AKER Akers Biosciences Inc

RISK FACTORS

An investment in our securities involves a high degree of risk. Before deciding whether to invest in our securities, you should consider carefully the risks described below, together with other information in this prospectus, the information and documents incorporated by reference, and in any free writing prospectus that we have authorized for use in connection with this offering. The occurrence of any of the following risks could have a material and adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects, as well as our ability to accomplish our strategic objectives. As a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations and stock price.

Risks Related to Our Business

We have a history of operating losses and we cannot guarantee that we can ever achieve sustained profitability.

We have recorded a net loss attributable to common stockholders in most reporting periods since our inception. Our net losses for the six months ended June 30, 2019 and 2018 were $1,711,849 and $3,927,444, respectively. Our accumulated deficit at December 31, 2018 was $115,694,881. Our strategy for the medical device business is to leverage where possible its distributor relationships, while exploring strategies for further reducing its costs. Overall, we are working to reduce our cash burn in order to have sufficient cash funds available to execute on a transaction which would result from our pursuit of strategic alternatives. There can be no assurance of success in reducing our loss, becoming profitable, or having sufficient cash to complete a strategic alternative transaction.

Due to our dependence on a limited number of customers and the loss of any such customer would have a material adverse effect on our operating results and prospects.

As of June 30, 2019, we had two principal U.S. customers; Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal Health”) and Fisher Healthcare (“Fisher”) each has the non-exclusive right to distribute PIFA Heparin/PF4 Rapid Assays within the U.S. For the six months ended June 30, 2019, Cardinal Health and Fisher accounted for approximately 78% of the Company’s product revenue.

Because of our dependence on a limited number of key customers, the loss of a major customer (or loss of a key program with a major customer), or any significant reduction in orders by a major customer or termination of the any of their distribution agreements would materially affect our business, our results of operations and our financial condition. We expect that sales to relatively few customers will continue to account for a significant percentage of our net sales for the foreseeable future, however there can be no assurance that any of these customers or any of our other customers will continue to utilize our products or our services at current levels.

Due to our dependence on a limited number of customers, we are subject to a concentration of credit risk.

As of June 30, 2019, two customers accounted for 76% of our trade receivables as compared to December 31, 2018, where 73% of trade receivables are attributed to these customers. In the case of insolvency by one of our significant customers, a trade receivable with respect to that customer might not be collectible, might not be fully collectible, or might be collectible over longer than normal terms, each of which could adversely affect our financial position.

The Company’s business would suffer if the Company were unable to acquire adequate sources of supply.

We use a diverse and broad range of raw materials in the manufacturing of our products. We purchase all of our raw materials and select items, such as packaging, from external suppliers. In addition, we purchase some supplies from single sources for reasons of proprietary know-how, quality assurance, sole source availability, or due to regulatory qualification requirements and disruption of these sources could have, at a minimum, a temporary adverse effect on shipments and the financial results of the Company. We work closely with our suppliers to ensure continuity of supply while maintaining high quality and reliability. Any prolonged inability to obtain certain materials or components could have an adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations and could result in damage to its relationships with its customers and, accordingly, adversely affect the Company’s business.

During the first half of 2018, we experienced lower yields in the process of extracting antigen from the supplier provided platelets used to produce our PIFA Heparin product. At these yield levels, our production of this product was under target levels, which had resulted in backorders.

We will require additional capital in the future to support our operations or to pursue strategic alternative transactions. If we do not obtain any such additional financing, our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected.

We expect cash flows from our current operations to be inadequate to cover our anticipated expenses and we believe that our existing capital resources will only be sufficient to fund our current operations for the next ten to twelve months. As such, we will need to obtain significant additional financing, both in the short and long-term to cover operating expenses and to fund potential acquisitions. We may not be able to secure adequate additional financing when needed on acceptable terms, or at all. To execute our business strategy, we may issue additional equity securities in public or private offerings. If we cannot secure sufficient additional funding on a timely basis, we may be forced to forego strategic opportunities, delay, scale back or eliminate future product development, and/or be forced to sell assets, perhaps on unfavorable terms, which would harm our business and our ability to generate positive cash flows from operations needed to stay in business in the future, and ultimately could be forced to discontinue our operations and liquidate, in which event it is unlikely that stockholders would receive any distribution on their shares.

Any additional capital raised through the sale of equity or equity-backed securities may dilute our stockholders’ ownership percentages and could also result in a decrease in the market value of our equity securities.

