UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

Commission File Number: 001-33004

ACER THERAPEUTICS INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (844) 902-6100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2021, based upon the closing price as of such date was $34,649,392.

As of February 15, 2022, 14,310,244 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, were outstanding.

Unless otherwise indicated, references in this report to “Acer,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the business of Acer Therapeutics Inc. “ACER THERAPEUTICS,” “EDSIVO” and the Acer logo are trademarks of Acer Therapeutics Inc. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply relationships with, or endorsements or sponsorship of us by, these other companies.

i

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Statements contained in this report, other than statements of historical fact, constitute “forward-looking statements.” The words “expects,” “believes,” “hopes,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “may,” “could,” “intends,” “exploring,” “evaluating,” “progressing,” “proceeding,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

These forward-looking statements do not constitute guarantees of future performance. Investors are cautioned that statements which are not strictly historical statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding current or future financial payments, costs, returns, royalties, performance and position, plans and objectives for future operations, plans and objectives for product development, plans and objectives for present and future clinical trials and results of such trials, plans and objectives for regulatory approval, litigation, intellectual property, product development, manufacturing plans and performance, management’s initiatives and strategies, and the development of our product candidates, including ACER-001 (sodium phenylbutyrate), ACER-801 (osanetant), EDSIVO™ (celiprolol), and ACER-2820 (emetine), constitute forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could affect our ability to successfully implement our business strategy and cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. You should carefully consider all of the information in this report and, in particular, the following principal risks and all of the other specific factors further discussed in Item 1A of this report, “Risk Factors,” before deciding whether to invest in our company:

Summary Risk Factors

1

2

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made. We assume no obligation or undertaking to update any forward-looking statements to reflect any changes in expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based. You should, however, review additional disclosures we make in the reports we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including but not limited to the Risk Factors associated with our business.

3

PART I

Overview

We are a pharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for serious rare and life-threatening diseases with significant unmet medical needs. Our pipeline includes four programs: ACER-001 (sodium phenylbutyrate) for the treatment of various inborn errors of metabolism, including urea cycle disorders (“UCDs”) and Maple Syrup Urine Disease (“MSUD”); ACER-801 (osanetant) for the treatment of induced vasomotor symptoms (“iVMS”); EDSIVO™ (celiprolol) for the treatment of vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (“vEDS”) in patients with a confirmed type III collagen (COL3A1) mutation; and ACER-2820 (emetine), a host-directed therapy against a variety of viruses, including cytomegalovirus, zika, dengue, ebola and COVID-19. Each of our product candidates is believed to present a comparatively de-risked profile, having one or more of a favorable safety profile, clinical proof-of-concept data, mechanistic differentiation, and/or accelerated pathways for development through specific programs and procedures established by the United States (“U.S.”) Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

Our current product candidate pipeline is summarized in the chart below:

4

Our Strategy

Our goal is to become a leading pharmaceutical company that acquires, develops and commercializes therapies for the treatment of serious rare and life-threatening diseases with significant unmet medical needs. The key elements of our strategy include:

5

We plan to continue evaluating external opportunities to acquire or license product candidates in order to enhance our pipeline and leverage our business development, clinical development, regulatory and commercial expertise. We believe our management team has the capability and experience to continue to execute this business model.

Product Candidates

ACER-001 (sodium phenylbutyrate)

Background

Sodium phenylbutyrate (“NaPB”) is currently approved in the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) to treat patients with UCDs. Our product candidate ACER-001 is a nitrogen-binding agent in development for use as adjunctive therapy in the chronic management of patients with UCDs involving deficiencies of carbamyl phosphate synthetase (“CPS”), ornithine transcarbamylase (“OTC”), or argininosuccinic acid synthetase (“AS”). ACER-001 includes a multi-particulate dosage formulation for oral administration consisting of a core center, a layer of active drug, and a coating designed to minimize the aversive taste and odor¹ of sodium phenylbutyrate while quickly dissolving in the stomach. ACER-001 is also being developed for MSUD and has been granted orphan drug designation by FDA for this indication.

Urea Cycle Disorders

The urea cycle is a series of biochemical reactions that occur primarily in the liver, which converts toxic ammonia produced by the breakdown of protein and other nitrogen-containing molecules in the human body into urea for excretion. UCDs are a group of disorders caused by genetic mutations that result in a deficiency in any one of the six enzymes or two of the amino acid transporters, which can lead to an excess accumulation of ammonia in the bloodstream, a condition known as hyperammonemia. Acute hyperammonemia can cause lethargy, somnolence, coma, and multi-organ failure, while chronic hyperammonemia can lead to headaches, confusion, lethargy, failure to thrive, behavioral changes, and learning and cognitive deficits. Common symptoms of both acute and chronic hyperammonemia also include seizures and psychiatric symptoms.

Diagnosis and Incidence

The diagnosis of UCDs is based on clinical observations, confirmed by biochemical and molecular genetic testing. A plasma ammonia concentration of 150 μmol/L or higher associated with a normal anion gap and a normal plasma glucose concentration is an indication for the presence of UCDs. Plasma quantitative amino acid analysis and measurement of urinary orotic acid can distinguish between the various types of UCDs. A definitive diagnosis of UCDs depends on either molecular genetic testing or measurement of enzyme activity. Molecular genetic testing is possible for all urea cycle defects. Studies suggest that the incidence of UCDs in the U.S. is about 1 in 35,000 live births.¹ Table 1 shows estimates of the incidence for the individual disorders based on this overall incidence. Newborn screening data on over six million births and data from the large US and European longitudinal registries was used to determine how common these conditions are. Approximately 2,000 patients suffer from UCDs in the U.S.

6

Table 1: Distribution by Group and Overall Incidence of UCDs

* As of April 2013

Abbreviations: UCDC (Urea Cycle Disorders Consortium); E-IMD (European Registry and Network for Intoxication Type Metabolic Diseases); NUCDF (National Urea Cycle Disorders Foundation); UCDs (urea cycle disorders); NAGS (N-acetylglutamate synthase); CPSI (carbamoyl phosphate synthetase I); OTC (ornithine transcarbamylase); ASS/AS (argininosuccinic acid synthetase); ASL (argininosuccinate lyase); ARG (arginase); HHH (hyperornithinemia-hyperammonemia-homocitrullinuria syndrome)

Table Source: Marshall L. Summar, et al., The incidence of urea cycle disorders, Molecular Genetics and Metabolism, Volume 110, Issues 1–2, 2013, Pages 179-180.

Current Treatment Options for UCDs

The current treatment of UCDs consists of dietary management to limit ammonia production in conjunction with medications that provide alternative pathways for the removal of ammonia from the bloodstream. Dietary protein must be carefully monitored, and some restriction is necessary; too much dietary protein causes excessive ammonia production. However, if protein intake is too restrictive or insufficient calories are consumed, the body will break down lean muscle mass to obtain the amino acids or energy it requires, which can also lead to excessive ammonia in the bloodstream. Dietary management may also include supplementation with special amino acid formulas developed specifically for UCDs, which can be prescribed to provide approximately 50% of the daily dietary protein allowance. Some patients treated with sodium phenylbutyrate may also require individual branched-chain amino acid supplementation.

Medications for UCDs are primarily comprised of nitrogen scavenger drugs, which are substances that provide alternative excretion pathways for nitrogen by bypassing the urea cycle. The use of these alternative pathways for nitrogen removal is important for the management of acute episodes of hyperammonemia and are also included as part of a long-term treatment regimen for UCDs patients. Current nitrogen scavenger treatments for UCDs are based on phenylbutyrate or benzoate, which conjugate with glutamine or glycine, respectively, allowing for urinary excretion of nitrogen as phenylacetylglutamine or hippurate, respectively.

According to a 2016 study by Shchelochkov et al., published in Molecular Genetics and Metabolism Reports³, while nitrogen scavenging medications are effective in helping to manage UCDs, non-compliance with treatment is common. Reasons given for non-compliance include the unpleasant taste associated with some available medications, the frequency with which medication must be taken and the high cost of the medication.

7

Phenylbutyrate is available as both NaPB, which is marketed as BUPHENYL^®, and glycerol phenylbutyrate (“GPB”), which is marketed as RAVICTI^®. While a study provided by Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. in the RAVICTI^® package insert involving 46 adults with UCDs demonstrated that BUPHENYL^® and RAVICTI^® were similarly effective in controlling the blood level of ammonia over a 24-hour period, many patients who take their medicine orally prefer RAVICTI^®, as it is significantly more palatable than BUPHENYL^®. However, the average annual cost of RAVICTI^® is $950,000 (based on patient weight), which is often prohibitively expensive.²

In cases where dietary management or medication is not effective, patients with UCDs may require a liver transplant.

Rationale for ACER-001 Treatment in UCDs

ACER-001 is a nitrogen-binding agent in development for use as adjunctive therapy in the chronic management of patients with UCDs. ACER-001 includes a multi-particulate dosage formulation for oral administration designed to minimize the aversive taste and odor¹ of sodium phenylbutyrate while quickly dissolving in the stomach. BUPHENYL^®, a powder formulation of NaPB, has been approved by FDA for UCDs with demonstrated efficacy and safety in UCDs patients of all ages. We believe that if it is approved, ACER-001’s coated formulation will offer an alternative to existing NaPB-based treatments, designed to minimize the aversive taste and odor associated with NaPB treatments that is cited as a major impediment to patient compliance.¹

Bridging Studies

In February 2020, we reported the completion and final data from our clinical trial evaluating the bioavailability and bioequivalence of ACER-001 to BUPHENYL^® both under fasted conditions. The trial was a single-center, single-blind, randomized, single-dose crossover study designed to show bioequivalence of ACER-001 compared to BUPHENYL^® in 36 healthy adult subjects under fasted conditions. Data showed ACER-001 to have similar relative bioavailability for both phenylbutyrate (“PBA”) and phenylacetate (“PAA”) compared to BUPHENYL^® under fasted conditions.

8

This trial also included an arm of ACER-001 administered under fed conditions. When the fed and fasted arms of the study were compared, it was shown that administration of ACER-001 in a fasted state achieved more than two times the maximum concentration (“C_max”) of PBA compared to administration of the same dose of ACER-001 in a fed state. These results are consistent with previously published data by Nakano, et al⁴ that evaluated pharmacokinetics (“PK”) of NaPB in patients with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis, also demonstrating that administration of NaPB in a fasted state significantly increased PBA peak plasma concentration compared to administration of NaPB in a fed state.

*Based on data comparison of ACER-001 under fed conditions vs. published data of NaPB under fed conditions

¹ ACER-001 BE/BA Study (Part B) in healthy volunteers

² Sci Rep 9, 17075 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53628-x

Currently approved therapies for UCDs, including BUPHENYL^®5 and RAVICTI^®6, are required to be administered with food. BUPHENYL^® is required to be administered in a fed state due to its aversive odor and taste, with side effects including nausea, vomiting and headaches, which can lead to discontinuation of treatment.¹ Additionally, prescribing information states that the BUPHENYL^® food effect is unknown. RAVICTI^® PK and pharmacodynamic (“PD”) properties were determined to be indistinguishable in fed or fasted states.⁷

9

Based on the results from the food effect study within the first ACER-001 BE trial, we commissioned Rosa & Co. LLC to create a PhysioPD^® PK model to evaluate the potential food effect on exposure, tolerability and efficacy of ACER-001 in UCDs patients. Results from this in silico model suggested that administration of ACER-001 in a fasted state required approximately 30% less PBA to achieve comparable therapeutic benefit in a fed state. In addition, the model predicted that administration of ACER-001 in a fasted state compared to administration of BUPHENYL^® or RAVICTI^® (same amounts of PBA) in their required fed states would be expected to result in higher peak blood PBA, PAA and phenylacetylglutamine (“PAGN”) concentrations, predicting a 43% increase in urinary PAGN levels (a negative correlation between blood ammonia area under the curve and 24-hour urinary PAGN amount has been shown).⁸

In February 2021, we announced topline results from our single-center, single-blind, randomized, single-dose crossover trial that evaluated BE of ACER-001 compared to BUPHENYL^® when administered under fed conditions in 36 healthy adults. The topline data from this trial showed ACER-001 to have similar relative bioavailability for both PBA and PAA compared to BUPHENYL^® under fed conditions.

Publication of Bridging Studies

In January 2022, we announced acceptance of our poster, “The Pharmacokinetics of Taste-Masked Sodium Phenylbutyrate (ACER-001) for the Treatment of Urea Cycle Disorders Under Fasting and Fed Conditions in Healthy Volunteers,” for presentation at the Society for Inherited Metabolic Disorders (“SIMD”) Conference in April 2022, and the poster, “ACER-001: a potential alternative to sodium and glycerol phenylbutyrate for treatment of urea cycle disorders,” for presentation at the Genetic Metabolic Dieticians International (“GMDI”) Conference in May 2022. The posters summarize results from our bridging studies that evaluated the bioavailability and bioequivalence of ACER-001 compared to BUPHENYL^® (sodium phenylbutyrate).

10

Publication of Taste Assessment Studies

In January 2022, we also announced acceptance of our poster, “Taste-Masked Coating of Sodium Phenylbutyrate (ACER-001) Improves the Palatability of Sodium Phenylbutyrate for Treatment of Urea Cycle Disorders,” for presentation at the SIMD Conference in April 2022, and the poster, “Taste-masked coating of sodium phenylbutyrate (ACER-001) improves the palatability of sodium phenylbutyrate for treatment of urea cycle disorders,” for presentation at the GMDI Conference in May 2022. The posters detail results from two open-label repeated measures taste assessment studies of ACER-001 and sodium phenylbutyrate.

Registration Plan

We intend to seek FDA approval in the U.S. to market ACER-001 for administration initially under fed conditions for the treatment of UCDs using a regulatory pathway established under section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) that allows applicants to rely at least in part on third party data for approval, which may expedite the preparation, submission, and approval of a marketing application. Because FDA has approved an NDA for BUPHENYL^® as adjunctive therapy in the chronic management of patients with UCDs involving deficiencies of CPS, OTC or AS, which is referred to as the reference listed drug (“RLD”), we intend to rely on the RLD’s preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data, while supplementing the data with bridging studies that show similar relative bioavailability of ACER-001 compared to BUPHENYL^®.

In October 2021, we announced that FDA has accepted for filing our NDA for ACER-001 for the treatment of patients with UCDs and has assigned a PDUFA target action date of June 5, 2022.

ACER-001 is an investigational product candidate which has not been approved for any indication by FDA, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), or any other regulatory authority.

Maple Syrup Urine Disease

Background

MSUD is a rare inherited disorder caused by defects in the mitochondrial branched-chain ketoacid dehydrogenase complex, which results in elevated blood levels of the branched-chain amino acids (“BCAA”), leucine, valine, and isoleucine, as well as the associated branched-chain ketoacids (“BCKA”) in a patient’s blood. Left untreated, this can result in neurological damage, mental disability, coma or death. The most severe presentation of MSUD, known as “classic” MSUD, accounts for 80% of cases and can result in neonatal onset with encephalopathy and coma. Although metabolic management of the disease is possible via a highly restrictive diet, the outcome is unpredictable, and a significant portion of affected individuals are mentally impaired or experience neurological complications.

Diagnosis and Incidence

MSUD is typically diagnosed at birth via newborn screening. Studies indicate that MSUD affects an estimated 1 in 185,000 infants worldwide. The disorder occurs more frequently in the Old Order Mennonite population, with an estimated incidence of about 1 in 380 newborns, and the Ashkenazi Jewish population, with an estimated incidence of 1 in 26,000. Approximately 3,000 patients suffer from MSUD worldwide, of whom approximately 1,000 patients are located in the U.S.⁹

11

Current Treatment Options in MSUD

There are currently no approved pharmacologic therapies in the U.S. or the EU for MSUD. Treatment of MSUD consists primarily of a severely restricted diet to limit the intake of BCAA, with aggressive medical interventions when blood levels of BCAA or BCKA become elevated.

Rationale for ACER-001 Treatment in MSUD

Therapy with NaPB in UCD patients has been associated with a selective reduction in BCAA despite adequate dietary protein intake.¹⁰

Based on this clinical observation, investigators at Baylor College of Medicine (“BCM”) explored the potential of NaPB treatment to lower BCAA and their corresponding BCKA in patients with MSUD. The investigators found that BCAA and BCKA were both significantly reduced following NaPB therapy in control subjects and in patients with MSUD, although there was no simple correlation between the patients’ levels of residual enzymatic activity with the response of plasma BCAA and their BCKA to NaPB. NaPB showed a statistically significant reduction of leucine in all three healthy subjects and in three out of the five MSUD patients who participated in the trial. The reduction in leucine, the most toxic of the BCAAs, in the three responsive MSUD patients ranged between 28-34%, which is considered by clinicians to be a clinically meaningful response.

Investigators at BCM further explored the mechanistic rationale for NaPB lowering BCAA/BCKA levels. NaPB was found to be an allosteric inhibitor of the branched-chain keto acid dehydrogenase complex kinase (“BCKD-kinase”), and enzyme that regulates the activity of the branched-chain keto acid dehydrogenase complex (“BCKDC”) enzyme that is responsible for the normal metabolism of BCKAs.¹¹ By inhibiting the BCKD-kinase, the BCKDC is constitutively activated, thus the increased activity results in a reduction in the plasma levels of BCAA and BCKA in all people, including those with MSUD, suggesting that NaPB may be an effective treatment for people with MSUD, who experience elevated BCAA levels.^10,12

In November 2020, study results evaluating the effect of NaPB in the management of acute MSUD attacks in pediatric patients (n=10) were published in the Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism showing a significant reduction in leucine levels in MSUD patients experiencing an acute attack.¹³ The results suggested that NaPB can be safely administered in combination with emergency protocol and may provide additional clinical benefit beyond emergency protocol alone. However, verifying this outcome would require additional validation in a controlled trial. If ACER-001 is approved for the treatment of chronic MSUD, we believe this data may support that patients will not be required to interrupt their therapy in the event of an acute crisis.

Registration Plan

We anticipate initiation of a clinical study evaluating ACER-001 in MSUD to occur in the second half of 2022, subject to additional capital. If the required clinical studies are successful, we plan to seek FDA approval to market ACER-001 for the treatment of MSUD in the U.S. by submitting a 505(b)(2) NDA incorporating data from BUPHENYL’s^® NDA (the reference listed drug) while supplementing our intended NDA for ACER-001 with additional PK, PD, efficacy and safety data specifically in the MSUD population.

Collaboration Agreement with Relief Therapeutics Holding AG

On January 25, 2021, we entered into an option agreement with Relief (the “Option Agreement”), pursuant to which we granted Relief an exclusive option (the “Exclusivity Option”) to pursue a potential collaboration and license arrangement with us for the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of ACER-001 for the treatment of various inborn errors of metabolism, including UCDs and MSUD. The Option Agreement provided a period of time up to June 30, 2021, for the parties to perform additional due diligence and to work toward negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement with respect to the potential collaboration for ACER‑001. In consideration for the grant of the Exclusivity Option, (i) we received from Relief an upfront nonrefundable payment of $1.0 million, (ii) Relief provided to us a 12-month secured loan in the principal amount of $4.0 million, as evidenced by a Promissory Note (the “Note”) issued by us to Relief, and (iii) we granted to Relief a security interest

12

in all of our assets to secure performance of the Note, as evidenced by a Security Agreement (the “Security Agreement”). The Note was repayable in one lump sum within 12 months from issuance and bore interest at a rate equal to 6% per annum. If a definitive agreement with respect to the potential collaboration had not been executed by the parties on or before June 30, 2021, the Exclusivity Option would have terminated, and the Note would have been repayable by us upon maturity.

