over the following three years. Upon the occurrence of a merger or sale (as such term is defined in the option agreement), 100% of the then unvested options shall become fully vested, provided, that the grantee is an employee at such time. The options expire on the tenth anniversary of the grant date.

In July 2017, we granted 27,072 options to certain of our employees and service providers to purchase ordinary shares. Our board of directors set an exercise price of  $1.59 per share for these options. In July and August 2017, we granted 507,546 options to certain of our executive officers, employees and service providers to purchase ordinary shares. Our board of directors set an exercise price of  $5,57 for these options. Twenty-five percent of the options vest on the first anniversary of the vesting commencement date and the rest vest quarterly over the following three years. The options are subject to acceleration in the event of a change of control of our company. The options expire on the tenth anniversary of the grant date.

Future option awards. Following the completion of our initial public offering and the listing of our ordinary shares on the Nasdaq Global Market, the determination of the fair market value of our ordinary shares for purposes of setting the exercise price of future option awards or other share-based compensation to employees and other grantees will no longer require good faith estimates by our board of directors based on various comparisons or benchmarks.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

We are currently evaluating the impact of the U.S. GAAP standards as issued by the FASB that are effective for the first time for the financial year beginning on or after January 1, 2016 on our financial statements. See Note 2 to our annual financial statements and Note 2 to our interim financial statements, both included elsewhere in this prospectus.

JOBS Act

On April 5, 2012, the JOBS Act was signed into law. Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that an “emerging growth company” can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards.

81

This means that an “emerging growth company” can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to utilize this exemption and, therefore, we will not be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. In addition, as a result of this election, our future financial statements may not be comparable to those of public companies that are not emerging growth companies and are required to comply with public company effective dates for new or revised accounting standards.

Subject to certain conditions set forth in the JOBS Act, as an “emerging growth company,” we also elected or may elect to rely on other exemptions, including without limitation, not (i) providing an auditor’s attestation report on our system of internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 and (ii) complying with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements (auditor discussion and analysis). These exemptions will apply until the earliest of  (a) the last day of our fiscal year during which we have total annual gross revenues of at least $1.07 billion; (b) the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the closing of this offering; (c) the date on which we have, during the previous three-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt; or (d) the date on which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” under the Exchange Act.

82

Overview

We are a clinical-stage dermatology company focused on identifying, developing and commercializing branded and generic topical drug products for the treatment of skin diseases. Our current product candidate pipeline consists of late-stage branded product candidates that leverage our proprietary, silica-based microencapsulation technology platform, and several generic product candidates across multiple indications. Our lead product candidate, TWIN, is a novel, once-daily, non-antibiotic topical cream that we are developing for the treatment of acne vulgaris, or acne. We recently completed a 726 subject, double-blind, placebo-controlled, six-arm, multi-center Phase II clinical trial designed to assess the safety and efficacy of TWIN in subjects with facial acne. In this trial, TWIN demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all pre-defined co-primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, as compared to vehicle. Subject to an End of Phase II meeting to be scheduled with the FDA, we plan to initiate two pivotal Phase III trials for TWIN in the United States in the second half of 2018 and expect to report top-line data from these trials in 2019. Our other branded product candidates are: SIRS-T, a topical cream containing encapsulated tretinoin for the potential treatment of acne; and VERED, a potential treatment for subtype II rosacea.

We designed our proprietary, silica-based microencapsulation technology platform to enhance the tolerability and stability of topical drugs while maintaining their efficacy. Topical drugs often struggle to balance achieving both high efficacy and high tolerability. Our technology platform entraps active ingredients in an inert, inorganic silica shell, which creates an unnoticeable barrier between the active ingredient and the skin. The resulting microcapsules are designed to allow the entrapped active ingredients to gradually migrate through the pores of the shell and deliver active ingredient doses onto the skin in a controlled manner, resulting in improved tolerability and stability without sacrificing efficacy. By separately encapsulating active ingredients within protective silica shells, our technology platform also enables the production of novel fixed-dose active ingredient combinations that otherwise would not be stable. We believe that our microencapsulation technology has the potential to be used for topical drug products to treat a variety of skin diseases. As a result of the FDA having already approved silica as a safe excipient for topical drug products, we expect the review process for each of our current branded product candidates to be conducted according to the FDA’s 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which may provide for a more efficient regulatory process by permitting us to rely, in part, upon the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy of an approved product.

Each of our branded product candidates leverages our proprietary, silica-based microencapsulation technology platform. We maintain exclusive, worldwide commercial rights for all of our branded product candidates, which consist of:

•

TWIN, a novel, once-daily, non-antibiotic topical cream, which we are developing for the treatment of acne, containing a fixed-dose combination of encapsulated benzoyl peroxide, or E-BPO, and encapsulated tretinoin. Acne is one of the three most prevalent skin diseases in the world and is the most commonly treated skin disease in the United States, representing a $3.3 billion market for the 12 months ended November 30, 2017, according to IQVIA Holdings Inc. (formerly known as IMS), or IQVIA. According to the American Academy of Dermatology, acne affects approximately 40 to 50 million people in the United States, of which approximately 10% are treated with prescription medications. In July 2017, we reported positive top-line results from a double-blind, dose-ranging active- and placebo-controlled, six-arm, multi-center Phase II clinical trial of TWIN in the United States in 726 subjects, 128 of which subjects across six treatment groups did not complete the study. The clinical trial evaluated the efficacy, tolerability and safety of two TWIN concentrations, TWIN Low and TWIN High, each containing a lower or higher concentration, respectively, of encapsulated tretinoin and an identical concentration of E-BPO. Tretinoin and benzoyl peroxide, the two active components in TWIN, are both widely-used therapies for the treatment of acne that historically have not been

​

83

conveniently co-administered due to stability concerns. The trial also evaluated the contribution of encapsulated tretinoin and E-BPO, in the same concentrations as those in the respective TWIN treatment groups, to the efficacy of TWIN High and TWIN Low. In this trial, TWIN showed statistically significant improvements in all pre-defined co-primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, as compared to vehicle. In addition, TWIN was well tolerated with no treatment-related serious adverse events. Based on the efficacy data we observed in the Phase II trial, we believe TWIN, if approved, has the potential to become a preferred treatment for acne. In the second half of 2018, subject to an End of Phase II meeting to be scheduled with the FDA, we plan to initiate two pivotal Phase III trials for TWIN in the United States and expect to report top-line data from these trials in 2019.

•

SIRS-T, a topical cream containing encapsulated tretinoin, which we are developing as a potential treatment for acne. Based on the results of the encapsulated tretinoin treatment groups in our recent Phase II TWIN study, we believe that microencapsulation of tretinoin using our technology platform will reduce the irritation typically associated with topical application of tretinoin. According to IQVIA, the overall sales of tretinoin products, including Retin-A Micro, Atralin and Retin-A, for the 12 months ended November 30, 2017 were $519 million. SIRS-T is designed to provide a more tolerable tretinoin treatment option in order to improve patient compliance with treatment regimens. By leveraging our microencapsulation technology, we believe SIRS-T has the potential to become a leading tretinoin drug product and an attractive option for physicians who prefer a single active ingredient drug for the treatment of mild acne. We intend to utilize the data from the TWIN Phase II study in the development of SIRS-T. Subject to an End of Phase II meeting to be scheduled with the FDA with regard to the Phase II TWIN trial, we plan to commence a pivotal Phase III program for SIRS-T in the United States in 2020 and expect to report top-line data from this program in 2021.

​

•

VERED, a topical cream containing 5% E-BPO, which we are developing for the treatment of subtype II (papulopustular) rosacea. Rosacea is a chronic skin disease characterized by facial redness, inflammatory lesions, burning and stinging. According to the U.S. National Rosacea Society, approximately 16 million people in the United States are affected by rosacea. According to a study we commissioned, approximately 4.8 million people in the United States experience subtype II symptoms. Subtype II rosacea is characterized by small, dome-shaped erythematous papules, tiny surmounting pustules on the central aspects of the face, solid facial erythema and edema, and thickening/overgrowth of skin. Subtype II rosacea resembles acne, except that comedones are absent, and patients may report associated burning and stinging sensations. We evaluated VERED in a double blind, randomized, dose-ranging Phase II clinical trial involving 92 adult subjects at ten centers in the United States. In this trial, VERED showed statistically significant improvements in the Investigator Global Assessment, or IGA, pre-defined co-primary efficacy endpoint and in the percent change in inflammatory lesion count at week 12, as compared to vehicle. VERED was also well tolerated in this trial. Current topical therapies for subtype II rosacea are limited due to tolerability concerns. For example, BPO, a common therapy for acne, is not used for the treatment of subtype II rosacea due to side effects. As encapsulated BPO, VERED is designed to redefine the standard of care for the treatment of subtype II rosacea. If approved, we expect VERED to be the first product containing BPO that is marketed for the treatment of subtype II rosacea. Based on feedback received at our End of Phase II meeting with the FDA, we expect to commence two pivotal Phase III trials for VERED in the United States in the first half of 2018 and expect to report top-line data from these trials in 2019.

​

In addition to our late-stage branded product candidates, we are currently developing a portfolio of six generic topical dermatological products. Three of our generic product candidates are being developed in collaboration with Perrigo UK Finco Limited Partnership, or Perrigo. A

84

fourth generic product candidate is being developed in collaboration with Douglas Pharmaceuticals (New Zealand), or Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Both Perrigo and Douglas Pharmaceuticals have significant experience in the development of generic drugs.

Our most advanced generic product candidate is ivermectin cream, 1%, for the treatment of inflammatory lesions associated with rosacea, which is being developed in collaboration with Perrigo. In March 2017, Perrigo submitted an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, with a Paragraph IV certification for ivermectin cream, 1% to the FDA. This ANDA is currently on file with the FDA. Following notification from Perrigo, Galderma Laboratories, L.P., Galderma S.A., and Nestle Skin Health S.A., filed a patent litigation suit triggering the application of a 30-month stay on approval of the ANDA, under the Hatch-Waxman amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA. Pursuant to the guidelines of the GDUFA, we expect to receive feedback from the FDA in their review of this ANDA in the first half of 2018. Ivermectin cream, 1% is the active molecule in Soolantra, which is currently marketed in the United States by Galderma Laboratories LP. For the 12 months ended November 30, 2017, Soolantra achieved sales of  $113 million according to IQVIA.