The terms of any securities issued by us in future capital transactions may be more favorable to new investors, and may include preferences, superior voting rights and the issuance of warrants or other derivative securities, which may have a further dilutive effect on the holders of any of our securities then outstanding.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in pursuing future capital financing, including investment banking fees, legal fees, accounting fees, securities law compliance fees, printing and distribution expenses and other costs. We may also be required to recognize non-cash expenses in connection with certain securities we issue, such as convertible notes and warrants, which may adversely impact our financial condition.

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

All of our existing products are subject to regulation in the U.S. by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and/or other domestic and international governmental, public health agencies, regulatory bodies or non-governmental organizations. In particular, we are subject to strict governmental controls on the development, manufacture, labeling, distribution and marketing of our products and may not be able to maintain the necessary regulatory clearances for some of our products.

The process of obtaining required approvals or clearances for a potential new product varies according to the nature of and uses for a specific product. These processes can involve lengthy and detailed laboratory testing, human clinical trials, sampling activities, and other costly, time-consuming procedures. The submission of an application to a regulatory authority does not guarantee that the authority will grant an approval or clearance for the product. Each authority may impose its own requirements and can delay or refuse to grant approval or clearance, even though a product has been approved in another country.

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

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

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

We are subject to ongoing regulations of various government agencies and if we are unable to comply with such regulations, our products could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market, which would materially affect our business.

We can manufacture and sell our products only if we comply with certain regulations of government agencies. As a U.S. manufacturer, we must operate our production facility in accordance with the requirements established by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). As such, we have implemented a quality system that is intended to comply with applicable regulations. Our manufacturing plant is subject to periodic inspections by the FDA, and at last inspection, the facility was found to be in substantial compliance with current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) requirements. Although the Company is dedicated to remaining in compliance with such practices, the cGMP requirements could change and negatively impact our ability to manufacture our products without modifications to our operating procedures or changes to our equipment or human resource allocations which may materially affect our business.

If we fail to obtain regulatory approval in foreign jurisdictions, then we cannot market our products in those jurisdictions.

Many foreign countries in which we market or may market our products have regulatory bodies and restrictions similar to those of the FDA. International sales are subject to foreign government regulation, the requirements of which vary substantially from country to country. The time required to obtain approval by a foreign country may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval and the requirements may differ. Companies are now required to obtain a CE Mark, which shows conformance with the requirements of applicable European Conformity directives, prior to the sale of some medical devices within the European Union. Some of our current products that require CE Markings have them. We may be required to conduct additional testing or to provide additional information, resulting in additional expenses, to obtain necessary approvals. If we fail to obtain approval in such foreign jurisdictions, we would not be able to sell our products in such jurisdictions, thereby reducing the potential revenue from the sale of our products.

We may be unable to market our products outside the United States if our products cannot meet certain requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requirements for exporting medical devices.

Any medical device that is legally marketed in the U.S. may be exported anywhere in the world without prior FDA notification or approval. Medical devices that are not FDA-cleared for marketing legally in the U.S. may be exported under section 801(e)(1) of the FD&C Act, provided that they are intended for export only, they are class I or class II devices, and they are:

We cannot guarantee that certain current and future products will meet all of the aforementioned specifications for export which could adversely impact our ability to market our products outside the U.S.

Modifications to our devices may require additional FDA approval which could force us to cease marketing and/or recall the modified device until we obtain new approvals.

After a device receives a 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, requires a new 510(k) clearance or could require a Premarket approval (“PMA”). PMA is the FDA process of scientific and regulatory review to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Class III medical devices. Class III devices are those that support or sustain human life, are of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or which present a potential, unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Currently the Company does not market devices within this Class III category nor does it intend to in the foreseeable future. However, the FDA requires each manufacturer to make this determination in the first instance, but the FDA can review any decision. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s decision not to seek a new 510(k) clearance, the agency may retroactively require the manufacturer to seek 510(k) clearance or PMA approval. The FDA also can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or recall the modified devices until 510(k) clearance or PMA approval is obtained. We have modified one of our prescription use, 510(k)-cleared devices, specifically the PIFA Heparin/PF4 Rapid Assay to include our seraSTAT device. However, we determined that, in our view, based on FDA guidance as to when to submit a 510(k) notification for changes to a cleared device, new 510(k) clearances or PMA approvals were not required. We cannot assure you that the FDA would agree with any of our decisions not to seek 510(k) clearance or PMA approval. If the FDA requires us to seek 510(k) clearance or PMA approval for any modification, we also may be required to cease marketing and/or recall the modified device until we obtain a new 510(k) clearance or PMA approval.