On March 19, 2021, we entered into the Collaboration Agreement with Relief providing for the development and commercialization of ACER-001 for the treatment of various inborn errors of metabolism, including for the treatment of UCDs and MSUD. We received a $10.0 million cash payment from Relief ($14.0 million “Reimbursement Payment,” offset by repayment of the $4.0 million outstanding balance of the Note, plus interest earned through the date of the Collaboration Agreement, from Relief to us), and Relief released its security interest in all of our assets. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, Relief committed to pay us up to an additional $20.0 million for U.S. development and commercial launch costs for the UCDs and MSUD indications (the “Development Payments”). During the three months ended June 30, 2021, we received from Relief the $10.0 million First Development Payment. We were contractually entitled to receive from Relief an additional $10.0 million Second Development Payment conditioned upon FDA’s acceptance of an NDA for ACER-001 in a UCD for filing and review. This acceptance was received on October 4, 2021. On October 6, 2021, we entered into a Waiver and Agreement with Relief to amend the timing for the Second Development Payment. We received the Second Development Payment in two $5.0 million tranches on each of October 12, 2021 and January 14, 2022. Further, we retained development and commercialization rights in the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Turkey and Japan (“Acer Territory”). The companies will split net profits from the Acer Territory 60%:40% in favor of Relief. Relief licensed the rights for the rest of the world (“Relief Territory”), where we will receive from Relief a 15% royalty on all net sales received in the Relief Territory. We could also receive a total of $6.0 million in milestone payments based on the first European (EU) marketing approvals of ACER-001 for a UCD and MSUD. There is no guarantee that ACER-001 will receive regulatory authority approval in any territory or become commercially available for the indications under investigation.

ACER-801 (osanetant)

Background

ACER-801 (osanetant) is a novel, non-hormonal, neurokinin 3 receptor (“NK3R”) antagonist that could offer a potential treatment option with meaningful improvement of Vasomotor Symptoms (“VMS”) for patients with iVMS by blocking the stimulatory signaling of neurokinin B (“NKB”) on the KNDy neurons. NK3R is the main receptor for NKB, a tachykinin peptide primarily found in the arcuate nucleus (“ARC”) of the hypothalamus. In December 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Sanofi to acquire worldwide rights to ACER-801.

Hot flashes, flushing, and night sweats are known as VMS, and most often occur in women who are entering or in menopause. VMS are causally related to decreasing estradiol concentrations, mainly in the serum and subsequently also in the temperature regulating center located in the hypothalamus. The lack of estrogen alters neurotransmitter activity, especially in the serotonergic and noradrenergic pathways.

VMS can also be induced by anti-androgen and anti-estrogen cancer therapies and surgical procedures that can lead to treatment non-compliance.^14,15 VMS are caused by low estrogen levels leading to increased stimulatory signaling of NKB on the KNDy neurons in the hypothalamus. A non-hormonal treatment to manage iVMS is needed as estrogen is contraindicated for the management of VMS in patients with hormone-positive tumors, including breast and prostate tumors.

In the study “Factors related to the experience of menopausal symptoms in women prescribed tamoxifen” ¹⁶ women with Hormone Receptor positive (“HR+”) Breast Cancer (“CaB”) receiving tamoxifen:

13

In a prospective analysis of 250 men with HR+ Prostate Cancer (“CaP”) receiving leuprolide: ¹⁷

In women who are breast cancer gene positive (“BRCA+”) and had bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (“BSO”), quality of life analyses conducted post-procedure concluded:

iVMS are well documented with the use of cancer therapies and certain surgical procedures. Symptoms such as hot flashes can appear immediately and be severe. Cancer therapy side effects can lead to treatment non-adherence which increases the mortality risk and/or shortens the time to recurrence. We believe a treatment for iVMS is needed to help ensure cancer patients are more likely to start and stay on critical cancer therapies.

iVMS Diagnosis and Incidence

1 Trinity Partners 2020; 2 Dowsett M, et al., Lancet.386(10001):1341-52, 2015; 3 Lee RJ, et al., Cancer and Chemotherapy and Biotherapy:  Principles and Practice. 5th ed; 2011; 4 ACOG Recommendations FAQ505 BRCA1 and BRCA2, August, 2018; 5 Lin J, et al:  Cancer Prev Res 2011;4: 1360-1365;  6 Lupron Depot PI March, 2019; 7 Moon, Z. et al., JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2017 VOL. 38, NO. 3, 226–235; 8 Challapalli, A, et al., Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology 10 (2018) 29–35  9 L. Johnson, et al. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2014 Vol 102 No. 3, Supplement, e249;  10 Nichols, H, et al., JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst, 2015, 1–8 ; 11 Gonzalez BD et al J Urol 194: 690-695 2015;  12 N Engl J Med. 2002 May 23:346(21):1609-15;   13 Open Med. 2007 Aug 14;1(2):e92-8

14

Rationale for ACER-801 Treatment for iVMS

NKB/NK3R is implicated in a variety of human functions and affects the hypothalamus-pituitary-gonadal axis, which plays a critical part in the development and regulation of a number of the body’s systems, such as the reproductive and immune systems. Clinical proof of concept studies with other NK3R antagonists have demonstrated rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in vasomotor symptoms and polycystic ovarian syndrome.

ACER-801 was originally developed by Sanofi as osanetant (SR142801) for the treatment of symptoms associated with schizophrenia. Development was discontinued in 2005. Direct human safety evidence is available from 23 completed Phase 1 and 2 studies of whom approximately 400 healthy subjects and 820 patients were treated with osanetant for schizophrenia, depression, and other indications. Data from these studies indicated no major safety concerns after single-dose and repeat-dose administration.²⁰ ACER-801 is orally bioavailable²¹ and readily crosses the blood-brain barrier²². We believe that several disorders involving the hypothalamus-pituitary-gonadal axis could benefit from treatment with an NK3R antagonist.

Registration Plan

In December 2021, we announced FDA clearance of our IND application for our selective NK3R antagonist, ACER-801, for the potential treatment of iVMS. We plan to initiate in the first quarter of 2022, a Phase 2a clinical trial designed to evaluate the effect of ACER-801 at different doses, compared to placebo, on the frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, subject to additional capital. The trial results would be anticipated in the second half of 2022, which if positive, will provide proof of concept data and help define ACER-801’s optimal dose and development path forward in patients with iVMS. ACER-801 is an investigational drug in the U.S. and is not currently FDA approved for any indication.

EDSIVO™ (celiprolol)

Background

EDSIVO™ is a selective adrenergic modulator (“SAM”) and, if approved for marketing by FDA, would be a New Chemical Entity (“NCE”) in the U.S. Celiprolol is currently approved in the EU for the treatment of hypertension and angina. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (“EDS”) is an inherited disorder caused by mutations in the genes responsible for the structure, production, or processing of collagen, an important component of the connective tissues in the human body, or proteins that interact with collagen. EDS is a spectrum disorder where patients present with various forms, the most serious of which is vEDS, also known as vEDS type IV, which is generally caused by a mutation in the COL3A1 gene. vEDS causes abnormal fragility in blood vessels, which can give rise to aneurysms, abnormal connections between blood vessels known as arteriovenous fistulas, arterial dissections, and spontaneous vascular ruptures, all of which can be potentially life-threatening. Gastrointestinal and uterine fragility or rupture also commonly occur in vEDS patients. Spontaneous arterial rupture has a peak incidence in the third or fourth decade of life in vEDS patients but may occur earlier and is the most common cause of sudden death in vEDS patients. Arterial rupture or dissection events occur in about 25% of patients before the age of 20 but increase to roughly 90% of patients by the age of 40. The median survival age of vEDS patients in the U.S. is 51 years, with arterial rupture being the most common cause of sudden death.²³ Pregnancy-related complications also occur in women with vEDS and include arterial dissection or rupture, uterine rupture, hemorrhage, premature rupture of membranes, lacerations, and complications during and after surgery.

15

Diagnosis and Incidence

vEDS is diagnosed through clinical observation, which is usually confirmed by mutational analysis of the COL3A1 gene. In the absence of a family history of the disorder, however, most vEDS patients are not diagnosed until the occurrence of an arterial aneurysm or dissection, bowel perforation, or organ rupture. In 2019, the World Health Organization issued a new International Classification of Diseases (“ICD”) code (Q79.63) specifically for vEDS. Expansion of the current classification enables specific identification of vEDS and allows for more accurate and effective diagnosis, patient monitoring and reimbursement. We will continue to evaluate this new classification to help further define and identify patients available for potential treatment. Previously, vEDS was classified within one broad category that included 13 subtypes of EDS. The issuance of the new vEDS ICD code is the result of efforts led by Dr. Brad Tinkle, a clinical geneticist at Peyton Manning Children’s Hospital in Indianapolis, in collaboration with Acer, the International Consortium on Ehlers-Danlos syndromes and Related Disorders, and the ICD-10-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee.

Current Treatment Options for vEDS

Currently, there are no approved pharmacologic therapies anywhere in the world for vEDS. However, celiprolol, off label, has become the standard of care therapy for vEDS in Europe.²⁴ Medical intervention for vEDS focuses on surgery, symptomatic treatment, genetic counseling, and prophylactic measures, such as avoiding intense physical activity, scuba diving, and violent sports. Arterial, digestive, or uterine complications in vEDS patients typically require immediate hospitalization, observation in an intensive care unit, and sometimes surgery. Pregnant women with vEDS are considered to be at risk and receive special care.

While vEDS patients are encouraged to take steps to minimize the chances of an arterial rupture or dissection, there are no pharmacologic options to reduce the likelihood of such an event, and accordingly current treatments for vEDS focus on the repair of arterial ruptures or dissection. Therefore, patients must adopt a “watch and wait” approach following any confirmed diagnosis. Unfortunately, many of these arterial events have high mortality associated with them, and thus, a pharmacologic intervention that reduces the rate of events would be clinically meaningful.

Rationale for EDSIVO™ (celiprolol) Treatment in vEDS

BBEST Trial

In October 2010, researchers at Assistance Publique—Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou (“AP-HP”) in Paris, France, published in the Lancet results from its BBEST trial designed to assess the preventive effect of celiprolol for major cardiovascular events in patients with vEDS via a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open trial with blinded evaluation of clinical events.²⁵

Fifty-three participants were enrolled in the BBEST trial and randomly assigned to a five-year intervention, receiving either celiprolol or no treatment with important phenotype characteristics equally balanced between the celiprolol group and the control group.²⁵ Thirty-three of the 53 patients participating in the study had proven mutations in the COL3A1 gene. Of those patients with proven mutations, demographic and arterial characteristics did not differ from those of the study population as a whole. The duration of follow-up was five years or until the first qualifying cardiac or arterial event. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac or arterial events (rupture or dissection, fatal or not) during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were gastrointestinal or uterine rupture. The study was ended early after a consensus decision of the safety monitoring board, the methodologist of AP-HP, and the principal investigator because significant differences were recorded between the treatment group and the control group after 64 months. Mean duration of follow-up was 47 months prior to trial halt. Five of 25 patients on celiprolol a primary endpoint was recorded, compared with 14 of 28 patients in the control group. The hazard ratio (“HR”) for event-free survival, was 0.36, (95% CI 0.15—0.88; p=0.040), meaning that with celiprolol the risk of having a cardiac or arterial event was reduced by 64% compared to control. Combined primary and secondary endpoints affected 6 patients on celiprolol and 17 patients in the control group, (HR 0.31; 95% CI 0.14—0.71; p=0.0097).

16

As described in the figure below, in the 33 patients with COL3A1 mutations, the primary endpoint was noted in 2 of the 13 patients in the treatment group, compared with 11 of the 20 patients in the control group, (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.08—0.71; p=0.0406). Combined primary and secondary endpoints were recorded in 3 of 13 patients on celiprolol and 14 of the patients in the control group, (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.10—0.64; p=0.0167), correlating to a three times reduction in arterial events among treated patients compared to non-treated patients. The results in the trial did not vary significantly between those patients who had a confirmed mutation in the COL3A1 gene versus the overall 53-patient population:

Figure 3: Kaplan-Meier curves of event-free survival in 33 patients with positive COL3A1 mutation

Primary endpoint (A). Primary and secondary endpoints (B).

AP-HP granted us an exclusive right to access and use the data generated by the BBEST trial. We have conducted a retrospective, source-verified analysis of that data, including the primary and secondary endpoints, which confirmed the published results of the BBEST trial.

Long-Term Observational Study: France

In addition to the BBEST trial, in April 2019, long-term data from a cohort of COL3A1-positive vEDS patients was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (“JACC”). The publication, entitled “Vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome: Long-Term Observational Study,” was authored by Michael Frank, MD, Xavier Jeunemaitre, MD, PhD, and Pierre Boutouyrie, MD, PhD, et al.²⁶ This published study describes outcomes in 144 COL3A1-positive vEDS patients clinically monitored and treated at the French National Referral Center for Rare Vascular Diseases (Paris, France) between 2000 and 2017. Patients were followed for a median of 5.3 years, and up to 20 years. At the initial work up, 50% of patients were not treated regularly and only 33.3% were taking celiprolol; by the end of the study period, the majority (90.3%) were treated with celiprolol alone or in combination with other medications. Once the maximum tolerated dose of celiprolol was reached, 90 (62.5%) patients remained at this dose throughout their follow-up. Only five (3.5%) patients required dose reduction due to fatigue, and no serious drug-related adverse event was recorded.

17

Patients had a lower mortality rate than that expected from the natural history of the disease as described in previous U.S. reports.²⁶ Survival curve analysis showed that those not treated with celiprolol had a significantly worse outcome than celiprolol-treated patients: survival was 80.7% (95% CI 67.8%–93.6%) in those treated with celiprolol versus 48.5% (95% CI 19.7%–77.4%) in those not treated (p<0.001) after 11.1 years of follow-up. Survival was significantly higher in patients treated with a median dose of celiprolol of 400mg/day (n=83) vs. patients treated with a lower median dose of 217mg/d [100-300mg/day] (n=27), suggesting a dose effect and that 400mg/day should be considered the optimal dose. The authors also observed a relative decrease in hospitalization rates for acute arterial events during the time period in which the majority of patients were on celiprolol, suggesting a positive effect of celiprolol on the incidence and/or severity of new arterial events. The authors concluded that in this large, long-term cohort study, vEDS patients had a higher survival rate than expected relative to the known natural history of the disease and a lower annual occurrence of arterial complications, and that celiprolol use was potentially associated with these significant improvements in clinical outcomes.

Long-Term Observational Study: Sweden

In November 2020, long-term data from COL3A1-positive vEDS patients was published in the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (“EJVES”), “Celiprolol treatment in patients with vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome.”²⁷ This published study describes outcomes in 40 patients with COL3A1-positive vEDS that were clinically monitored and treated with celiprolol in a single center retrospective study at Uppsala University Hospital, a national referral center for vEDS patients in Sweden, between the years 2011 and 2019. Patients were followed for a median of 22 months (range 1-98 months) with a total follow up of 106 patient years. Assessments were conducted by a multidisciplinary team, including vascular surgeons, angiologists and clinical geneticists. Celiprolol was administered twice daily and titrated up by 100 mg steps to a maximum of 400 mg per day. Some patients were treated concomitantly or separately with other medications. Sixty-five percent of the patients reached the target dose of 400mg, and the medication was generally well tolerated.

The annual risk of a major vascular event was 4.7% in this study, noted as being similar to that observed in the celiprolol treatment-arm of the BBEST trial (5%) and lower than in the BBEST trial control arm (12%). Five patients suffered major vascular events, four of which were fatal. No significant predictor of vascular events was identified by the authors.

Registration Plan

Celiprolol has not been approved for any indication in the U.S. Celiprolol has been approved for the treatment of hypertension in the EU since 1984. An NDA for celiprolol for the treatment for hypertension was submitted to FDA by Rorer (subsequently acquired by Aventis Pharma SA (“Aventis”)) in June 1987 but was withdrawn prior to FDA review and therefore never approved. We have obtained the exclusive right in North and South America from Aventis to reference the celiprolol data included in the marketing authorization dossier filed with and approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”). We have also licensed from AP-HP exclusive worldwide rights to the data from the BBEST trial.

We are developing EDSIVO™ (celiprolol), an NCE, for the treatment of COL3A1+ vEDS patients. EDSIVO™ received FDA Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of vEDS in 2015. An EDSIVO™ NDA was originally submitted based on data obtained from the BBEST trial and accepted for filing in October 2018 with priority review. Following FDA review, we received a Complete Response Letter from FDA stating that it will be necessary to conduct an adequate and well-controlled trial to determine whether celiprolol reduces the risk of clinical events in patients with vEDS. We subsequently appealed the FDA decision and while FDA denied the appeal, it described possible paths forward for us to explore. In a Type B meeting in May 2021, we discussed with FDA the conduct of an U.S.-based prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, decentralized clinical trial in patients with COL3A1+ vEDS, and sought FDA’s opinion on various proposed design features of the study. The official Type B meeting minutes confirmed: the acceptability of a decentralized (virtual) clinical trial design and use of an independent centralized adjudication committee; acceptability of a primary endpoint based on clinical events associated with disease outcome; agreement with modest safety data collection (based on the known safety profile of the drug^25,26,28); and a statistical plan that considers the rare disease classification of vEDS.

18

In December 2021, we submitted to FDA a protocol for the prospective pivotal trial, along with an IND which received FDA clearance in January 2022, and we are working with FDA to reach agreement on a SPA. In February 2022, we submitted to FDA our request for EDSIVO™ BTD. Based on initial power calculations, we anticipate that the trial should plan to enroll approximately 150 COL3A1+ vEDS patients in the U.S., and the duration of the clinical trial is estimated to be approximately 3.5 years to complete once fully enrolled. If agreement is reached with FDA on our proposed SPA, initiation of the EDSIVO™ Decentralized Study of Celiprolol on vEDS-related Event Reduction, or DiSCOVER, pivotal clinical trial is expected in the second quarter of 2022, subject to additional capital. There can be no assurance that the resulting data from the trial would be adequate to support approval of an NDA, although having a SPA agreement in place would indicate concurrence by FDA with the adequacy and acceptability of specific critical elements of overall protocol design (e.g., conduct, entry criteria, dose selection, endpoints, and planned analyses) for a study intended to support a future marketing application.

EDSIVO™ is an investigational drug and is not currently FDA approved for any indication. There can be no assurance that the clinical trial will be successful, or that the resubmission of an NDA will be approved.

ACER-2820 (emetine)

Background

In May 2020, we announced that we had entered into a research collaboration agreement with the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences(“NCATS”), one of the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), to develop emetine hydrochloride as a potential treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection, a virus that causes COVID-19. ACER-2820 (emetine) is an active pharmaceutical ingredient of syrup of ipecac, given orally to induce emesis, and has also been formulated as an injectable to treat thousands of individuals with amebiasis. Several independent emetine in vitro studies have demonstrated nanomolar potency against both DNA and RNA-replicating viruses, including Zika virus, Ebola virus²⁹, Rabies Lyssavirus, human cytomegalovirus, human immunodeficiency virus 1, influenza A virus, Rift Valley fever virus, echovirus 1, human metapneumovirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2.³⁰ Clinically, emetine has been used to treat approximately 700 patients (including pediatrics) with viral hepatitis³¹ and varicella-zoster virus.³² Additionally, emetine is a potent inhibitor of multiple genetically distinct coronaviruses and demonstrated in vitro the strongest anti-coronavirus activity in one study that screened and identified approved compounds with broad-spectrum efficacy against the replication of four coronaviruses³³ and specifically against SARS-CoV-2.³⁴

Registration Plan

Further advancement of the emetine program for treatment of certain viruses, including cytomegalovirus, zika, dengue, ebola and COVID-19, is dependent on our ability to raise non-dilutive capital for this program. Emetine is an investigational drug in the U.S. and is not currently FDA approved for any indication.

Citations

19

Commercialization Strategy

Assuming FDA approves ACER-001 and/or EDSIVO^TM, we expect that the majority of UCDs, MSUD and/or vEDS patients would be treated at tertiary care centers, and therefore could be addressed with a targeted sales force.

20

UCD and MSUD patients are primarily managed by metabolic geneticists and dietitians, while vEDS patients would primarily be treated by vascular medicine or cardiology specialists. We intend to build our own commercial infrastructure in the U.S. to target these centers and will evaluate whether to commercialize in other geographies ourselves or with an experienced partner, such as Relief for ACER-001.

We are in the process of formulating our commercialization strategy for ACER-801 and ACER-2820.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive. We face competition from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. Given the significant unmet medical needs for novel therapies to treat UCDs, MSUD, iVMS, vEDS, and certain viruses, including cytomegalovirus, zika, dengue, ebola and COVID-19, many companies, public and private universities, and research organizations are actively engaged in the discovery, research and development of product candidates to treat these conditions. As a result, there are and will likely continue to be extensive resources invested in the discovery and development of new products to treat these unmet medical needs. We anticipate facing intense and increasing competition as new products enter the market and advanced technologies become available.