Our leadership team has considerable expertise in the identification and development of generic dermatological drug products and our intellectual property and formulation teams continue to seek to identify new opportunities to expand our pipeline of generic product candidates.

The following chart represents our current branded and generic product candidate pipeline:

Our Strengths

We believe we are well positioned to become a leading, pure-play dermatology company based on the following key characteristics:

•

Diverse late-stage branded product pipeline with observed clinical benefits and favorable tolerability profiles. We have leveraged our knowledge of the dermatology market to establish a pipeline of diversified late-stage branded product candidates with the potential to address the need for improved drug therapies. We have observed favorable clinical results for our branded product candidates that have completed Phase II trials. We recently completed a Phase II clinical trial for TWIN in the United States in 726 subjects with acne, the results of which we also intend to use to support further development of SIRS-T. In the Phase II TWIN trial, we observed statistically significant improvements compared to vehicle in achieving the co-primary efficacy endpoints of  “clear” or “almost clear” with two-grade reduction in IGA and in reducing absolute inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion count at week 12. We also completed a Phase II clinical trial of

​

85

VERED in the United States in 92 subjects with subtype II rosacea in which we observed statistically significant results for the co-primary efficacy endpoint of  “clear” or “almost clear” with a two-grade reduction in IGA. Subject to the TWIN and SIRS-T End of Phase II meeting to be scheduled with the FDA, we plan to commence two Phase III trials for each of TWIN and VERED in 2018 and for SIRS-T in 2020.

•

Proprietary, silica-based microencapsulation drug delivery technology platform with broad applicability. We leverage our innovative silica-based microencapsulation drug delivery technology platform in the development of each of our branded product candidates. In addition, we believe our technology platform provides us with the potential to develop additional product candidates that can overcome the limitations of currently approved products for multiple skin diseases. Our in-depth understanding of the chemical and physical parameters affecting the in-vitro release rate of active pharmaceutical ingredients from microcapsules made of silica allows us to create the desired, well-defined, in-vitro release profiles, including for novel fixed-dose active ingredient combinations, that otherwise would not be stable.

​

•

Efficient FDA regulatory pathway for our current branded product pipeline. We expect the review process for TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED to be conducted according to the FDA’s 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which permits us to rely, in part, upon the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy of an approved product. Silica, which forms the basis of our proprietary microencapsulation technology platform, is an inorganic inert excipient that is contained in other topical drug products approved by the FDA.

​

•

Diversified pipeline of generic drug product candidates and established strategic collaborations. Our product pipeline includes six topical generic product candidates across multiple indications. We have established collaborations with Perrigo and Douglas Pharmaceuticals to efficiently develop four of our generic product candidates. We are collaborating with Perrigo in developing three of our generic product candidates, including ivermectin cream, 1%, for the treatment of inflammatory lesions associated with rosacea for which Perrigo filed an ANDA in March 2017. We are also developing a generic product candidate for a drug that already has generic substitutions in collaboration with Douglas Pharmaceuticals. We believe our strategic collaborations can help maximize the commercial potential of these generic product candidates.

​

•

Comprehensive and broad intellectual property portfolio. We maintain exclusive, worldwide commercial rights for all of our branded product candidates. We have granted patents covering TWIN and VERED, expiring in 2028 and 2032, respectively. If patents issue from our patent applications, TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED, will have patent coverage until 2032, 2030 and 2032, respectively. In addition, we believe our patent portfolio and considerable proprietary know-how creates a barrier to entry for generic drugs with comparable and bioequivalent in-vitro release profiles.

​

•

Experienced leadership team with proven track record. Our leadership team has extensive experience in the development and commercialization of dermatology drug products. Our chief executive officer and co-founder, Dr. Seri-Levy, has experience in the field of computer-aided drug design and more than 20 years of experience in the field of drug development. Mr. Arkin, who serves as the chairman of our board of directors and is our controlling shareholder, has held leadership roles in several innovative and generic drug companies. Mr. Arkin was the chairman of Agis Industries Ltd., expanding it into a leading pharmaceutical company in the United States until its acquisition by Perrigo Company plc, where he subsequently served as Vice Chairman. We believe that our leadership team is well-positioned to lead us through clinical development, regulatory approval and commercialization for our product candidates.

​

86

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to become a leading, pure-play dermatology company focused on identifying, developing and commercializing treatments for skin diseases in areas with the need for improved drug therapies. To achieve this objective, we intend to pursue the following:

•

Complete clinical development of our late-stage branded product candidates and obtain regulatory approvals. We plan to advance our late-stage branded product candidates through clinical development and obtain regulatory approvals. Subject to an End of Phase II meeting to be scheduled with the FDA, we plan to commence two pivotal Phase III trials in the second half of 2018 for TWIN for the treatment of acne. We expect to commence two pivotal Phase III trials in the first half of 2018 for VERED for the treatment of subtype II rosacea. In addition, we intend to use TWIN’s Phase II trial results in order to select the preferred dose for SIRS-T as a potential treatment for acne. Subject to an End of Phase II meeting to be scheduled with the FDA, we plan to commence a pivotal Phase III program for SIRS-T in 2020.

​

•

Maximize commercial potential of our late-stage branded product candidates. We intend to commercialize our late-stage branded product candidates in the United States, if approved, by building a specialized sales and marketing organization focused solely on dermatologists and their patients. Because the U.S. market is served by a relatively small number of practicing dermatologists, we believe a small and dedicated sales force can efficiently cover a significant portion of the target patient population. In other markets, we may selectively pursue strategic collaborations with third parties in order to maximize the commercial potential of our late-stage branded product candidates, if approved.

​

•

Selectively expand our branded product candidate pipeline. We continuously evaluate opportunities to leverage our proprietary silica-based microencapsulation technology platform to efficiently develop additional branded product candidates for the treatment of skin diseases in areas where we believe there is a need for improved drug therapies. We may also seek to in-license, acquire or develop additional branded product candidates for dermatological indications from other companies by leveraging the expertise and experience of our leadership team. We intend to focus on branded product candidates that we believe have streamlined regulatory pathways.

​

•

Opportunistically broaden our generic pipeline. We intend to continue to develop and opportunistically broaden our generic pipeline with product candidates that we believe have the potential to capture significant share of attractive markets and geographies. In certain cases, such as ivermectin cream, 1%, which we are developing in collaboration with Perrigo, we may seek strategic collaborations with pharmaceutical companies in order to expedite the development process, obtain regulatory approvals and commercialize our generic drug product candidates.

​

Dermatology Market Overview

We focus on medical dermatology, which includes many common skin diseases such as acne, rosacea, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis and actinic keratosis. These diseases can have significant, multidimensional negative effects on patients’ quality of life, including their physical and emotional well-being and social acceptance.

The dermatology and skin care market has experienced significant growth in the last several years. Based on IQVIA data, the U.S. medical dermatology market (excluding biologics) was valued at over $10.7 billion in prescription pharmaceutical sales for the 12 months ended November 30, 2017, of which $8.6 billion represented sales of topical drugs. According to IQVIA, dermatological drugs sales in the United States have grown at an annual rate of 7% since 2012. We believe many factors are continuing to drive growth in the medical dermatological market, including population

87

growth for prevalent age groups and growth in the number of physicians dispensing products. We believe patients’ willingness to pay for dermatology treatments out-of-pocket is a result of often visible symptoms from dermatological diseases, which further supports demand and pricing.

We believe dermatology offers a low cost commercialization opportunity compared to many other medical specialties due to the relatively small number of specialists. According to IQVIA, there are approximately 14,000 active dermatologists in the United States. Because the U.S. market is served by a relatively small number of practicing dermatologists, we believe a small and dedicated sales force can efficiently cover a significant portion of the targeted patient population.

Our Branded Product Candidates

Our Acne Product Candidates: TWIN and SIRS-T

Using our proprietary, silica-based microencapsulation technology platform, we are developing TWIN and SIRS-T to become preferred treatments for acne by dermatologists and their patients.

TWIN Overview

TWIN is a novel, once-daily, non-antibiotic topical cream containing a fixed-dose combination of E-BPO and encapsulated tretinoin that we are developing for the treatment of acne. Studies have shown that benzoyl peroxide and tretinoin are effective in treating acne as monotherapies, but a drug-drug interaction that causes the degradation of tretinoin has previously prohibited the development of a combination therapy. By encapsulating the two agents separately through the use of our technology platform, TWIN is designed to be a fixed-dose combination that otherwise would not be stable. Similar to other combination drug products containing retinoids, such as tretinoin, and benzoyl peroxide, we expect TWIN to be kept refrigerated throughout the supply chain and then stored in ambient conditions upon its distribution to patients. Pre-clinical data suggests that TWIN may be more tolerable than generic tretinoin gel 0.1% and Epiduo, a branded fixed-dose combination of benzoyl peroxide and adapalene, without a corresponding loss in efficacy. In addition, Epiduo and its successor Epiduo Forte contain adapalene as opposed to tretinoin, which is widely considered to be more effective than adapalene, but generally causes greater irritation. We expect that TWIN, if approved, will compete directly with Epiduo and Epiduo Forte. Epiduo and Epiduo Forte achieved sales of  $396 million for the 12 months ended June 30, 2017. We expect to utilize the FDA’s 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway in seeking approval of TWIN in the United States.