We are subject to inspection and market surveillance by the FDA to determine compliance with regulatory requirements. If the FDA finds that we have failed to comply, the agency can institute a wide variety of enforcement actions which may materially affect our business operations.

We are subject to inspection and market surveillance by the FDA to determine compliance with regulatory requirements. If the FDA finds that we have failed to comply, the agency can institute a wide variety of enforcement actions, ranging from a public warning letter to more severe sanctions such as:

The FDA also has the authority to request repair, replacement or refund of the cost of any medical device manufactured or distributed by us. Our failure to comply with applicable requirements could lead to an enforcement action that may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may not have the resources to conduct clinical protocols sufficient to yield data suitable for publication in peer-reviewed journals and our inability to do so in the future could have an adverse effect on marketing our products effectively.

In order for our products targeted for use by hospital laboratory professionals and healthcare providers to be widely adopted, we would have to conduct clinical protocols that are designed to yield data suitable for publication in peer-reviewed journals. These studies are often time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive to execute. The Company has not had the resources to effectively implement such clinical programs within its clinical development activities and may not be able to do so in the future. In addition, if a protocol is initiated, the results of which may ultimately not support the anticipated positioning and benefit proposition for the product. Either of these scenarios could hinder our ability to market our products and revenue may decline.

If we fail to establish, maintain and expand relationships with distributors, sales of our products would decline.

The Company does not control the efforts of its distributors and its distributors are not prohibited from selling competing products. Our ability to sell our products depends largely on the Company’s relationships with such distributors. Accordingly, we are subject to the risk that they may not commit the financial and other resources to market and sell our products to our level of expectation, they may experience financial hardship or they may otherwise terminate our relationship on short notice. In the U.S. clinical laboratory marketplace, many of our existing and potential customers purchase our products through our two national distributors, Cardinal Health and Fisher Health. In addition, the Company relies on its distribution network to negotiate pricing arrangements and contracts with Group Purchasing Organizations and their affiliated hospitals and other members. For the six months ended June 30, 2019, two customers generated 44% and 34%, or 78% in the aggregate, of the Company’s revenue. For the six months ended June 30, 2018, two customers generated 49%, and 17%, or 66% in the aggregate, of the Company’s revenue. In the future, if we are unable to maintain existing relationships, our competitive position would likely suffer and our business would be harmed.

Our business is vulnerable to the availability of raw materials, our ability to forecast customer demand and our ability to manage production capacity.

Our ability to meet customer demand depends, in part, on our production capacity and on obtaining supplies, a number of which can only be obtained from a single supplier or a limited number of suppliers. A reduction or disruption in our production capacity or our supplies could delay products and fulfillment of orders and otherwise negatively impact our business.

We must accurately predict both the demand for our products and the lead times required to obtain the necessary components and materials. If we overestimate demand, we may experience underutilized capacity and excess inventory levels. If we underestimate demand, we may miss delivery deadlines and sales opportunities and incur additional costs for labor overtime, equipment overuse and logistical complexities. Additionally, our production capacity could be affected by manufacturing problems. Difficulties in the production process could reduce yields or interrupt production, and, as a result, we may not be able to deliver products on time or in a cost-effective, competitive manner. Our failure to adequately manage our capacity could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to meet customer demand also depends on our ability to obtain timely and adequate delivery of materials, parts and components from our suppliers. We generally do not maintain contracts with any of our key suppliers. From time to time, suppliers may extend lead times, limit the amounts supplied to us or increase prices due to capacity constraints or other factors. Supply disruptions may also occur due to shortages in critical materials. In addition, a number of our raw materials are obtained from a single supplier. Many of our suppliers must undertake a time-consuming qualification process before we can incorporate their raw materials into our production process. If we are unable to obtain materials from a qualified supplier, it can take up to a year to qualify a new supplier, assuming an alternative source of supply is available. A reduction or interruption in supplies or a significant increase in the price of one or more supplies could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Some of our finished goods, including our PIFA products and control materials related to PIFA Heparin/PF4 assays, are temperature-sensitive.