Our potential competitors and the related stage of development for their product candidates in our target indications for ACER-001, ACER-801, and EDSIVO™ (celiprolol), include the following:

Many of our competitors, either alone or with strategic partners, have or will have substantially greater financial, technical, and human resources compared with us. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful in developing or marketing products and technologies that are more effective, safer or less costly. Additionally, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval for their products more rapidly and may achieve more widespread market acceptance. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

There are other non-pharmaceutical therapeutic approaches that are used or may be used for our targeted indications. For example, liver transplantation may be used in some cases to treat UCDs or MSUD in pediatric patients who have developed acute liver failure.

We believe that the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our product candidates are efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, convenience in dosing, product labeling, price, and the availability of reimbursement.

License Agreements

Baylor College of Medicine

In April 2014, we obtained exclusive rights to patents and certain other intellectual property relating to ACER-001 for the treatment of inborn errors of BCAA metabolism, including MSUD, and preclinical and clinical data, through an exclusive license agreement with BCM. Under the terms of the agreement, as amended, we have worldwide exclusive rights to develop, manufacture, use, sell and import products incorporating the licensed intellectual property. The license agreement requires us to make upfront and annual payments to BCM, reimburse certain of BCM’s legal costs, make payments upon achievement of defined milestones, and pay low single-digit percent royalties on net sales of any developed product over the royalty term.

21

Aventis Pharma SA

In June 2016, we entered into an agreement with Aventis Pharma SA (now Sanofi) granting us the exclusive access and exclusive right to use the data included in the marketing authorization application dossier filed with and approved by the MHRA in 1986 for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension pursuant to the UK regulatory approval procedure, for the sole purpose of allowing us to further develop, manufacture, register and commercialize celiprolol in the U.S. and Brazil for the treatment of EDS, Marfan syndrome and Loeys-Dietz syndrome. We have paid in full for the exclusive access and right to use the data. Subsequently we amended our agreement with Sanofi to provide the same rights to data access and use for potential marketing approval in all of North and South America.

Assistance Publique—Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou (“AP-HP”)

In August 2016, we entered into an agreement with AP-HP granting us the exclusive worldwide rights to access and use data from a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open trial related to the use of celiprolol for the treatment of vEDS. We utilized this clinical data to support an NDA filing for EDSIVO^TM for the treatment of vEDS. The agreement requires us to make certain upfront payments to AP-HP, reimburse certain of AP-HP’s costs, make payments upon achievement of defined milestones, and pay low single-digit percent royalties on net sales of celiprolol over the royalty term.

In September 2018, we entered into an additional agreement with AP-HP to acquire the exclusive worldwide intellectual property rights to three European patent applications relating to certain uses of celiprolol including (i) the optimal dose of celiprolol in treating vEDS patients, (ii) the use of celiprolol during pregnancy, and (iii) the use of celiprolol to treat kyphoscoliotic Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (type VI). Pursuant to the agreement, we will reimburse AP-HP for certain costs and will pay annual maintenance fee payments. Subject to a minimum royalty amount, we will also pay royalty payments on annual net sales of celiprolol during the royalty term in the low single digit percent range, depending upon whether there is a valid claim of a licensed patent. Under the agreement, we will control and pay the costs of ongoing patent prosecution and maintenance for the licensed applications. We subsequently filed three U.S. patent applications on this subject matter in October 2018. We may choose to limit our pursuit of patent applications to specific territories, in which case AP-HP would have the right to revise our territorial license rights accordingly. For example, we have notified AP-HP that we will not pursue the licensed patent rights under the dosing and pregnancy patents outside the U.S., Canada and a few other selected countries, and we will not further pursue any patent rights for the Type VI use in any country.

Sanofi

In December 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Sanofi granting us worldwide rights to ACER-801, a clinical-stage, selective, non-peptide tachykinin NK3 receptor antagonist. The agreement requires us to make certain upfront payments to Sanofi, make payments upon achievement of defined development and sales milestones, and pay royalties on net sales of ACER-801 over the royalty term. We plan to initially pursue development of ACER-801 as a potential treatment for iVMS.

Relief

On March 19, 2021, we entered into the Collaboration Agreement with Relief providing for the development and commercialization of ACER-001 for the treatment of various inborn errors of metabolism, including for the treatment of UCDs and MSUD. The Collaboration Agreement is the culmination of the Option Agreement previously entered into between us and Relief on January 25, 2021, which provided Relief with an exclusive period of time up to June 30, 2021, for the parties to enter into a mutually acceptable definitive agreement with respect to the potential collaboration and license arrangements. In consideration for the grant of the exclusivity option, (i) we received from Relief an upfront non-refundable payment of $1.0 million, (ii) Relief provided to us a 12-month secured loan in the principal amount of $4.0 million with interest at a rate equal to 6% per annum, as evidenced by a promissory note we issued to Relief, and (iii) we granted Relief a security interest in all of our assets to secure performance of the promissory note, as evidenced by a security agreement. Upon signing the Collaboration Agreement, we received a $10.0 million cash payment from Relief (the $14.0 million Reimbursement Payment, offset by repayment of the $4.0 million outstanding balance of the prior loan, plus interest, from Relief to us), and

22

Relief released its security interest in all of our assets. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, Relief committed to pay us Development Payments of up to $20.0 million for U.S. development and commercial launch costs for the UCDs and MSUD indications. During the three months ended June 30, 2021, we received from Relief the $10.0 million First Development Payment. We were contractually entitled to receive from Relief an additional $10.0 million Second Development Payment conditioned upon FDA’s acceptance of an NDA for ACER-001 in a UCD for filing and review. This acceptance was received on October 4, 2021. On October 6, 2021, we entered into a Waiver and Agreement with Relief to amend the timing for the Second Development Payment. We received the Second Development Payment in two $5.0 million tranches on each of October 12, 2021 and January 14, 2022. Further, we retained development and commercialization rights in the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Turkey and Japan. The companies will split net profits from our territories 60%:40% in favor of Relief. Relief licensed the rights for the rest of the world, where we will receive from Relief a 15% royalty on all net sales received by Relief in Relief’s territories. We could also receive a total of $6.0 million in milestone payments based on the first European marketing approvals of ACER-001 for a UCD and MSUD. There is no guarantee that ACER-001 will receive regulatory authority approval in any territory or become commercially available for the indications under investigation.

Research Collaboration

On May 11, 2020, we announced that we entered into a research collaboration agreement with NCATS, one of the NIH, to develop emetine hydrochloride as a potential treatment of SARS-COV-2 infection. Under the terms of the agreement, we and NCATS are collaborating to accelerate the clinical development of emetine.

Manufacturing

We contract with third parties for the manufacture, testing, and storage of our product candidates and intend to continue to do so in the future. We do not own and have no plans to build our own manufacturing capabilities for clinical or commercial supply. We have hired both internal resources and consultants with extensive technical, manufacturing, analytical, regulatory and quality assurance and control experience to oversee contract manufacturing and testing activities, and to compile manufacturing and quality information for our regulatory submissions.

Intellectual Property

ACER-001

In October 2021, we announced that the USPTO issued a new U.S. patent to Acer for certain claims related to ACER-001 (sodium phenylbutyrate). Patent 11,154,521 covers pharmaceutical composition claims related to ACER-001’s taste-masked, multi-particulate dosage formulation for oral administration. The newly issued patent has an expiration date in 2036. In addition, in December 2021, the USPTO issued a new U.S. patent 11,202,767 to Acer that covers certain methods of use claims related to ACER-001. That patent will also expire in 2036.

We obtained exclusive rights to certain patents and other intellectual property from BCM for the use of NaPB for the treatment of inborn errors of BCAA metabolism, including MSUD. The licensed patents cover methods and compositions for treating humans (and animals) with various formulations and prodrugs of NaPB for inborn errors of BCAA metabolism, including MSUD, and the latest expires in 2032. We made filings in the geographic regions that represent the largest incidence and prevalence of MSUD: the U.S., selected countries in Europe (including Turkey), and Brazil. BCM has been issued three patents in the U.S. and one in the European Union with respect to ACER-001, each of which was exclusively licensed to us pursuant to our agreement with BCM.

We also expect to benefit from potential commercial exclusivity afforded to the first drug approved after obtaining Orphan Drug designation for the treatment of MSUD. Orphan Drug exclusivity provides, upon the approval by FDA of a drug intended to treat a rare condition, seven years of marketing exclusivity, during which time FDA will not approve the same drug for the same indication unless it demonstrates clinical superiority. Orphan

23

Drug exclusivity does not prevent FDA from approving the same drug for a different indication, or a different drug for the same indication. We were granted Orphan Drug designation for ACER-001 for the treatment of MSUD by FDA in August 2014.

Furthermore, we may qualify to receive an additional six months of pediatric exclusivity in the U.S., which runs consecutively to an existing exclusivity, if we conduct a successful pediatric study approved by FDA for this purpose.

ACER-801

ACER-801, if approved for marketing by FDA, would qualify as an NCE in the U.S., and as such, would be eligible for five years of market exclusivity following potential FDA approval. Additional exclusivity would depend on the indications selected and the development pathway that is chosen. We intend to explore various pathways to protect our commercial rights to ACER-801 in multiple rare and life-threatening neuroendocrine disorders, including evaluating filing patent applications and acquiring existing intellectual property.

EDSIVO™

We intend to protect our commercial rights to EDSIVO^TM in the U.S. via multiple pathways. We believe that we will be eligible for NCE exclusivity for EDSIVO^TM, which provides upon approval of an NCE five years of marketing exclusivity, during which time FDA will not approve another drug with the same active ingredient, regardless of the indication for use, in the U.S. In January 2015, FDA granted EDSIVO^TM Orphan Drug Designation, which provides upon the approval of a drug intended to treat a rare condition seven years of marketing exclusivity during which time FDA will not approve the same drug for the same indication, unless it demonstrates clinical superiority. Orphan Drug exclusivity does not prevent FDA from approving the same drug for a different indication, or a different drug for the same indication. NCE exclusivity and Orphan Drug exclusivity run concurrently. Furthermore, EDSIVO^TM may qualify for an additional six months of pediatric exclusivity in the U.S., which requires the submission of one or more studies in pediatric subjects that meet requirements to be specified by FDA in a written request for pediatric studies. Pediatric exclusivity can be obtained either before or after NDA approval. Pediatric exclusivity is attached to the end of an existing exclusivity and runs consecutively. We may also consider making modifications to the formulation to seek to obtain additional intellectual property. While unapproved drugs may be imported into the U.S. under specified circumstances, such as for use in clinical studies under a valid and effective IND or for further manufacture into an IND drug or an approved drug, we intend to aggressively assert our rights, via regulatory and legal means, to limit the importation of non-FDA approved versions of celiprolol. We intend to provide a robust patient assistance program (“PAP”) to offset costs associated with a high priced therapeutic to minimize the incentive for vEDS patients in the U.S. to seek to obtain celiprolol elsewhere.

In October 2018, we entered into an additional agreement with AP-HP for exclusive rights to three U.S. patent applications relating to certain uses of celiprolol including (i) the optimal dose of celiprolol in treating vEDS patients, (ii) the use of celiprolol during pregnancy, and (iii) the use of celiprolol to treat kyphoscoliotic Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (type VI). We have notified APHP that we will pursue the dosing and pregnancy patent rights in the U.S. and a few selected countries; and that we are no longer pursuing the type VI patent application in any country.

ACER-2820

We intend to explore various pathways to protect our commercial rights to ACER-2820 in multiple viruses, including but not limited to cytomegalovirus, zika, dengue, ebola and COVID-19, including evaluating filing patent applications and acquiring existing intellectual property.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the U.S. at the federal, state and local level and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the use of unapproved drugs, preclinical and clinical studies, development, testing,

24

quality control, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, import, and export of pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. The process for obtaining approvals or authorizations to market a drug product in the U.S. and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with pre- and post-approval compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. This section discusses, in general terms, the typical approval process. Our product candidates must be approved by FDA before they may be legally marketed in the U.S. and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the U.S., although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of approval requirements within the European Union are addressed uniformly, while country-specific requirements must also be met.

U.S. Drug Approval Process. In the U.S., FDA regulates drugs under the FFDCA and FDA’s implementing regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining marketing approvals and pre- and post-approval compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time before or after approval, may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA’s refusal to approve a pending NDA, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold on a clinical study or studies, issuance of a warning letter or untitled letter, product recall, product seizure, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunction, fines, refusals or cancellation of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties.

The standard process required by FDA before a drug may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

Preclinical Studies. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. An IND sponsor must submit, directly or by cross-reference, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical trial protocol, among other things, to FDA as part of an IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by FDA, unless before that time FDA raises questions or concerns, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks, related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

25

Clinical Trials. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to subjects or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with IND regulations and human subject protection regulations as well as cGCP standards, which include the requirement that all research patients undergo an informed consent process and provide their informed consent for participation in any clinical trial and that an IRB approve each study before it begins. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical 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 FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB for each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve each protocol and protocol amendment for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.

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

Phase 1: The drug is initially introduced into a small number of healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, and excretion or, on occasion, in patients with severe problems or life-threatening disease to gain an early indication of its effectiveness.

Phase 2: The drug is administered to a limited patient population to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for a specific targeted disease, gather additional safety information and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage, and method of delivery.

Phase 3: The drug is administered to a larger 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 to determine effectiveness, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product and ultimately to support approval.

Phase 4: In some cases, FDA may condition approval of an NDA for a product candidate on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials after NDA approval. In other cases, a sponsor may voluntarily conduct additional clinical trials post-approval to gain more information about the drug. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to FDA and more frequently if serious and unexpected adverse reactions occur. Trial sponsors must monitor other information including published as well as unpublished scientific papers, reports from foreign regulatory authorities and reports of foreign commercial marketing experience for the investigational drug and notify FDA and clinical trial investigators of certain information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may fail to be completed successfully within a specified period, or at all. Furthermore, FDA may impose a clinical hold on one or more or all of the clinical studies or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial or development of an investigational product at any time for a variety of reasons, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Development, or the aspects of development, that are affected by the clinical hold may not continue unless and until the sponsor addresses all of FDA’s concerns and has been notified that the hold is removed. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate its approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the protocol or the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Nearly all Phase 3 trials and some other trials are overseen by a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (“DSMB”) which is composed of doctors, statisticians, and others who are independent of the clinical trial sponsor. Similar to IRBs, the DSMBs review the progress of a clinical trial and participant safety, but they also review data on the effectiveness of the drug being studied. DSMB members can stop a trial early if safety concerns arise or if they determine that the trial should be stopped due to “futility” meaning that the trial will not be able to answer the question or questions it set out to explore, or due to ethical considerations.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may need to complete additional animal trials and must develop information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must

26

develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be completed to establish an expiration date and demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration prior to the expiration date.

The NDA Approval Process. Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to FDA as part of an NDA to support approval to market the product for one or more indications. Under standard approval processes, in most cases, the submission of an NDA is subject to a substantial application user fee.

The FDA is required to conduct a preliminary review of an NDA within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting it for filing, to determine whether it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may accept the NDA for filing, potentially refuse to file the NDA due to deficiencies but work with the applicant to rectify the deficiencies (in which case the NDA is filed upon resolution of the deficiencies) or refuse to file the NDA. The FDA must notify the applicant of a refusal to file a decision within 60 days after the original receipt date of the application. If FDA refuses to file the NDA the applicant may resubmit the NDA with the deficiencies addressed. The resubmitted NDA is considered a new application subject to a new six- or ten-month review goal, as described below. If the NDA is resubmitted for the same product (by the same person) a new application fee will not be required. The resubmitted application is also subject to the 60-day review before FDA accepts it for filing. Once an NDA is accepted for filing, FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. Under PDUFA and FDA’s commitments under the current PDUFA Reauthorization Act, FDA has a goal of reviewing and acting on 90% of standard non-priority NDA applications within six or ten months from the filing date of the NDA.

The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or stored meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity. The FDA is required to refer an application for a novel drug or class to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation in response to specific questions raised by FDA, which may include whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, FDA inspects the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, FDA will typically inspect and audit data at one or more clinical sites to evaluate the integrity of the data and confirm compliance with cGCP.

After FDA evaluates the NDA and conducts its inspections, it may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug subject to specific prescribing information for specific indication(s) and, if applicable, specific post-approval requirements. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete but the application is not ready for approval. After receiving a Complete Response Letter, the applicant must decide within 12 months (subject to extension), if it plans to resubmit the NDA addressing the deficiencies identified by FDA in the Complete Response Letter, withdraw the NDA, or request an opportunity for a hearing to challenge FDA’s determination. A Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant, expensive and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. Even if such data are submitted, FDA may ultimately decide that the data in the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and FDA may interpret this data differently than we interpret the data.

The FDA also may require implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) to mitigate any identified or suspected serious risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools.

27

The drug testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and may take several years to complete. Data obtained from clinical activities are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval. The FDA may not grant marketing approval on a timely basis, or at all.

Even if FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product. The FDA requires that the approved product labeling include information regarding contraindications, warnings, or precautions. It may also require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, including a long-term registry, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or data to the labeling or manufacturing changes, may be subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. Also, after approval, FDA may require labeling changes as new information becomes known, particularly if new risks are identified following commercial use, such as unexpected adverse events. The FDA has the authority to prevent or limit further marketing of a drug based on the results of these post-marketing studies and programs or other information that may become known after approval.

Hatch-Waxman Amendments and Exclusivity. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, amended the FFDCA and established abbreviated pathways to market, as well as incentives for the development of new drug products. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments established section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA that provides an alternative pathway for submission of an NDA, referred to as the 505(b)(2) application, when some or all of the safety and efficacy investigations relied on for approval were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference, but for which the information is publicly available. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also established the abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) approval pathway, which provides an expedient route for generic drugs that have the same active ingredient as a previously approved drug. At the same time, to incentivize continued pharmaceutical innovation, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments authorized periods of market exclusivity to protect certain approved new drugs from competition for five- or three-year periods.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, a new drug containing an active ingredient that had never before been approved in any other NDA, ANDA, or 505(b)(2) NDA is provided five years of market exclusivity upon approval. The FDA refers to this exclusivity as NCE exclusivity. During the NCE exclusivity period, FDA cannot approve an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) application for a drug containing the same active ingredient. For NCE exclusivity, FDA regulations interpret “active ingredient” to mean “active moiety,” which is defined as “the molecule or ion, excluding those appended portions of the molecule that cause the drug to be an ester, salt . . . , or other noncovalent derivative . . . of the molecule, responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance.” Although FDA may not approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA with the same active ingredient during the five-year NCE exclusivity period, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted to FDA after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also provide three years of market exclusivity for an NDA, a 505(b)(2) NDA, or a supplement to either of these applications for a drug product containing an active moiety that has been previously approved, if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant, are deemed by FDA to be essential to the approval of the application. During this three-year exclusivity period, FDA will not make effective the approval of any ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA for the same active moiety for the same conditions of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a new drug containing the same active moiety if it is the subject of a full NDA for which the applicant conducted, sponsored, or obtained a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Other Regulatory Requirements. Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by FDA, including, among other things, annual establishment registration and product listing and associated user fees, compliance with the cGMP, recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion, and adverse drug experience monitoring and reporting with

28

the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product labeling, such as adding new indications are subject to prior FDA review and approval. Also, any post-approval changes in the drug substance, drug product, production process, quality controls, equipment, or facilities that have a substantial potential to have an adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the drug product is subject to FDA review and approval. Any such changes that have a moderate potential to have an adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the drug product must be submitted to FDA for review 30 days prior to implementation. All manufacturing facilities, as well as records required to be maintained under FDA regulations, are subject to inspection or audit by FDA. In addition, manufacturers are required to pay annual user fees for establishment registration and user fees for the submission of each new or supplemental application with clinical data.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, FDA may require post-approval testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 gave FDA the authority to require a REMS from drug manufacturers to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with the drug and to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. Examples of a REMS include, but are not limited to, a Medication Guide, a patient package insert to help mitigate a serious risk of the drug, and a communication plan to health care providers to support the implementation of an element of the REMS.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with FDA and register or obtain permits or licenses in states where they do business and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by FDA and state regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over their activities to determine compliance with regulatory requirements. A drug manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that its third-party contractors operate in compliance with applicable laws and regulations including the cGMP regulation. The failure of a drug manufacturer or any of its third-party contractors to comply with federal or state laws or regulations may subject the drug manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as an untitled letter, warning letter, recall, suspension of manufacturing or distribution or both, suspension of state permit or license, seizure of product, import detention, injunctive action, civil and criminal penalties.

Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require a drug manufacturer to conduct investigations and implement appropriate corrective actions to address any deviations from cGMP requirements and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the manufacturer and any third-party contractors (including contract manufacturers and laboratories) involved in the manufacture of a drug product. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend significant time, money and effort to maintain and ensure ongoing cGMP compliance and to confirm and ensure ongoing cGMP compliance of their third-party contractors.

Once an approval is granted, FDA may withdraw the approval if there is new information or evidence that the drug is unsafe or not shown to be safe for use under the conditions of its approval, or that new information shows there is a lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness, or that the approved application contained an untrue statement of material fact, or that the required patent information was not submitted within 30 days after receiving notice from FDA of the failure to submit such information. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety and risk information; imposition of a post-market study requirement to assess new safety risks; or implementation of a REMS that may include distribution or other restrictions.

The FDA closely regulates drug advertising and promotional activities, including promotion of an unapproved drug, direct-to-consumer advertising, dissemination of scientific information about a drug not on the approved labeling, off-label promotion, communications with payors and formulary committees, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet and social media. A company’s promotional product claims must be true and not misleading, provide fair balance, provide adequate risk information, and be consistent with the product label approved by FDA. Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to regulatory actions including, among other things, warning letters, corrective advertising, injunction, violation and related penalties under the False Claims Act and result in reputational and economic harm.

29

Physicians may prescribe FDA-approved drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those uses tested by the manufacturer. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments for their individual patients. The FDA does, however, regulate manufacturers’ communications about their drug products and interprets the FFDCA to prohibit pharmaceutical companies from promoting their FDA-approved drug products for uses that are not specified in the FDA-approved labeling. Companies that market drugs for off-label uses have been subject to warning letters, related costly litigation, criminal prosecution, and civil liability under the FFDCA and the False Claims Act.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”) which regulates the distribution of drug and drug samples at the federal level and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of wholesale drug distributors by the states.

Orphan Designation. The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 provides incentives, including marketing exclusivity, user fee waivers and tax benefits, to companies that undertake development and marketing of products to treat rare diseases, which are defined as diseases for which there is a patient population of fewer than 200,000 persons in the U.S. or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the U.S. where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the U.S. A drug that receives Orphan Drug designation may receive up to seven years of exclusive marketing in the U.S. for that indication, which means FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity. A drug may be entitled to an additional six months of exclusive marketing if it satisfies the requirements for pediatric exclusivity.

The EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”) grants Orphan Drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union Community and for which no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment has been authorized (or the product would be a significant benefit to those affected). Additionally, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the medicinal product. In the European Union, Orphan Drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following medicinal product approval. This period may be reduced to six years if the Orphan Drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

New Legislation and Regulations. From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the testing, approval, manufacturing, and marketing of products regulated by FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations and policies are often revised or interpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and product candidates. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance, policies or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing, and Reimbursement. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any drug products for which we may obtain marketing approval. Sales of any of our product candidates, if approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered by third-party payors, including government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a drug product typically is separate from the process for establishing the reimbursement rate that a payor will pay for the drug product once coverage is approved. Some third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved drugs for a particular indication.

30

In order to obtain coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Whether or not we conduct such studies, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to enable us to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of drug products and medical services and questioning safety and efficacy. Emphasis on managed care in the U.S. has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on drug pricing. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover the products for which we receive FDA approval or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products at a profit.

The U.S. government, state legislatures, and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs and drug prices in general, including for therapies for rare diseases. These measures include price controls, transparency requirements triggered by the introduction of new high-cost drugs into the market, drug re-importation, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. Some laws and regulations have already been enacted in these areas, and additional measures have been introduced or are under consideration at both the federal and state levels. Additionally, legislation that affects reimbursement for drugs with small patient populations could be adopted, limiting payments for pharmaceuticals such as our product candidates, which could adversely affect our potential future net revenue and results.

In addition, in the U.S., the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Affordable Care Act”) contains provisions that have the potential to substantially change healthcare delivery and financing, including impacting the profitability of drugs. For example, the Affordable Care Act revised the methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers for covered outpatient drugs are calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of covered drugs dispensed to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations and subjected manufacturers to new annual fees for certain branded prescription drugs. Given the complexity of the Affordable Care Act and the substantial requirements for regulation thereunder, the impact of the Affordable Care Act on our financial conditions and operations cannot be predicted, whether in its current form or as amended or repealed.

Pricing and reimbursement methodologies vary widely from country to country. Some countries require that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies 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 they may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on our profitability in 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 healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert 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 for any of our products.

31

Coverage policies, third-party reimbursement rates, and drug pricing regulation may change at any time, and there is the potential for significant movement in these areas in the foreseeable future. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Healthcare Law and Regulation. Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescribing of any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, manufacture, market, promote, sell and distribute our products that obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws include, but are not limited to, the following:

32

Further, the Affordable Care Act, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain criminal statutes governing healthcare fraud. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the Affordable Care Act provided that 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 False Claims Act.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to it, we may be subject to significant administrative, civil, and/or criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Foreign Regulation. In order to market any product outside of the U.S., we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of our products. The cost of establishing a regulatory compliance system for numerous varying jurisdictions can be very significant. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in foreign countries and jurisdictions. Although many of the issues discussed above with respect to the U.S. apply similarly in the context of the EU and/or other jurisdictions, the approval process varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Other Anti-Corruption Laws

We may be subject to a variety of domestic and foreign anti-corruption laws with respect to our regulatory compliance efforts and operations. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”) is a criminal statute that prohibits an individual or business from paying, offering, promising or authorizing the provision of money (such as a bribe or kickback) or anything else of value (such as an improper gift, hospitality, or favor), directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining, retaining, or directing business or other advantages (such as favorable regulatory rulings). The FCPA also obligates companies with securities listed in the U.S. to comply with certain accounting provisions. Those provisions require a company such as ours to (i) maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions, expenses, and asset dispositions, and (ii) devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that transactions are properly authorized, executed and recorded. The FCPA is subject to broad interpretation by the U.S. government. The past decade has seen a significant increase in enforcement activity. In addition to the FCPA, there are a number of other federal and state anti-corruption laws to which we may be subject, including, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 USC § 201 (which prohibits bribing U.S. government officials) and the U.S. Travel Act (which in some instances addresses private-sector or commercial bribery both within and outside the U.S.). Also, a number of the countries in which we may conduct activities have their own domestic and international anti-corruption laws, such as the UK Bribery Act 2010. There have been cases where companies have faced multi-jurisdictional liability under the FCPA and the anti-corruption laws of other countries for the same illegal act.

33

We can be held liable under the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws for the illegal activities of our employees, representatives, contractors, collaborators, agents, subsidiaries, or affiliates, even if we did not explicitly authorize such activity. Although we will seek to comply with anti-corruption laws, there can be no assurance that all of our employees, representatives, contractors, collaborators, agents, subsidiaries or affiliates will comply with these laws at all times. Noncompliance with these laws could subject us to whistleblower complaints, investigations, sanctions, settlements, prosecution, other enforcement actions, disgorgement of profits, significant fines, damages, other civil and criminal penalties or injunctions, suspension and/or debarment from contracting with certain governments or other persons, the loss of export privileges, reputational harm, adverse media coverage, and other collateral consequences. In addition, our directors, officers, employees, and other representatives who engage in violations of the FCPA and certain other anti-corruption statutes may face imprisonment, fines, and penalties. If any subpoenas or investigations are launched, or governmental or other sanctions are imposed, or if we do not prevail in any possible civil or criminal litigation, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially harmed. In addition, responding to any action will likely result in a materially significant diversion of our management’s attention and resources and significant defense costs and other professional fees. Enforcement actions and sanctions could further harm our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Human Capital/Employees

Our key human capital management objectives are to attract, retain and develop the highest quality talent. To support these objectives, our human resources programs are designed to develop talent to prepare them for critical roles and leadership positions for the future; reward and support employees through competitive pay and benefits; enhance our culture through efforts aimed at making the workplace more engaging and inclusive; acquire talent and facilitate internal talent mobility to create a high-performing and diverse workforce. As of February 15, 2022, we had 35 full-time employees, in addition to several consultants or independent contractors working for us. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We have not experienced a work stoppage and consider our relations with our employees to be good.

Available Information

We are subject to the information and reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) under which we file periodic reports, proxy and information statements and other information with the SEC. Copies of the reports, proxy statements and other information are available on the SEC’s website, https://www.sec.gov.

Financial and other information about us is available on our website (www.acertx.com). Information on our website, or that may be accessed by links on our website, is not incorporated by reference into this report. We make available on our website, free of charge, copies of our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after filing such material electronically or otherwise furnishing it to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Copies are available in print to any stockholder upon request in writing to Attention: Investor Relations, Acer Therapeutics Inc., One Gateway Center, Suite 351, 300 Washington Street, Newton, MA 02458.

34

Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. You should consider the following risk factors, as well as other information contained or incorporated by reference in this report, before deciding to invest in our securities. The following factors affect our business, our intellectual property, the industry in which we operate and our securities. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known or which we consider immaterial as of the date hereof may also have an adverse effect on our business. If any of the matters discussed in the following risk factors were to occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects could be materially adversely affected, the market price of our securities could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment in our securities.

Risks Related to Our Business and Financial Condition

We will require additional financing to complete development and seek to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates other than ACER-001 and, if approved, to commercialize our product candidates, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development, other operations or commercialization efforts.

Since our inception, substantially all of our resources have been dedicated to the clinical development of our product candidates. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $114.5 million, cash and cash equivalents of $12.7 million and current liabilities of $29.1 million, which include $15.8 million associated with deferred collaboration funding, as well as a $9.3 million liability related to the securities class action and stockholder derivative actions settlements and legal costs, for which we have also recorded an asset of an equal amount representing the recovery from our insurance carriers. As discussed above, we believe that our cash and cash equivalents available at December 31, 2021, plus the $5.0 million second tranche of the Second Development Payment received on January 14, 2022 per the Collaboration Agreement with Relief, will be sufficient to fund our anticipated operating and capital requirements into mid-2022, excluding support for planned ACER-001 (MSUD), ACER-801 and EDSIVO^TM clinical trials. There is no guarantee that ACER-001 will receive regulatory authority approval in any territory or become commercially available for the indications under investigation.

We will need to raise additional capital in order to finance the completion of clinical development and regulatory preparedness of our product candidates, preparations for a commercial launch of our product candidates, if approved, and development of any other current or future product candidates we may choose to further develop. These expenditures will include costs associated with research and development, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining marketing approvals, and manufacturing and supply as well as marketing and selling any products approved for sale. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the outcome of any drug development process is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our current product candidates, if approved, or future product candidates, if any.

Our operating plan may change as a result of factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek substantial additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings or other sources, such as non-dilutive funding or strategic collaborations. Such financing may result in dilution to stockholders, imposition of debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may adversely affect our business. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

35

Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to:

Substantial doubt exists as to our ability to continue as a going concern.

As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $114.5 million, cash and cash equivalents of $12.7 million, and current liabilities of $29.1 million, which include $15.8 million associated with deferred collaboration funding, as well as a $9.3 million liability related to the securities class action and stockholder derivative actions settlements and legal cost, for which we have also recorded an asset of an equal amount representing the recovery from our insurance carriers. We believe that our cash and cash equivalents available at December 31, 2021, plus the $5.0 million second tranche of the Second Development Payment received on January 14, 2022 per the Collaboration Agreement with Relief, will be sufficient to fund our currently anticipated operating and capital requirements into mid-2022, excluding support for planned ACER-001 (MSUD), ACER-801 and EDSIVO^TM clinical trials. There is no guarantee that ACER-001 will receive regulatory authority approval in any territory or become commercially available for the indications under investigation. We will continue to require substantial capital to continue our clinical development and pursuit of regulatory approval activities. Accordingly, we will need to raise substantial additional capital to continue to fund our operations. Moreover, we have not established a source of product sales and we expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future as we continue our development of, and seek marketing approvals for, our product candidates. These factors individually and collectively raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and therefore it may be more difficult for us to attract investors. Unless we are able to raise additional capital to finance our operations, our long-term business plan may not be accomplished, and we may be forced to cease, reduce, or delay operations, including reduction of employees recently hired in order to prepare for possible launch and marketing of ACER-001.

36

We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting that resulted in a restatement of our unaudited condensed interim financial statements for the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2021 and June 30, 2021. This material weakness, if not remediated, could again adversely affect our ability to report our results of operations and financial condition accurately and in a timely manner.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of our financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP. Our management is likewise required, on a quarterly basis, to evaluate the effectiveness of our internal controls and to disclose any changes and material weaknesses identified through such evaluation in those internal controls. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

As described elsewhere in this report, we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting related to the accounting and reporting for the Collaboration Agreement entered into with Relief. As a result of this material weakness, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021, September 30, 2021, and December 31, 2021.

To respond to this material weakness, we have devoted, and plan to continue to devote, significant effort and resources to the remediation and improvement of our internal control over financial reporting. The elements of our remediation plan can only be accomplished over time, and we can provide no assurance that these initiatives will ultimately have the intended effects. For a discussion of management’s consideration of the material weakness identified with respect to our accounting and reporting for the Relief transaction, see Part II, Item 9A, “Controls and Procedures” included in this report.

Any failure to remediate our existing or any future material weaknesses or otherwise maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could adversely impact our ability to report our financial position and results of operations on a timely and accurate basis. If our financial statements are not accurate, investors may not have a complete understanding of our operations and may lose confidence in our financial reporting and our business, reputation, results of operations, liquidity, financial condition, stock price and ability to access the capital markets could be adversely affected. In addition, we may be unable to maintain or regain compliance with applicable securities laws, stock market listing requirements and covenants regarding the timely filing of periodic reports, we may be subject to regulatory investigations and penalties, and we may face claims invoking the federal and state securities laws. Any such litigation or dispute, whether successful or not, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We can provide no assurance that the measures we have taken and plan to take in the future will remediate the material weakness identified or that any additional material weaknesses or restatements of financial results will not arise in the future due to a failure to implement and maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting or circumvention of these controls. In addition, even if we are successful in strengthening our controls and procedures, in the future these controls and procedures may not be adequate to prevent or identify irregularities or errors or to facilitate the fair presentation of our financial statements.

We entered into the Collaboration Agreement with Relief which allows them to control the development and commercialization of ACER-001 in UCDs and MSUD in territories other than the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Turkey, and Japan, which may impact our ability to generate revenues and achieve or sustain profitability. In addition, we are required to provide assistance to Relief in the performance of their contractual obligations, which may distract us from achieving our objectives.

On March 19, 2021, we entered into the Collaboration Agreement with Relief providing for the development and commercialization of ACER-001 for the treatment of various inborn errors of metabolism, including for the treatment of UCDs and MSUD. The Collaboration Agreement is the culmination of the Option Agreement previously entered into between Acer and Relief on January 25, 2021 which provided Relief with an exclusive period of time up to June 30, 2021 for the parties to enter into a mutually acceptable definitive agreement with respect to the potential collaboration and license arrangements in return for a $1.0 million exclusivity fee. Upon

37

signing the Collaboration Agreement, we received a $10.0 million cash payment from Relief ($14.0 million, offset by repayment of the $4.0 million outstanding balance of the prior loan, plus interest, from Relief to Acer). Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, Relief committed to pay us up to $20.0 million for U.S. development and commercial launch costs for the UCDs and MSUD indications. During the three months ended June 30, 2021, we received from Relief the $10.0 million First Development Payment. We were contractually entitled to receive from Relief an additional $10.0 million Second Development Payment conditioned upon FDA’s acceptance of an NDA for ACER-001 in a UCD for filing and review. This acceptance was received on October 4, 2021. On October 6, we entered into a Waiver and Agreement with Relief to amend the timing for the Second Development Payment. We received the Second Development Payment in two $5.0 million tranches on each of October 12, 2021 and January 14, 2022. Further, we retained development and commercialization rights in the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Turkey and Japan. The companies will split net profits from Acer’s territories 60%:40% in favor of Relief. Relief licensed the rights for the rest of the world, where we will receive from Relief a 15% royalty on all net sales received by Relief in Relief’s territories. We could also receive a total of $6.0 million in milestone payments based on the first European (“EU”) marketing approvals of ACER-001 for a UCD and MSUD. There is no guarantee that ACER-001 will receive regulatory authority approval in any territory or become commercially available for the indications under investigation.

The rights we have relinquished to our product candidate ACER-001 in the applicable territories, including development and commercialization rights, may impact our ability to generate revenues and achieve or sustain profitability. We are reliant on Relief’s resources and efforts with respect to ACER-001 in UCDs and MSUD in their applicable territories, including the pace at which Relief moves forward with development and commercialization. Relief may fail to develop or successfully commercialize ACER-001 for a variety of reasons, including that Relief:

In addition, we are required by our agreements with Relief to provide certain assistance in the performance of their obligations. Doing so may cause us to delay or defer achievement of our own objectives regarding ACER-001 or our other programs.

If Relief does not pursue development and successfully commercialize ACER-001 in the applicable territories, our ability to generate revenues and achieve or sustain profitability could be significantly hindered and may have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Funding from our equity line purchase agreement with Lincoln Park may be limited or be insufficient to fund our operations or implement our strategy.

Under our equity line purchase agreement with Lincoln Park, we may direct Lincoln Park to purchase up to $15.0 million of shares of our common stock, subject to certain limitations and conditions, over a 36-month period commencing on June 8, 2020, with $12.1 million obligation remaining as of December 31, 2021. There can be no assurance that we will be able to receive all of the remaining committed funds from Lincoln Park because the purchase agreement contains limitations, restrictions, requirements, events of default and other provisions that could limit our ability to cause Lincoln Park to buy common stock from us, including that Lincoln Park own no more than 9.99% of our common stock. In addition, under the applicable rules of the Nasdaq Capital Market, if we seek to issue shares in excess of 19.99% of the total common stock outstanding as of the date we entered into the purchase agreement, we may be required to seek stockholder approval in order to be in compliance with the Nasdaq Capital Market rules. Our inability to access a portion or the full amount remaining available under the purchase agreement,

38

in the absence of any other financing sources, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Subsequent to signing the purchase agreement and through the date of this report, we have sold an aggregate of 1,100,000 shares of common stock under the purchase agreement for net proceeds of $2.6 million.

The extent to which we rely on Lincoln Park as a source of funding will depend on a number of factors, including the amount of working capital needed, the prevailing market price of our common stock and the extent to which we are able to secure working capital from other sources. We may also need to file one or more additional registration statements to register shares for resale under the terms of the purchase agreement and keep current an offering prospectus. If obtaining sufficient funding from Lincoln Park were to prove unavailable or prohibitively dilutive, we would need to secure another source of funding in order to satisfy our working capital needs. Even if we were to receive all $15.0 million in proceeds under the purchase agreement with Lincoln Park, we may still need additional capital to fully implement our business, operating and development plans. Should the financing we require to sustain our working capital needs be unavailable or prohibitively expensive when we require it, the consequences could be a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and prospects.

Funding from our at-the-market (“ATM”) facility with JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC (“JonesTrading”) and Roth Capital Partners, LLC (“Roth Capital”) may be limited or may be insufficient to fund our operations or to implement our strategy.

We will need to keep current our shelf registration statement and an offering prospectus relating to our ATM facility with JonesTrading and Roth Capital in order to use the program to sell shares of our common stock, as well as provide certain periodic deliverables required by the amended and restated sales agreement with JonesTrading and Roth Capital for the ATM facility. Due to the SEC’s “baby shelf rules,” which prohibit companies with a public float of less than $75 million from issuing securities under a shelf registration statement in excess of one-third of such company’s public float in a 12-month period, we are only able to issue a limited number of shares which aggregate to no more than one-third of our public float using our shelf registration statement at this time. The number of shares and price at which we may be able to sell shares under the ATM facility may be limited due to market conditions and other factors beyond our control.

We have a limited operating history and have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability. The absence of any commercial sales and our limited operating history make it difficult to assess our future viability.

