UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

(Mark One)

☐ REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

OR

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022

OR

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                  to                 

OR

☐ SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of event requiring this shell company report                 

Commission file number: 001-41106

Incannex Healthcare Limited

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter and translation of Registrant’s name into English)

Australia

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

Suite 105, 8 Century Circuit

Norwest 2153, NSW

Australia

(Address of principal executive offices)

Joel Latham, Chief Executive Officer

Suite 105, 8 Century Circuit

Norwest 2153, NSW

Australia

Phone: +61 425 703 805 E-mail: joel@incannex.com.au

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act.

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act. None

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act. None

The number of ordinary shares outstanding as of June 30, 2022, was 1,292,334,028.

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

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  ☐ Yes  ☒ No

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).  ☒ Yes  ☐ No

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

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 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 which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow.  ☐ Item 17  ☐ Item 18

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  ☐ Yes  ☒ No

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Incannex Healthcare Limited was incorporated under the laws of Australia in 2001. Our ordinary shares have been listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (“ASX”) since 2016 and, since February 2022, have been listed on the Nasdaq Global Market in the form of American Depositary Shares (“ADSs), with each ADS representing 25 ordinary shares. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas acts as depositary for the ADSs.

As used in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, the terms “we,” “us,” “our”, “Incannex” and the “Company” mean Incannex Healthcare Limited and its subsidiaries, unless otherwise indicated.

FINANCIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION

Our consolidated financial statements appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F are prepared in Australian dollars and in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”). Our consolidated financial statements appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F comply with both the IFRS and Australian Accounting Standards. In this Annual Report, all references to “U.S. dollars” or “US$” are to the currency of the United States and all references to “Australian dollars” or “$” or “A$” are to the currency of Australia.

In this Annual Report, the term “fiscal” refers to the fiscal year commencing July 1 and ending June 30 of the following year.

Statements made in this Annual Report on Form 20-F concerning the contents of any contract, agreement or other document are summaries of such contracts, agreements or documents and are not complete descriptions of all of their terms. If we filed any of these documents as an exhibit to this Annual Report or to any registration statement that we previously filed, you may read the document itself for a complete description of its terms.

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Except for the historical information contained in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, the statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 20-F are “forward-looking statements” that reflect our current view with respect to future events and financial results. We urge you to consider that statements which use the terms “anticipate,” “believe,” “do not believe,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements and these forward-looking statements, include, without limitation, any statements relating to:

We remind investors that forward-looking statements are merely predictions and therefore inherently subject to uncertainties and other factors and involve known and unknown risks that could cause the actual results, performance, levels of activity, our achievements or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance, levels of activity, or our achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. Except as required by applicable law, including the securities laws of the United States, we undertake no obligation to publicly release any update or revision to any forward-looking statements to reflect new information, future events or circumstances, or otherwise after the date hereof. Please see the Risk Factors section that appears in “Item 3. Key Information – D. Risk Factors.”

PART I

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

The following risks relate specifically to our business and should be considered carefully. Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be harmed by any of the following risks. As a result, the trading price of our ordinary shares and our American Depositary Shares, or ADSs, could decline and the holders could lose part or all of their investment.

Risks Related to Our Business

We have a history of operating losses and may not achieve or maintain profitability in the future.

We have experienced significant recurring operating losses and negative cash flows from operating activities since inception. For example, for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, we had total comprehensive losses of A$14.9 million and A$11.4 million, respectively, and we had negative cash flows from operating activities of A$12.8 million and A$6.9 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2022, we had accumulated losses of A$58.8 million.

We are a clinical stage pharmaceutical development company and the success of our drug candidates is therefore uncertain. We focus on medicinal synthetic cannabidiol pharmaceutical products and psychedelic medicine therapies.

We expect to continue to incur losses from operations for the foreseeable future and expect the costs of drug development to increase in the future as more patients are recruited for clinical trials. In particular, we expect to continue to incur significant losses in the development of our drug candidates. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development, manufacturing, sales and marketing of our drug candidates, we may experience larger than expected future losses and may never become profitable.

Moreover, there is a substantial risk that we, or our development partners, may not be able to complete the development of our current drug candidates or develop other pharmaceutical products. It is possible that none of them will be successfully commercialized, which could prevent us from ever achieving profitability.

Our research and development activities could be adversely impacted if our funding sources are insufficient.

We anticipate that the costs related to the development of our clinical trials will increase and we will require additional funds to achieve our long-term goals of commercialization and further development of our drug candidates. In addition, we will require funds to pursue regulatory applications, defend intellectual property rights, contract manufacturing capacity, develop marketing and sales capability and fund operating expenses. We intend to seek such additional funding through public or private financings and/or through licensing of our assets or other arrangements with corporate partners. However, such financing, licensing opportunities or other arrangements may not be available from any sources on acceptable terms, or at all. Any shortfall in funding could result in us having to curtail or cease our research and development activities, thereby adversely affecting our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development of our drug candidates, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased research and development costs, or when, or if, we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. Our costs could significantly increase beyond current expectations if the applicable regulatory authorities require further studies in addition to those currently anticipated. In any case, even if our drug candidates are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with the commercial launch of such drug candidates and there can be no guarantee that we will ever generate significant revenues.

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

None of our drug candidates has been approved for commercial sale and we expect it to be several years before any of them are approved, if ever, and we are then able to commence sales of our drug candidates. To date, we have not generated any revenue from the licensing or commercialization of our drug candidates and do not expect to receive revenue from them for a number of years, if ever. We will not be able to generate product revenue unless and until our drug candidates, alone or with future partners, successfully completes clinical trials, receives regulatory approval and is successfully commercialized. Although we may seek to obtain revenue from collaboration or licensing agreements with third parties, we currently have no such agreements that could provide us with material, ongoing future revenue and we may never enter into any such agreements.

We will require additional financing and may be unable to raise sufficient capital, which could have a material impact on our research and development programs or commercialization of our drug candidates.

We have historically devoted most of our financial resources to research and development, including pre-clinical and clinical development activities. To date, we have financed a significant amount of our operations through equity financings. 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 equity or debt financings or strategic collaborations. The amount of such future net losses, as well as the possibility of future profitability, will also depend on our success in developing and commercializing products that generate significant revenue. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our ADSs and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations.

We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially for the foreseeable future if, and as, we:

Until our drug candidates become commercially available, we will need to obtain additional funding in connection with the further development of our drug candidates. Our ability to obtain additional financing will be subject to a number of factors, including market conditions, our operating performance and investor sentiment. As such, additional financing may not be available to us when needed, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts or obtain funds by entering agreements on unattractive terms.

Furthermore, any additional equity fundraising in the capital markets may be dilutive for shareholders and any debt-based funding may bind us to restrictive covenants and curb our operating activities and ability to pay potential future dividends even when profitable. We cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on acceptable terms, we will be prevented from pursuing research and development efforts. This could harm our business, operating results and financial condition and cause the price of our ADSs to fall.

If we are unable to secure sufficient capital to fund our operations, then we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to third parties to develop and market drug candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. For example, strategic collaborations could require us to share commercial rights to our drug candidates with third parties in ways that we do not intend currently or on terms that may not be favorable to us. Moreover, we could also have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or drug candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials and patients could discontinue their participation in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent our current and any future clinical trials of our drug candidates and make those trials more expensive to undertake.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in current and any future clinical trials of our drug candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our drug candidates. Patients may be unwilling to participate in any future clinical trials because of negative publicity from adverse events in the biotechnology industry. Patients could be unavailable for other reasons, including competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, and the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed. If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct any future clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or discontinue those clinical trials. Clinical trial delays could result in increased costs, slower product development, setbacks in testing the safety and effectiveness of our technology or discontinuation of the clinical trials altogether.

Any failure to implement our business strategy could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The development and commercialization of our drug candidates is subject to many risks, including:

If any of these risks materializes, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully develop and commercialize our drug candidates we or our partners may develop, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Positive results from preclinical studies of our drug candidates are not necessarily predictive of the results of our planned clinical trials of our drug candidates.

Positive results in preclinical proof of concept and animal studies of our drug candidates may not result in positive results in clinical trials in humans. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials after achieving positive results in preclinical development or early-stage clinical trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks can be caused by preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway or safety or efficacy observations made in clinical trials, including adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that believed their drug candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) or other regulatory authority approval. If we fail to produce positive results in our clinical trials of our drug candidates, the development timeline and regulatory approval and commercialization prospects for our drug candidates, and, correspondingly, our business and financial prospects, would be negatively impacted.

Ongoing and future clinical trials of drug candidates may not show sufficient safety and efficacy to obtain requisite regulatory approvals for commercial sale.

Phase I and Phase II clinical trials are not primarily designed to test the efficacy of a drug candidate but rather to test safety and to understand the drug candidate’s side effects at various doses and schedules. Furthermore, success in preclinical and early clinical trials does not ensure that later large-scale trials will be successful nor does it predict final results. Acceptable results in early trials may not be repeated in later trials. Further, Phase III clinical trials may not show sufficient safety or efficacy to obtain regulatory approval for marketing. In addition, clinical results are frequently susceptible to varying interpretations that may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approvals. Negative or inconclusive results or adverse medical events during a clinical trial could require that the clinical trial be redone or terminated. The length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval by applicable regulatory authorities may also vary significantly based on the type, complexity and novelty of the drug candidate involved, as well as other factors. If we suffer any significant delays, quality issues, setbacks or negative results in, or termination of, our clinical trials, we may be unable to continue the development of our drug candidates or generate revenue and our business may be severely harmed.