Proper packaging and time in transit are critical to the stability of some of our clinical laboratory products when they are en route to our distributors or end users. If certain specialized packaging materials cannot be obtained, and/or if our contracted common carriers, or those of our distributors, cannot meet product-specific delivery requirements, our products may not perform as intended and may lead to requests for product replacement. If such issues become widespread it could hurt our reputation and we could potentially lose customers which would adversely affect our business.

Also, given the issue of temperature sensitivity, time in transit may limit our ability to service potential markets outside of the U.S. for those products, especially those with geographies that do not allow for shipment and customs clearance within four business days. This could adversely affect our potential to generate revenue for some products on an international level.

Demands of third-party payors, cost reduction pressures among our customers and restrictive reimbursement practices may adversely affect our revenue.

Our ability to negotiate favorable contracts with non-governmental payors, including managed-care plans or Group Purchasing Organizations (“GPOs”), even if facilitated by our distributors, may significantly affect revenue and operating results. Our customers continue to face cost reduction pressures that may cause them to curtail their use of, or reimbursement for some of our products, to negotiate reduced prices or other concessions or to delay payment. Furthermore, the increasing leverage of organized buying groups among non-governmental payors may reduce market prices for our products and services, thereby reducing our profitability. Reductions in price increases or the amounts received from current customers or lower pricing for our products to new customers could have a material adverse effect on the financial position, cash flows and results of operations.

Failure to obtain medical reimbursement for our products, as well as a changing regulatory and reimbursement environment, may impact our business.

The U.S. healthcare regulatory environment may change in a way that restricts our ability to market our products due to medical coverage or reimbursement limits. Sales of our diagnostic tests will depend in part on the extent to which the costs of such tests are covered by health maintenance, managed care, and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health payor administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. These healthcare payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments. Accordingly, our products may not be considered to be cost effective, and reimbursement may not be available or sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a competitive basis. Legislation and regulations affecting reimbursement for our products may change at any time and in ways that are difficult to predict and these changes may have an adverse effect to us.

CMS, the federal agency responsible for administering the Medicare program, along with its contractors establishes coverage and reimbursement policies for the Medicare program. In addition, private payors often follow the coverage and reimbursement policies of Medicare. We cannot assure you that government or private third-party payors will cover and reimburse the procedures using our products in whole or in part in the future or that payment rates will be adequate.

For some of our products, our success in non-U.S. markets may depend upon the availability of coverage and reimbursement from the third-party payors through which health care providers are paid in those markets. Health care payment systems in non-U.S. markets vary significantly by country, and include single-payor, government managed systems as well as systems in which private payors and government-managed systems exist, side-by-side. For some of our products, our ability to achieve market acceptance or significant sales volume in international markets may be dependent on the availability of reimbursement for our products under health care payment systems in such markets. There can be no assurance that reimbursement for our products will be obtained or that such reimbursement will be adequate.

We may fail to retain qualified personnel.

We have substantially reduced the number of our employees in order to reduce our costs. Accordingly, retaining our remaining personnel in the future will be critical to our success. If we fail to retain and motivate these highly skilled personnel, we may be unable to continue our operating activities, and this could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects.

We rely on the key executive officer of the management team.

We are dependent on our management team to execute against its business plan. Failure could result in delays in product development, loss of customers and sales and diversion of management resources, which could adversely affect our operating results.

Expenses incurred with respect to monitoring, protecting, and defending our intellectual property rights could adversely affect our business.

Competitors and others may infringe on our intellectual property rights, or may allege that we have infringed on theirs. Monitoring infringement and misappropriation of intellectual property can be difficult and expensive, and we may not be able to detect infringement or misappropriation of our proprietary rights.

We may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to patent and other intellectual property rights and we may be unable to protect our rights to, or use of, our technology.

Some or all of our patent applications may not result in the issue of patents, or the claims of any issued patents may not afford meaningful protection for our technologies or products. In addition, patents issued to us or our licensors, if any, may be challenged and subsequently narrowed, invalidated, found unenforceable or circumvented. Patent litigation is widespread in the biotechnology industry and could harm our business. Litigation might be necessary to protect our patent position. Patentability, invalidity, freedom-to-operate or other opinions may be required to determine the scope and validity of third-party proprietary rights. If we choose to go to court to stop a third party from using the inventions protected by our patent, that third party would have the right to ask the court to rule that such patents are invalid and/or should not be enforced against that third party. These lawsuits are expensive and we may not have the required resources to pursue such litigation or to protect our patent rights. In addition, there is a risk that the court will decide that our patents are not valid or that we cannot stop the other party from using their inventions. There is also the risk that, even if the validity of these patents is upheld, the court will find that the third party’s activities do not infringe our rights in these patents.