We are a development-stage pharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and a history of losses. Pharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We are focused principally on repurposing and/or reformulating existing drugs for serious rare and life-threatening diseases with significant unmet medical needs. We are not profitable and have incurred losses in each year since inception. We have only a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. In addition, we have limited experience and have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. We have not generated any product sales revenue to date. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. Our net loss for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 was $15.4 million and $22.9 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $114.5 million. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future as we continue our development of, and seek marketing approvals for, our product candidates.

We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources to identify, acquire, and develop our product candidates, including providing general and administrative support for our operations. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of our future expenditures and our ability to obtain funding through public or private equity or debt financings, strategic collaborations, or non-dilutive funding. We expect losses to increase as we conduct clinical trials and continue to develop our product candidates. We expect to invest significant funds into the research and development of our current product candidates to determine the potential to advance these product candidates to

39

regulatory approval. We may also invest in acquiring or in-licensing additional product candidates to expand our pipeline.

If we obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, our future revenue will depend upon the size of any markets in which our product candidates may receive approval and our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, pricing, reimbursement from third-party payors, and adequate market share for our product candidates in those markets. Even if we obtain adequate market share for our product candidates, because the potential markets in which our product candidates may ultimately receive regulatory approval could be very small, we may never become profitable despite obtaining such market share and acceptance of our products.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future, and our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

Further, the net losses we incur will fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance.

We currently have no source of product sales revenue and may never be profitable.

While we have generated revenue related to the Collaboration Agreement with Relief, we have not generated any revenues from commercial sales of any of our current product candidates. Our ability to generate product revenue depends upon our ability to successfully identify, develop and commercialize these product candidates or other product candidates that we may develop, in-license or acquire in the future. Our ability to generate future product revenue from our current or future product candidates also depends on a number of additional factors, including our ability to:

40

In addition, because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with clinical product development, including that our product candidates may not successfully advance through development or achieve regulatory approval, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of any potential future product sales revenues. Our expenses also could increase beyond expectations if we decide to or are required by FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to perform studies or trials to satisfy additional unexpected activities in addition to those that we currently anticipate.

Even if we complete the development and regulatory processes described above, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with launching and commercializing these products.

We have incurred, and expect to continue to incur, increased costs and risks as a result of being a public company.

As a public company, we are required to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), as well as rules and regulations implemented by the SEC and the Nasdaq Capital Market (“Nasdaq”). Changes in the laws and regulations affecting public companies, including the provisions of SOX and rules adopted by the SEC and by Nasdaq, have resulted in, and will continue to result in, increased costs as we respond to their requirements. Given the risks inherent in the design and operation of internal controls over financial reporting, the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting is uncertain. If our internal controls are not designed or operating effectively, we may not be able to conclude an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting as required or we or our independent registered public accounting firm may determine that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective. We currently have a very limited workforce, and it may be difficult to adhere to appropriate internal controls over financial reporting or disclosure controls with such limited staffing. We are not yet subject to the provisions of section 404(b) of SOX, which would require our independent registered public accounting firm’s attestation on management’s assessment of internal controls over financial reporting. Investors may lose confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which could cause the market price of our common stock to decline and which could affect our ability to run our business effectively. Being a public company could also make it more difficult or more costly for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. The impact of these events could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our Board of Directors, our Board committees, and as executive officers.

If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal controls, our ability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis could be impaired.

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, SOX and Nasdaq rules and regulations. SOX requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. We must perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filing for that year, as required by Section 404 of SOX.

As discussed in this report, we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting that resulted in a restatement of our unaudited condensed interim financial statements for the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2021 and June 30, 2021 relating to the Collaboration Agreement we entered into with Relief. Although we are committed to continuing to improve our internal control processes, and although we will continue to

41

diligently and vigorously review our internal controls over financial reporting, we cannot be certain that, in the future, a material weakness will not exist or otherwise be discovered. We may discover other weaknesses in our system of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. Our internal control over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.

If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of SOX, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. If that were to happen, the market price of our common stock could decline and we could be subject to penalties or investigations by Nasdaq or the SEC.

We face risks related to health epidemics including but not limited to the COVID-19 pandemic which could adversely affect our business.

Our business could be materially adversely affected by the effects of a widespread outbreak of contagious disease, including the recent pandemic of COVID-19, a respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus. While our employees work remotely a large part of the time, these effects could include disruptions or restrictions on our employees’ ability to travel, as well as disruptions at or closures of our facilities or the facilities of our manufacturers and suppliers, which could adversely impact our development activities and other operations. Health professionals may reduce staffing and reduce or postpone meetings with clients, colleagues, and others in response to the spread of an infectious disease. Such events may result in a period of business disruption, and in reduced operations, any of which could materially affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, a significant outbreak of contagious diseases in the human population could result in a widespread health crisis that could adversely affect the economies and financial markets of many countries, resulting in an economic downturn or volatility that could adversely affect our manufacturers and suppliers and otherwise adversely impact our development activities and other operations.

The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition is difficult to predict. The outbreak could potentially affect the business of FDA, EMA or other health authorities, which could result in delays in meetings related to our product candidates and our planned clinical trials and ultimately in the review and approval of our product candidates. The spread of COVID-19 may also slow potential enrollment of clinical trials and reduce the number of eligible patients for our clinical trials, thereby making recruitment more difficult and competitive. Prolonged disruptions to businesses, manufacturing and supply chain, including shelter-in-place or similar orders imposed by federal, state or local government authorities, and economic downturns can lead to material adverse effects on our business operations, including layoffs and/or suspension of our business operations. The COVID-19 outbreak and mitigation measures also have had and may continue to have an adverse impact on global economic conditions which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition, including impairing our ability to raise capital when and in the amount needed. The extent to which COVID-19 impacts our business will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including new information which may emerge concerning the severity of COVID-19 and the actions to contain COVID-19 or treat its impact, among others. In addition, any COVID-19 infection of any of our employees could have a significant impact on our ability to conduct business.

We face substantial competitive and other risks in our ACER-2820 program, aimed against a variety of infectious diseases including COVID-19, and we may be unable to raise non-dilutive capital to continue the program.

We have a development program for ACER-2820, a host-directed therapy against a variety of viruses, including COVID-19. There are many companies addressing COVID-19, both in therapeutic treatment and vaccines, many of which have significantly greater resources and capital than we do. Recent positive events in the development of one or more vaccines may reduce the demand for therapeutic products addressing COVID-19. The

42

competition for funding research and development in this disease is intense and most of our competitors have greater resources available to them. Regulatory requirements in this area are in flux and will likely remain uncertain. Further advancement of the ACER-2820 program in COVID-19 and other infectious diseases is dependent on our ability to raise non-dilutive capital. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain adequate financing to carry out our development plan or that, even if funding is obtained, our development of ACER-2820 will be successful, timely, and accepted by appropriate regulatory authorities.

Any acquisitions that we make could disrupt our business and harm our financial condition.

We expect to evaluate potential strategic acquisitions of complementary businesses, products or technologies worldwide. We may also consider joint ventures, licensing and other collaborative projects. We may not be able to identify appropriate acquisition candidates or strategic partners, or successfully negotiate, finance or integrate acquisitions of any businesses, products or technologies. Furthermore, the integration of any acquisition and management of any collaborative project may divert our management’s time and resources from our core business and disrupt our operations. As a company, we have limited experience with acquiring other companies, or with acquiring products outside of the U.S. Any cash acquisition we pursue would divert the cash we have on our balance sheet from our present clinical development programs. Any stock acquisitions would dilute our stockholders’ ownership.

Risks Related to the Clinical Development and Marketing Approval of Our Product Candidates

The marketing approval processes of FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, including ACER-001 for which we received FDA’s acceptance for filing and substantive review of our NDA in October 2021, our business will be substantially harmed.

None of our current product candidates have gained marketing approval for sale in the U.S. or any other country, and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have marketable products. Our business is substantially dependent on our ability to complete the development of, obtain marketing approval for, and successfully commercialize our product candidates in a timely manner. We cannot commercialize our product candidates in the U.S. without first obtaining approval from FDA to market each product candidate. Similarly, we cannot commercialize our product candidates outside of the U.S. without obtaining regulatory approval from comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Our product candidates could fail to receive marketing approval for many reasons, including the following:

43

Before obtaining marketing approval for the commercial sale of any drug product for a target indication, we must demonstrate in preclinical studies and well-controlled clinical trials and, to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authorities, that the product is safe and effective for its intended use and that the manufacturing facilities, processes, and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity. In the U.S., it is necessary to submit and obtain approval of an NDA from FDA. An NDA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product safety and efficacy for each desired indication. The NDA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing, and controls for the product. After the submission but before approval of the NDA, the manufacturing facilities used to manufacture a product candidate must be inspected by FDA to ensure compliance with the applicable cGMP requirements. The FDA and the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, may also inspect our clinical trial sites and audit clinical study data to ensure that our studies are properly conducted in accordance with the IND regulations, human subject protection regulations, and cGCP.

Obtaining approval of an NDA is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process, and approval may not be obtained. Upon submission of an NDA, 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, even those that are or have been accepted for filing and reviewed by FDA, will ultimately be approved. If the application is not accepted for review, FDA may require that we conduct additional clinical studies or preclinical testing or take other actions before it will reconsider our application. If FDA requires additional studies or data, we would incur increased costs and delays in the marketing approval process, which may require us to reduce headcount or other expenses and/or expend more resources than we have available. In addition, FDA may not consider any additional information to be complete or sufficient to support the filing or approval of the NDA.

Regulatory authorities outside of the U.S., such as in Europe and Japan and in emerging markets, also have requirements for approval of drugs for commercial sale with which we must comply prior to marketing in those areas. 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 or the results may not be found adequate 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 and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could require additional non-clinical studies or clinical trials, which could be costly and time-consuming. Foreign regulatory approval may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. For all of these reasons, we may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all.

The process to develop, obtain marketing approval for, and commercialize product candidates is long, complex and costly, both inside and outside of the U.S., and approval is never guaranteed. The time required to obtain approval by 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

44

data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. Even if our product candidates were to successfully obtain approval from regulatory authorities, any such approval might significantly limit the approved indications for use, including more limited patient populations, require that precautions, warnings or contraindications be included on the product labeling, including black box warnings, require expensive and time-consuming post-approval clinical studies, risk evaluation and mitigation strategies or surveillance as conditions of approval, or, through the product label, the approval may limit the claims that we may make, which may impede the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Following any approval for commercial sale of our product candidates, certain changes to the product, such as changes in manufacturing processes and additional labeling claims, as well as new safety information, may require new studies and will be subject to additional FDA notification, or review and approval. Also, marketing approval for any of our product candidates may be withdrawn. If we are unable to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates in one or more jurisdictions, or any approval contains significant limitations, our ability to market to our full target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be impaired. Furthermore, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding or generate sufficient revenue and cash flows to continue or complete the development of any of our current or future product candidates.

If we are unable to obtain approval under Section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA or if we are required to generate additional data related to safety or efficacy in order to seek approval under Section 505(b)(2), we may be unable to meet our anticipated development and commercialization timelines, and could decide not to pursue further development, depending on the expected time, cost, and risks associated with generating any such additional data.

Traditional drug development typically relies upon Section 505(b)(1) of the FFDCA for seeking marketing authorization in the U.S., where the sponsor of the product candidate (i.e., the applicant for marketing authorization) is required to conduct all of the studies needed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of such candidate. Although we may consider a Section 505(b)(1) pathway in the future, our current strategy for seeking marketing authorization in the U.S. for our product candidates (including ACER-001 and EDSIVO™) relies at least in part on Section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA, which permits use of a marketing application, referred to as a 505(b)(2) application, where at least some of the information needed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidate at issue for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use. The FDA interprets this to mean that an applicant may rely for approval on such data as that found in published literature or FDA’s finding of safety or effectiveness, or both, of a previously approved drug product owned by a third party. There is no assurance that FDA would find third-party data relied upon by us in a 505(b)(2) application sufficient or adequate to support approval, and FDA may require us to generate additional data to support the safety and efficacy of our product candidates. Depending on the time, nature, risk, and cost of obtaining that data or undertaking the required activities, we may decide that we are not able or willing to proceed with development, and may or may not reduce headcount and spending accordingly.

For example, in June 2019, we received a Complete Response Letter from FDA regarding our NDA for EDSIVO™ for the treatment of vEDS. The Complete Response Letter stated that it will be necessary to conduct an adequate and well-controlled trial to determine whether celiprolol reduces the risk of clinical events in patients with vEDS. In light of FDA’s Complete Response Letter regarding our NDA for EDSIVO^TM, we halted precommercial activities. In December 2019, we submitted a Formal Dispute Resolution Request to the Office of New Drugs appealing FDA’s decision as outlined in the Complete Response Letter. In March 2020, we received a response to our Formal Dispute Resolution Request from the Office of New Drugs of FDA stating that it had denied our appeal of the Complete Response Letter in relation to the NDA for EDSIVO^TM. In its Appeal Denied letter, the Office of New Drugs (i) described possible paths forward for us to explore that could provide the substantial evidence of effectiveness needed to support a potential resubmission of the EDSIVO^TM NDA for the treatment of patients with vEDS with a confirmed COL3A1 mutation and (ii) referred to the FDA Guidance document issued in December 2019, where substantial evidence of effectiveness can be provided by two or more adequate and well-controlled studies demonstrating efficacy, or a single positive adequate and well-controlled study plus confirmatory evidence.

Following a Type B meeting with FDA in the second quarter of 2021, we are now planning a U.S.-based prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, decentralized pivotal clinical trial in patients with COL3A1+ vEDS, which we refer to as the DiSCOVER trial. The proposed design features of the study discussed

45

with FDA include: the acceptability of a decentralized (virtual) clinical trial design and use of an independent centralized adjudication committee; acceptability of a primary endpoint based on clinical events associated with disease outcome; agreement with modest safety data collection (based on the known safety profile of the drug) and no PK data needing to be collected; and a statistical plan that considers the rare disease classification of vEDS. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we submitted a protocol for the prospective pivotal trial, along with an IND. In January 2022, we also requested breakthrough therapy designation and we are working with FDA to reach agreement on a SPA. Based on initial power calculations, we anticipate that the trial should plan to enroll approximately 200 COL3A1+ vEDS patients in the U.S., and the duration of the clinical trial is estimated to be approximately 3.5 years to complete once fully enrolled. If agreement is reached with FDA on our proposed SPA, initiation of the EDSIVO^TM DiSCOVER pivotal clinical trial is expected in the second quarter of 2022, subject to additional capital. There can be no assurance that the resulting data from the trial would be adequate to support approval of our NDA. We may also conclude at any point that the cost, risk and uncertainty of obtaining that additional data does not justify continuing with the development of EDSIVO™.

If the data to be relied upon in a 505(b)(2) application are related to drug products previously approved by FDA and covered by patents that are listed in FDA’s Orange Book, we would be required to submit with our 505(b)(2) application a Paragraph IV Certification in which we must certify that we do not infringe the listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, and provide notice to the patent owner or the holder of the approved NDA. The patent owner or NDA holder would have 45 days from receipt of the notification of our Paragraph IV Certification to initiate a patent infringement action against us. If an infringement action is initiated, the approval of our NDA would be subject to a stay of up to 30 months or more while we defend against such a suit. Approval of our product candidates under Section 505(b)(2) may, therefore, be delayed until patent exclusivity expires or until we successfully challenge the applicability of those patents to our product candidates. Alternatively, we might elect a Section 505(b)(1) pathway to generate sufficient clinical data so that we would no longer need to rely on third-party data. However, a Section 505(b)(1) pathway would likely be costly and time-consuming and there would be no assurance that such data generated from such additional activities would be sufficient to seek or obtain approval.

We may not be able to obtain shortened review of our applications, and FDA may not agree that our product candidates qualify for marketing approval. If we are required to generate additional data to support approval, we may be unable to meet anticipated or reasonable development and commercialization timelines, may be unable to generate the additional data at a reasonable cost, or at all, and may be unable to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates. If FDA changes its interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) allowing reliance on data in a previously approved drug application owned by a third party, or if there is a change in the law affecting Section 505(b)(2), this could delay or even prevent FDA from approving any Section 505(b)(2) application that we submit.

Marketing approval may be substantially delayed or may not be obtained for one or all of our product candidates if regulatory authorities require additional or more studies to assess the safety and efficacy of our product candidates. We could decide not to pursue further development of one or all of our product candidates, depending on, among other things, the expected time, cost, and risks associated with generating any such additional data.

We may be unable to initiate or complete development of our product candidates on schedule, if at all. The completion of the studies for certain of our product candidates will require us to obtain substantial additional funding beyond our current resources. In addition, regulatory authorities may require additional or more time-consuming studies to assess the safety or efficacy of our product candidates than we are currently planning. For example, in June 2019, we received a Complete Response Letter from FDA regarding our NDA for EDSIVO™ for the treatment of vEDS. The Complete Response Letter stated that it will be necessary to conduct an adequate and well-controlled trial to determine whether celiprolol reduces the risk of clinical events in patients with vEDS. In light of FDA’s Complete Response Letter regarding our NDA for EDSIVO^TM, we halted precommercial activities. In December 2019, we submitted a Formal Dispute Resolution Request to the Office of New Drugs appealing FDA’s decision as outlined in the Complete Response Letter. In March 2020, we received a response to our Formal Dispute Resolution Request from the Office of New Drugs of FDA stating that it had denied our appeal of the Complete Response Letter in relation to the NDA for EDSIVO™. In its Appeal Denied letter, the Office of New Drugs (i) described possible paths forward for us to explore that could provide the substantial evidence of

46

effectiveness needed to support a potential resubmission of the EDSIVO™ NDA for the treatment of patients with vEDS with a confirmed COL3A1 mutation and (ii) referred to the FDA Guidance document issued in December 2019, where substantial evidence of effectiveness can be provided by two or more adequate and well-controlled studies demonstrating efficacy, or a single positive adequate and well-controlled study plus confirmatory evidence.

Following a Type B meeting with FDA in the second quarter of 2021, we are now planning a U.S.-based prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, decentralized pivotal clinical trial in patients with COL3A1+ vEDS, which we refer to as the DiSCOVER trial. The proposed design features of the study discussed with FDA include: the acceptability of a decentralized (virtual) clinical trial design and use of an independent centralized adjudication committee; acceptability of a primary endpoint based on clinical events associated with disease outcome; agreement with modest safety data collection (based on the known safety profile of the drug) and no PK data needing to be collected; and a statistical plan that considers the rare disease classification of vEDS. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we submitted a protocol for the prospective pivotal trial, along with an IND. In January 2022, we also requested breakthrough therapy designation and are working with FDA to reach agreement on a SPA. Based on initial power calculations, we anticipate that the trial should plan to enroll approximately 200 COL3A1+ vEDS patients in the U.S., and the duration of the clinical trial is estimated to be approximately 3.5 years to complete once fully enrolled. If agreement is reached with FDA on our proposed SPA, initiation of the EDSIVO^TM DiSCOVER pivotal clinical trial is expected in the second quarter of 2022, subject to additional capital. There can be no assurance that the resulting data from the trial would be adequate to support approval of our NDA. We may also conclude at any point that the cost, risk and uncertainty of obtaining that additional data does not justify continuing with the development of EDSIVO™.

We currently do not have, and may not be able to obtain, adequate funding to complete the necessary steps for approval for any or all of our product candidates. Additional delays may result if FDA, an FDA Advisory Committee (if one is convened to review any NDA we file) or another regulatory authority indicates that a product candidate should not be approved or there should be restrictions on approval, such as the requirement for a REMS, to ensure the safe use of the drug. Delays in marketing approval or rejections of applications for marketing approval in the U.S. or other markets may result from many factors, including:

The lengthy and unpredictable approval process, as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results, may result in our failure to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly

47

harm our business, results of operations and prospects and could lead to reduction in headcount, including those employees recently hired to assist in commercial launch and marketing of our products, including but not limited to ACER-001.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome. Clinical development of product candidates for rare diseases carries additional risks, such as recruiting patients in a very small patient population.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and determining when or whether marketing approval will be obtained for our current product candidates. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our current product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by FDA or comparable foreign authorities. Our future clinical trial results may not be successful.

It is impossible to predict the extent to which the clinical trial process may be affected by legislative and regulatory developments. Due to these and other factors, our current product candidates or future product candidates could take a significantly longer time to gain marketing approval than expected or may never gain marketing approval. This could delay or eliminate any potential product revenue by delaying or terminating the potential commercialization of our current product candidates.