If we do not obtain the necessary regulatory approvals, we will be unable to commercialize our drug candidates.

The clinical development, manufacturing, sales and marketing of our drug candidates are subject to extensive regulation by regulatory authorities in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia and elsewhere. Despite the substantial time and expense invested in preparation and submission of a Biologic License Application or equivalents in other jurisdictions, regulatory approval is never guaranteed. The number, size and design of preclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required will vary depending on the product, the disease or condition for which the product is intended to be used and the regulations and guidance documents applicable to any particular product. Additionally, during the review process and prior to approval, the FDA and/or other regulatory bodies may require additional data, including with respect to whether our products have abuse potential, which may delay approval and any potential controlled substance scheduling processes. The FDA or other regulators can delay, limit or deny approval of a product for many reasons, including, but not limited to, the fact that regulators may not approve our or a third-party manufacturer’s processes or facilities or that new laws may be enacted or regulators may change their approval policies or adopt new regulations requiring new or different evidence of safety and efficacy for the intended use of a product.

Successful results in clinical trials and in the subsequent application for marketing approval are not guaranteed. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approvals, we will not be able to generate revenue from our drug candidates. Even if we receive regulatory approval for any of our drug candidates, our profitability will depend on our ability to generate revenues from their sale or the licensing of our technology.

Even if our drug candidates receive regulatory approval, we may still face development and regulatory difficulties that may delay or impair future sales of drug candidates.

Even if we or our licensing partners receive regulatory approval to sell any drug candidates, the relevant regulatory authorities may, nevertheless, impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses, manufacturing, labelling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and record keeping or impose ongoing requirements for post-approval studies. In addition, regulatory agencies subject a marketed product, its manufacturer and the manufacturer’s facilities to continual review and periodic inspections. Previously unknown problems with the drug candidate, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, may result in restrictions on the marketing of the product, and could include withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, new statutory requirements may be enacted or additional regulations may be enacted that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our drug candidates.

We have limited manufacturing experience with our drug candidates.

We have no manufacturing capabilities and are dependent on third parties for cost effective manufacture and manufacturing process development of our drug candidates. Problems with third-party manufacturers or the manufacturing process, or the scaling up of manufacturing activities as such may delay clinical trials and commercialization of our drug candidates.

To the extent we rely significantly on contractors, we will be exposed to risks related to the business and operational conditions of our contractors.

We are a small company, with few internal staff and limited facilities. We are and will be required to rely on a variety of contractors to manufacture and transport our drug candidates, to perform clinical testing and to prepare regulatory dossiers. Adverse events that affect one or more of our contractors could adversely affect us, such as:

We depend on, and will continue to depend on, collaboration and strategic alliances with third partners. To the extent we are able to enter into collaborative arrangements or strategic alliances, we will be exposed to risks related to those collaborations and alliances.

An important element of our strategy for developing, manufacturing and commercializing our drug candidates is entering into partnerships and strategic alliances with other pharmaceutical companies or other industry participants.

Any partnerships or alliance we have or may have in the future may be terminated for reasons beyond our control or we may not be able to negotiate future alliances on acceptable terms, if at all. These arrangements may result in us receiving less revenue than if we sold our products directly, may place the development, sales and marketing of our products outside of our control, may require us to relinquish important rights or may otherwise be on unfavorable terms. Collaborative arrangements or strategic alliances will also subject us to a number of risks, including the risk that:

Because we rely on third-party manufacturing and supply partners, our supply of research and development, preclinical and clinical development materials may become limited or interrupted or may not be of satisfactory quantity or quality.

We rely on third-party supply and manufacturing partners to manufacture and supply the materials for our research and development and preclinical and clinical study supplies. We do not own manufacturing facilities or supply sources for such materials.

There can be no assurance that our supply of research and development, preclinical and clinical development biologics and other materials will not be limited, interrupted or restricted in certain geographic regions, be of satisfactory quality or continue to be available at acceptable prices. Replacement of a third-party manufacturer could require significant effort, cost and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements.

The manufacturing process for a drug candidate is subject to FDA and foreign regulatory authority review. Suppliers and manufacturers must meet applicable manufacturing requirements and undergo rigorous facility and process validation tests required by regulatory authorities in order to comply with regulatory standards. In the event that any of our suppliers or manufacturers fails to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations to us in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves or enter into an agreement with another third party, which would be costly and delay any future clinical trials.

Further, if any third-party provider fails to meet its obligations to manufacture our products, or fails to maintain or achieve satisfactory regulatory compliance, the development of such substances and the commercialization of any therapies, if approved, could be stopped, delayed or made commercially unviable, less profitable or may result in enforcement actions against us.

Our research and development efforts will be jeopardized if we are unable to retain key personnel and cultivate key academic and scientific collaborations.

Changes in our senior management could be disruptive to our business and may adversely affect our operations. For example, when we have changes in senior management positions, we may elect to adopt different business strategies or plans. Any new strategies or plans, if adopted, may not be successful and if any new strategies or plans do not produce the desired results, our business may suffer.

Moreover, competition among biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies for qualified employees is intense and as such we may not be able to attract and retain personnel critical to our success. Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management, clinical and scientific personnel, manufacturing personnel, sales and marketing personnel and on our ability to develop and maintain important relationships with clinicians, scientists and leading academic and health institutions. If we fail to identify, attract, retain and motivate these highly skilled personnel, we may be unable to continue our product development and commercialization activities.

In addition, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our drug candidates may be or become uncompetitive. To remain competitive, we must employ and retain suitably qualified staff that are continuously educated to keep pace with changing technology, but may not be in a position to do so.

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could negatively impact our operations.

As we advance our clinical development programs for drug candidates, seek regulatory approval in the United States and elsewhere and increase the number of ongoing product development programs, we anticipate that we will need to increase our product development, scientific and administrative headcount. We will also need to establish commercial capabilities in order to commercialize any drug candidates that may be approved. Such an evolution may impact our strategic focus and our deployment and allocation of resources.

Our ability to manage our operations and growth effectively depends upon the continual improvement of our procedures, reporting systems and operational, financial and management controls. We may not be able to implement administrative and operational improvements in an efficient or timely manner and may discover deficiencies in existing systems and controls. If we do not meet these challenges, we may be unable to execute our business strategies and may be forced to expend more resources than anticipated addressing these issues.

We may acquire additional technology and complementary businesses in the future. Acquisitions involve many risks, any of which could materially harm our business, including the diversion of management’s attention from core business concerns, failure to effectively exploit acquired technologies, failure to successfully integrate the acquired business or realize expected synergies or the loss of key employees from either our business or the acquired businesses.

In addition, in order to continue to meet our obligations as a publicly listed company in both Australia and the United States and to support our anticipated long-term growth, we will need to increase our general and administrative capabilities. Our management, personnel and systems may not be adequate to support this future growth.

If we are unable to successfully manage our growth and the increased complexity of our operations, our business, financial position, results of operations and prospects may be harmed.

The integration of APIRx with our business operations could undermine our results of operations.

In August 2022, we completed the acquisition of 100% of APIRx Pharmaceutical USA, LLC (the “Acquisition”). However, our ability to successfully integrate APIRx, will depend on the timely integration and consolidation of operations, facilities, procedures, policies and technologies, and the harmonization of differences in the business cultures between APIRx and us. Such integration and consolidation could be complex and time consuming, will involve additional expense and could disrupt our business and divert management’s attention from ongoing business concerns and our clinical trials. Any failure to successfully integrate the business, operations and employees of APIRx could undermine our results of operations.

We may be unable to achieve the expected synergies following the Acquisition.

We believe that the Acquisition will provide us with the opportunity to achieve synergies between Incannex’s clinical trials and APIRx’s clinical projects. The synergies we expect to realize from the Acquisition are, necessarily, based on projections and assumptions about the combined businesses and assume the successful integration of APIRx’s operations into our business and operations. Our projections and assumptions concerning the Acquisition could prove to be inaccurate, however, and we may not successfully integrate APIRx and our operations in a timely manner, or at all. We could also be exposed to unexpected contingencies or liabilities of APIRx or litigation regarding APIRx’s intellectual property portfolio. If we do not realize the anticipated synergies from the Acquisition, our growth strategy and future profitability could be adversely affected.

Future potential sales of our drug candidates may suffer if they are not accepted in the marketplace by physicians, patients and the medical community.

There is a risk that our drug candidates may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients and the medical community, even if they are approved by the regulatory authorities. The degree of market acceptance of any of our approved drug candidates will depend on a variety of factors, including:

As controlled substances, the products may generate public controversy. Physicians, patients, payers or the medical community may be unwilling to accept, use or recommend our drug candidates which would adversely affect our potential revenues and future profitability. Adverse publicity or public perception regarding cannabis and psilocybin to our investigational therapies using these substances may negatively influence the success of these therapies.