Furthermore, a third party may claim that we are infringing the third party’s patent rights and may go to court to stop us from engaging in our normal operations and activities, including making or selling our products or product candidates. These lawsuits are costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of managerial and technical personnel. There is a risk that a court would decide that we are infringing the third party’s patents and would order us to stop the activities covered by the patents. In addition, there is a risk that a court will order us to pay the other party’s treble damages or attorneys’ fees for having violated the other party’s patents. The biotechnology industry has produced a proliferation of patents, and it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our products or methods of use either do not infringe the claims of the relevant patent and/or that the third-party patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity in the United Sates is difficult since it requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents.

In addition, changes in either patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may materially diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In September 2011, the U.S. Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) which became effective in March 2013. The AIA reforms United States patent law in part by changing the standard for patent approval for certain patents from a “first to invent” standard to a “first to file” standard and developing a post-grant review system. It is difficult to predict the effect or impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business and the protection and enforcement of our intellectual property. While we believe that the AIA’s post-grant review system is less expensive than litigation should we need to challenge a third party patent or defend our own patent, the AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Because some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until eighteen months after filing, and publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries. We cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our issued patents or our pending applications or that we were the first to invent the technology (pre-AIA) or first to file (post-AIA). Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering technology similar or the same as ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent application and could further require us to obtain rights to such technologies in order to carry on our business. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to or the same as ours, we may have to participate in an interference or other proceeding in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, or a court to determine priority of invention in the United States, for pre-AIA applications and patents. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position with respect to such inventions. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources.

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

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although the Company has no knowledge of any claims against us, we may be subject to claims that these employees or the Company have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. To date, none of our employees have been subject to such claims.

We may be at risk that our former employees may wrongfully use or disclose our trade secrets.

In addition to patent protection, we rely heavily upon know-how and trade secret protection, as well as non-disclosure agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, and third parties, to protect our confidential and proprietary information, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using physical and technological security measures. Such measures may not, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee, former employee, consultant, former consultant or third party with authorized access, provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. Our security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, trade secrets may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent legal recourse by us. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any such information was independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed.

If we deliver products with defects, we may be subject to product recalls or negative publicity, our credibility may be harmed, market acceptance of our products may decrease and we may be exposed to liability.

The manufacturing and marketing of professional and consumer diagnostics involve an inherent risk of product liability claims. For example, a defect in one of our diagnostic products could lead to a false positive or false negative result, affecting the eventual diagnosis. Our product development and production are extremely complex and could expose our products to defects. Manufacturing and design defects could lead to recalls, either voluntary or required by the FDA or other government authorities, and could result in the removal of a product from the market. Defects in our products could also harm our reputation, lead to product liability claims, claims that inaccurate test results lead to death or injury, negative publicity and decrease sales of our products. We have obtained $10,000,000 of product liability insurance and we have never received a product liability claim, and have generally not seen product liability claims for screening tests that are accompanied by appropriate disclaimers. However, in the event there is a claim, this insurance may not fully cover our potential liabilities. In addition, as we attempt to bring new products to market, we may need to increase our product liability coverage which would be a significant additional expense that we may not be able to afford. If we are unable to obtain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost to protect us, we may be forced to abandon efforts to commercialize our products or those of our strategic partners, which would reduce our revenue.

We currently manufacture our products at a single location. Any disruption at this facility could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We currently manufacture all our products at our manufacturing plant. If our manufacturing plant were damaged or destroyed, or otherwise subject to disruption, it would require substantial lead-time to replace or rebuild the facility for the manufacture of our products. In such event, we would be forced to rely entirely on third-party contract manufacturers for an indefinite period of time. We do not currently have established relationships with any back-up manufacturers. Even if we are able to establish a relationship with a third-party manufacturer, there is no assurance that such manufacturer will be able to meet our needs from a technical, timing, or cost effective manner.  

We are currently subject to a number of securities litigations and we may be subject to similar or other litigation in the future.

The Company is currently subject to a number of litigations, as discussed in the “Business” section. In connection with certain of these litigations, the Company has entered into settlements of claims for significant monetary damages. We may also be subject to judgements or enter into additional settlements of claims for significant monetary damages for the securities litigations that we have yet to enter into settlement agreements. Defending against the current litigations is or can be time-consuming, expensive and cause diversion of our management’s attention.