In July 2017, we completed a 726 subject, randomized, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II clinical trial of TWIN in the United States that demonstrated statistically significant improvements compared to vehicle in the co-primary efficacy endpoints of “clear” or “almost clear” with a two-grade reduction in IGA and in reducing absolute inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts at week 12. Of the 726 subjects enrolled in the trial, 128 subjects across six treatment groups did not complete the study. The most common reasons for subjects not completing the study were the withdrawal of informed consent (42 subjects), loss to follow-up (56 subjects) and adverse events (18 subjects). Based on the results of this trial, we intend to schedule an End of Phase II meeting with the FDA and expect to commence two Phase III trials for TWIN in the second half of 2018.

SIRS-T Overview

SIRS-T is a topical cream containing a single active pharmaceutical ingredient, encapsulated tretinoin, that we are developing for the treatment of acne. By utilizing our technology platform to encapsulate tretinoin in a silica shell, we believe SIRS-T can be a more tolerable tretinoin-based treatment of acne. The silica shell in SIRS-T is designed to create a barrier between the drug substance and the skin and to control its release rate into the skin. As a result, we expect our silica-based technology platform to reduce irritation typically associated with topical application of tretinoin. Based on our recent Phase II TWIN study, we believe our technology platform can

88

create a more tolerable tretinoin-based drug as compared to currently available tretinoin-based treatments. We intend to leverage the data from the TWIN Phase II study in the development of SIRS-T. We believe SIRS-T has the potential to be an attractive option for physicians who prefer a single active ingredient drug for the treatment of mild acne. Subject to an End of Phase II meeting to be scheduled with the FDA, we plan to commence a pivotal Phase III clinical program for SIRS-T in 2020. We expect that SIRS-T, if approved, will compete directly with Retin-A Micro, Atralin and Retin-A, which contain tretinoin as well as with generic tretinoin. Topical tretinoin products are currently available in strengths ranging from 0.025% to 0.1%. According to IQVIA, the majority of sales unit for these products are for the 0.05% strength. The overall sales of tretinoin products, including Retin-A Micro, Atralin and Retin-A, for the 12 months ended November 30, 2017 were $519 million. We expect to utilize the FDA’s 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway in seeking approval of SIRS-T in the United States.

Acne Market Opportunity

cne is a disease characterized by areas of scaly red skin, non-inflammatory blackheads and whiteheads, inflammatory lesions, papules and pustules and occasionally boils and scarring that occur on the face, neck, chest, back, shoulders and upper arms. The development of acne lesions is caused by genetic and environmental factors that arise from the interplay of the following pathogenic factors:

•

blockage of hair follicles through abnormal keratinization in the follicle, which narrows pores;

​

•

increase in oils, or sebum production, secreted by the sebaceous gland;

​

•

overgrowth of naturally occurring bacteria caused by the colonization by the anaerobic lipohilic bacterium Propionibacterium acnes, or P. acnes;

​

•

inflammatory response due to relapse of pro-inflammatory mediators into the skin.

​

Due to the frequency of recurrence and relapse, acne is characterised as a chronic inflammatory disease, which may require treatment over a prolonged period of time. Acne is one of the three most prevalent skin diseases in the world and is the most commonly treated skin disease in the United States. According to the American Academy of Dermatology, acne affects approximately 40 to 50 million people in the United States and approximately 85% of people between the ages of 12 and 24 experience some form of acne. Acne patients suffer from the appearance of lesions on areas of the body with a large concentration of oil glands, such as the face, chest, neck and back. These lesions can be inflamed (papules, pustules, nodules) or non-inflamed (comedones). Early effective treatment is recommended to lessen the overall long-term impact. For most people, acne diminishes over time and tends to disappear, or at least to decrease, by the age of 25. There is, however, no way to predict how long it will take for symptoms to disappear entirely, and some individuals continue to suffer from acne well into adulthood.

Acne Market Size

According to IQVIA data, the U.S. acne market was valued at $3.3 billion in pharmaceutical sales for the 12 months ended November 30, 2017 and has grown at an annual rate of 10% since 2012. For the 12 months ended November 30, 2017, $2.3 billion in sales were attributable to branded products and $2.8 billion were attributed to either branded or generic topical therapies. The acne market represented approximately 31% of the total U.S. medical dermatology market for the 12 months ended November 30, 2017, and approximately 15% of the total U.S. dermatology drug prescriptions market.

Current Treatment Landscape for Acne

The treatment options for acne depend on the severity of the disease and consist of topical and oral drugs:

•

Mild acne: characterized by few papules or pustules (both comedonal and inflammatory); treated with an over-the-counter product or topical prescription therapies.

​

89

​

•

Moderate acne: characterized by multiple papules and pustules with moderate inflammation and seborrhea (scaly red skin); treated with a combination of oral antibiotics and topical therapies.

​

•

Severe acne: characterized by substantial papulopustular disease, many nodules and/or cysts and significant inflammation and seborrhea; treated with oral and topical combination therapies and photodynamic therapy as a third-line treatment.

​

Topical therapies dominate the acne market as physicians and patients often prefer therapies that act locally on the skin, while minimizing side effects. For more pronounced symptoms, patients are typically treated with a combination of topical and oral therapies.

The acne prescription treatment landscape is comprised of four classes of topical products and two classes of oral products:

•

Topical over-the-counter monotherapies such as adapalene 0.1%, benzoyl peroxide and salicylic acid, in different concentrations, are the most commonly used therapies. These are generally tolerable first-line treatments for mild acne, but less efficacious than prescription therapies.

​

•

Topical prescription antibiotic monotherapies such as clindamycin and erythromycin that are most commonly used as topical therapies in cases of mild-to-moderate acne.

​

•

Topical prescription retinoid monotherapies such as tretinoin, adapalene 0.3% and tazarotene. Physicians view retinoids as moderately efficacious, but they have high rates of skin irritation.

​

•

Topical prescription combination products such as combinations of BPO/adapalene, BPO/clindamycin, BPO/erythromycin and clindamycin/tretinoin. These target multiple components that contribute to the development of acne, though topical side effects are common.

​

•

Oral prescription antibiotics such as doxycycline and minocycline. These are typically used as step-up treatments for more severe cases of acne, with risk of systemic side effects.

​

•

Oral prescription isotretinoin, which is primarily used for severe cystic acne and acne that has not responded to other treatments. The use of oral prescription isotretinoin is tightly controlled due to tolerability issues.

​

Our Solutions for Acne — TWIN and SIRS-T

Using our proprietary, silica-based microencapsulation technology platform, we are developing TWIN and SIRS-T to become preferred treatments for acne by dermatologists and their patients. Our silica-based proprietary delivery system is designed to enhance the tolerability and stability of topical drugs while maintaining their efficacy. Topical drugs often struggle to balance achieving both high efficacy and high tolerability. Our technology platform entraps active ingredients in an inert silica shell, which creates an unnoticeable barrier between the active ingredient and the skin. The resulting microcapsules are designed to allow the entrapped active ingredients to gradually migrate through the pores of the shell and deliver active ingredient doses into the skin in a controlled manner, resulting in improved tolerability and stability without sacrificing efficacy.

We believe that TWIN, a fixed-dose combination of a cream containing E-BPO and encapsulated tretinoin, has the potential to solve the industry-wide challenge of stabilizing tretinoin in the presence of benzoyl peroxide, a combination known to be effective in acne therapy, but not previously conveniently co-administered. While benzoyl peroxide slows the proliferation of P. acnes, tretinoin regulates hyperkeratinization and abnormal desquamation of follicular epithelium. This creates a synergistic combination which has the potential to overcome the challenges faced by currently approved products.

90

​

•

We designed TWIN to protect tretinoin from oxidative decomposition, which occurs when it is combined with benzoyl peroxide, with the goal of enhancing stability without reducing efficacy. We believe this could allow for a suitable clinical and commercial shelf life.

​

•

The silica shell creates a barrier between the two drug substances and the skin. As a result, we believe TWIN can reduce irritation typically associated with topical application of benzoyl peroxide and tretinoin, leading to greater tolerability to acne-affected skin.

​

By encapsulating tretinoin in our proprietary technology platform, we believe SIRS-T has the potential to be a more tolerable tretinoin-based drug as a treatment for acne and would improve patients’ compliance with treatment regimens. We believe SIRS-T has the potential to become a leading tretinoin-based drug product on the market and an attractive option for physicians who prefer to prescribe a single active ingredient drug for the treatment of mild acne.

•

We designed SIRS-T to be a more tolerable tretinoin-based acne treatment for patients with mild acne who can be treated with a single agent.

​

•

The silica shell in SIRS-T creates a barrier between the drug substances and the skin, which we believe can reduce irritation typically associated with topical application of tretinoin.

​

TWIN Phase II Trial Design

In May 2016, we commenced a Phase II, multi-center, six-arm, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of two TWIN concentrations, TWIN Low and TWIN High. Each TWIN concentration contained identical concentrations of E-BPO. TWIN Low contained a lower concentration of encapsulated tretinoin, while TWIN High contained a higher concentration of encapsulated tretinoin. The trial also evaluated the contribution of each of the encapsulated forms of both the lower and higher concentrations of tretinoin, or E-ATRA High and E-ATRA Low, and of E-BPO. A total of 726 subjects were enrolled in the trial at 36 sites in the United States of which 598 subjects completed the trial. We reported topline results of the trial in July 2017. Subjects were equally randomized into six treatment groups: TWIN High, TWIN Low, E-ATRA High, E-ATRA Low, E-BPO and vehicle. The age of the subjects ranged from 10 to 59, with a mean age of 22. Gender distribution was 37% male and 63% female, with patients of a variety of skin types. Inclusion criteria required 20 to 50 inflammatory lesions and 25 to 100 non-inflammatory lesions and an IGA score of 3 or 4 (“moderate” or “severe”) on a five-point scale that ranges from a score of zero, representing “clear” skin, to a score of 4, representing “severe” disease. Subjects were also required to have two or fewer cysts or nodules. The evaluation period spanned 12 weeks after initial treatment. Subjects were instructed to apply the drug once daily before bedtime.