We face competition from entities that may develop drug candidates for our target disease indications, including companies developing novel treatments and technology platforms based on modalities and technology similar to ours.

The development and commercialization of drug candidates is highly competitive. Multinational pharmaceutical companies and specialized biotechnology companies could develop drug candidates and processes competitive with our drug candidates. Competitive therapeutic treatments include those that have already been approved and accepted by the medical community, patients and third-party payers, and any new treatments that enter the market.

There may be a significant number of products that are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of conditions for which we are developing, and may in the future try to develop, drug candidates.

Multinational pharmaceutical companies and specialized biotechnology companies could have significantly greater financial, technical, manufacturing, marketing, sales and supply resources and experience than we have. If we successfully obtain approval for any drug candidate, we could face competition based on many different factors, including the safety and effectiveness of our drug candidates, the ease with which our drug candidates can be administered and the extent to which patients accept relatively new routes of administration, the timing and scope of regulatory approvals for these drug candidates, the availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities, price, reimbursement coverage and patent position.

Competing products could present superior treatment alternatives, including by being more effective, safer, less expensive or marketed and sold more effectively than any products we may develop. Competitive products may make any products we develop obsolete or non-competitive before we recover the expense of developing and commercializing our drug candidates. Such competitors could also recruit our employees, which could negatively impact our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan.

If healthcare insurers and other organizations do not pay for our drug candidates or impose limits on reimbursement, our future business may suffer.

Our drug candidates may be rejected by the market due to many factors, including cost. The continuing efforts of governments, insurance companies and other payers of healthcare costs to contain or reduce healthcare costs may affect our future revenues and profitability. In Australia and certain foreign markets, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to government control. We expect initiatives for similar government control to continue in the United States and elsewhere. The adoption of any such legislative or regulatory proposals could harm our business and prospects.

Successful commercialization of our drug candidates will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for the cost of our products and related treatment will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Our drug candidates may not be considered cost-effective and reimbursement may not be available to consumers or may not be sufficient to allow our products to be marketed on a competitive basis. Third-party payers are increasingly challenging the price of medical products and treatment. If third-party coverage is not available for our drug candidates the market acceptance of these drug candidates will be reduced. Cost-control initiatives could decrease the price we might establish for drug candidates, which could result in product revenues lower than anticipated. If the price for our drug candidates decreases or if governmental and other third-party payers do not provide adequate coverage and reimbursement levels our potential revenue and prospects for profitability will suffer.

We could become exposed to product liability claims that could adversely affect our business.

The testing, marketing and sale of therapeutic products entails an inherent risk of product liability. We rely on a number of third-party researchers and contractors to produce, collect, and analyze data regarding the safety and efficacy of our drug candidates. We also have quality control and quality assurance in place to mitigate these risks, as well as professional liability and clinical trial insurance to cover financial damages in the event that human testing is done incorrectly or the data is analyzed incorrectly.

Notwithstanding our control procedures, we may face product liability exposure related to the testing of our drug candidates in human clinical trials. If any of our drug candidates are approved for sale, we may face exposure to claims by an even greater number of persons than were involved in the clinical trials once marketing, distribution and sales of our drug candidates begin. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

With respect to product liability claims, we could face additional liability beyond insurance limits if testing mistakes were to endanger any human subjects. In addition, if a claim is made against us in conjunction with these research testing activities, the market price of our ADSs may be negatively affected.

The outbreak of a pandemic could adversely impact our business, including our non-clinical studies and clinical trials.

Public health crises such as pandemics or similar outbreaks might adversely impact our business. In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus (“COVID-19”) surfaced in China and then spread to most countries in the world.

As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, or any future pandemic, we have and may in the future experience disruptions that could severely impact our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials, including:

Product shipment delays could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The shipment, import and export of our drug candidates and the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (“API”) used to manufacture them will require import and export licenses. In the United States, the FDA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”); in Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, Health Canada; in Europe, the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”) and the European Commission; in Australia and New Zealand, the Australian Customs and Board Protection Service, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (the “TGA”), the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Device Safety Authority and the New Zealand Customs Service; and in other countries, similar regulatory authorities, regulate the import and export of pharmaceutical products that contain controlled substances. Specifically, the import and export processes require the issuance of import and export licenses by the relevant controlled substance authority in both the importing and exporting country.

We may not be granted, or if granted, maintain, such licenses from the authorities in certain countries. Even if we obtain the relevant licenses, shipments of API and our drug candidates may be held up or lost in transit, which could cause significant delays and may lead to product batches being stored outside required temperature ranges. Inappropriate storage may damage the product shipment resulting in delays in clinical trials or, upon commercialization, a partial or total loss of revenue from one or more shipments of API or our drug candidates. A delay in a clinical trial or, upon commercialization, a partial or total loss of revenue from one or more shipments of API or our drug candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our drug candidates will be subject to controlled substance laws and regulations. Failure to receive necessary approvals may delay the launch of our drug candidates and failure to comply with these laws and regulations may adversely affect the results of our business operations.

Our drug candidates contain controlled substances as defined in the Controlled Substance Act (the “CSA”). Controlled substances that are pharmaceutical products are subject to a high degree of regulation under the CSA, which establishes, among other things, certain registration, manufacturing quotas, security, recordkeeping, reporting, import, export and other requirements administered by the DEA. The DEA classifies controlled substances into five schedules: Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse, have not currently “accepted medical use” in the United States, lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and may not be prescribed, marketed or sold in the United States. Pharmaceutical products approved for use in the United States may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest potential for abuse or dependence and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. Schedule I and II drugs are subject to the strictest controls under the CSA, including manufacturing and procurement quotas, security requirements and criteria for importation. In addition, dispensing of Schedule II drugs is further restricted. For example, they may not be refilled without a new prescription.

As a synthetic cannabinoids pharmaceutical product with psychedelic agents, our drug candidates are likely to be scheduled as Schedule II or III controlled substance. We will need to identify wholesale distributors with the appropriate DEA registrations and authority to distribute the products to pharmacies and other healthcare providers, and these distributors would need to obtain Schedule II or III distribution registrations. The failure to obtain, or delay in obtaining, or the loss of any of those registrations could result in increased costs to us. If any of our drug candidates is a Schedule II drug, pharmacies would have to maintain enhanced security with alarms and monitoring systems, and they must adhere to additional recordkeeping and inventory requirements. This may discourage some pharmacies from carrying the product. Furthermore, state and federal enforcement actions, regulatory requirements, and legislation intended to reduce prescription drug abuse, such as the requirement that physicians consult a state prescription drug monitoring program, may make physicians less willing to prescribe, and pharmacies to dispense, Schedule II products.

We intend to manufacture the commercial supply of our drug candidates outside of the United States. If any of our products are approved by the FDA and classified as a Schedule II or III substance, an importer can import for commercial purposes if it obtains from the DEA an importer registration and files an application with the DEA for an import permit for each import. The failure to identify an importer or obtain the necessary import authority could affect the availability of our drug candidates and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, an application for a Schedule II importer registration must be published in the Federal Register, and there is a waiting period for third party comments to be submitted. The failure to maintain the necessary registrations or comply with applicable laws could delay the commercialization of our drug candidates and could delay the completion of the clinical studies. Furthermore, failure to maintain compliance with the CSA, particularly non-compliance resulting in loss or diversion, could result in regulatory action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to restrict, suspend or revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings. In addition, if the FDA, DEA, or any foreign regulatory authority determines that our drug candidates may have potential for abuse, it may require us to generate more clinical or other data than we currently anticipate to establish whether or to what extent the substance has an abuse potential, which could increase the cost and/or delay the launch of which could increase the cost and/or delay the launch of our drug candidates.

Individual states have also established controlled substance laws and regulations. Though state-controlled substance laws often mirror federal law, because the states are separate jurisdictions, they may separately schedule our drug candidates as well. While some states automatically schedule a drug based on federal action, other states schedule drugs through rulemaking or a legislative action. State scheduling may delay commercial sale of any product for which we obtain federal regulatory approval and adverse scheduling could have a material adverse effect on the commercial attractiveness of such product. We or our partners must also obtain separate state registrations, permits or licenses in order to be able to obtain, handle, and distribute controlled substances for clinical trials or commercial sale, and failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements could lead to enforcement and sanctions by the states in addition to those from the DEA or otherwise arising under federal law.

We intend to contract manufacturers in Australia to produce the drug product for our clinical trials and the API for our drug candidates. In addition, we may decide to develop, manufacture or commercialize our drug candidates in additional countries. As a result, we will also be subject to controlled substance laws and regulations from the TGA in Australia and from other regulatory agencies in other countries where we develop, manufacture or commercialize our drug candidates in the future. We plan to submit New Drug Applications (“NDAs”) for our drug candidates to the FDA upon completion of all requisite clinical trials and may require additional DEA scheduling decisions at such time as well.