With respect to any litigation, our insurance may not reimburse us or may not be sufficient to reimburse us for the expenses or losses we may suffer in contesting and concluding such lawsuit. Substantial litigation costs, including the substantial self-insured retention that we are required to satisfy before any insurance applies to a claim, unreimbursed legal fees or an adverse result in any litigation may adversely impact our business, operating results or financial condition. We believe that our directors' and officers' liability insurance will cover our potential liability with respect to the securities class-action lawsuit; however, the insurer has reserved its rights to contest the applicability of the insurance to such claims and the limits of the insurance may be insufficient to cover our eventual liability.

We face substantial competition from other companies and our operating results may suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

Competition among providers of rapid, point-of-care screening and testing products is intense and subject to rapid technological change and evolving industry requirements and standards. We compete with many companies that have greater financial, product development, sales and marketing resources and experience than we do. Furthermore, new product development and technological change characterize the areas in which we compete. Our present or future products could be rendered obsolete or uneconomical as a result of technological advances by one or more of our present or future competitors. We must continue to develop and commercialize new products and technologies to remain competitive in the diagnostic testing industry. We believe that we compete primarily on the basis of our single-use testing. Customer and clinical support, and data that demonstrate both improvement in a patient's quality of life and a product's cost-effectiveness are additional aspects of competition.

We are aware of other rapid, point-of-care screening and diagnostic testing products in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Specifically, Alere/Abbott, ACON Laboratories, Inc., Immucor, Inc., OraSure Technologies, Inc., and Quidel Corporation are companies that develop rapid, point-of-care screening and diagnostic testing products and currently maintain dominant market positions within the diagnostic testing market.

If we market products or interact with health care practitioners in a manner that violates healthcare fraud or abuse laws, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties, including exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs.

We receive payments directly from or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other national or third-party payers for our current product, U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud or abuse are and will be applicable to our business. We are subject to healthcare fraud and abuse regulation by the U.S. federal government and the states in which we conduct our business.

The laws that may affect our ability to operate include the federal healthcare program anti-kickback statute, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration to induce, or in return for, the purchase, lease or order, or arrangement for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute applies to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. 

Federal false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid. Pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under these laws for a variety of alleged promotional and marketing activities, such as providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product, reporting to pricing services inflated average wholesale prices that were then used by federal programs to set reimbursement rates, engaging in off-label promotion that caused claims to be submitted to Medicaid for non-covered off-label uses and submitting inflated best price information to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 also created prohibitions against healthcare fraud and false statements relating to healthcare matters. The healthcare fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private payers. The false statements statute immediately noted above prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians. The ACA, through the Physician Payment Sunshine Act of 2010, imposed new requirements on manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") information related to payments or other "transfers of value" made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests held by physicians (as defined above) and their immediate family members and payments or other "transfers of value" to such physician owners and their immediate family members. Manufacturers are required to report such data to the government by the 90th calendar day of each year.

The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to these federal laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payer. In addition, some states have laws that require pharmaceutical companies to adopt comprehensive compliance programs. For example, under California law, pharmaceutical companies must comply with both the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and the PhRMA Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals, as amended. Moreover, certain states mandate the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration paid by us to physicians and other healthcare providers.

Although compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses, cause reputational harm and divert our management's attention from the operation of our business. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable U.S. federal and state laws may prove costly.

Data security breaches may disrupt our operations and adversely affect our operating results.

Our network security and data recovery measures and those of third parties with which we contract, may not be adequate to protect against computer viruses, cyber-attacks, breaches, and similar disruptions from unauthorized tampering with our computer systems. The misappropriation, theft, sabotage or any other type of security breach with respect to any of our proprietary and confidential information that is electronically stored, including patient data, could cause interruptions in our operations, could result in a material disruption of our business operations and could expose us to third-party legal claims. Furthermore, we could be required to make substantial expenditures of resources to remedy the cause of cyber-attacks or break-ins. This disruption could have a material adverse impact on our business, operating results and financial condition.

Our business processes personal medical information. The use of this information is critical to our operations and innovation. New and evolving regulations could bring increased scrutiny of our data management in the future. Any cyber-attacks or other failure to protect critical and sensitive systems and information could damage our reputation, prompt litigation or lead to regulatory sanctions, all of which could materially affect our financial condition and results of operation.