Preclinical trials must also be conducted in accordance with FDA and comparable foreign authorities’ legal requirements, regulations or guidelines, including cGLP, an international standard meant to harmonize the conduct and quality of nonclinical studies and the archiving and reporting of findings. Preclinical studies including long-term toxicity studies and carcinogenicity studies in animals may result in findings that may require further evaluation, which could affect the risk-benefit evaluation of clinical development, or which may lead the regulatory agencies to delay, prohibit the initiation of or halt clinical trials or delay or deny marketing authorization applications. Failure to adhere to the applicable cGLP standards or misconduct during the course of preclinical trials may invalidate the data and require one or more studies to be repeated or additional testing to be conducted.

Clinical trials must also be conducted in accordance with FDA and comparable foreign authorities’ legal requirements, regulations or guidelines, including human subject protection requirements and cGCP. Clinical trials are subject to further oversight by these governmental agencies and IRBs, at the medical institutions where the clinical trials are conducted. In addition, clinical trials must be conducted with supplies of our current product candidates produced under cGMP and other requirements. Clinical trials are usually conducted at multiple sites, potentially including some sites in countries outside the U.S. and the EU, which may subject us to further delays and expenses as a result of increased shipment costs, additional regulatory requirements and the engagement of foreign and non-EU clinical research organizations, as well as expose us to risks associated with clinical investigators who are unknown to FDA or the European regulatory authorities, and with different standards of diagnosis, screening and medical care.

The commencement and completion of clinical trials for our current product candidates may be delayed, suspended or terminated as a result of many factors, including but not limited to:

48

Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials and is affected by many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs or treatments that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. In addition, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may materially adversely affect our ability to recruit qualified subjects for our clinical trials for our product candidates. It is impossible to predict that impact on our clinical trials and our business.

There are significant requirements imposed on us and on clinical investigators who conduct clinical trials that we sponsor. Although we are responsible for selecting qualified clinical investigators, providing them with the information they need to conduct the clinical trial properly, ensuring proper monitoring of the clinical trial, and ensuring that the clinical trial is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols contained in the IND, we cannot ensure the clinical investigators will maintain compliance with all regulatory requirements at all times. The pharmaceutical industry has experienced cases where clinical investigators have been found to incorrectly record data, omit data, or even falsify data. We cannot ensure that the clinical investigators in our trials will not make mistakes or otherwise compromise the integrity or validity of data, any of which would have a significant negative effect on our ability to obtain marketing approval, our business, and our financial condition.

We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trial is being conducted, by the DSMB for such trial, or by FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We or such authorities may impose 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 FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using the 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 or termination of any clinical trial of our current product candidates, the commercial prospects of our current product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from our product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical

49

trials will increase our costs, slow our development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. 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 marketing approval of our product candidates.

Any of these occurrences could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. 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 marketing approval of our current product candidates. Significant clinical trial delays could also allow our competitors to bring products to market before we are able to do so, shorten any periods during which we have the exclusive right to commercialize our current product candidates and impair our ability to commercialize our current product candidates, which may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Because the results of earlier clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, any product candidate we advance through clinical trials may not have favorable results in later clinical trials or receive marketing approval.

Clinical failure can occur at any stage of our clinical development. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical or preclinical testing. Data obtained from tests are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent marketing approval.

In addition, the design of a clinical trial can determine whether our results will support approval of a product or approval of a product for desired indications, and flaws or shortcomings in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. Further, clinical trials of potential products often reveal that it is not practical or feasible to continue development efforts. If one of our product candidates is found to be unsafe or lack efficacy, we will not be able to obtain marketing approval for it and our business would be harmed. For example, if the results of our clinical trials of our product candidates do not achieve pre-specified endpoints or we are unable to provide primary or secondary endpoint measurements deemed acceptable by FDA or comparable foreign regulators or if we are unable to demonstrate an acceptable level of safety relative to the efficacy associated with our proposed indications, the prospects for approval of our product candidates would be materially and adversely affected. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including those with greater resources and experience than us, have suffered significant setbacks in Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials, even after seeing promising results in earlier clinical trials.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and/or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including differences in trial protocols and design, the size and type of the patient population, adherence to the dosing regimen and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. We do not know whether any clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent and/or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates.

As an organization, we have limited experience in designing and completing clinical trials and may be unable to do so efficiently or at all for our current product candidates or any product candidate we develop.

We will need to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates. The conduct of clinical trials and the submission of a successful NDA is a complicated process. As an organization, we have limited experience in designing and completing clinical trials, and we have limited experience in preparing and submitting regulatory filings. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to NDA submission and approval of our product candidates. We may require more time and incur greater costs than anticipated and may not succeed in obtaining marketing approval of the product candidates

50

we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials would prevent us from or delay us in commercializing our current product candidates or any other product candidate we develop.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable adverse effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their marketing approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if obtained.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of marketing approval by FDA or other comparable foreign authorities. If any of our current product candidates or any other product candidate we develop is associated with serious adverse, undesirable or unacceptable side effects, we may need to abandon such candidate’s development or limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which such side effects are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Many compounds that initially showed promise in early-stage or clinical testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable prevalence of these or other side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated, and 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 our product candidates receive 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:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if we receive marketing approval for our product candidates, such approved products will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions, and we may be subject to penalties and legal sanctions if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our approved products.

If FDA approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP regulations and GCP for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Any marketing approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be

51

marketed or to conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor safety and efficacy.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with an approved product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing operations or processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, or evidence of acts that raise questions about the integrity of data supporting the product approval, may result in, among other things:

The FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay marketing approval, manufacturing or commercialization of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

Agencies such as FDA and national competition regulators in European countries regulate the promotion and uses of drugs not consistent with approved product labeling requirements. If we are found to have improperly promoted our current product candidates for uses beyond those that are approved, we may become subject to significant liability.

Regulatory authorities such as FDA and national competition agencies in Europe strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as ACER-001, ACER-801, EDSIVO^TM, or ACER-2820, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling, known as “off-label” use, nor may it be promoted prior to obtaining marketing approval. If we receive marketing approval for our product candidates for our proposed indications, physicians may nevertheless use our products for their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label if the physicians personally believe in their professional medical judgment it could be used in such manner. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses.

In addition, FDA requires that promotional claims not be “false or misleading” as such terms are defined in FDA’s regulations. For example, FDA requires substantial evidence, which generally consists of two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, for a company to make a claim that its product is superior to another product in terms of safety or effectiveness. Generally, unless we perform clinical trials meeting that standard comparing our product candidates to competitive products and these claims are approved in our product labeling, we will not be able promote our current product candidates as superior to other products. If we are found to have made such claims, we may become subject to significant liability. In the U.S., the federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in improper promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or corporate integrity agreements. The FDA could also seek permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is monitored, changed or curtailed.

52

Our current and future relationships with healthcare professionals, investigators, consultants, collaborators, actual customers, potential customers and third-party payors in the U.S. and elsewhere may be subject, directly or indirectly, to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, physician payment transparency, health information privacy and security and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to sanctions.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the U.S. and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, investigators, consultants, collaborators, actual customers, potential customers and third-party payors may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act, that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we sell, market and distribute any drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to physician payment transparency laws and patient privacy and security regulation by the U.S. federal government and states and by the foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws that may affect our ability to operate include the following:

53

Further, the Affordable Care Act, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain criminal statutes governing healthcare fraud. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the Affordable Care Act provided that 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 False Claims Act.

Efforts to ensure that our future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, which could significantly harm our business. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business, including our current and future collaborators, if any, are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, those persons or entities may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, which could also affect our business.

The impact of recent healthcare reform legislation and other changes in the healthcare industry and healthcare spending on us is currently unknown and may adversely affect our business model.

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system could prevent or delay marketing approval of our drug candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

Our revenue prospects could be affected by changes in healthcare spending and policy in the U.S. and abroad. We operate in a highly regulated industry and new laws and judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws or decisions, related to healthcare availability, the method of delivery or payment for healthcare products and services could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. There is significant interest in promoting healthcare reform, as evidenced by the enactment in the U.S. of the Affordable Care Act. Among other things, the Affordable Care Act contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products, including, for example, revising the methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers for covered outpatient drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated, extending the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans, imposing mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries, and subjecting drug manufacturers to payment of an annual fee.

We expect that the Affordable Care Act, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs

54

may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue or commercialize our drugs.

It is likely that federal and state legislatures within the U.S. and foreign governments will continue to consider changes to existing healthcare legislation including the Affordable Care Act. It is also possible that the executive branch may take certain steps by executive action which could modify or solidify aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Certain stakeholders are also pursuing litigation challenging certain provisions which, if successful, would have the effect of modifying some or all of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. We cannot predict the reform initiatives that may be adopted or litigation outcomes in the future or whether initiatives that have been adopted will be repealed or modified. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect:

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our research and development activities and our third-party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve the controlled storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, including the components of our product candidates and other hazardous compounds. We and our manufacturers and suppliers are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling, and disposal of these hazardous materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our and our manufacturers’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling, and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by us and our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of specified materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently, and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. We do not currently carry biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage.

Other Risks Related to Our Business

If we fail to attract and retain key management and scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates.

Our success as a pharmaceutical company depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific and clinical personnel. The loss of the services of any of our senior management could delay or prevent obtaining marketing approval or commercialization of our product candidates.

Our 2019 restructuring may have a negative impact on our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel. In order to reduce operating expenses and conserve cash resources following receipt of the Complete Response Letter

55

we received from FDA regarding our NDA for EDSIVO™ for the treatment of vEDS in June 2019, we implemented a corporate restructuring initiative including a reduction of approximately 60% of our full-time workforce of 48 employees and a halt of precommercial activities for EDSIVO™. As of February 15, 2022, we had a workforce of 35 full-time employees, in addition to several consultants or independent contractors, to conduct our planned business operations. If our projections prove to be inaccurate or if we are forced to implement any further workforce reductions, we may not have sufficient staffing to pursue our research and development goals.

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management and scientific personnel in the future due to the intense competition for a limited number of qualified personnel among pharmaceutical businesses, and other pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other businesses. Our failure to attract, hire, integrate and retain qualified personnel could impair our ability to achieve our business objectives.

We may not be able to win government, academic institution or non-profit contracts or grants, which could affect the timing or continued development of one or more of our product candidates, and ACER-2820 in particular.

From time to time, we may apply for contracts or grants from government agencies, non-profit entities and academic institutions. For example, we are pursuing several financing options, including federally-funded research contracts and grants and other potentially non-dilutive funding sources, to fund our planned ACER-2820 development program for the potential treatment of patients with COVID-19. Such contracts or grants can be highly attractive because they provide capital to fund the ongoing development of our product candidates without diluting our stockholders. However, there is often significant competition for these contracts or grants. Entities offering contracts or grants may have requirements to apply for or to otherwise be eligible for certain contracts or grants that our competitors may be able to satisfy that we cannot. In addition, such entities may make unfavorable decisions as to whether to offer contracts or make grants, to whom the contracts or grants may or will be awarded and the size of the contracts or grants to each awardee. Even if we are able to satisfy the award requirements, there is no guarantee that we will be a successful awardee. Therefore, we may not be able to win any contracts or grants in a timely manner, if at all.

If a successful product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, we could be forced to pay substantial damage awards.

The use of any of our product candidates in clinical trials, and the sale of any approved products, may expose us to product liability claims. We currently maintain product liability insurance coverage in amounts we consider to be reasonable for our stage of development. We intend to monitor the amount of coverage we maintain as the size and design of our clinical trials evolve, and if we are successful in obtaining approval to commercialize any of our product candidates, adjust the amount of coverage we maintain accordingly. However, there is no assurance that such insurance coverage will fully protect us against some or all of the claims to which we might become subject. We might not be able to maintain adequate insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts or scope to protect us against potential losses. In the event a claim is brought against us, we might be required to pay legal and other expenses to defend the claim, as well as uncovered damages awards resulting from a claim brought successfully against us.

Furthermore, whether or not we are ultimately successful in defending any such claims, we might be required to direct financial and managerial resources to such defense and adverse publicity could result, all of which could harm our business.

Our employees, independent contractors, investigators, contract research organizations, consultants, collaborators and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees and other third parties may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by employees and other third parties could include intentional, reckless and/or

56

negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violate FDA regulations, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to FDA, manufacturing standards, federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, or laws that require the reporting of financial information or data accurately. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee and other third-party misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, 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 internal computer systems, or those of our development collaborators, third-party clinical research organizations or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer cybersecurity or other security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future CROs and other contractors, consultants and collaborators are vulnerable to cybersecurity breaches and damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such material system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our marketing approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Likewise, we intend to rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates and conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or cybersecurity or other security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed, and our reputation could be harmed. In addition, there are known cyberattacks against pharmaceutical companies engaged in development of therapeutic or vaccine products addressing COVID-19. Our ACER-2820 program is one such program that could attract the attention of cyber attackers.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Our product candidate EDSIVO^TM has not been approved for any indication in the U.S. and, in June 2019, we received a Complete Response Letter from FDA stating that it will be necessary to conduct an adequate and well-controlled trial to determine whether celiprolol reduces the risk of clinical events in patients with vEDS. We are now planning a pivotal clinical trial in patients with COL3A1+ vEDS. There can be no assurance that our plan will be accepted by FDA or that we will be able to provide adequate data to meet that standard. This may also result in greater research and development expenses or regulatory issues that could further delay or prevent approval.

EDSIVO^TM is a repurposing of celiprolol for the treatment of vEDS. An NDA for this drug for the treatment of hypertension was submitted to FDA in 1987, however, the NDA was withdrawn prior to review. Celiprolol has, however, been approved in Europe for the treatment of hypertension since 1984. Regulatory approval of EDSIVO^TM may be more expensive and take longer than for other, more well-known or extensively studied pharmaceutical product candidates due to our and regulatory agencies’ lack of experience with celiprolol. In June 2019, we received a Complete Response Letter from FDA regarding our NDA for EDSIVO^TM (celiprolol) for the treatment of vEDS.

57

The Complete Response Letter stated that it will be necessary to conduct an adequate and well-controlled trial to determine whether celiprolol reduces the risk of clinical events in patients with vEDS. In light of FDA’s Complete Response Letter regarding our NDA for EDSIVO^TM, we halted precommercial activities. We had previously devoted a substantial majority of our research, development, clinical, and precommercial efforts and financial resources towards the development of EDSIVO™. In order to reduce operating expenses and conserve cash resources, in June 2019, we implemented a corporate restructuring which included a reduction of approximately 60% of our full-time workforce of 48 employees and halted precommercial activities for EDSIVO^TM. In December 2019, we submitted a Formal Dispute Resolution Request to FDA’s Office of New Drugs appealing FDA’s decision outlined in the Complete Response Letter. In March 2020, we received a response to our Formal Dispute Resolution Request from the Office of New Drugs of FDA stating that it had denied our appeal of the Complete Response Letter in relation to the NDA for EDSIVO^TM. In its Appeal Denied letter, the Office of New Drugs (i) described possible paths forward for Acer to explore that could provide the substantial evidence of effectiveness needed to support a potential resubmission of the EDSIVO^TM NDA for the treatment of patients with vEDS with a confirmed COL3A1 mutation and (ii) referred to the FDA Guidance document issued in December 2019, where substantial evidence of effectiveness can be provided by two or more adequate and well-controlled studies demonstrating efficacy, or a single positive adequate and well-controlled study plus confirmatory evidence.

Following a Type B meeting with FDA in the second quarter of 2021, we are now planning a U.S.-based prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, decentralized pivotal clinical trial in patients with COL3A1+ vEDS, which we refer to as the DiSCOVER trial. The proposed design features of the study discussed with FDA include: the acceptability of a decentralized (virtual) clinical trial design and use of an independent centralized adjudication committee; acceptability of a primary endpoint based on clinical events associated with disease outcome; agreement with modest safety data collection (based on the known safety profile of the drug) and no PK data needing to be collected; and a statistical plan that considers the rare disease classification of vEDS. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we submitted a protocol for the prospective pivotal trial, along with an IND. In January 2022, we also requested breakthrough therapy designation and we are working with FDA to reach agreement on a SPA. Based on initial power calculations, we anticipate that the trial should plan to enroll approximately 200 COL3A1+ vEDS patients in the U.S., and the duration of the clinical trial is estimated to be approximately 3.5 years to complete once fully enrolled. If agreement is reached with FDA on our proposed SPA, initiation of the EDSIVO^TM DiSCOVER pivotal clinical trial is expected in the second quarter of 2022, subject to additional capital. There can be no assurance that the resulting data from the trial would be adequate to support approval of our NDA. We may also conclude at any point that the cost, risk, and uncertainty of obtaining that additional data does not justify continuing with the development of EDSIVO™.

The novelty of this product candidate may continue to lengthen the regulatory review process, ultimately require the conduct of one or more additional studies or clinical trials as a prerequisite to approval, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization, or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. There is also an increased risk that previously unknown or unanticipated adverse effects could be discovered during any clinical trials and beyond. Any such events could have a material adverse impact on our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Even if we obtain the required regulatory approvals in the U.S. and other territories, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend on, among other factors, market awareness and acceptance of our product candidates.

Even if we obtain marketing approval for our current product candidates or any other product candidates that we may develop or acquire in the future, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, key opinion leaders, healthcare payors, patients and the medical community. Market acceptance of any approved products depends on a number of factors, including:

58

Market acceptance is critical to our ability to generate revenue. Any product candidate, if approved and commercialized, may be accepted in only limited capacities or not at all. If any approved products are not accepted by the market to the extent that we expect, we may not be able to generate revenue and our business would suffer.

If the market opportunities for our product candidates to treat rare diseases are smaller than we believe they are, then our revenues may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

The diseases that some of our current and future product candidates are being developed to address are rare. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, and our assumptions relating to pricing are based on estimates. Given the small number of patients who have some of the diseases that we are targeting, our eligible patient population and pricing estimates may differ significantly from the actual market addressable by our product candidates.

Currently, most reported estimates of the prevalence of vEDS, UCD, and MSUD are based on studies of small subsets of the population of specific geographic areas, which are then extrapolated to estimate the prevalence of the diseases in the broader world population. It is difficult to precisely measure the incidence or prevalence of vEDS in any population. Studies estimate the prevalence of vEDS as ranging from approximately 1 in 90,000 to 1 in 250,000. In 2017, we commissioned a patient-finder study that phenotypically identified 4,169 vEDS patients in the U.S. from an analysis of a commercially available patient claims database, with data of approximately 190 million unique patient lives. Based on that information, we estimate the prevalence of phenotypically-defined vEDS in the U.S. could be greater than 1 in 45,000.

Studies suggest that the incidence of UCD in the U.S. is 1 in 35,000 live births. Approximately 2,000 patients suffer from UCD in the U.S. Studies indicate that MSUD affects an estimated 1 in 185,000 infants worldwide. Approximately 3,000 patients suffer from MSUD worldwide, of whom approximately 1,000 are located in the U.S.

It is estimated that vEDS, UCD, and MSUD collectively impact approximately 7,000 patients in the U.S. As new studies are performed the estimated prevalence of these diseases may change. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. There can be no assurance that the prevalence of vEDS, UCD or MSUD in the study populations accurately reflect the prevalence of these diseases in the broader world population. If our estimates of the prevalence of vEDS, UCD, or MSUD, or of the number of patients who may benefit from treatment with ACER-001 or EDSIVO^TM prove to be incorrect, the market opportunities for our product candidates may be smaller than we believe they are, our prospects for generating revenue may be adversely affected and our business may suffer. Likewise, the potentially addressable patient population for each of these product candidates may be limited or may

59

not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We currently have limited marketing and sales experience. If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may be unable to generate any product sales revenue.

We have never commercialized a product candidate and, although precommercial activities had been conducted for EDSIVO^TM prior to our receipt of FDA’s Complete Response Letter regarding our NDA for EDSIVO^TM, we currently do not have marketing, sales or distribution capabilities for our product candidates. In order to commercialize any of our products that receive marketing approval, we would have to build marketing, sales, medical affairs, 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. In the event of successful development of our product candidates, if we elect to build a targeted specialty sales force, such an effort would be expensive and time consuming. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may choose to collaborate with third parties that have their own sales forces and established distribution systems, in lieu of or to augment any sales force and distribution systems we may create. If we are unable to enter into collaborations with third parties for the commercialization of approved product candidates, if any, on acceptable terms or at all, or if any such collaborator does not devote sufficient resources to the commercialization of our product or otherwise fails in commercialization efforts, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates if we receive marketing approval. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our potential future revenue will be materially and adversely impacted.