Changes in U.S. healthcare law and implementing regulations, as well as changes in healthcare policy, may impact our business in ways that we cannot currently predict and may harm our business and results of operations.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, several executive, legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of drug candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Among policy makers and payors in the United States there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access and the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act, among other things: (1) introduced a new average manufacturer price definition for drugs and biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected and not generally dispensed through retail community pharmacies; (2) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and expanded rebate liability from fee-for-service Medicaid utilization to include the utilization of Medicaid managed care organizations as well; (3) established a branded prescription drug fee that pharmaceutical manufacturers of branded prescription drugs must pay to the federal government; (4) expanded the list of covered entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program by adding new entities eligible for the program; (5) established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or BBA, effective as of January 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable branded drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; (6) extended manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; (7) expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals, including individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability; (8) created a licensure framework for follow-on biologic products; and (9) established a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at the CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending. We continue to monitor any changes or challenges to the Affordable Care Act that, in turn, may potentially impact our business in the future.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 and subsequent laws, which began in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Subsequently, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. New laws could result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which may materially negatively affect customer demand and affordability for our drug candidates and, accordingly, the results of our financial operations. Also, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which pharmaceutical companies set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed federal legislation, as well as state efforts, designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the state level, individual states in the United States are increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions on coverage or access could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drug candidates that we successfully commercialize or put pressure on our product pricing.

In addition, proposed federal and state legislation may increase competition as it relates to cannabis derived products. Under the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, the U.S. Senate proposed legalizing the use of hemp-derived CBD in dietary supplements by amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”). The Hemp Access and Consumer Safety Act of 2021 (SB 1698) also permits hemp-derived CBD to be used in dietary supplements. States are considering the reimbursement of medical marijuana. As the availability and reimbursement of cannabis-derived products potentially expand, the pharmaceutical industry may directly compete with state-regulated cannabis businesses for market share.

We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and lower reimbursement, and put additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. It is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our drug candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Our success depends on our ability to protect our intellectual property and our proprietary technology.

Our success is to a certain degree also dependent on our ability to obtain and maintain protection of our intellectual property portfolio, including the assets acquired through the Acquisition or, where applicable, to receive/maintain orphan drug designation/status and resulting marketing exclusivity for our drug candidates.

We may be materially adversely affected by our failure or inability to protect our intellectual property rights. Without the granting of these rights, the ability to pursue damages for infringement would be limited. Similarly, any know-how that is proprietary or particular to our technologies may be subject to risk of disclosure by employees or consultants despite having confidentiality agreements in place.

Any future success will depend in part on whether we can obtain and maintain patents to protect our own products and technologies; obtain licenses to the patented technologies of third parties; and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of third parties. Biotechnology patent matters can involve complex legal and scientific questions, and it is impossible to predict the outcome of biotechnology and pharmaceutical patent claims. Any of our future patent applications may not be approved, or we may not develop additional products or processes that are patentable. Some countries in which we may sell our drug candidate or license our intellectual property may fail to protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as the protection that may be afforded in the United States or Australia. Some legal principles remain unresolved and there has not been a consistent policy regarding the breadth or interpretation of claims allowed in patents in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia or elsewhere. In addition, the specific content of patents and patent applications that are necessary to support and interpret patent claims is highly uncertain due to the complex nature of the relevant legal, scientific and factual issues. Changes in either patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union or elsewhere may diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection. Even if we are able to obtain patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. We may also fail to take the required actions or pay the necessary fees to maintain our patents.

Moreover, any of our pending applications may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, the European Patent Office, or EPO, the Intellectual Property Office, or IPO, in the United Kingdom, the Australian Patent and Trademark Office and/or any patents issuing thereon may become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, post grant review, interference proceedings or other patent office proceedings or litigation, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, and allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to exploit our intellectual property or develop and commercialize drug candidates.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to the inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States, the European Union, Australia and elsewhere. Such challenges may result in loss of ownership or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

In addition, other companies may attempt to circumvent any regulatory data protection or market exclusivity that we obtain under applicable legislation, which may require us to allocate significant resources to preventing such circumvention. Such developments could enable other companies to circumvent our intellectual property rights and use our clinical trial data to obtain marketing authorizations in the European Union, Australia and in other jurisdictions. Such developments may also require us to allocate significant resources to prevent other companies from circumventing or violating our intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property rights of third parties could adversely affect our ability to commercialize our drug candidates, such that we could be required to litigate with or obtain licenses from third parties in order to develop or market our drug candidates.

Our commercial success may depend upon our future ability and the ability of our potential collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our drug candidates without infringing valid intellectual property rights of third parties. If a third-party intellectual property right exists it may require the pursuit of litigation or administrative proceedings to nullify or invalidate the third-party intellectual property right concerned, or entry into a license agreement with the intellectual property right holder, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

Third-party intellectual property right holders, including our competitors, may bring infringement claims against us. We may not be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we are unable to successfully settle future claims or otherwise resolve such claims on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to engage in or continue costly, unpredictable and time-consuming litigation and may be prevented from, or experience substantial delays in, marketing our drug candidate.

If we fail to settle or otherwise resolve any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we or our potential collaborators may be prohibited from commercializing any drug candidates we may develop that are held to be infringing, for the duration of the patent term. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign our formulations so that we no longer infringe such third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

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 collaborate with various organizations and academic institutions on the advancement of our technology and drug candidates, we may, 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, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees 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, such as trade secrets. Despite these contractual provisions, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by potential 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, discovery by a third party of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our intellectual property rights and protections in our drug candidates.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, provided that we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time in order to secure our intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us. In other cases, we may share these rights with other parties. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets in cases where we do not have proprietary or otherwise protected rights at the time of publication.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, 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.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and applications are required to be paid to the United State Patent and Trademark Office and other governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and applications. The USPTO and various corresponding governmental patent agencies outside of the United States require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process and after a patent has issued. There are situations in which non-compliance 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.

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

Competitors may infringe our patents or other intellectual property and we may inadvertently infringe the patent or intellectual property of others. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file claims, and any related litigation and/or prosecution of such claims can be expensive and time consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid in whole or in part, unenforceable, or construe the patent’s claims narrowly allowing the other party to commercialize competing products on the grounds that our patents do not cover such products.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. The effects of patent litigation or other proceedings could therefore have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees, advisors and consultants 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.

To protect this type of information against disclosure or appropriation by competitors, our policy is to require our employees, advisors and consultants to enter into confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with us. However, current or former employees, advisors and consultants may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors, and confidentiality and invention assignment 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 and invention assignment 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.

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:

We may face difficulties with protecting our intellectual property in certain jurisdictions, which may diminish the value of our intellectual property rights in those jurisdictions.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the United States and the European Union, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. If we or our collaboration partners encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions.

Some countries in Europe and China have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we are, or any of our licensors is, forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position or commercial advantage may be impaired and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Changes in patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our drug candidates and any future drug candidates.

As is the case with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property rights, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves technological and legal complexity, and obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has issued rulings either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations or ruling that certain subject matter is not eligible for patent protection. 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, once obtained. Depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts, the USPTO and equivalent bodies in non-U.S. jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents and patents we may obtain in the future.

Patent reform laws, such as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, as well as changes in how patent laws are interpreted, could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act made a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the filing and prosecution strategies associated with patent applications, including a change from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-inventor-to-file” patent system, and a change allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings. The USPTO has developed regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act and, in particular, the “first-inventor-to-file” provisions. The Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation may 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 harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Price controls may be imposed in non-U.S. markets, which may negatively affect our future profitability.

In some countries, particularly EU member states, Japan, Australia and Canada, 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. In some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our drug 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 drug candidates is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business, revenues or profitability could be harmed.

Risks Relating to Ownership of the ADSs

The trading price of the ADSs may be volatile, and purchasers of the ADSs could incur substantial losses.

The market price of our ordinary shares historically has been, and we expect our ordinary shares and ADSs will continue to be, subject to significant fluctuations over short periods of time. These fluctuations may be due to factors specific to us, to changes in analysts’ recommendations and earnings estimates, to arbitrage between our Australian-listed ordinary shares and our Nasdaq-listed ADSs, to changes in exchange rates, or to factors affecting the biopharmaceutical industry or the securities markets in general. Market fluctuations, as well as general political and economic conditions, such as a recession, interest rate or currency fluctuations, could adversely affect the market price of our securities.

We may experience a material decline in the market price of our shares, regardless of our operating performance. Therefore, a holder of our ADSs may not be able to sell those ADSs at or above the price paid by such holder for such ADSs. Price declines in our ADSs could result from a variety of factors, including many outside our control. These factors include:

In addition, volatility and low market price of our ADSs may adversely impact investors’ interest in our securities. A decline in investors’ interest may prompt further volatility and decrease in market price.

If we are or become a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”), then that would subject our U.S. shareholders to adverse tax rules.

Holders of our ADSs who are U.S. taxpayers will be subject to particular income tax rules if we are a PFIC. These rules could result in a reduction in the after-tax return to a “U.S. Holder” of our ADSs and reduce the value of our ADSs. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, we will be classified as a PFIC for any taxable year in which (i) 75% or more of our gross income is passive income, or (ii) at least 50% of the average value of all of our assets for the taxable year produce or are held for the production of passive income.