The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were assessed at the end of the 12-week treatment period. Three primary efficacy endpoints were defined for this trial:

•

the proportion of subjects who achieve at least a two-grade reduction in the IGA score and either “clear” or “almost clear” at week 12;

​

•

the mean absolute change from baseline in the number of inflammatory acne lesions at week 12; and

​

•

the mean absolute change from baseline in the number of non-inflammatory acne lesions at week 12.

​

The two secondary efficacy endpoints measured the percent change in inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion count at week 12.

91

All statistical analyses and data shown for TWIN are on the intent-to-treat, or ITT, population. Randomized clinical trials analyzed by the ITT approach provide unbiased comparisons among the treatment groups. In an ITT population, subjects are analyzed according to the randomization scheme. In other words, for the purposes of ITT analysis, everyone who is randomized in the trial is considered to be part of the trial regardless of whether he or she is dosed at all or completes the trial per protocol for the recommended duration of treatment. The ITT population for TWIN High consisted of 116 subjects, 102 of which had moderate acne and 14 of which had severe acne. The ITT population for TWIN Low consisted of 117 subjects, 104 of which had moderate acne and 13 of which had severe acne.

Discontinuations were treated statistically with the last observation carry forward methodology for the TWIN data sets shown below. P-value is a conventional statistical method for measuring the statistical significance of clinical results. A p-value of less than 0.05 is generally considered to represent statistical significance, meaning that there is a less than five percent likelihood that the observed results occurred by chance. Unless otherwise specified, the p-values shown herein represent a comparison of each active group to the pooled vehicle treatment groups.

TWIN Phase II Trial Results

As outlined below, TWIN demonstrated statistically significant improvements relative to vehicle in all primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. The IGA success rate, defined as achieving at least a two-grade reduction in the IGA score and either “clear” or “almost clear” at week 12, was 39.68% for TWIN High (p-value of  <0.001), 27.43% for TWIN Low (p-value = 0.006) and 12.27% for vehicle.

At baseline across all treatment groups, the mean inflammatory lesion count was 26 to 29, the mean non-inflammatory lesion count was 42 to 43, and 86% to 91% of the subjects had an IGA score of  “moderate”, or 3, while the remainder had an IGA score of  “severe”, or 4. The absolute mean change from baseline in the number of non-inflammatory lesions was -23.6 for TWIN High, -23.7 for TWIN Low and -13.7 for vehicle, with a p-value of  <0.001. The absolute mean change from baseline in the number of inflammatory lesions was -16.9 for TWIN High, -17.0 for TWIN Low and -11.5 for vehicle, with a p-value of  <0.001.

Percent change in lesion counts from baseline at week 12 was statistically significantly compared to vehicle for both non-inflammatory and inflammatory lesions for each TWIN treatment group. Percent change from baseline at week 12 in the number of non-inflammatory lesions was 53.30% for TWIN High, 54.90% for TWIN Low and 32.40% for vehicle, with a p-value for each TWIN treatment group of  <0.001. Percent change from baseline at week 12 in the number of inflammatory lesions was 64.04% for TWIN High, 60.75% for TWIN Low and 42.17% for vehicle, with a p-value for each TWIN treatment group of  <0.001.

The following chart presents the proportion of subjects in the ITT population in each treatment group who achieved a successful improvement in the severity of their disease at week 12, as assessed using the IGA.

92

The following chart presents the mean absolute change from baseline in the number of inflammatory acne lesions at week 12.

The following chart presents the mean absolute change from baseline in the number of non-inflammatory acne lesions at week 12.

93

The following chart presents the secondary efficacy endpoint of the percent reduction in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to the end of the 12-week treatment period in the ITT population.

The following chart presents the secondary efficacy endpoint of the percent reduction in non-inflammatory lesion count from baseline to the end of the 12-week treatment period in the ITT population.

94

We also assessed cutaneous tolerability by recording the erythema (redness), scaling, pigmentation, itching, burning and stinging on a four-point scale from 0 to 3 at baseline and at each visit. These measurements are either measured by the physician or reported by the subject. Overall, TWIN was generally well tolerated. The majority of cutaneous adverse events were mild. The remaining treatment groups were also generally well tolerated by treated subjects, which we believe demonstrates that encapsulation of tretinoin may provide a tolerable solution.

Of the 726 subjects who enrolled in the study, 128 subjects across the six treatment groups did not complete the study. The most common reasons for subjects not completing the study were the withdrawal of informed consent (42 subjects), loss to follow-up (56 subjects) and adverse events (18 subjects). For TWIN High and TWIN Low, five subjects (4.2%) and eight subjects (6.6%) withdrew informed consent, respectively, compared to six subjects (5.0%) for vehicle, seven subjects (5.7%) for E-ATRA High, eight subjects (6.6%) for E-ATRA Low and eight subjects (6.6%) for E-BPO. Eleven subjects (9.2%) in the TWIN High group and six subjects (5.0%) in the TWIN Low group were lost to follow-up, compared to nine subjects (7.6%) for vehicle, 17 subjects (13.9%) for E-ATRA High, six subjects (4.9%) for E-ATRA Low and seven subjects (5.7%) for E-BPO. For TWIN High and TWIN Low, five subjects (4.2%) and three subjects (2.5%) did not complete the trial due to adverse events, respectively, compared to no subjects for vehicle, four subjects (3.3%) for E-ATRA High, two subjects (1.6%) for E-ATRA Low and four subjects (3.3%) for E-BPO.

Phase III Clinical Development Plan

Subject to an End of Phase II meeting to be scheduled with the FDA, we plan to initiate a pivotal Phase III clinical program for TWIN in the United States in the second half of 2018, which we expect to include two, multi-center, placebo-controlled trials, each enrolling 400 subjects, with identical endpoints to our recently reported successful Phase II trial. We expect to report top-line data from this program in 2019. We intend to design the clinical program to demonstrate the efficacy of treatment with TWIN relative to vehicle for the treatment of acne. Prior to, or in parallel with, our planned Phase III clinical program, we intend to complete a pharmacokinetics safety study and expect to commence additional safety studies. We also intend to conduct a long-term safety study.

Additionally, we intend to use TWIN’s Phase II trial results in order to select the preferred dose for SIRS-T in our planned Phase III clinical program for SIRS-T. Subject to an End of Phase II meeting to be scheduled with the FDA, we plan to commence a Phase III clinical program for SIRS-T in 2020, as well as standard safety studies, with top-line results anticipated in 2021.

VERED for Subtype II Rosacea

VERED Overview

VERED is a once-daily topical cream containing 5% E-BPO that we are developing for the treatment of subtype II rosacea. We believe VERED has the potential to become the first product to contain E-BPO for the treatment of subtype II rosacea and, if approved, has the potential to redefine the standard of care for the treatment of inflammatory lesions associated with subtype II rosacea. Subtype II rosacea is characterized by small, dome-shaped erythematous papules, tiny surmounting pustules on the central aspects of the face, solid facial erythema and edema, and thickening/overgrowth of skin. Subtype II rosacea resembles acne, except that comedones are absent, and patients may report associated burning and stinging sensations. In 2012, we completed a 92 subject, randomized, multi-center, double-blind, vehicle-controlled Phase II trial for VERED in the United States that demonstrated statistically significant improvements compared to vehicle in achieving the IGA success co-primary efficacy endpoint and in reducing papulopustular-lesions based on the percentage change in the inflammatory lesion count from baseline at week 12. In addition, the tolerability profile of VERED was similar to that of vehicle. We expect that VERED, if approved, will compete directly with Soolantra. Soolantra was launched in 2015 and achieved U.S. sales of  $113 million for the 12 months ended November 30, 2017. We expect to utilize the FDA’s 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway in seeking approval of VERED in the United States.

95

Subtype II Rosacea Market Opportunity

Rosacea is a chronic skin disease characterized by persistent facial erythema (redness) and temporary inflammatory lesions (papules, pustules or both). Often misdiagnosed as acne vulgaris due to similarities between inflammatory acne lesions and rosacea lesions and the potential for disfigurement, rosacea is gradually increasing in visibility as a disease. The most prominent age group affected includes adults age 30 and above, with stronger prevalence across women and adults with fair-skin.

According to a study we commissioned, rosacea affects approximately 16 million people in the United States alone. Studies show that approximately 30% of people suffering from rosacea in the United States, or 4.8 million people, suffer from subtype II rosacea. We estimate that 43% of the subtype II rosacea population suffers from the mild form of the disease, while 41% and 16% suffer from moderate and severe forms of the disease, respectively. According to IQVIA, the topical drugs approved by the FDA to treat subtype II rosacea generated aggregate revenues of approximately $395 million in the United States for the 12 months ended November 30, 2017.

Subtype II Rosacea Market Size

The U.S. subtype II rosacea market is estimated at approximately $564 million in pharmaceutical sales for the 12 months ended November 30, 2017, according to IQVIA. The U.S. subtype II rosacea market represented approximately 5% of the total U.S. medical dermatology market in 2016.

Though not life threatening, rosacea can have a significant adverse effect on patients. Among the prevalent patient population, approximately 70% said the disease had adversely affected their professional interactions.

Current Treatment Landscape for Subtype II Rosacea

As there is no cure for rosacea, treatment is largely focused on managing the disease. We believe that a significant market opportunity exists for a subtype II rosacea treatment option that can provide both efficacy and higher tolerability than existing treatments. There are currently four approved drugs for the treatment of subtype II rosacea: Soolantra, Metrogel, Oracea and generic metronidazole. In certain cases, dermatologists often prescribe oral antibiotics either as monotherapies or in conjunction with approved medications.

Our Solution for Subtype II Rosacea — VERED

Benzoyl peroxide is approved by the FDA for the treatment of acne and is widely considered to be safe and effective. Currently, there is no approved benzoyl peroxide product in the rosacea treatment landscape as a result of potential tolerability issues, despite clinical studies showing that treatment with benzoyl peroxide could be efficacious. According to a published study, benzoyl peroxide was found to be an effective treatment for rosacea but caused irritation. Using our proprietary, silica-based microencapsulation technology platform, we believe our VERED candidate for the treatment of subtype II rosacea can improve on current subtype II rosacea treatments in the following ways:

•

VERED creates a silica-based barrier between benzoyl peroxide crystals and the skin and, as a result, can reduce irritation typically associated with topical application of benzoyl peroxide, increasing the potential for more tolerable application to rosacea-affected skin.