If we fail to enter into strategic relationships or collaborations, our business, financial condition, commercialization prospects and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

Our product development programs and the potential commercialization of our current product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. Therefore, in addition to financing the development of our product candidates through additional equity financings or through debt financings, we may decide to enter into collaborations with pharmaceutical or biopharmaceutical companies for the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. We may also be restricted under existing and future collaboration agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with other potential collaborators. We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on acceptable terms, or at all. If that were to occur, we may have to curtail the development of a particular product, reduce or delay one or more of our development programs, delay our potential commercialization or reduce the scope of our sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we will not be able to bring our product candidates to market and generate product revenue. If we do enter into a collaboration agreement, it could be subject to the following risks, each of which may materially harm our business, commercialization prospects and financial condition:

60

Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell our products profitably.

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party coverage and reimbursement of newly approved pharmaceuticals. Market acceptance and sales of any approved product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures. 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. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and government payors like Medicare and Medicaid, decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for drugs and products. Coverage and reimbursement may not be available for any product that we commercialize and, even if coverage is provided, the level of reimbursement may not be satisfactory. Inadequate reimbursement levels may adversely affect the demand for, or the price of, any drug candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is, among other things:

Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time consuming and costly process that could require us to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies and provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and adequate reimbursement. In addition to examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of new products, coverage may be limited 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. There may also be formulary placements that result in lower reimbursement levels and higher cost-sharing borne by patients, any of which could have an adverse effect on our revenues and profits. Moreover, a third-party 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. Additionally, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular drug product does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product, or even if coverage is available, establish an adequate reimbursement rate. In addition, pricing of orphan and rare disease drug treatments is under increased pressure given the overall healthcare cost climate generally, and pricing of pharmaceutical products specifically.

We cannot be sure that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be available for any of our product candidates. Also, we cannot be sure that reimbursement amounts will not reduce the demand for, or the price of, our products. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to commercialize certain of our products. In the U.S., third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement of new drugs. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity and

61

reviewing the cost-effectiveness of drug products and medical services and questioning safety and efficacy. As a result, significant uncertainty exists as to whether and how much third-party payors will reimburse patients for their use of newly approved drugs, which in turn will put pressure on the pricing of drugs. Additionally, emphasis on managed care in the U.S. has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on drug pricing. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover the products for which we receive FDA approval or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products at a profit.

Coverage policies, third-party reimbursement rates and drug pricing regulation (including indirect techniques of pricing pressure, such as allowing reimportation from markets outside the U.S.) may change at any time, and there is the potential for significant movement in these areas in the foreseeable future. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products for our targeted indications before, or more successfully, than we do.

The life sciences industry is highly competitive, and we face significant competition from many pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are generally developing and marketing therapeutic products. Such competition may include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic companies and medical technology companies. Our future success depends on our ability to demonstrate and maintain a competitive advantage with respect to the design, development and commercialization of our product candidates for the treatment of orphan and ultra-orphan diseases for which there is a small patient population in the U.S. A drug designated an Orphan Drug may receive up to seven years of exclusive marketing in the U.S. for that indication. Our objective is to design, develop and commercialize product candidates by repurposing or reformulating existing drugs, generally for orphan diseases, with significant unmet medical needs.

Many of our potential competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, development, technical and human resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and in manufacturing clinical products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and have collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. As a result of all of these factors, the obtaining of Orphan Drug designation for our product candidates to treat rare diseases is highly desirable to our viability since our competitors may, among other things:

Should any of these events occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially adversely affected. If we are not able to compete effectively against potential competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

62

We believe that our ability to successfully compete in the rare disease category will depend in part on our ability to obtain Orphan Drug designation for our product candidates to treat rare diseases as well as:

If our competitors are able to obtain Orphan Drug exclusivity for their products that are the same drug as our product candidates, we may not be able to have competing products approved by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time or benefit from that exclusivity.

We have Orphan Drug exclusivity designation in the U.S. for ACER-001 for MSUD and EDSIVO^TM for vEDS. We expect to seek Orphan Drug exclusivity from the EMA for ACER-001 for MSUD; however, there can be no assurance that we will be successful. If we are unable to maintain our current Orphan Drug exclusivity or are unable to secure orphan status in Europe for ACER-001 for MSUD, it may have a material negative effect on our business.

Generally, if a product with an Orphan Drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, that product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the applicable regulatory authority from approving another marketing application for the same drug for the same indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU. The exclusivity period in the EU can be reduced to six years if the product no longer meets the criteria for Orphan Drug designation or if its commercialization is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan Drug exclusivity may be lost if FDA or the EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to ensure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Maintaining and/or obtaining Orphan Drug exclusivity for ACER-001 and EDSIVO^TM may be important to the product candidate’s success. Even if we obtain Orphan Drug exclusivity, we may not be able to maintain it. For example, if a competitive product that treats the same disease as our product candidate is shown to be clinically superior to our product candidate, any Orphan Drug exclusivity we have obtained will not block the approval of such competitive product and we may effectively lose what had previously been Orphan Drug exclusivity. Orphan Drug exclusivity for ACER-001 or EDSIVO^TM also will not bar FDA from approving another celiprolol drug product or a sodium phenylbutyrate (“NaPB”) product, for another indication. In the U.S., reforms to the Orphan Drug Act, if enacted, could also materially affect our ability to maintain Orphan Drug exclusivity for ACER-001 for MSUD and EDSIVO^TM for vEDS.

63

Price controls, importation of drug products from outside the U.S., or other rules may be imposed in domestic or foreign markets, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

The U.S. government, state legislatures, and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs and drug prices in general, including for therapies for rare diseases. These measures include price controls, transparency requirements triggered by the introduction of new high-cost drugs into the market, drug re-importation, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. Some laws and regulations have already been enacted in these areas, and additional measures have been introduced or are under consideration at both the federal and state levels. Additionally, legislation that affects reimbursement for drugs with small patient populations could be adopted, limiting payments for pharmaceuticals such as our product candidates, which could adversely affect our potential future net revenue and results. Adoption of such controls and measures and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures could limit payments for pharmaceuticals such as our drug product candidates and could adversely affect our net revenue and results.

In some countries, particularly member states of the EU, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. There is also the potential for a reference pricing system using drug prices from other countries, sometimes referred to as “most favored nation” treatment. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be adversely affected.

Rapid technological change could make our product candidates obsolete.

Pharmaceutical technologies have undergone rapid and significant change, and we expect that they will continue to do so. As a result, there is significant risk that our product candidates may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by new discoveries before we recover all or any expenses incurred in connection with their development. If any of our product candidates are rendered obsolete by advancements in pharmaceutical technologies, our business will suffer.

Government controls and healthcare reform measures could adversely affect our business.

The business and financial condition of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are affected by the efforts of governmental and third-party payors to contain or reduce the costs of healthcare. In the U.S. and in foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory proposals aimed at changing the healthcare system. For example, in some foreign countries, particularly in Europe, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product candidate. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of any product candidate to other available therapies. If reimbursement of any product candidate is unavailable or limited in scope or amount in a particular country, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, we may be unable to achieve or sustain profitability in such country. In the U.S., the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation established Medicare Part D, which expanded Medicare coverage for outpatient prescription drug purchases by the elderly but provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. The MMA also introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. Any negotiated prices

64

for any product candidate covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices that might otherwise be obtained outside of the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. Moreover, while Medicare Part D applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment under Medicare Part D may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

The U.S. and several other jurisdictions are considering, or have already enacted, a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell any product candidate. Among policy-makers and payors in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access to healthcare. In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives and executive actions. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and executive regulatory proposals at the federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect: the demand for any product candidate; the ability to set a price that we believe is fair for any product candidate; our ability to generate revenues and achieve or maintain profitability; the level of taxes that we are required to pay; and the availability of capital.

Risks Related to Third Parties

We rely on third-party suppliers and other third parties for manufacture of our product candidates and our dependence on these third parties may impair or delay the advancement of our research and development programs and the development of our product candidates.

We do not currently own or operate manufacturing facilities for clinical or commercial production of our product candidates. We lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. Instead, we rely on, and expect to continue to rely on, third parties for the supply of raw materials and manufacture of drug supplies necessary to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Our reliance on third parties may expose us to more risk than if we were to manufacture our current product candidates or other products ourselves. Delays in production by third parties could delay our clinical trials or have an adverse impact on any commercial activities. In addition, the fact that we are dependent on third parties for the manufacture of and formulation of our product candidates means that we are subject to the risk that the products may have manufacturing defects that we have limited ability to prevent or control. Although we oversee these activities to ensure compliance with our quality standards, budgets and timelines, we have had and will continue to have less control over the manufacturing of our product candidates than potentially would be the case if we were to manufacture our product candidates. Further, due to the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or other reasons, the third parties we deal with could have staffing difficulties, might undergo changes in priorities or may become financially distressed, which would adversely affect the manufacturing and production of our product candidates. In addition, a third party could be acquired by, or enter into an exclusive arrangement with, one of our competitors, which would adversely affect our ability to access the formulations we require.

The facilities used by our current contract manufacturers and any future manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be inspected by FDA after we submit our NDA for a product candidate. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturers for compliance with the regulatory requirements, known as 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 FDA or others, FDA may refuse to approve our NDA. If FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve our NDA because of concerns about the manufacture of our product candidates or if significant manufacturing issues arise in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop our product candidates, to obtain marketing approval of our NDA or to continue to market our product candidates, if approved. Although we are ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with these regulatory requirements, we do not have day-to-day control over a contract manufacturing organization (“CMO”) or other third-party manufacturer’s compliance with

65

applicable laws and regulations, including cGMPs and other laws and regulations, such as those related to environmental health and safety matters. Any failure to achieve and maintain compliance with these laws, regulations and standards could subject us to the risk that we may have to suspend the manufacturing of our product candidates or that obtained approvals could be revoked, which would adversely affect our business and reputation. In addition, third-party contractors, such as our CMOs, may elect not to continue to work with us due to factors beyond our control. Although we have contracts in place, they may also refuse to work with us because of their own financial difficulties, business priorities or other reasons, at a time that is costly or otherwise inconvenient for us. If we were unable to find adequate replacement or another acceptable solution in time, our clinical trials could be delayed or our commercial activities could be harmed.

Problems with the quality of the work of third parties may lead us to seek to terminate our working relationships and use alternative service providers. However, making this change may be costly and may delay clinical trials. In addition, it may be very challenging, and in some cases impossible, to find replacement service providers that can develop and manufacture our drug candidates in an acceptable manner and at an acceptable cost and on a timely basis. The sale of products containing any defects or any delays in the supply of necessary services could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Growth in the costs and expenses of components or raw materials may also adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Supply sources could be interrupted from time to time and, if interrupted, supplies may not be resumed (whether in part or in whole) within a reasonable timeframe and at an acceptable cost or at all.

We plan to rely on third parties to conduct clinical trials for our product candidates. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, it may cause delays in commencing and completing clinical trials of our product candidates or we may be unable to obtain marketing approval for or commercialize our product candidates.

Clinical trials must meet applicable FDA and foreign regulatory requirements. We do not have the ability to independently conduct clinical trials for any of our product candidates. We have and will continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators and contract laboratories, to conduct all of our clinical trials of our product candidates; however, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with our investigational plan and protocol. Moreover, FDA and other foreign regulatory authorities require us to comply with IND and human subject protection regulations and current good clinical practice standards, commonly referred to as GCPs, 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. Our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. 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 FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. There is no assurance that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCPs. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the marketing approval process.

There are significant requirements imposed on us and on clinical investigators who conduct clinical trials that we sponsor. Although we are responsible for selecting qualified CROs or clinical investigators, providing them with the information they need to conduct the clinical trials properly, ensuring proper monitoring of the clinical trials, and ensuring that the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols contained in the IND, we cannot ensure that the CROs or clinical investigators will maintain compliance with all regulatory requirements at all times. The pharmaceutical industry has experienced cases where clinical investigators have been found to incorrectly record data, omit data, or even falsify data. We cannot ensure that the CROs or clinical investigators in our trials will not make mistakes or otherwise compromise the integrity or validity of data, any of which would have a significant negative effect on our ability to obtain marketing approval, our business, and our financial condition.

66

We or the third parties we rely on may encounter problems in clinical trials that may cause us or FDA or foreign regulatory agencies to delay, suspend or terminate our clinical trials at any phase. These problems could include the possibility that we may not be able to manufacture sufficient quantities of materials for use in our clinical trials, conduct clinical trials at our preferred sites, enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials at one or more sites, or begin or successfully complete clinical trials in a timely fashion, if at all. Furthermore, we, FDA or foreign regulatory agencies may suspend clinical trials of our product candidates at any time if we or they believe the subjects participating in the trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks, whether as a result of adverse events occurring in our trials or otherwise, or if we or they find deficiencies in the clinical trial process or conduct of the investigation.

The FDA and foreign regulatory agencies could also require additional clinical trials before or after granting of marketing approval for any products, which would result in increased costs and significant delays in the development and commercialization of such products and could result in the withdrawal of such products from the market after obtaining marketing approval. Our failure to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a product candidate in clinical development could delay or prevent obtaining marketing approval of the product candidate and, after obtaining marketing approval, data from post-approval studies could result in the product being withdrawn from the market, either of which would likely have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, the above risks are compounded by uncertainties related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which could affect our CROs’ businesses internally (for example, maintaining staffing levels and ongoing financial viability), as well as their ability to perform their obligations to us under our agreements (such as recruitment of subjects for clinical trials in an increasingly uncertain and competitive business environment).

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Our proprietary rights may not adequately protect our technologies and product candidates.

Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain patents and protect our existing patent position as well as our ability to maintain adequate protection of other intellectual property for our technologies, product candidates, and any future products in the U.S. and other countries. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property, competitors may be able to use our technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as U.S. laws, and we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our proprietary rights in these countries. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our proprietary technologies, product candidates and any future products are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets.

We apply for patents covering both our technologies and product candidates, as we deem appropriate. However, we may fail to apply for patents on important technologies or product candidates in a timely fashion, or at all. Our existing patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from practicing our technologies or from developing competing products and technologies. We cannot be certain that our patent applications will be approved or that any patents issued will adequately protect our intellectual property.

While we are responsible for and typically have control over the filing and prosecuting of patent applications and maintaining patents which cover making, using or selling ACER-001, ACER-801, EDSIVO^TM, or ACER-2820, we may lose any such rights if we decide to allow any licensed patent to lapse. If we fail to appropriately prosecute and maintain patent protection for any of our product candidates, our ability to develop and commercialize those product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

67

Moreover, the patent positions of pharmaceutical companies are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles are evolving and remain unresolved. As a result, the validity and enforceability of patents cannot be predicted with certainty. In addition, we do not know whether:

The actual protection afforded by a patent varies based on products or processes, from country to country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country, the validity and enforceability of the patents and our financial ability to enforce our patents and other intellectual property. Our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary position for our products will depend on our success in obtaining effective claims and enforcing those claims once granted. Our issued patents and those that may issue in the future, or those licensed to us, may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with proprietary protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar products. Due to the extensive amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of the patent.

We may also rely on trade secrets to protect some of our technology, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to maintain. While we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, we or any of our collaborators’ employees, consultants, contractors or scientific and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our proprietary information to competitors and we may not have adequate remedies in respect of that disclosure. Enforcement of claims that a third party has illegally obtained and is using trade secrets is expensive, time consuming and uncertain. In addition, foreign courts are sometimes less willing than U.S. courts to protect trade secrets. If our competitors independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how, we would not be able to assert our trade secrets against them and our business could be harmed.

68

We are a party to license or similar agreements under which we license intellectual property, data, and/or receive commercialization rights relating to ACER-001, ACER-801, EDSIVO^TM, and ACER-2820. If we fail to comply with obligations in such agreements or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business; any termination of such agreements would adversely affect our business.

In April 2014, we entered into an agreement with Baylor College of Medicine pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize NaPB (ACER-001) for treatment of MSUD. In August 2016, we entered into an agreement with Assistance Publique—Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou (“AP-HP”), pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive worldwide right to access and use data from the Ong trial, which we used to support an NDA filing for EDSIVO^TM for the treatment of vEDS. In September 2018, we entered into an additional agreement with AP-HP pursuant to which we obtained the exclusive worldwide intellectual property rights to three European patent applications relating to certain uses of celiprolol including (i) the optimal dose of celiprolol in treating vEDS patients, (ii) the use of celiprolol during pregnancy and (iii) the use of celiprolol to treat kyphoscoliotic Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (type VI). In December 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Sanofi granting us worldwide rights to ACER-801, a clinical-stage, selective, non-peptide tachykinin NK3 receptor antagonist. Under each license agreement, we are subject to commercialization and development diligence obligations, royalty payments and other obligations. If we fail to comply with any of these obligations or otherwise breach any of these license agreements, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license in whole or in part or to terminate the exclusive nature of the license. The loss of the licenses granted to us under our agreements with these licensors or the rights provided therein would prevent us from developing, manufacturing or marketing products covered by the license or subject to supply commitments, and could materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement rights are not as strong as those in the U.S. These products may compete with our product candidates in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents and our patent claims or other intellectual rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

69

The patent protection for our product candidates may expire before we are able to maximize their commercial value, which may subject us to increased competition and reduce or eliminate our opportunity to generate product revenue.

The patents for our product candidates have varying expiration dates and, if these patents expire, we may be subject to increased competition and we may not be able to recover our development costs or market any of our approved products profitably. In some of the larger potential market territories, such as the U.S. and Europe, patent term extension or restoration may be available to compensate for time taken during aspects of the product’s development and regulatory review. For example, depending on the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, if any, one of the U.S. patents covering each of such approved product(s) or the use thereof may be eligible for up to five years of patent term restoration under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA-approved product. Patent term extension also may be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Nevertheless, we may not be granted patent term extension either in the U.S. or in any foreign country because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the term of extension, as well as the scope of patent protection during any such extension, afforded by the governmental authority could be less than we request. In addition, even though some regulatory authorities may provide some other exclusivity for a product under their own laws and regulations, we may not be able to qualify the product or obtain the exclusive time period. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension/restoration or some other exclusivity, we could be subject to increased competition and our opportunity to establish or maintain product revenue could be substantially reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, we may not have sufficient time to recover our development costs prior to the expiration of our U.S. and foreign patents.

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

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent prosecution process. Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on any issued patent and/or pending patent applications are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of a patent or patent application. We employ an outside firm and rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees. While an inadvertent lapse may sometimes be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are many situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent applications directed to our product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than should otherwise have been the case, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect our patents or other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming and ultimately unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, directly or through our licensors, which can be expensive and time consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of our licensor is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of the patents we license at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our licensors’ patent applications at risk of not issuing.

70

Interference proceedings brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or the patents of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if a prevailing party does not offer us a license on terms that are acceptable to us. Litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distraction of our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the U.S. In addition, potential infringers of our intellectual property rights may have substantially more resources than we do to defend their position, which could adversely affect the outcome of any such dispute.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential and proprietary information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement or misappropriation may adversely affect our business and could prevent us from developing or commercializing our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends in part on us not infringing the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the U.S., involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, ex-parte review and inter partes reexamination and post-grant review proceedings before the USPTO and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing and may develop our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. If a third party claims that we infringe on their products or technology, we could face a number of issues, including:

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates that we failed to identify. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the U.S. remain confidential until issued as patents. Except for the preceding exceptions, patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere are generally published only after a waiting period of approximately 18 months after the earliest filing. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates could have been filed by others without the knowledge of us or our licensors. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use or manufacture of our product candidates. We may also face a claim of misappropriation if a third party believes that we inappropriately obtained and used trade secrets of such third party. If we are found to have misappropriated a third party’s trade secrets, we may be prevented from further using such trade secrets, limiting our ability to develop our product candidates, and we may be required to pay damages.

71

If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, the holders of any such patents would be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate until such patent expired or unless we obtain a license. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property.