If we are classified as a PFIC in any year that a U.S. Holder owns ADSs, the U.S. Holder will generally continue to be treated as holding ADSs of a PFIC in all subsequent years, notwithstanding that we are not classified as a PFIC in a subsequent year. Dividends received by the U.S. Holder and gains realized from the sale of our ADSs would be taxed as ordinary income and subject to an interest charge. We urge U.S. investors to consult their own tax advisors about the application of the PFIC rules and certain elections that may help to minimize adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences in their particular circumstances. For further information, see Item 10.E – Additional Information – Taxation – U.S. Taxation.

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources and divert management’s attention.

As a publicly-traded company in the United States, Incannex is subject to the reporting requirements of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and applicable securities rules and regulations. Compliance with these laws will increase our legal and compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires that we file this annual report on Form 20-F and certain other reports. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight are required. As a result, management’s attention could be diverted from other business concerns and, thus, adversely affect our business and results of operations.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting annually and disclosure controls and procedures. If we identify material weaknesses or we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, our reported financial results could be restated, we could be subject to investigations or sanctions by regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources, and the market price of our securities could decline.

We could become subject to the auditor attestation requirement under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act even if we have little or no revenue, thus imposing significant cost and administrative burden on us.

We currently qualify as an “emerging growth company” and, as a result, are exempt from the auditor attestation requirement under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the assessment of internal controls over financial reporting. We expect to remain an emerging growth company until the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our first public offering in the United States. Once we cease to be an emerging growth company and the aggregate worldwide market value of our voting equity held by non-affiliates exceeds US$75 million as of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, then we will be subject to the auditor attestation requirement in the assessment of the internal controls over financial reporting.

While the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has acknowledged the significant cost of the auditor attestation requirement for small companies and provided an exemption for U.S. “smaller reporting companies” with less than US$100 million in revenue, the SEC has decided not to similarly exempt foreign private issuers (such as Incannex) unless they comply with the reporting requirements for U.S. companies, including presenting financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Given the significant cost and administrative burden resulting from inconsistent reporting obligations under the rules of the SEC and ASX, it may not be feasible for us to comply with the SEC’s reporting requirements for U.S. companies in the event Incannex were to cease being an “emerging growth company” and have aggregate worldwide market value of our voting equity held by non-affiliates exceeding US$75 million.

In such event, we could be obligated to incur significant compliance costs (which in 2019 the SEC estimated to be US$210,000 per annum to comply with the attestation requirement under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act) and administrative burden given our limited number of personnel. If such costs were to become too significant, we could reconsider our listing on Nasdaq because, as the SEC has acknowledged, the savings for a small company could be put to more productive use such as developing the company.

Our issuance of additional ordinary shares in connection with financings, acquisitions, investments, or otherwise will dilute all other ADS holders.

We expect to issue additional ordinary shares in the future that will result in dilution to all other ADS holders. We may also raise capital through equity financings in the future. As part of our business strategy, we may acquire or make investments in complementary companies, products, or technologies and issue equity securities to pay for any such acquisition or investment. While we will be subject to the constraints of the ASX Listing Rules regarding the percentage of our capital that we are able to issue within a 12-month period (subject to applicable exceptions), any such issuances of additional ordinary shares may cause ADS holders to experience significant dilution of their ownership interests and the per ADS value of our ADSs to decline. 

As long as we remain subject to the rules of the ASX, we may be unable to conduct certain types of capital raisings without shareholder approval if such capital raising would result in an equity issuance above regulatory thresholds and, consequently, we could be unable to obtain financing sufficient to sustain our business if we are unsuccessful in soliciting requisite shareholder approvals.

Our ability to access equity capital is limited by ASX Listing Rule 7.1, which provides that a company may not, subject to certain exceptions for certain types of offering (e.g., rights offers) or approval by shareholders, issue or agree to issue during any consecutive 12-month period any equity securities, or other securities with rights to conversion to equity, if the number of those securities in aggregate would exceed 15% of the number of ordinary securities on issue at the commencement of that 12-month period.

Our equity issuances will be limited by ASX Listing Rule 7.1 as long as we continue to be listed on the ASX and this constraint may prevent us from raising the full amount of equity capital needed for operations without prior shareholder approval or structuring the capital raising within one of the exceptions to this limitation such as a rights offer.

We are subject to risks associated with currency fluctuations, and changes in foreign currency exchange rates could impact our results of operations.

Our ordinary shares are quoted in Australian dollars on the ASX and the ADSs will be quoted in U.S. dollars. Any significant change in the value of the Australian dollar could have a negative effect on the value of the ADSs in U.S. dollars. In addition, if the Australian dollar weakens against the U.S. dollar, then, if we decide to convert our Australian dollars into U.S. dollars for any business purpose, appreciation of the U.S. dollar against the Australian dollar would have a negative effect on the U.S. dollar amount available to us. To the extent that we need to convert U.S. dollars we receive into Australian dollars for our operations, appreciation of the Australian dollar against the U.S. dollar would have a negative effect on the Australian dollar amount we would receive from the conversion. Consequently, appreciation or depreciation in the value of the Australian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar would affect our financial results reported in U.S. dollar terms without giving effect to any underlying change in our business or results of operations. As a result of such foreign currency fluctuations, it could be more difficult to detect underlying trends in our business and results of operations.

Our ADS holders are not shareholders and do not have shareholder rights.

Deutsche Bank, as depositary, registers and delivers our American Depositary Shares, or ADSs. Our ADS holders will not be treated as shareholders and do not have the rights of shareholders. The depositary will be the holder of the shares underlying our ADSs. Holders of our ADSs will have ADS holder rights. A deposit agreement among us, the depositary and our ADS holders, and the beneficial owners of ADSs, sets out ADS holder rights as well as the rights and obligations of the depositary. New York law governs the deposit agreement and the ADSs. For a description of ADS holder rights, see “Description of Securities” in this Annual Report.

Our shareholders have shareholder rights. Australian law and our constitution govern shareholder rights. For a description of our shareholders’ rights, see “Memorandum and Articles of Association” in this Annual Report. Shareholders are entitled to our notices of general meetings and to attend and vote at our general meetings of shareholders. At a general meeting, every shareholder present (in person or by proxy, attorney or representative) and entitled to vote has one vote on a show of hands. Every shareholder present (in person or by proxy, attorney or representative) and entitled to vote has one vote per fully paid ordinary share on a poll. This is subject to any other rights or restrictions which may be attached to any shares.

Our ADS holders do not have the same voting rights as our shareholders. ADS holders may exercise voting rights with respect to the underlying ordinary shares only in accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreement. Under the deposit agreement, ADS holders vote by giving voting instructions to the depositary. Upon receipt of instructions, the depositary will try to vote in accordance with those instructions. Otherwise, ADS holders will not be able to vote unless they withdraw the ordinary shares underlying their ADSs.

If we ask for our ADS holders’ instructions, the depositary will notify our ADS holders of the upcoming vote and arrange to deliver our voting materials and form of notice to them. The depositary will try, as far as practical, subject to Australian law and the provisions of the depositary agreement, to vote the shares as our ADS holders instruct. The depositary will not vote or attempt to exercise the right to vote other than in accordance with the instructions of the ADS holders. We cannot assure our ADS holders that they will learn of ordinary shareholders’ meetings and receive the voting materials in time to instruct the depositary or withdraw the underlying ordinary shares. This means that there is a risk that our ADS holders may not be able to exercise voting rights and there may be nothing they can do if their shares are not voted as they requested.

Our ADS holders do not have the same rights to receive dividends or other distributions as our shareholders.

Subject to any special rights or restrictions attached to a share, the directors may determine that a dividend will be payable on a share and fix the amount, the time for payment and the method for payment (although we have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our ordinary shares and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future). Dividends may be paid on shares of one class but not another and at different rates for different classes. Dividends and other distributions payable to our shareholders with respect to our ordinary shares generally will be payable directly to them. Any dividends or distributions payable with respect to ordinary shares will be paid to the depositary, which has agreed to pay to our ADS holders the cash dividends or other distributions it or the custodian receives on shares or other deposited securities, after deducting its fees and expenses. Our ADS holders will receive these distributions in proportion to the number of shares their ADSs represent. In addition, there may be certain circumstances in which the depositary may not pay to our ADS holders amounts distributed by us as a dividend or distribution.

There are circumstances where it may be unlawful or impractical to make distributions to the holders of our ADSs.

The deposit agreement with the depositary generally requires the depositary to convert foreign currency it receives in respect of deposited securities into U.S. dollars and distribute the U.S. dollars to ADS holders, provided the depositary can do so on a reasonable basis. If it does not convert foreign currency, the depositary may distribute the foreign currency only to those ADS holders to whom it is possible to do so. If a distribution is payable by us in Australian dollars, the depositary will hold the foreign currency it cannot convert for the account of the ADS holders who have not been paid. It will not invest the foreign currency and it will not be liable for any interest. If the exchange rates fluctuate during a time when the depositary cannot convert the foreign currency, our ADS holders may lose some of the value of the distribution. The depositary is not responsible if it decides that it is unlawful or impractical to make a distribution available to any ADS holders. This means that our ADS holders may not receive the distributions we make on our shares or any value for them if it is illegal or impractical for us to make them available.

ADSs holders may not be entitled to a jury trial with respect to claims arising under the deposit agreement, which could augur less favorable results to the plaintiff(s) in any such action.