​

•

VERED’s release of the drug can reduce irritation while maintaining efficacy.

​

VERED is an innovative topical cream, and if approved, would be the first product containing benzoyl peroxide for the treatment of subtype II rosacea.

VERED Phase II Trial Design

In August 2012, we completed a multi-center, three-arm, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of two VERED

96

concentrations, VERED 1% (E-BPO 1%) and VERED 5% (E-BPO 5%). A total of 92 subjects were enrolled in the trial at ten sites in the United States. Subjects were equally randomized into three separate arms: VERED 1%, VERED 5% and vehicle and each group received a once-daily dose. All subjects were 18 years of age or older, with a mean age of 51. Gender distribution was 27% male and 73% female. Inclusion criteria required facial rosacea with 12 or more inflammatory lesions at enrolment and a score of 2, 3 or 4 (“mild”, “moderate” or “severe”) on a five-point IGA scale that ranges from a score of 0, representing “clear skin,” to a score of 4, representing a “severe” disease. The evaluator also rated the following signs and symptoms of local skin irritation on a scale of 0 to 3 (“none”, “mild”, “moderate”, “severe”): dryness, scaling, pruritus, stinging and burning. The evaluation period spanned 12 weeks after initial treatment. At baseline across all treatment groups, the mean inflammatory lesion count was 19.9, 28.6 and 22.9 for vehicle, VERED 1% and VERED 5%, respectively. 73.9% of the subjects had an IGA score of  “moderate”, or 3, while the remainder had an IGA score of  “mild”, or 2 and “severe”, or 4.

Two primary efficacy endpoints were defined for this trial:

•

the proportion of subjects who achieve at least a two-grade reduction in the IGA score and either “clear” or “almost clear” at week 12; and

​

•

the reduction in the mean inflammatory lesion count from baseline at week 12.

​

All statistical analyses and data shown for VERED are on the ITT population. The ITT population for VERED 1% consisted of 32 subjects, 3 of which had mild rosacea, 24 of which had moderate rosacea and 5 of which had severe rosacea. The ITT population for VERED 5% consisted of 30 subjects, 4 of which had mild rosacea, 21 of which had moderate rosacea and 5 of which had severe rosacea.

In this trial, we defined “clear” as no inflammatory lesions present with no or very mild erythema immediately localized to and around where inflammatory lesions were present, and “almost clear” as very mild erythema immediately localized to and around inflammatory lesions with very few small papules/pustules. The FDA required a modification to our definition of “clear” on the IGA scale such that the category of  ”clear” represented the absence of the disease at the end of the trial. Out of the 11 subjects that were defined as “mild” at baseline, there was only one subject that was treated with VERED and reached “clear” at the end of the trial.

VERED Phase II Trial Results

As outlined below, VERED 5% demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the IGA co-primary efficacy endpoints. The IGA success rate, defined as having at least a two-grade reduction in the IGA score and either “clear” or “almost clear” at week 12, was 53.3% for VERED 5% (p-value of 0.0013 vs. vehicle), 37.5% for VERED 1% (p-value of 0.0836 vs. vehicle) and 20.0% for vehicle, indicating a successful dose-ranging study. The mean change from baseline in the absolute number of inflammatory lesions was -14.1 for VERED 5%, -21.6 for VERED 1% and -7.4 for vehicle. The median change from baseline in the absolute number of inflammatory lesions was -15.0 for VERED 5%, -12.5 for VERED 1% and -10.0 for vehicle.

97

The following table summarizes the efficacy results for VERED.

The following chart presents results for the IGA efficacy endpoint from baseline to the end of the 12-week treatment period in the ITT population.

98

The following chart presents the success in the mean and median reduction in inflammatory lesion counts from baseline to the end of the 12-week treatment period in the ITT population.

The high reduction in the mean absolute number of inflammatory lesions in VERED 1% is a result of no upper limit on the number of inflammatory lesions at baseline and therefore we believe only the median change from baseline in the absolute number of inflammatory lesions should be examined to assess dose-ranging efficacy.

We also assessed cutaneous tolerability by recording the dryness, scaling, pruritus, stinging and burning on a four-point scale from 0 to 3 at baseline and at each visit. These measurements are either measured by the physician or reported by the subject. Overall, both of VERED 1% and VERED 5% were well tolerated.

Of the 92 subjects that were randomized, 28 subjects in each treatment group completed the study. Two subjects in the vehicle group discontinued the study early: one subject withdrew consent and one subject was lost to follow-up. Four subjects in the VERED 1% group discontinued the study early: two subjects withdrew consent and two subjects discontinued the study due to “application site dermatitis”, which was moderate in severity, and “cyst”, which was deemed not related to the local application of VERED. Two subjects in the VERED 5% group discontinued the study early: one subject was lost to follow-up, and one subject was discontinued due to an “application site reaction”.

Ultimately, the Phase II trial found that both VERED 1% and VERED 5% had a favorable effect on subtype II rosacea. As a result of these findings, we selected VERED 5% for further development.

Phase III Clinical Development Plan.

Based on feedback received at our End of Phase II meeting with the FDA, we expect to commence a pivotal Phase III clinical program for VERED in the United States in the first half of 2018, which we expect to include two, multi-center, placebo controlled trials, each enrolling 350

99

subjects. We expect to report top-line data from this program in 2019. In parallel with our planned Phase III clinical program, we intend to complete a long-term safety study. We intend to design the Phase III program to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of treatment with VERED relative to vehicle for the treatment of subtype II rosacea.

Generic Drug Product Candidates

In addition to our branded product candidates, we have a current portfolio of six generic topical dermatological products, with three of our generic product candidates, including ivermectin cream, 1%, being developed in collaboration with Perrigo and another being developed in collaboration with Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Both Perrigo and Douglas Pharmaceuticals have significant experience in the development of generic drugs.

Our most advanced generic product candidate is ivermectin cream, 1%, for the treatment of inflammatory lesions associated with rosacea, which we are developing in collaboration with Perrigo. In March 2017, Perrigo submitted an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, for ivermectin cream, 1% to the FDA and received approval for filing. This ANDA is currently on file with the FDA. Following notification from Perrigo, Galderma Laboratories, L.P., Galderma S.A., and Nestle Skin Health S.A., filed a patent litigation suit triggering the application of a 30-month stay on approval of the ANDA, under the Hatch-Waxman amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Pursuant to the guidelines of the GDUFA, we expect to receive feedback from the FDA in their review of this ANDA in the first half of 2018. Ivermectin cream, 1% is the active molecule in Soolantra which is currently marketed in the United States by Galderma Laboratories LP. For the 12 months ended November 30, 2017, Soolantra achieved sales of  $113 million according to IQVIA.

Our Proprietary Silica-Based Microencapsulation Technology Platform

Encapsulation of a drug substance can be made using a variety of techniques, such as solvent evaporation, coacervation, and interfacial polymerization. Most encapsulations involve organic polymers, such as poly-methyl methacrylate, chitosan and cellulose. The resultant encapsulated drug substance can be an aqueous dispersion of varying payload and volume fraction or a dried powder. Control over the encapsulation process when organic polymers are used is challenging and is mainly limited to shell thickness. Other properties of the organic polymer encapsulating material are hard to control.

In contrast, we use proprietary ‘sol-gel’ processes to shape silica on site to form microcapsule shells of almost any size and in-vitro release profile. Sol-gel is a chemical process whereby amorphous silica, or other metal oxides, are made by forming interconnections among colloidal particles (the “sol”) under increasing viscosity until a rigid silica shell (the “gel”) is formed. The drug substance that is added during the sol-gel reaction is encapsulated, using a patented technique, by which a core-shell structure is formed. The drug substance is in the core and the silica is the capsule shell. At the end of the process, the microcapsules are in the shape of small beads ranging from 1 – 40 mm in size. This process results in an aqueous suspension in which the drug substances are entrapped in silica particles.

We intend to leverage our technology platform to take advantage of the fact that the FDA has already approved drugs containing silica excipients for topical administration and utilizes our expertise in micro encapsulation processes to potentially expedite the approval process of drugs that are based on our technology platform.

Collaboration Agreements

On April 27, 2015, we entered into a development, manufacturing and commercialization agreement with Perrigo, as amended on October 26, 2015, to work toward the objective of obtaining all FDA approvals necessary for the commercialization of ivermectin cream, 1%, in the United States. Perrigo will conduct all regulatory, scientific, clinical and technical activities

100

necessary to develop ivermectin cream, 1%, prepare and file an ANDA with the FDA, and gain regulatory approval to market ivermectin cream, 1%, in the United States. We granted Perrigo the right, title and interest in and to ivermectin cream, 1%, and agreed on each party’s portion of the costs associated with performance under the agreement. Perrigo also owns intellectual property created in connection with the development of ivermectin cream, 1%. As soon as reasonably practical after final approval by the FDA of the ANDA, if approval is granted, Perrigo is required to use diligent efforts to commercialize ivermectin cream, 1%, in the United States. Perrigo has the sole and exclusive right to establish and control the prices and all other terms and conditions for the sales of ivermectin cream, 1%, in the United States and is required to do so in good faith without derogating from our right to benefit from the commercialization of ivermectin cream, 1%. We will be entitled to 50% of Perrigo’s gross profits related to the sale of ivermectin cream, 1%, on a quarterly basis, for a period of 20 years following the first commercial sale of the ivermectin cream, 1%, in the United States. The agreement may be terminated in the event of a material breach by one of the parties, certain potential infringement claims by third parties or an uncured insolvency or bankruptcy proceeding of one of the parties. In addition, the agreement may be terminated if the gross profits relating to the sale of the product do not exceed a certain threshold or if the potential market for the product has been significantly reduced due to regulatory changes.