We are subject to various internal control reporting requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We can provide no assurance that we will at all times in the future be able to report that our internal controls over financial reporting are effective.

As a public company, we are required to comply with Section 404 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 404"). In any given year, we cannot be certain as to the time of completion of our internal control evaluation, testing and remediation actions or of their impact on our operations. Upon completion of this process, we may identify control deficiencies of varying degrees of severity under applicable SEC and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (U.S.) rules and regulations. Our management, including our chief executive officer and principal financial officer, does not expect that our internal controls and disclosure controls will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. In addition, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and the benefit of controls must be relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, in our company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple errors or mistakes. Further, controls can be circumvented by individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more persons, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls is also based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving our stated goals under all potential future conditions. Over time, a control may be inadequate because of changes in conditions, such as growth of the company or increased transaction volume, or the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

In addition, as a public company, we are required to report, among other things, control deficiencies that constitute material weaknesses or changes in internal controls that, or that are reasonably likely to, materially affect internal controls over financial reporting. 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 consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. If we fail to comply with the requirements of Section 404 or if we report a material weakness, we might be subject to regulatory sanction and investors may lose confidence in our consolidated financial statements, which may be inaccurate if we fail to remedy such material weakness.

We incur increased costs and demands on management as a result of compliance with laws and regulations applicable to public companies, which could harm our operating results.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, including costs associated with public company reporting requirements. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, as well as rules implemented by the SEC and the Nasdaq Stock Market, impose a number of requirements on public companies, including with respect to corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance and disclosure obligations. Moreover, compliance with these rules and regulations has increased our legal, accounting and financial compliance costs and has made some activities more time-consuming and costly. It is also more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance.

Risks Related to our Pursuit of Strategic Alternatives

We are reviewing strategic alternatives and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in identifying or completing any strategic transaction, that any such strategic transaction will result in additional value for our stockholders or that the process will not have an adverse impact on our business.

In November 2018, we announced that our Board of Directors had initiated a process to evaluate strategic alternatives to maximize shareholder value. We have not set a timetable for completion of this exploratory process and cannot provide any assurances that the process will result in the consummation of a strategic transaction of any kind, or that we will not abandon the process. We do not intend to discuss or disclose further developments during this process unless and until our board of directors has approved a specific action or we otherwise determine that further disclosure is appropriate. The process of reviewing strategic alternatives may be time consuming and disruptive to our business operations and, if we are unable to effectively manage the process, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. We could incur substantial expenses associated with identifying, evaluating and negotiating potential strategic alternatives. We may not be able to successfully identify attractive acquisition candidates or negotiate favorable terms in the future. Furthermore, our ability to effectively integrate any future acquisitions will depend on, among other things, the adequacy of our implementation plans, the ability of our management to oversee and operate effectively the combined operations and our ability to achieve desired operational efficiencies. If we are unable to successfully integrate the operations of any businesses that we may acquire in the future, our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be adversely affected. There can be no assurance that any potential transaction or other strategic alternative, if consummated, will provide greater value to our stockholders than that reflected in the current price of our common stock. Until the review process is concluded, perceived uncertainties related to our future may result in the loss of potential business opportunities and volatility in the market price of our common stock and may make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified personnel and business partners.

If we are unable to make acquisitions and investments, or successfully integrate them into our business, our business could be harmed.

As part of our business strategy, we may acquire other companies or businesses. However, we may not be able to find suitable acquisition candidates, and we may not be able to complete acquisitions on favorable terms, if at all. Acquisitions involve numerous risks, any of which could harm our business and negatively affect our operating results, including:

The Company, if it acquires a new business, or retains individuals with expertise in a new industry to pursue a strategic alternative, will have a limited operating history in such new industry, specifically the Cannabis industry, and may not succeed.