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 claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defending against claims of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets could be costly and time-consuming, regardless of the outcome. Thus, even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle at an early stage, such litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other company business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development collaborations that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

As is the case with other pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly on obtaining and enforcing patents and patent rights. Obtaining and enforcing patents and patent rights in the specialty pharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and therefore, is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the U.S. has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Further, several recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have either narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents and patent rights, once obtained.

For our U.S. patent applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. In September 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “America Invents Act” or “AIA”) was signed into law. The AIA includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted, reviewed after issuance, and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO is currently developing regulations and procedures to govern administration of the AIA, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the AIA. It is not clear what other, if any, impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business. Moreover, the AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of patent rights, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the U.S. transitioned to a “first-inventor-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before the filing of a patent application by a licensor or us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if said licensor or we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patent rights depends on whether the differences between the licensor’s or our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the

72

prior art. Since patent applications in the U.S. and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that a licensor or we were the first to either (a) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (b) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal court necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid as unpatentable even though the same evidence may be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate patent rights that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action.

Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Intellectual property rights do not address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:

Confidentiality agreements with employees, consultants and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and protect other proprietary information.

We consider proprietary trade secrets and/or confidential know-how and unpatented know-how to be important to our business. We may rely on trade secrets and/or confidential know-how to protect our technology, especially where patent protection is believed by us to be of limited value. However, trade secrets and/or confidential know-how can be difficult to maintain as confidential.

73

To protect this type of information against disclosure or appropriation by competitors, our policy is to require our employees, consultants, contractors and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements with us. However, current or former employees, consultants, contractors and advisers may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors, and confidentiality agreements may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Enforcing a claim that a third party obtained illegally and is using trade secrets and/or confidential know-how is expensive, time consuming and unpredictable. The enforceability of confidentiality agreements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Failure to obtain or maintain trade secrets and/or confidential know-how trade protection could adversely affect our competitive position. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and may even apply for patent protection in respect of the same. If successful in obtaining such patent protection, our competitors could limit our use of our trade secrets and/or confidential know-how.

We may need to license certain intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms.

A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our product candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could materially harm our business.

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

We have received confidential and proprietary information from third parties. In addition, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise improperly used or disclosed confidential information of these third parties or our employees’ former employers.

Further, we may be subject to ownership disputes in the future arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. We may also be subject to claims that former employees, consultants, independent contractors, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging our right to and use of confidential and proprietary information. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose our rights therein. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and employees.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

We may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents and other intellectual property. We may be subject to ownership disputes in the future arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on 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.

74

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we rely on third parties to assist with research and development and to manufacture our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, although our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. For example, any academic institution that we may collaborate with in the future will usually expect to be granted rights to publish data arising out of such collaboration, provided that we are notified in advance and given the opportunity to delay publication for a limited time period in order for us to secure patent protection of intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration, in addition to the opportunity to remove confidential or trade secret information from any such publication. In the future we may also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development or similar agreements. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any of our third-party collaborators. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

Risks Related to Our Securities

Our share price is very volatile, may not reflect the underlying value of our net assets or business prospects, and you may not be able to resell your shares at a profit or at all.

The market price of our common stock could be subject to significant fluctuations. The market prices for securities of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and early-stage drug discovery and development companies like ours in particular, have historically been highly volatile and may continue to be highly volatile in the future. The following factors, in addition to other risk factors described in this section, may have a significant impact on the market price of our common stock:

75

Broad market and industry factors, as well as economic and political factors, also may materially adversely affect the market price of our common stock. As noted, the short-, medium-, and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the U.S. and global economies generally, and on our business specifically, are difficult to predict.

We may not comply with the Nasdaq continued listing requirements. If we are unable to regain and maintain compliance with the continued listing requirements of the Nasdaq Capital Market, our common stock could be delisted, which could affect our common stock's market price and liquidity and reduce our ability to raise capital.

The Nasdaq Capital Market’s continued listing standards for our common stock require, among other things, that we maintain either (i) stockholders’ equity of $2.5 million, (ii) market value of listed securities of $35 million or (iii) net income from continuing operations of $500,000 in the most recently completed fiscal year or in two of the last three most recently completed fiscal years. On December 29, 2021, we received a letter from the listing qualifications department staff of Nasdaq indicating that for the last 30 consecutive business days our minimum Market Value of Listed Securities (“MVLS”) was below the $35 million required for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market pursuant to Nasdaq listing rule 5550(b)(2). Our stockholder’s equity and net income from continuing operations were also below the alternate listing standards levels at that time and at December 31, 2021. In accordance with Nasdaq listing rules, we have 180 calendar days, or until June 27, 2022, to regain compliance. We cannot assure you that we will be able to regain and maintain compliance with Nasdaq listing standards. Our failure to meet or continue to meet these requirements may result in our common stock being delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market. If our common stock were delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market, among other things, this could result in a number of negative implications, including reduced market price and liquidity of our common stock as a result of the loss of market efficiencies associated with the Nasdaq, the loss of federal preemption of state securities laws, as well as the potential loss of confidence by suppliers, partners, employees and institutional investor interest, fewer business development opportunities, greater difficulty in obtaining financing and breaches of certain contractual obligations.

We have been a defendant in securities litigation in the past and may become the target of securities litigation in the future, which may be costly and time-consuming to defend.

Following periods of market volatility in the price of a company’s securities or the reporting of unfavorable news, security holders have often instituted class action litigation. This risk is especially relevant for us because pharmaceutical companies like ours have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. Moreover, we

76

were named in a putative securities class action complaint and several stockholder derivative actions as a result of the decline in our stock price following the June 25, 2019 announcement that we had received a Complete Response Letter from FDA regarding our NDA for EDSIVO™. See Part I, Item 3 – Legal Proceedings for additional information regarding the settlement of these matters. If we become involved in this type of litigation in the future, regardless of the outcome, we could incur substantial legal costs and our management’s attention could be diverted from the operation of our business, causing our business to suffer.

Our “blank check” preferred stock could be issued to prevent a business combination not desired by management or our majority stockholders.

Our charter authorizes the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock with such designations, rights and preferences as may be determined by our Board of Directors without stockholder approval. Our preferred stock could be utilized as a method of discouraging, delaying, or preventing a change in control and as a method of preventing stockholders from receiving a premium for their shares in connection with a change of control.

Future sales of our common stock could cause dilution, and the sale of such common stock, or the perception that such sales may occur, could cause the price of our stock to decline.

Sales of additional shares of our common stock, as well as securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock, could result in substantial dilution to our stockholders and cause the market price of our common stock to decline. An aggregate of 14,310,244 shares of common stock were outstanding as of December 31, 2021. As of such date, another 1,954,975 shares of common stock were issuable upon exercise of outstanding options. A substantial majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock, as well as a substantial majority of the shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of outstanding options, are freely tradable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act of 1933.

We may sell additional shares of common stock, as well as securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock, in subsequent public or private offerings. We may also issue additional shares of common stock, as well as securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock, to finance future acquisitions. We will need to raise additional capital in order to initiate or complete additional development activities for all of our product candidates or to pursue additional disease indications for our product candidates, and this may require us to issue a substantial amount of securities (including common stock as well as securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock). There can be no assurance that our capital raising efforts will be able to attract the capital needed to execute on our business plan and sustain our operations. Moreover, we cannot predict the size of future issuances of our common stock, as well as securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock, or the effect, if any, that future issuances and sales of our securities will have on the market price of our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock, as well as securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock, including shares issued in connection with an acquisition or securing funds to complete any clinical trial plans, or the perception that such sales could occur, may result in substantial dilution and may adversely affect prevailing market prices for our common stock.

On April 30, 2020, we entered into the equity line purchase agreement with Lincoln Park, pursuant to which Lincoln Park has committed to purchase up to $15.0 million of our common stock, with $12.1 million obligation remaining as of December 31, 2021. Upon the execution of the purchase agreement, we issued 148,148 commitment shares to Lincoln Park as consideration for its commitment to purchase shares of our common stock under the purchase agreement. The remaining shares of our common stock that may be issued under the purchase agreement may be sold by us to Lincoln Park at our discretion from time to time over a 36-month period commencing on June 8, 2020. The purchase price for the shares that we may sell to Lincoln Park under the purchase agreement will fluctuate based on the price of our common stock. Depending on market liquidity at the time, sales of such shares may cause the trading price of our common stock to fall. Subsequent to signing the purchase agreement through the date of this report, we have sold an aggregate of 1,100,000 shares of common stock under the purchase agreement for net proceeds of $2.6 million.

We generally have the right to control the timing and amount of any sales of our shares to Lincoln Park under the purchase agreement. Sales of our common stock to Lincoln Park under the purchase agreement will depend upon market conditions and other factors to be determined by us. We may ultimately decide to sell to Lincoln Park all or

77

only some of the shares of our common stock that may be available for us to sell pursuant to the purchase agreement. If and when we do sell additional shares to Lincoln Park, after Lincoln Park has acquired the shares, Lincoln Park may resell all, some or none of those shares at any time or from time to time in its discretion. Therefore, sales to Lincoln Park by us could result in substantial dilution to the interests of other holders of our common stock. Additionally, the sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock to Lincoln Park, or the anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise wish to effect sales.

We presently do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock.

We currently anticipate that no cash dividends will be paid on our common stock in the foreseeable future. While our dividend policy will be based on the operating results and capital needs of the business, it is anticipated that all earnings, if any, will be retained to finance the future expansion of our business.

We may issue debt and equity securities or securities convertible into equity securities, any of which may be senior to our common stock as to distributions and in liquidation, which could negatively affect the value of our common stock.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by entering into debt or debt-like financing that is unsecured or secured by up to all of our assets, or by issuing additional debt or equity securities, which could include issuances of secured or unsecured commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior notes, subordinated notes, guarantees, preferred stock, hybrid securities, or securities convertible into or exchangeable for equity securities. In the event of our liquidation, our lenders and holders of our debt and preferred securities would receive distributions of available assets before distributions to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to incur debt and issue securities in future offerings may be influenced by market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings or debt financings. Further, market conditions could require us to accept less favorable terms for the issuance of our securities in the future.

Because a prior year merger resulted in an ownership change under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, our pre-merger net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes will be subject to limitation or elimination. The net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes of our former wholly-owned subsidiary may also be subject to limitations as a result of ownership changes.

Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if a corporation undergoes an ‘‘ownership change,’’ the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income and taxes may be limited. In general, an ‘‘ownership change’’ generally occurs if there is a cumulative change in a company’s ownership by ‘‘five-percent shareholders’’ that exceeds 50 percentage points over a rolling three-year period. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. We experienced an ownership change on July 17, 2015 and August 3, 2018, and may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of this issuance or future transactions in our stock, some of which may be outside our control. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change net operating loss carryforwards, or other pre-change tax attributes, to offset U.S. federal and state taxable income and taxes may be subject to significant limitations..

Because of their ownership of our common stock, insiders may influence significant corporate decisions.

As of February 15, 2022, our executive officers and directors and their affiliates beneficially owned or controlled 15% of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Accordingly, these executive officers, directors and their affiliates will have substantial influence over the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets or any other significant corporate transactions. This concentration of ownership may also delay or prevent a change of control of our company, even if such a change of control would benefit our other stockholders.

78

Anti-takeover provisions in our organizational documents and Delaware law might discourage, delay, or prevent an acquisition attempt or change in control of our company that you might consider favorable.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that may delay or prevent an acquisition or change in control of our company. Among other things, these provisions:

Further, as a Delaware corporation, we are also subject to provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law regulating corporate takeovers. Section 203 generally prohibits us from engaging in a business combination with interested stockholders subject to certain exceptions.

These anti-takeover provisions and other provisions under Delaware law, our charter and our bylaws could discourage, delay or prevent a transaction involving an acquisition attempt or a change in control of our company, including actions that our stockholders may deem advantageous, or negatively affect the trading price of our common stock. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing and to cause us to take other corporate actions you desire.

Our certificate of incorporation designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that the stockholder believes is more convenient or favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware shall be the sole and exclusive forum for:

Section 27 of the Exchange Act creates exclusive federal jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. As a result, the exclusive forum provision will not apply to suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities

79

Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. As a result, the exclusive forum provision will not apply to suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or any other claim for which the federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction.

Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to the provisions of our certificate of incorporation described above. This choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that the stockholder believes is more convenient or favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find these provisions of our certificate of incorporation inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

None.

We lease 4,360 square feet of office space located in Newton, Massachusetts. Effective with a lease amendment signed on October 15, 2021, this leased space will be reduced to 1,600 square feet beginning on June 1, 2022 and the lease will expire on December 31, 2022. We also lease 3,677 square feet of office space located in Bend, Oregon. Effective with a lease amendment signed on November 17, 2021, this lease will expire on June 30, 2027 if ACER-001 is approved by FDA in June 2022, or will expire on June 30, 2025 if ACER-001 is not approved by FDA. See Note 5 to our financial statements for a discussion of our leases.

From time to time, we may become involved in litigation or proceedings relating to claims arising out of our operations.

The Securities Class Action and Stockholder Derivative Actions

On July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action lawsuit, Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al, No. 1:19-cv-06137GHW, against us, Chris Schelling and Harry Palmin, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that we violated federal securities laws by allegedly making material false and misleading statements regarding the likelihood of FDA approval for the EDSIVO^TM NDA. With the selection of a lead plaintiff, the case is now captioned Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al. The Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 28, 2020 and we moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on May 1, 2020. On June 16, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss. We filed its answer to the Second Amended Complaint on August 7, 2020, and the Court held an initial conference on August 17, 2020. After obtaining leave from the Court to do so, the Lead Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint on February 4, 2021. The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this action for a payment of $8.4 million, which was approved by the Court on January 7, 2022. Payment of the settlement was made into escrow by our insurance carriers. As of December 31, 2021, we have recognized liabilities of $8.4 million for the proposed settlement and of $0.9 million for costs related to both the derivative and class action cases in other current liabilities and have also recognized an asset of an equal amount in other current assets representing the recovery from our insurance carriers.

On August 12, 2019, a stockholder derivative action, Gress v. Aselage et al., No. 1:19-cv-01505-MN, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain of our present and former officers and directors, asserting damages resulting from the alleged breach of their fiduciary duties, based on the same facts at issue in the Skiadas case. On March 17, 2020, a second stockholder derivative action, Giroux v. Amello et al., No.

80

1:20-cv-10537-GAO, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against certain of our present and former officers and directors, asserting claims based on the same facts at issue in the Skiadas and Gress cases. On June 23, 2020, a third stockholder derivative action, King v. Schelling, et al., No. 1:20-cv-04779-GHW, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain of our present and former officers and directors that arises from the same facts underlying the Skiadas, Gress, and Giroux cases. On July 6, 2020, a fourth stockholder derivative action, Diaz v. Amello et al., No. 1:20-cv-00909-MN, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. By Stipulation and Order dated August 7, 2020, the Gress and Diaz cases were consolidated under the caption In re Acer Therapeutics Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:19-cv-01505-MN. As disclosed previously, the parties reached an agreement to settle all of the derivative cases. At a hearing held on May 12, 2021 in the District Court of Massachusetts, the Court administering the matter, the settlement was approved. Payment of the settlement amount of $0.5 million, plus legal fees in costs in excess of the retention (deductible) amount, was made by our insurance carriers.

Not applicable.

81

PART II

Market Information and Holders

Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “ACER.”

As of February 15, 2022, there were approximately 89 registered holders of our common stock. This number does not include stockholders for whom shares were held in “nominee” or “street name.”

Dividends

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock and we do not intend to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We currently expect to retain any future earnings to fund the operation and expansion of our business.

82

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the accompanying financial statements and the related footnotes thereto.

Overview

We are a pharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for serious rare and life-threatening diseases with significant unmet medical needs. Our pipeline includes four programs: ACER-001 (sodium phenylbutyrate) for the treatment of various inborn errors of metabolism, including urea cycle disorders (“UCDs”) and Maple Syrup Urine Disease (“MSUD”); ACER-801 (osanetant) for the treatment of induced vasomotor symptoms (“iVMS”); EDSIVO™ (celiprolol) for the treatment of vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (“vEDS”) in patients with a confirmed type III collagen (COL3A1) mutation; and ACER-2820 (emetine), a host-directed therapy against a variety of viruses, including cytomegalovirus, zika, dengue, ebola, and COVID-19. Each of our product candidates is believed to present comparatively de-risked profile, having one or more of a favorable safety profile, clinical proof-of-concept data, mechanistic differentiation, and/or accelerated pathways for development through specific programs and procedures established by the United States (“U.S.”) Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

Going Concern

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“GAAP”), which contemplate our continuation as a going concern. We have not established a source of product sales revenues and, as such, have been dependent on funding operations through the sale of equity securities and through collaboration agreements. Since inception, we have experienced significant losses and incurred negative cash flows from operations. We have an accumulated deficit of $114.5 million as of December 31, 2021 and expect to incur further losses over the foreseeable future as we develop our business. We have spent, and expect to continue to spend, a substantial amount of funds in connection with implementing our business strategy, including our planned product development efforts and potential precommercial activities.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $12.7 million and current liabilities of $29.1 million, which include $15.8 million associated with deferred collaboration funding, as well as a $9.3 million liability related to the legal costs for the securities class action and the stockholder derivative actions settlements and legal costs, for which we have also recorded an asset of an equal amount representing the recovery from our insurance carriers. Our cash and cash equivalents available at December 31, 2021, plus the $5.0 million second tranche of the Second Development Payment received on January 14, 2022 per the Collaboration Agreement with Relief, are expected to fund our currently anticipated operating and capital requirements into mid-2022, excluding support for planned ACER-001 (MSUD), ACER-801 and EDSIVO^TM clinical trials.

We will need to raise additional capital to fund continued operations beyond mid-2022 because neither FDA approval nor subsequent product revenues are assured. We may not be successful in our efforts to raise additional funds or achieve profitable operations. We continue to explore potential opportunities and alternatives to obtain the additional resources that will be necessary to support our ongoing operations beyond mid-2022, including raising additional capital through either private or public equity or debt financing, or non-dilutive funding, as well as using our ATM facility and/or our remaining $12.1 million equity line facility entered into on April 30, 2020 with Lincoln Park Capital Fund, LLC (“Lincoln Park”). Due to the SEC’s “baby shelf rules,” which prohibit companies with a public float of less than $75 million from issuing securities under a shelf registration statement in excess of one-third of such company’s public float in a 12-month period, we are only able to issue a limited number of shares under our ATM facility which aggregate to no more than one-third of our public float at this time. Additionally, there can be no assurance that we will be able to receive the entire obligation amount from Lincoln Park because the purchase agreement contains limitations, restrictions, requirements, events of default and other provisions that could limit our ability to cause Lincoln Park to buy common stock from us. From May 19, 2020 through the date of this report, we have raised gross proceeds of $10.0 million from the ATM facility and gross proceeds of $2.9 million from the agreement with Lincoln Park. As of December 31, 2021, $40.0 million remained available under our ATM facility.

83

On March 19, 2021, we entered into the Collaboration Agreement with Relief providing for the development and commercialization of ACER-001 for the treatment of various inborn errors of metabolism, including for the treatment of UCDs and MSUD. The Collaboration Agreement is the culmination of the option agreement (the “Option Agreement,” together the “Agreements”) previously entered into between us and Relief on January 25, 2021. Pursuant to the Agreements, we received from Relief an upfront non-refundable payment of $1.0 million and a reimbursement payment of $14.0 million. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, Relief committed to pay us Development Payments of up to $20.0 million for U.S. development and commercial launch costs for the UCDs and MSUD indications. During the three months ended June 30 ,2021, we received from Relief the $10.0 million First Development Payment. We were contractually entitled to receive from Relief an additional $10.0 million Second Development Payment conditioned upon FDA’s acceptance of an NDA for ACER-001 in a UCD for filing and review.  This acceptance was received on October 4, 2021. On October 6, 2021, we entered into a Waiver and Agreement with Relief to amend the timing for the Second Development Payment. We received the Second Development Payment in two $5.0 million tranches on each of October 12, 2021 and January 14, 2022. We could also receive a total of $6.0 million in milestone payments based on the first European marketing approvals of ACER-001 for a UCD and MSUD. There is no guarantee that ACER-001 will receive regulatory authority approval in any territory, or become commercially available for the indications under investigation. The terms of the Agreements are further described in Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates later in this section and in the Revenue Recognition and Accounting for Collaboration Agreements section of Note 2 to our financial statements.