In connection with the transfer of an in-process generic product candidate to us by Arkin Dermatology on August 22, 2017, we assumed an agreement with Perrigo UK for the development, manufacturing and commercialization of this generic product candidate. Under the terms of the agreement, Perrigo UK will conduct all regulatory, scientific, clinical and technical activities necessary to develop the generic product candidate, prepare and file an ANDA with the FDA, and gain regulatory approval to market the generic product candidate. As soon as reasonably practical after final approval by the FDA of the ANDA, if approval is granted, Perrigo UK is required to use diligent efforts to commercialize the product in the United States. Perrigo UK has the sole and exclusive right to establish and control the prices and all other terms and conditions for the sales of the generic product candidate in the United States and is required to do so in good faith without derogating from our right to benefit from the commercialization of the generic product candidate. We are responsible for 80% of all out-of-pocket clinical study costs related to the generic product candidate. We will be entitled to 50% of Perrigo UK’s gross profits related to the sale of the generic product candidate, on a quarterly basis, for a period of 20 years following the first commercial sale of the generic product candidate. The agreement may be terminated in the event of a material breach by one of the parties, certain potential infringement claims by third parties or an uncured insolvency or bankruptcy proceeding of one of the parties. In addition, the agreement may be terminated if the gross profits relating to the sale of the generic product candidate do not exceed a certain threshold or if the potential market for the product has been significantly reduced to regulatory changes.

On June 7, 2017, we entered into a Development, License, Supply and Marketing Agreement, with Douglas with respect to the development and commercialization of a generic product candidate for a drug that already has generic substitutions. Douglas will manufacture the product for non-clinical and clinical trial uses, and once approved for marketing, for commercialization by us in the countries we elect to commercialize the product. Douglas will also be responsible for completing the formulation of the product and providing chemistry, manufacturing and control support, conducting all steps for production and quality controls of the product, formulation development of the product in final finished form and supporting the ANDA or any other applicable registration application. We will be responsible for conducting the legal and regulatory review process, performing bioequivalence and clinical studies to obtain marketing approval for the product in the United States and preparing and filing the regulatory filings to obtain marketing approval in the United States. We have the right to commercialize the product in all countries in North America and any other country agreed to with Douglas, and Douglas has the right to commercialize the product in Australia, New Zealand, the Southeast, East and North Asia region and the Middle East and North Africa region and any other country agreed to by us and Douglas.

Each party granted the other an exclusive royalty free license under its related intellectual property with the right to grant sublicenses, to use and commercialize the product in the countries

101

in which the other party has the right to commercialize the product. Any new intellectual property generated in the development plan will be jointly owned. We are responsible for patent prosecution and Douglas is required to reimburse us for 50% of our patent expenses.

Each party is required to pay the other party 50% of its net profits from the sale of the products during the term of the agreement. In addition, we or the third party commercializing the product on our behalf will pay Douglas a transfer price based on the cost of goods for the manufacture of the products. The term of the agreement is ten years, and either party may terminate the agreement (i) for breach, (ii) if the joint steering committee established by the parties determines that it is unlikely that marketing approval will be achieved or determines that the commercialization of the product becomes unfeasible or uneconomic, (iii) a patent injunction permanently prohibits the future commercialization of the product or (iv) in the case of force majeure.

Intellectual Property

Our intellectual property and proprietary technology are directed to the development, manufacture and sale of our branded product candidates: TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED. We seek to protect our intellectual property, core technologies and other know-how, through a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secrets, non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, assignments of invention and other contractual arrangements with our employees, consultants, partners, suppliers, customers and others.

We will be able to protect our technology from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent it is covered by valid and enforceable patents or is effectively maintained as trade secrets. Patents and other proprietary rights are an essential element of our business. If any of the below described applications are not approved, or any of the below described patents are invalidated, deemed unenforceable or otherwise successfully challenged, such loss would have a material effect on the commercialization of our product candidates and our future prospects.

Our patent portfolio that is directed to our branded product candidates includes 51 patents and patent applications and claims processes for manufacture (including silica microencapsulation platform and other technologies), formulations, composition of matter, and methods of use. Of these 51 patents and patent applications, 27 are granted patents (2 in the United States and 25 in other countries) and 24 are pending applications (9 in the United States (2 of which are provisional applications) and 15 in other countries).

For our TWIN product candidate, we have obtained patent protection for the composition of matter in the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico (with a term until 2028) and we have a pending application claiming composition of matter in the European Patent Office. There are four patent families protecting the process for the encapsulation of the active agents of our TWIN product candidate (one patent family has patents granted in Canada, India, and Japan (with a term until 2028) and applications pending in the United States, Europe and Mexico; the second patent family has a patent granted in Mexico (with a term until 2029) and pending applications in the United States and Canada; and the third patent family has patents granted in Europe (validated in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom), China, India, Japan and Mexico (with a term until 2030) and pending applications in the United States and Canada); and the fourth patent family has patents granted in Canada, China, Israel, India and Mexico and an application pending in the United States. We own pending patents for the formulation of our TWIN product candidate in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, India and Mexico and a granted patent in Japan (with a term until 2032). We have three pending unpublished U.S. applications for the administration method and regimen of our TWIN product candidate.

For our VERED product candidate, we have obtained a patent in the United States (with a term until 2032) covering the composition for topical treatment of rosacea. We have further pending applications for this composition in the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan, China, Mexico. There are two patent families directed to the process for encapsulation of the active agents of our

102

VERED product candidate (one patent family has granted patents in Canada, India, and Japan (with a term until 2028) and pending applications in the United States, Europe and Mexico; and the second patent family has patents granted in Canada, China, Israel, India and Mexico and an application pending in the United States).

For our SIRS-T product candidate, we have a pending unpublished U.S. application claiming the composition and method of treatment. Furthermore, there are two patent families protecting the process for the preparation of our SIRS-T product candidate (one patent family granted in Mexico (with a term until 2029) and pending in the United States and Canada; and the second patent family granted in Europe (validated in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom), China, India, Japan and Mexico (with a term until 2030) and pending in the United States and Canada).

We have four accepted trademark applications in Israel, one registered trademark in the United States and four trademark applications pending in the United States and Canada. These registrations and pending applications, if approved, will cover potential brand names for our VERED product candidate in Israel, Canada and the United States.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is subject to intense competition as well as rapid technological changes. Our ability to compete is based on a variety of factors, including product efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, patient compliance, patent position and effective product promotion. Competition is also based upon the ability of a company to offer a broad range of other product offerings, large direct sales forces and long-term customer relationships with target physicians.

There are numerous companies that have branded or generic products or product candidates in the dermatology market. Among them are Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., Akorn, Inc., Allergan plc, Aqua Pharmaceuticals LLC, Bayer HealthCare AG, Cassiopea SpA, Dermira, Inc., Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Galderma Pharma S.A., Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., G&W Laboratories, Inc., LEO Pharma A/S, Mylan N.V., Novan, Inc., Novartis AG, Novum Pharma, LLC, Perrigo Company plc, Pfizer, Inc., Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Spear Therapeutics, Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teligent, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.

In order for our approved product candidates, if any, to compete successfully in the dermatology market, we will have to demonstrate that their efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness provide an attractive alternative to existing therapies, some of which are widely known and accepted by physicians and patients, as well as to future new therapies. Such competition could lead to reduced market share for our product candidates and contribute to downward pressure on the pricing of our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Many of the companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies and other organizations involved in the field of dermatology have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do, and may be better equipped to discover, develop, test and obtain regulatory approvals for products that compete with ours. They may also be better equipped to manufacture, market and sell products. These companies, institutions, agencies and organizations may develop and introduce products and drug delivery technologies competitive with or superior to ours which could inhibit our market penetration efforts.

TWIN, SIRS-T and VERED target the well-established acne and rosacea markets. If approved, we expect them to compete with current standard-of-care treatments, whether branded, generic or over-the-counter, as well as with new treatments to be approved in the future. The current standard-of-care for acne includes topical anti-bacterial drugs such as benzoyl peroxide that are broadly available over-the-counter, prescription drug products that are based on single retinoid drug products such as Differin, Atralin, Retin-A, Retin-A Micro and Tazorac, fixed-dose

103

combinations of benzoyl peroxide and adapalene such as Epiduo and Epiduo Forte, fixed-dose combinations of benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin such as Duac, Benzaclin, Onexton and Acanya, fixed-dose combinations of tretinoin and clindamycin such as Ziana and Veltin, and topical antibiotics such as Aczone. The current standard of care for rosacea includes Metrogel, Finacea and the recently launched Soolantra, as well as oral Oracea (doxycycline embedded in a technology platform). As a fixed-dose combination product candidate, TWIN may also compete with drug products utilizing other technologies that can separate two drug substances, such as dual chamber tubes, dual pouches or dual sachets. In addition to these products, our generic drug product candidates, including ivermectin cream, 1%, is expected to face direct competition from branded drugs and authorized generics which are prescription drugs produced by the branded pharmaceutical companies and marketed under a private label, at generic prices. On December 30, 2016, Actavis Ltd. submitted an ANDA for ivermectin, 1%, cream, and therefore we will only be able to commercialize this product after Actavis Ltd.'s six month exclusivity period expires.

Marketing, Sales and Distribution

We currently do not have any sales, marketing or distribution capabilities. In order to commercialize our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, we must either develop a sales and marketing infrastructure or collaborate with third parties that have sales and marketing experience. We intend to commercialize our late-stage branded product candidates in the United States, if approved, by building a specialized sales and marketing organization focused solely on dermatologists and their patients. Because the U.S. market is served by a relatively small number of practicing dermatologists, we believe a small and dedicated sales force can efficiently cover a significant portion of that targeted patient population. In other markets, we may selectively pursue strategic collaborations with third parties in order to maximize the commercial potential of our product candidates.