The deposit agreement governing the ADSs representing our ordinary shares provides that holders and beneficial owners of ADSs irrevocably waive the right to a trial by jury in any legal proceeding arising out of or relating to the deposit agreement or the ADSs against us or the depositary to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. If this jury trial waiver provision is prohibited by applicable law, an action could nevertheless proceed under the terms of the deposit agreement with a jury trial. To our knowledge, the enforceability of a jury trial waiver under the federal securities laws has not been finally adjudicated by a federal court. However, we believe that a jury trial waiver provision is generally enforceable under the laws of the State of New York, which govern the deposit agreement, by a court of the State of New York or a federal court, which have non-exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the deposit agreement, applying such law.

In determining whether to enforce a jury trial waiver provision, New York courts and federal courts will consider whether the visibility of the jury trial waiver provision within the agreement is sufficiently prominent such that a party has knowingly waived any right to trial by jury. We believe that this is the case with respect to the deposit agreement and the ADSs. In addition, New York courts will not enforce a jury trial waiver provision in order to bar a viable setoff or counterclaim sounding in fraud or one which is based upon a creditor’s negligence in failing to liquidate collateral upon a guarantor’s demand, or in the case of an intentional tort claim (as opposed to a contract dispute), none of which we believe are applicable in the case of the deposit agreement or the ADSs. No condition, stipulation or provision of the deposit agreement or ADSs serves as a waiver by any holder or beneficial owner of ADSs or by us or the Depositary of compliance with any provision of the federal securities laws. If you or any other holder or beneficial owner of ADSs brings a claim against us or the Depositary in connection with matters arising under the deposit agreement or the ADSs, you or such other holder or beneficial owner may not be entitled to a jury trial with respect to such claims, which may have the effect of limiting and discouraging lawsuits against us and/or the Depositary.

If a lawsuit is brought against us and/or the Depositary under the deposit agreement, it may be heard only by a judge or justice of the applicable trial court, which would be conducted according to different civil procedures and may determine different results than a trial by jury would have had, including results that could be less favorable to the plaintiff(s) in any such action, depending on, among other things, the nature of the claims, the judge or justice hearing such claims, and the venue of the hearing.

As the jury trial waiver relates to claims arising out of or relating to the ADSs or the deposit agreement, we believe that the waiver would likely continue to apply to purchasers of ADSs in secondary transactions. In addition, we believe that the waiver would likely continue to apply to ADS holders or beneficial owners who withdraw the ordinary shares from the ADS facility with respect to claims arising before the cancellation of the ADSs and the withdrawal of the ordinary shares, and the waiver would likely not apply to ADS holders or beneficial owners who subsequently withdraw the ordinary shares represented by ADSs from the ADS facility with respect to claims arising after the withdrawal. However, to our knowledge, there has been no case law on the applicability of the jury trial waiver to ADS holders or beneficial owners who withdraw the ordinary shares represented by the ADSs from the ADS facility. Nevertheless, if this jury trial waiver is not permitted by applicable law, an action could proceed under the terms of the deposit agreement with a jury trial. No condition, stipulation or provision of the deposit agreement or the ADSs serves as a waiver by any owner or holder of ADSs or by us or the Depositary of compliance with any substantive provision of the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

Risks Relating to Our Location in Australia

Australian takeovers laws may discourage takeover offers being made for us or may discourage the acquisition of large numbers of our shares.

Incannex is incorporated in Australia and is subject to the takeover laws of Australia and the Corporations Act 2001 (Commonwealth of Australia). Subject to a range of exceptions, the Corporations Act prohibits the acquisition of a direct or indirect interest in our issued voting shares (including through the acquisition of ADSs) if the acquisition of that interest will lead to a person’s or someone else’s voting power in us increasing from 20% or below to more than 20% or increasing from a starting point that is above 20% and below 90%. Exceptions to the general prohibition include circumstances where the person makes a formal takeover bid for us, if the person obtains shareholder approval for the acquisition or if the person acquires less than 3% of the voting power of us in any rolling six-month period. Australian takeovers laws may discourage takeover offers being made for us or may discourage the acquisition of large numbers of our shares.

Holders of our ordinary shares or ADSs may have difficulty in effecting service of process in the United States or enforcing judgments obtained in the United States.

Holders of our ordinary shares or ADSs may have difficulties enforcing, in actions brought in courts in jurisdictions located outside the U.S., liabilities under U.S. securities laws. In particular, if such a holder sought to bring proceedings in Australia based on U.S. securities laws, the Australian court might consider:

Holders of our ordinary shares and ADSs may also have difficulties enforcing in courts outside the U.S. judgments obtained in the U.S. courts against any of our directors and executive officers or us, including actions under the civil liability provisions of the U.S. securities laws.

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

As a “foreign private issuer” (as defined in the SEC’s rules) whose ADSs are listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, we are permitted to follow certain home country corporate governance practices instead of certain requirements of The Nasdaq Marketplace Rules. As an Australian company, we may follow home country practice in Australia with regard to the composition of the board of directors and director nomination process. In addition, we may follow Australian law instead of the Nasdaq Marketplace Rules that require that we obtain shareholder approval for certain events. Accordingly, our U.S. shareholders may not be afforded the same protection as provided under Nasdaq’s corporate governance rules that are applicable to U.S. companies.

As a foreign private issuer, we are exempt from a number of rules under the U.S. securities laws and are permitted to file less information with the SEC than a U.S. company.

As a foreign private issuer, we are not subject to the same disclosure requirements applicable to U.S. public companies. For example, we are exempt from certain rules under the Exchange Act that regulate disclosure obligations and procedural requirements related to the solicitation of proxies under the Exchange Act. In addition, our senior management and directors are exempt from the reporting and “short-swing” profit recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act and related rules with respect to their purchases and sales of our securities. Moreover, while we currently make annual and semi-annual filings, we are not required to file periodic reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as U.S. public companies that file quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Therefore, our U.S. shareholders will not receive the same level of disclosure from us that is applicable to U.S. companies.

Any loss of our foreign private issuer status in the future could result in significant additional cost.

While we currently qualify as a foreign private issuer, the determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of an issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter. In the future, we would lose our foreign private issuer status if we to fail to meet the requirements necessary to maintain our foreign private issuer status as of the relevant determination date. For example, if 50% or more of our securities are held by U.S. residents and more than 50% of our senior management or directors are residents or citizens of the United States, we could lose our foreign private issuer status.

The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws as a U.S. domestic issuer could be significantly more than costs we incur as a foreign private issuer. If we were to cease to be a foreign private issuer, then we would be required to file periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which forms are more detailed and extensive in certain respects than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. We would be required to prepare our financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP rather than IFRS. Such conversion of our financial statements to U.S. GAAP would involve significant time and cost. In addition, we could lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements on U.S. stock exchanges that are available to foreign private issuers such as the ones described above and exemptions from procedural requirements related to the solicitation of proxies.

U.S. investors may have difficulty enforcing civil liabilities against our company, our directors or members of senior management named in this Annual Report.

Certain members of our senior management and board of directors named in this Annual Report are non-residents of the United States, and a substantial portion of the assets of such persons are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be impracticable to serve process on such persons in the United States or to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts against them based on civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States. Even if you are successful in bringing such an action, there is doubt as to whether Australian courts would enforce certain civil liabilities under U.S. securities laws in original actions or judgments of U.S. courts based upon these civil liability provisions. In addition, awards of punitive damages in actions brought in the United States or elsewhere may be unenforceable in Australia or elsewhere outside the United States. An award for monetary damages under U.S. securities laws would be considered punitive if it does not seek to compensate the claimant for loss or damage suffered and is intended to punish the defendant. The enforceability of any judgment in Australia will depend on the particular facts of the case as well as the laws and treaties in effect at the time.

As a result, our U.S. shareholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests through actions against us, our management or our directors than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction in the United States. In addition, as a company incorporated in Australia, the provisions of the Australian Corporations Act 2001 regulate the circumstances in which shareholder derivative actions may be commenced which may be different, and in many ways less permissive, than for companies incorporated in the United States.

Our legal name is Incannex Healthcare Limited (“Incannex”). We were incorporated in Australia in April 2001 under the name Mount Magnet South Limited. In November 2016, we changed name to Impression Healthcare Limited, and in June 2020, to Incannex Healthcare Limited. Incannex was listed on the ASX in 2016 and on Nasdaq in February 2022.

Since 2019, we have been conducting research and development for medicinal cannabis pharmaceutical products and psychedelic medicine therapies for treatment of a range of indications.

In January 2019, the Department of Health of Victoria granted us licenses to sell or supply cannabinoid substances, and in particular cannabis, cannabidiol (“CBD”), tetrahydrocannabinols (“THC”) and dronabinol.

In June 2020, we discontinued the sale of mouthguards for sports activities to focus our resources on cannabinoid sales and development activities. As a result, on June 30, 2020, we sold our wholly-owned subsidiary Gameday International Pty Ltd.

In June 2021, in order to focus on the development of our drug candidates, we terminated our distribution agreement for the sale of cannabinoid products and, as a result, have not had any sales of such products since then.