The Company will have a limited operating history within the Cannabis industry and may not succeed. The Company will be subject to all risks inherent in a developing business enterprise. The Company’s likelihood of continued success must be considered in light of the problems, expenses, difficulties, complications, and delays frequently encountered in connection with manufacturing specialty products and the competitive and regulatory environment in which the Company operates. For example, the Cannabis industry is a new industry that, as a whole, may not succeed, particularly if the Federal government changes course and decides to prosecute those dealing in Cannabis under Federal law. If that happens, there may not be an adequate market for the Company’s products. As a new industry, there are not established players on whose business models the Company can follow or build upon. Similarly, there is limited information about comparable companies available for potential investors to review in making a decision about whether to invest in the Company. Furthermore, as the industrial hemp industry is a new market, it is ripe for technological advancements that could limit or eliminate the need for the Company’s products. Furthermore, unanticipated expenses, problems, and technical difficulties may occur and they may result in material delays in the operation of the Company’s business, in particular with respect to the Company’s new products. The Company may not be able to successfully address these risks and uncertainties or successfully implement the Company’s operating strategies. If the Company fails to do so, such failure could materially harm the Company’s business to the point of having to cease operations and could impair the value of the Company’s common stock to the point investors may lose their entire investment.

If the Company acquires a business in the cannabis industry or otherwise pursues a strategic alternative, we would face additional unique and evolving risks.

Further legislative development beneficial to the cannabis industry is not guaranteed

If the Company acquires a business in the cannabis industry or otherwise pursues a strategic alternative, the success of such business would depend on the continued development of the cannabis industry and the activity of commercial business and government regulatory agencies within the industry. The continued development of the cannabis industry is dependent upon continued legislative and regulatory authorization of cannabis at the state level and a continued laissez-faire approach by federal enforcement agencies. Any number of factors could slow or halt progress in this area. Further regulatory progress beneficial to the industry cannot be assured. While there may be ample public support for legislative action, numerous factors impact the legislative and regulatory process, including election results, scientific findings or general public events. Any one of these factors could slow or halt progressive legislation relating to cannabis and the current tolerance for the use of cannabis by consumers, which could adversely affect the business we may acquire or pursue. These changes may require us, should we acquire a business or otherwise pursues a strategic alternative in the cannabis industry, to incur substantial costs associated with legal and compliance fees and ultimately require us to alter our business plan. Furthermore, violations of these laws, or alleged violations, could disrupt our business and result in a material adverse effect on our operations. In addition, we cannot predict the nature of any future laws, regulations, interpretations or applications, and it is possible that regulations may be enacted in the future that will be directly applicable to the business we may acquire or pursue.

The cannabis industry could face strong opposition from other industries

We believe that established businesses in other industries may have a strong economic interest in opposing the development of the cannabis industry. Cannabis may be seen by companies in other industries as an attractive alternative to their products, including recreational marijuana as an alternative to alcohol, and medical marijuana as an alternative to various commercial pharmaceuticals. Many industries that could view the emerging cannabis industry as an economic threat are well established, with vast economic and federal and state lobbying resources. It is possible that companies within these industries could use their resources to attempt to slow or reverse legislation legalizing cannabis. Any inroads these companies make in halting or impeding legislative initiatives that would be beneficial to the cannabis industry could have a detrimental impact on our potential business.

The legality of marijuana could be reversed in one or more states

There is a substantial amount of change occurring in the U.S. regarding the use of medical and recreational marijuana products. While federal laws prohibit the sale and distribution of most marijuana products not approved or authorized by the FDA, at least 30 jurisdictions and the District of Columbia have enacted state laws to enable possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes, and at least ten jurisdictions for recreational purposes. However, the voters or legislatures of states in which marijuana has already been legalized could potentially repeal applicable laws which permit the operation of both medical and retail marijuana businesses. These actions might force our potential business to cease operations in one or more states entirely.

Banking regulations could limit access to banking services

Since the use of marijuana is illegal under federal law, there is a compelling argument that banks cannot lawfully accept for deposit funds from businesses involved with marijuana. Consequently, businesses involved in the cannabis industry often have trouble finding a bank willing to accept their business. The inability to open bank accounts may make it difficult for our potential business to operate and our reliance on cash could result in a heightened risk of theft. Additionally, some courts have denied marijuana-related businesses bankruptcy protection, thus, making it very difficult for lenders to recoup their investments, which may limit the willingness of banks to lend to us.

Insurance risks

In the United States, many marijuana-related businesses are subject to a lack of adequate insurance coverage. In addition, many insurance companies may deny claims for any loss relating to marijuana or marijuana-related operations based on their illegality under federal law, noting that a contract for an illegal transaction is unenforceable. Thus, if we acquire a business or otherwise pursues a strategic alternative in the cannabis industry, we may have a difficult time obtaining certain insurances that are desired to operate our business, which may expose us to additional risks and financial liabilities.