Manufacturing

We rely on and expect to continue to rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, for the supply of current good manufacturing practice-grade, or cGMP-grade, clinical trial materials and commercial quantities of our product candidates and products, if approved. We currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of raw materials we use. We believe that the manufacturing process for the raw materials we purchase can be transferred to a number of other CMOs for the production of clinical and commercial supplies of our product candidates in the ordinary course of business.

Government Regulation

Our business is subject to extensive government regulation. We have been voluntarily certified by the Israel notified body, the Standards Institution of Israel for the design, development and production of pharmaceutical products, a partner of IQNet. Regulation by governmental authorities in the United States and other jurisdictions is a significant factor in the development, manufacture and commercialization of our product candidates and in our ongoing research and development activities.

Product Approval Process in the United States

Review and approval of drugs

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The FDCA and other federal and state statutes and implementing regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions and

104

enforcement actions brought by the FDA, the Department of Justice or other governmental entities. Possible sanctions may include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties.

FDA approval of a new drug application is required before any new unapproved drug or dosage form, can be marketed in the United States. Section 505 of the FDCA describes three types of new drug applications: (1) an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness (section 505(b)(1)); (2) an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness but 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 (section 505(b)(2)); and (3) an application that contains information to show that the proposed product is identical in active ingredient, dosage form, strength, route of administration, labeling, quality, performance characteristics, and intended use, among other things, to a previously approved product (section 505(j)). Section 505(b)(1) and 505(b)(2) new drug applications are referred to as NDAs, and section 505(j) applications are referred to as ANDAs. We believe that the applications for our late-stage branded product candidates will be section 505(b)(2) NDAs and that those for our generic product candidates will be section 505(j) ANDAs.

In general, the process required by the FDA prior to marketing and distributing a new drug, as opposed to a generic drug subject to section 505(j), in the United States usually involves the following:

•

completion of pre-clinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s good laboratory practices, or GLP, requirements or other applicable regulations;

​

•

submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application, or IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials in the United States may begin;

​

•

approval by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated;

​

•

performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice, or GCP, requirements to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use;

​

•

preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA;

​

•

satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;

​

•

satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product or components thereof are produced, to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

​

•

satisfactory completion of FDA audits of clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of the clinical data;

​

•

payment of user fees and FDA review and approval of the NDA; and

​

•

compliance with any post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, and the potential requirement to conduct post-approval studies.

​

105

Pre-clinical studies

Pre-clinical studies include laboratory evaluation or product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product candidate. Pre-clinical safety tests must be conducted in compliance with the FDA regulations. The results of the pre-clinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND which must become effective before clinical trials may commence. Long-term pre-clinical studies, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND application is submitted.

Clinical trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of an investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to a proposed clinical trial and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. In addition, information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on the NIH-maintained website, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

An IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the trial protocol information to be provided to trial subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on the NIH-maintained website, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

•

Phase I: The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness and to determine optimal dosage.

​

•

Phase II: The drug is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible short-term adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.

​

•

Phase III: The drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product.

​

In most cases of an ANDA, the proposed generic drug must be shown to be bioequivalent to the reference listed drug (RLD, or reference product) and in other cases, the bioequivalent study is being conducted in in-vitro and not in clinical trials. The FDCA provides that a generic drug is

106

bioequivalent to the listed drug if: the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug when administered at the same molar dose of the therapeutic ingredient under similar experimental conditions in either a single dose or multiple doses. During bioequivalence studies, an applicant compares the systemic exposure profile of a test drug product to that of the RLD on the target population at the same regimen and exposure period as the RLD were the resulted efficacy outcomes are being compared to demonstrate being equivalent.

Submission of an NDA to the FDA

The results of the pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including information on the manufacture, control and composition of the product, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product candidate for a proposed indication. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended, applicants are required to pay fees to the FDA for reviewing an NDA. These user fees, as well as the annual fees required for commercial manufacturing establishments and for approved products, can be substantial. The NDA review fee alone can exceed $2 million, subject to certain limited deferrals, waivers and reductions that may be available.

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. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information and is subject to payment of additional user fees. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. If found complete, the FDA will accept the NDA for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs through a two-tiered classification system, Standard Review and Priority Review. Review. Priority Review designation is given to drugs that offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. The FDA endeavors to review applications subject to Standard Review within approximately 10 to 12 months of receipt, whereas the FDA’s goal is to review Priority Review applications within approximately six to eight months of receipt, depending on whether the drug is a new molecular entity. The FDA, however, may not approve a drug within these established goals, and its review goals are subject to change from time to time.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA inspects the facilities at which the product is manufactured or facilities that are significantly involved in the product development and distribution process, and will not approve the product unless cGMP compliance is satisfactory. Additionally, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements. The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter to indicate that the review cycle for an application is complete and that the application is not ready for approval. 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. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA may ultimately decide that an application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If, or when, the deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

If a product is approved, the approval will impose limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed, may require that warning statements be included in the product

107

labeling, may require that additional studies or trials be conducted following approval as a condition of the approval, may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing or dispensing in the form of a risk management plan, or impose other limitations. For example, as a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. If the FDA determines a REMS is necessary during review of the application, the drug sponsor must agree to the REMS plan at the time of approval. A REMS may be required to include various elements, such as a medication guide or patient package insert, a communication plan to educate healthcare providers of the drug’s risks, limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug, or other elements to assure safe use, such as special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. In addition, the REMS must include a timetable to periodically assess the strategy. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a drug.

Further changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented, which may require us to develop additional data or conduct additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the similar procedures in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any drug products for which we receive FDA approval will be subject to continuing regulation by the FDA. Certain requirements include, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information on an annual basis or more frequently for specific events, product sampling and distribution requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. These promotion and advertising requirements include standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, prohibitions against promoting drugs for uses or patient populations that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling, known as “off-label use,” and other promotional activities, such as those considered to be false or misleading. Failure to comply with FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including the immediate discontinuation of noncomplying materials, adverse publicity, enforcement letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties. Such enforcement may also lead to scrutiny and enforcement by other government and regulatory bodies.

Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not encourage, market or promote such off-label uses. As a result, “off-label promotion” has formed the basis for litigation under the Federal False Claims Act, violations of which are subject to significant civil fines and penalties. In addition, manufacturers of prescription products are required to disclose annually to the Center for Medicaid and Medicare any payments made to physicians in the United States under the Sunshine Act of 2012. These payments could be in cash or kind, could be for any reason, and are required to be disclosed even if the payments are not related to the approved product. A failure to fully disclose or not report in time could lead to penalties of up to $1 million per year.

The manufacturing of any of our product candidates will be required to comply with applicable FDA manufacturing requirements contained in the FDA’s cGMP regulations. The FDA’s cGMP regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, as well as the corresponding maintenance of comprehensive records and documentation. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are also required to register their establishments and list any products they make with the FDA and to comply with related requirements in certain states. Changes to the manufacturing process are

108

strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP requirements and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. These entities are further subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in serious and extensive restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, as well as lead to potential market disruptions. These restrictions may include recalls, suspension of a product until the FDA is assured that quality standards can be met, and continuing oversight of manufacturing by the FDA under a “consent decree,” which frequently includes the imposition of costs and continuing inspections over a period of many years, as well as possible withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented. 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. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, or Phase IV testing, as well as risk minimization action plans and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could otherwise restrict the distribution or use of our product candidates.

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

•

restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

​

•

fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;

​

•

refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs, or suspension or revocation of product approvals;

​

•

product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or

​

•

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

​

Pediatric trials and exclusivity

Even when not pursuing a pediatric indication, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that is adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. With the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or the FDASIA, in 2012, sponsors must also submit pediatric trial plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric trials the applicant plans to conduct, including trial objectives and design, any deferral or waiver

109

requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in the FDASIA.

Separately, in the event the FDA makes a written request for pediatric data relating to a drug product, an NDA sponsor who submits such data may be entitled to pediatric exclusivity. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States. and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing exclusivity.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

ANDA Approval Process

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (also known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments), established abbreviated FDA approval procedures for drugs that are shown to be equivalent to proprietary drugs previously approved by the FDA through its NDA process. Approval to market and distribute these drugs is obtained by submitting an ANDA with the FDA. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data, and quality control procedures. Premarket applications for generic drugs are termed abbreviated because they generally do not include pre-clinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, a generic applicant must demonstrate that its product is bioequivalent to the innovator drug. In certain situations, an applicant may obtain ANDA approval of a generic product with a strength or dosage form that differs from a referenced innovator drug pursuant to the filing and approval of an ANDA Suitability Petition. The FDA will approve the generic product as suitable for an ANDA application if it finds that the generic product does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness as compared to the innovator product. A product is not eligible for ANDA approval if the FDA determines that it is not bioequivalent to the referenced innovator drug, if it is intended for a different use, or if it is not subject to an approved Suitability Petition. However, such a product might be approved under an NDA, with supportive data from clinical trials. We are developing certain of our product candidates as generic drugs, for which we intend to submit ANDAs to the FDA.

505(b)(2) NDAs

Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendment, and permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies or trials not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. As an alternative path to FDA approval for modifications to formulations or uses of products previously approved by the FDA, an applicant may submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendment, and permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies or trials not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness is scientifically appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain pre-clinical studies or clinical trials for the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements, including clinical trials, to support the change from the approved branded reference drug. The FDA may then approve the

110

new product candidate for all, or some, of the labeled indications for which the branded reference drug has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant. We are developing our late-stage branded product candidates with the expectation that we will submit 505(b)(2) NDAs to FDA for these products.

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA certain patents whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of an NDA, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Publication of Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the “Orange Book.” Any applicant who submits an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent of a drug listed in the Orange Book or a Section 505(b)(2) NDA referencing a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This last certification is known as a Paragraph IV certification. The applicant may also elect to submit a “section viii” statement certifying that its proposed label 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 one or more listed patents through a Paragraph IV certification, the FDA will not approve the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) NDA until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. Further, the FDA will also not approve, as applicable, an ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) NDA until any non-patent exclusivity, as described in greater detail below, has expired.