In August 2022, we acquired APIRx Pharmaceutical USA, LLC, which focuses on the research and development of prescription pharmaceutical cannabinoid medicines. We issued 218,169,497 ordinary shares, at a price of A$0.573 per share, in exchange for 100% of the equity interests in APIRx. Upon completion of the acquisition, the Founders of APIRx, Dr. George Anastassov and Mr Lekhram Changoer joined Incannex as a Director and our Chief Technology Officer, respectively. While APIRx owned intellectual property at the time of the acquisition, it did not have any other material assets or liabilities. The acquisition of APIRx presents Incannex with both long and short-term opportunities for significant value growth. APIRx has twenty-two (22) active clinical and pre-clinical research and development projects underpinned by an intellectual property portfolio that includes 19 granted patents and 23 pending patents. It holds a diverse portfolio of promising therapeutic candidates targeted at treating an extensive range of conditions including pain disorders, addiction disorders, mental illnesses, gastrointestinal diseases, gum disease, skin conditions and ophthalmic conditions. The indications being pursued represented an aggregate addressable market of US$400B per annum.

Our registered office is located at Suite 105, 8 Century Circuit, Norwest 2153, NSW Australia and our telephone number is +61 409 840 786. Our agent for service of process in the United States is Vcorp Services, LLC, (the “Process Agent”), now at 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 204, Monsey, New York 10952. Our address on the Internet is www. incannex.com.au. The information on, or accessible through, our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 20-F. All information we file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is available through the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval system, which may be accessed through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

Incannex is a biotech company developing cannabinoid and psychedelic compound medicines.

The recent acquisition of APIRx brings to Incannex a diverse portfolio of promising therapeutic candidates targeted at treating a broad range of conditions including pain, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, restless leg syndrome, gastrointestinal diseases, periodontitis, addiction disorders, skin conditions and ophthalmic conditions.

The acquisition of APIRx strengthens our position in the area of cannabinoid and psychedelic treatment development. In particular, it:

Strategy

Our mission is to create premier ethical pharmaceutical drugs and therapies for patients with unmet or under met medical needs, in all instances fulfilling regulatory requirements of the FDA and other relevant regulatory agencies. We aim to be recognized as a leading specialty drug development company, committed to restoring health and transforming the lives of patients through the development of novel pharmaceutical products and treatments.

We develop targeted and scientifically validated fixed-dose combinations of cannabinoids with generic partners, unique formulations of cannabinoids, and psychedelic agents, applying proprietary insights in an effort to create long term value for our patients and shareholders. We focus on clinical indications that we believe represent unmet or inadequately addressed medical needs that also represent compelling commercial opportunities. In particular, we are developing three unique pharmaceutical compositions to target five indications: obstructive sleep apnea (“OSA”), traumatic brain injury and concussion (“TBI”), rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”), inflammatory bowel disease (“IBD”) and inflammatory lung conditions (“ARDS”, “COPD”, Asthma, Bronchitis). We are also developing a treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (“GAD”) utilising psilocybin combined with innovative psychotherapy methods. With the acquisition of APIRx we are also developing cannabinoid products to target an additional 22 indications. The most progressed of these are pain and spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, irritable bowel syndrome, opioid addiction, smoking cessation, cannabis use disorder, vitiligo, atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. We are pursuing FDA registration and marketing approval for each product and therapy under development.

Additionally, we seek to secure patents on our drug candidates in conjunction with our medical and scientific staff, advisors and the investigators of our research studies that constitute our advisory board. Our advisory board is comprised of industry and academic experts familiar with our business, and we meet with the advisory board regularly. The current members of our advisory board are Dr. Mark Bleackley (our Chief Scientific Officer), Dr George Anastassov (Non-executive director), Lekhram Changoer (our Chief Technical Officer), Rosemarie Walsh (our VP Clinical Operations), and Dr Paul Liknaitsky (psychedelic principal investigator from Monash University).

To achieve our goals, we intend to:

Clinical Approach

We are pursuing FDA approval for all our drug candidates currently being developed. We will continue to work with FDA to ensure each clinical program is structured to meet regulatory requirements. FDA approval will be sought following the completion of successful phase 3 studies. Once we receive FDA approval for our drug candidates, we will be able to commercialize our drug candidates in the United States and pursue regulatory approval for the drug to be made available in other jurisdictions, including the Europe, Japan, Australia and Israel.

Market Opportunity

The combined annual global market size of the indications we are targeting is over US$420 billion, which is derived from the total addressable market for the treatment of all indications over which we are developing drug candidates. The indications being pursued include: OSA, TBI, concussions, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory lung conditions (ARDS, COPD, Asthma, Bronchitis), GAD, pain, spasticity, addiction disorders, dementia, Parkinson’s Disease, restless leg syndrome, gastrointestinal diseases, periodontitis, skin conditions and ophthalmic conditions. Thus, there is significant economic potential to shareholders, as well as benefit to patients suffering from these medical conditions.

Our Drug Candidates

IHL-42X

Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Obstructive sleep apnea is characterized by a narrowing or obstruction of the upper airway in sleep, interfering with breathing and interrupting sleep. This relatively common and chronic disorder is underdiagnosed and inadequately treated. It is understood to contribute to a wide range of serious long-term outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairments such as memory loss, poor concentration and judgment, depression and death or injury due to traffic accidents resulting from excessive daytime sleepiness. The costs associated with OSA are substantial, relating to lost productivity, workplace and motor vehicle accidents.

A 2019 article published by the Lancet premised on literature-based analysis of 17 studies across 16 countries, estimated that OSA affects some 936 million adults worldwide. This alarming statistic is also thought to be increasing due to growing prevalence of obesity and an ageing global population. Many people with OSA develop high blood pressure (hypertension), which can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. The more severe the OSA, the greater the risk of coronary artery disease, heart attack, heart failure and stroke.

There are no registered drugs for OSA. Current treatment options include: continuous positive airway pressure (“CPAP”) in which an external device pneumatically splints the airway open to prevent disruptions in breathing; oral appliances to advance the mandible or to retain the tongue, putting the mouth in a position more conducive to breathing; surgery to remove physical obstructions to air flow; and implantable electronic stimulators to activate muscles at the base of the tongue, opening the airway in synchrony with respiration. However, all of these therapies are inadequate, expensive, and for implantable stimulators and surgery, invasive.

The standard treatment option is the mechanical CPAP device, however, we believe patient compliance to CPAP devices is low due to discomfort and claustrophobia resulting from pressurized air being pumped into the patient’s nose and/or mouth during sleep. Despite these discomforts, the global annual market for OSA detection and treatment using CPAP devices is over US$10 billion and growing. The estimated compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) for OSA detection and treatment using CPAP devices from 2021 to 2028 is 6.2%.

IHL-42X in Obstructive Sleep Apnea

IHL-42X is a fixed-dose combination of acetazolamide, a registered pharmaceutical, and dronabinol, a synthetic form of -Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC); both agents have been shown to reduce the apnea hypopnea index (“AHI”). We believe that the activity of dronabinol on cannabinoid receptors causes dilation of the airway, and acetazolamide induces modest metabolic acidosis, signaling to the body that there is excess CO2 in the blood, thus increasing respiration. By exploiting two mechanisms that both reduce AHI in one pharmaceutical formulation, we believe that IHL-42X has a therapeutic benefit at doses of each constituent drug that are safe and tolerable.

Phase 2 Clinical Trial for IHL-42X for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (“OSA”)

We have recently completed a proof-of-concept Phase 2 clinical trial in Australia to support our IND application with FDA and to inform the clinical design of our future pivotal Phase 2 clinical trial, which will be conducted under the IND to assess the safety and efficacy of IHL-42X in patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea. The IND for IHL-42X in treatment of OSA has not yet been submitted and although we have incorporated multiple facets into this study, including full monitoring by a CRO and CDISC data formatting.

We received approval from The Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee in September 2020 to proceed with the trial in Australia. In December 2020, we recruited the first patients to the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that assesses the therapeutic benefit of IHL-42X at three different doses. The primary endpoint of the trial is the change in AHI relative to baseline and the secondary endpoints are change in oxygen desaturation index (“ODI”), daytime somnolence measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, improvement in mood as measured by the POMS (Profile of Moods State), and well-being as measured by the Short Form 36 and the safety of the IHL-42X combination will be established through adverse event monitoring.

The study was conducted at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne Australia and the University of Western Australia Centre for Sleep Science in Perth. Novotech, a global contract research organization, was engagef to manage and monitore the study. In July 2021, a confidential interim analysis of the data from the phase 2 double blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial was performed, and these results were utilized to support a patent application regarding the methods for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. In December 2021, we completed the dosing of participants in the phase 2 clinical trial.

In March 2022, we announced the completion of a preliminary analysis of the full patient data set from the phase 2, proof-of-concept clinical trial. The study assessed three doses of IHL-42 at reducing AHI compared to placebo in patients who suffered from the disease. Trial participants received each of the three doses of IHL-42X, low, medium and high, and placebo across four seven-day treatment periods, separated by one week washout periods. A total of eleven participants were recruited to the study and ten participants competed treatment periods. The cross over design of the trial, which assessed low, mid and high doses of IHL-42X and the placebo in all ten trial participants with one week washout periods, increased the power of the study compared to a traditional parallel arm design.