If the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the owner of the referenced NDA for the previously approved product and relevant patent holders within 20 days after the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) NDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement suit against the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) applicant. Under the FDCA, the filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of receipt of the notification regarding a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) NDA until the earliest to occur of 30 months beginning on the date the patent holder receives notice, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or until a court deems the patent unenforceable, invalid or not infringed. Even if a patent infringement claim is not brought within the 45-day period, a patent infringement claim may be brought under traditional patent law, but it does not invoke the 30-month stay.

Moreover, in cases where an ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) application containing a Paragraph IV certification is submitted after the fourth year of a previously approved drug’s five-year NCE exclusivity period, as described more fully below, and the patent holder brings suit within 45 days of notice of the Paragraph IV certification, the 30-month period is automatically extended to prevent approval of the Section 505(b)(2) application until the date that is seven and one-half years after approval of the previously approved reference product that has the five-year NCE exclusivity. The court also has the ability to shorten or lengthen either the 30-month or the seven and one-half year period if either party is found not to be reasonably cooperating in expediting the litigation.

Notwithstanding the approval of many products by the FDA pursuant to Section 505(b)(2), over the last few years, some pharmaceutical companies and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2). If the FDA changes its interpretation of Section 505(b)(2), or if the FDA’s interpretation is successfully challenged in court, this could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any Section 505(b)(2) NDA that we submit.

Non-Patent Exclusivity

In addition to patent exclusivity, the holder of the NDA for the listed drug may be entitled to a period of non-patent exclusivity, during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2)

111

application that relies on the listed drug. For example, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may obtain five years of non-patent exclusivity upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity, or NCE, which is a drug that contains an active moiety that has not been approved by FDA in any other NDA. An “active moiety” is defined as the molecule or ion responsible for the drug substance’s physiological or pharmacologic action. During the five year exclusivity period, the FDA cannot accept for filing any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug or any 505(b)(2) NDA for the same active moiety and that relies on the FDA’s findings regarding that drug, except that FDA may accept an application for filing after four years if the follow-on applicant makes a paragraph IV certification.

Another form of non-patent exclusivity is clinical investigation exclusivity. A drug, including one approved under Section 505(b)(2), may obtain a three-year period of exclusivity for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical trials (other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies) was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted/​sponsored by the applicant. Should this occur, the FDA would be precluded from approving any ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for the protected modification until after that three-year exclusivity period has run. However, unlike NCE exclusivity, the FDA can accept an application and begin the review process during the exclusivity period.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, or PTE, which permits an extended patent term of up to five years for the developed pharmaceutical to compensate for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The PTE period granted is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of a NDA and the ultimate approval date. However, the PTE cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple drugs for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the PTE application in consultation with the FDA.

Review and Approval of Drug Products Outside the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, if we target non-U.S. markets, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing manufacturing, clinical trials, commercial sales and distribution of our future product candidates. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain approval of the product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before commencing clinical trials or marketing in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

Under European Union regulatory systems, marketing authorizations may be submitted either under a centralized, decentralized or mutual recognition procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all European Union member states. The decentralized procedure includes selecting one “reference member state,” or RMS, and submitting to more than one member state at the same time. The RMS National Competent Authority conducts a detailed review and prepares an assessment report, to which concerned member states provide comment. The mutual recognition procedure provides for mutual recognition of national approval decisions. Under this procedure, the holder of a national marketing authorization may submit an application to the remaining member states post-initial approval. Within 90 days of receiving the applications and assessment report, each member state must decide whether to recognize the approval.

112

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and other markets, sales of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of coverage and 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 drug products 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 VERED and TWIN, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. For example, VERED and TWIN 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 March 2010, the President of the United States signed the Affordable Care Act, one of the most significant healthcare reform measures in decades. The Affordable Care Act substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. The comprehensive $940 billion dollar overhaul is expected to extend coverage to approximately 32 million previously uninsured Americans. The Affordable Care Act contained a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement changes and fraud and abuse, which impacted existing government healthcare programs and will result in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives and improvements to the physician quality reporting system and feedback program.

Additionally, the Affordable Care Act:

•

increased the minimum level of rebates payable by manufacturers of brand-name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; and

​

•

imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs.

​

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. The new Presidential Administration and U.S. Congress have attempted and will likely continue to seek to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the Affordable Care Act. Most recently, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted, which, among other things, removes penalties for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health insurance. It is uncertain the extent to which any such changes may impact our business or financial condition.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, the President signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These included reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will stay in effect

113

through 2025 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, in January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Recently there has also been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, reform government program reimbursement methodologies. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare initiatives will be adopted in the future, any of which could impact the coverage and reimbursement for drugs, including our product candidates, if approved.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies or trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of drug products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a drug product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the drug product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, there are increasingly high barriers to entry for new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

Healthcare Laws and Regulations

Although we currently do not have any product candidates on the market, our current and future business operations may be subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, price reporting and physician sunshine laws. Some of our pre-commercial activities are subject to some of these laws.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person or entity, including a prescription drug manufacturer or a party acting on its behalf to knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order, lease of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a

114

cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, and can also result in criminal fines, civil money penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to, or approval by, federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent or not provided as claimed. Persons and entities can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our product candidates, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our product candidates, and the sale and marketing of our product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under this law. Penalties for federal civil False Claims Act violations may include up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, False Claims Act violations may also implicate various federal criminal statutes.

HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Additionally, to the extent that any of our product candidates are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and their implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of information in common healthcare transactions, as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, which require the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities and business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal

115

HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties.

The Affordable Care Act imposed, among other things, new annual reporting requirements for covered manufacturers for certain payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit timely, accurately and completely the required information for all payments, transfers of value and ownership or investment interests may result in civil monetary penalties. Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices, require reporting of marketing expenditures and pricing information and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians.

Because we intend to commercialize products that could be covered by a federal healthcare program and other governmental healthcare programs, we intend to develop a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal controls to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to which we will or may become subject. Although the development and implementation of compliance programs designed to establish internal controls and facilitate compliance can mitigate the risk of investigation, prosecution, and penalties assessed for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and individual imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

Innovation Authority

We have received royalty-bearing grants from the government of Israel through the Innovation Authority, for the financing of a portion of our research and development expenditures in Israel.

Under the Innovation Law and the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines, recipients of grants, or Recipient Company(ies), are subject to certain obligations including, the following:

•

In general, the Recipient Company is obligated to pay the Innovation Authority royalties from the revenues generated from the sale of products (and related services) developed (in all or in part) as a result of, a research and development program funded by the Innovation Authority at rates which are determined under the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines (currently a yearly rate of 1.3% to 5% on sales of products or services developed under the approved programs, depending on the type of the Recipient Company — i.e., whether it is a “Small Company,” a “Large Company” or a “Traditional Industrial Company” as such terms are defined in the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines), up to the aggregate amount of the total grants received by the Innovation Authority, plus annual interest (as determined in the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines);

​

•

Products developed as a result of the Innovation Authority funded R&D must, as a general matter, be manufactured in Israel. The Recipient Company is prohibited from manufacturing products developed using these Innovation Authority grants outside of the State of Israel without receiving prior approval from the Innovation Authority (except for

​

116

the transfer of less than 10% of the manufacturing capacity in the aggregate which requires only a notice). If the Recipient Company receives approval to manufacture products developed with government grants outside of Israel, it will be required to pay increased royalties to the Innovation Authority, up to 300% of the grant amount plus interest, depending on the manufacturing volume that is performed outside of Israel. The Recipient Company may also be subject to an accelerated royalty repayment rates. A Recipient Company also has the option of declaring in its Innovation Authority grant application its intention to exercise a portion of the manufacturing capacity abroad, thus avoiding the need to obtain additional approval following the receipt of the grant; and

•

Under the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines, a Recipient Company is prohibited from transferring the Innovation Authority-financed know-how and related intellectual property rights outside of Israel except under limited circumstances, and only with the approval of the Research Committee and subject to certain payments to the Innovation Authority calculated according to formulas provided under the Innovation Authority’s rules and guidelines (which are capped to amounts specified under such rules and guidelines).

​

We have received grants from the Innovation Authority in connection with our research and development of a peripheral line of product candidates, which forms a negligible part of our activities, and therefore, we are subject to the aforementioned restrictions with respect to such product candidates. Such restrictions continue to apply even after payment of the full amount of royalties payable pursuant to the grants. For additional information on our royalty obligations related to Innovation Authority grants, see Note 5a to our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, contained elsewhere in this prospectus.

Even if our Innovation Authority funded know-how is transferred to another Israeli entity, the transfer would require the Innovation Authority’s approval but will not be subject to the payment of a redemption fee (we note that there will be an obligation to pay royalties to the Innovation Authority from the income of such sale transaction as part of the royalty payment obligation). In such case, the acquiring company would have to assume all of our responsibilities towards the Innovation Authority as a condition to the Innovation Authority’s approval.

The government of Israel does not own intellectual property rights in technology developed with Innovation Authority funding and there is no restriction on the export of products manufactured using technology developed with Innovation Authority funding. However, the know-how is subject to transfer of know-how and manufacturing rights restrictions as described above. The Innovation Authority’s approval is not required for the export of any products resulting from the Innovation Authority research or development grants. In addition, the Innovation Authority has recently published new rules and guidelines for the granting of licenses to use know-how developed as a result of research financed by the Innovation Authority to foreign entities. According to such rules, we will be required to receive the Innovation Authority’s prior approval for the grant of such use rights, and we will be subject to the Innovation Authority in accordance with the formula stipulated under these rules and guidelines.

Pursuant to Amendment No. 7 of the Innovation Law, the Innovation Authority is authorized to change the restrictions imposed on the recipients of grants that were stipulated under the Innovation Law prior to the effectiveness of Amendment No. 7 with a new set of arrangements in connection with ownership obligations of know-how (includ