At baseline, the average AHI was 42.84. For all IHL-42X treatment periods (using low, mid, and high doses), the average AHI was 23.81, a 44.4 % reduction (p-value 0.0067) compared to baseline AHI. During placebo treatment periods, the average AHI was 40.08, a 6.4 % reduction (p-value 0.75) compared to baseline. In total, 60% of participants experienced a reduction in AHI of greater than 50% (range: 55.0% to 91.5%) and a resulting AHI of less than 20 during at least one treatment period of one dose strength of IHL-42X. In addition, 20% of participants experienced a reduction in AHI of greater than 80% (range: 82.7% to 91.5%) relative to baseline during at least one treatment period of one dose strength of IHL-42X.

In May 2022, following a pre-IND meeting, the FDA confirmed that we do not need to conduct studies in animals to have an IND application approved for IHL-42X. This decision by the FDA will save Incannex time and cost. The FDA provided guidance on our proposed long-term development strategy, including specific parameters to demonstrate the safety and efficacy in phase 2 and 3 pivotal studies, which will ensure that we can generate the data we need for a new drug application with the FDA, subject to ongoing clinical success.

In June 2022, we announced the full and complete analysis of data from the phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial investigating IHL-42X for treatment of OSA:

Average AHI data for baseline and each treatment period

Change in AHI from baseline within subject (least square mean)

Comparison of reduction in AHI relative to baseline with low dose IHL-42X and the predicted reduction with component drugs as monotherapies at equivalent doses based on reported data.

The reduction in AHI observed during IHL-42X treatment periods means that when treated with our proprietary drug, the patient’s breathing was interrupted less frequently during sleep. This supports our hypothesis that IHL-42X is an effective treatment for OSA. Furthermore, greater reduction in AHI with low dose IHL-42X compared to dronabinol and acetazolamide at equivalent doses supports our hypothesis that the two drugs are acting synergistically to produce a superior outcome than would be expected from dronabinol and acetazolamide as monotherapies.

With respect to the oxygen desaturation index (“ODI”), the data from the phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial supported the following:

Reduction in ODI compared to baseline during each treatment period.

The study also measured the Plasma THC levels in patients’ blood. Plasma samples were collected 2 hours post dose 1 and the morning after dose 7 for each treatment period. The morning after dose 7, THC levels in the low dose IHL-42X samples had an average of 0.20 ng/ml and a maximum of 0.45 ng/ml, both of which are below the thresholds for impaired driving imposed in countries that have set limits for THC. With medium and high dose IHL-42X the average THC concentrations the morning after dose 7 were 0.86 and 0.52 respectively.

During the IHL-42X treatment periods, patients more frequently reported that their sleep quality was good or very good when compared to placebo. The highest level of patient reported sleep quality was observed with low and high dose IHL-42X.

Patient reported sleep quality during each treatment period

For the duration of the clinical trial, patients wore an Actiwatch, a watch-like device that uses actigraphy to capture data on activity and sleep. IHL-42X at all doses improved sleep efficiency (the percentage of time in bed a patient is asleep), the number of awakenings per night, and the total minutes every patient was awake during the night (WASO) compared to placebo (Table 6). These improvements were greatest for low and high dose IHL-42X. This means that while taking IHL-42X trial participants were asleep for a greater proportion of time they were in bed and woke up less often.

Sleep metrics captured by actigraphy

Adverse events were recorded from the time the patients enrolled in the trial until their end of study visit. After recording treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE), the study team, including investigators and medical monitors, reviewed the TEAEs to determine whether they were likely related to the investigational product. The TEAEs were consistent with what has been reported for dronabinol and acetazolamide alone. For each treatment period the proportion of patients reporting one or more TEAEs (Table 7) as well as the total number of TEAEs (Table 8) were extracted from the clinical study report (“CSR”). Low dose IHL-42X had a similar proportion of patients reporting TEAEs and a lower number of total TEAEs than placebo. This indicated that low dose IHL-42X is well tolerated and in fact was more tolerable to trial participants than placebo.

Proportion subjects of TEAEs reported for each treatment period

Total number of TEAEs reported during each treatment period

Incannex are finalizing the formulation of the IHL-42X fixed dose combination product and drafting an IND application for submission to the FDA. Once the IND is open a multisite, pivotal Phase 2 using the fixed dose combination product will commence. In parallel with the IND application Incannex will conduct a bioavailability and bioequivalence clinical trial in Australia to support the bridging to the reference listed drugs for dronabinol and acetazolamide in a future FDA application.

IHL-216A

IHL-216A for Concussion/Traumatic Brain Injury and Chronic traumatic encephalopathy

Concussion/Traumatic Brain Injury (“TBI”) are caused by a rapid acceleration/deceleration of the brain caused by a direct blow to the head or sudden impact to the body that jolts the skull. This causes the brain to compress against the skull. The impact of the brain against the skull causes both macro and micro scale damage to the brain which sets of a series of physiological events called secondary injury cascades. These secondary injury cascades are what cause many of the neurocognitive deficits seen in TBI patients.

Falls, vehicle collisions, violence, sports and combat injuries are the main activities leading to TBI and concussion. The signs and symptoms of a concussion can be subtle and may not show up immediately. Symptoms can last for days, weeks or even longer. Common symptoms after a concussive traumatic brain injury are headache, loss of memory (amnesia) and confusion. The amnesia usually involves forgetting the event that caused the concussion. Other symptoms include nausea, vomiting, fatigue, blurry vision and ringing in the ears.

Complications can occur immediately or soon after a traumatic brain injury. Severe injuries increase the risk of a greater number of and more-severe complications. Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury can result in prolonged or permanent changes in a person’s state of consciousness, awareness or responsiveness. Many people who have had a significant brain injury will experience changes in their cognitive ability, have executive functioning problems and or communication, emotional and behavioral problems. Some research suggests that repeated or severe traumatic brain injuries might increase the risk of degenerative brain diseases, but this risk cannot be predicted for an individual.

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (“CTE”) is the term used to describe brain degeneration likely caused by repeated head traumas. CTE is a diagnosis made only at autopsy by studying sections of the brain. CTE is a rare disorder that is not yet well understood. CTE is not related to the immediate consequences of a late-life episode of head trauma. CTE has a complex relationship with head traumas such as persistent post-concussive symptoms and second impact syndrome that occur earlier in life.

Experts are still trying to understand how repeated head traumas, including how many head injuries and the severity of those injuries, and other factors might contribute to the changes in the brain that result in CTE.

CTE has been found in the brains of football players, boxers and other athletes that play contact sports, along with military personnel who were exposed to explosive blasts. Some signs and symptoms of CTE are thought to include difficulties with thinking (cognition) and emotions, physical problems and other behaviors. Symptoms of CTE often manifest decades after head trauma occurs.

CTE cannot be made as a diagnosis during life except in those rare individuals with high-risk exposures. Researchers do not yet know the frequency of CTE in the population and do not understand the causes. There is no cure for CTE. Researchers are currently developing diagnostic biomarkers for CTE, but none have been validated yet.

The total global addressable market for TBI was estimated to be US$6.7 billion in 2020 and the anticipated CAGR for the market from 2021 to 2028 is 8.3%. There are currently no pharmacological treatments for the secondary neurological effects of TBI.

IHL-216A Formulation development for clinical trials

IHL-216A is a fixed dose combination of isoflurane, a registered pharmaceutical, and CBD, intended for administration in the immediate period after primary blunt head injury to prevent development of brain injuries. Isoflurane is approved in the United States for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. CBD is approved for use in seizure disorders and has shown effects on neuroinflammatory responses to brain injury. Isoflurane is a registered pharmaceutical, and also has demonstrated neuroprotective activity (neuroprotective activity, or neuroprotection, is defined as reduced neuronal cell death or disruption) in animal studies of TBI and is thought to act by modulating glutamate release and calcium uptake as well as via effects on mitochondrial membrane depolarization and excitatory neurotransmission. Thus, we believe that IHL-216A may affect neuroexcitation, neuro-inflammation, cerebral blood flow and cerebral oxygen consumption resulting in overall neuroprotection. We are also assessing its ability to protect the brain against secondary injury mechanisms that cause neuronal cell death and raised intracranial pressure in the days and weeks following head trauma in sports, and all other applicable scenarios resulting in head trauma (falls, vehicle collisions, violence, combat, among other causes). Reducing secondary brain injury may improve positive outcomes for long term neurological sequelae, including CTE, a major health risk associated with contact sports.

The formulation of IHL-216A presents a unique research and development opportunity. We have formulated IHL-216A as a combined inhalational product withnebulized drug delivery that involves using air pressure or ultrasonic vibrations to turn a liquid drug solution into an aerosol. We engaged Vectura, a UK based contract development and manufacturing organization, to develop the nebulised CBD formulation and device for delivery of the CBD to the isoflurane anaesthetic circuit. Vectura specializes in the development of inhaled drugs and has an excellent track record of bringing products to market and have formulated pharmaceutical drugs for multinational pharmaceutical companies including Bayer, Sandoz and Novartis. Development of the nebulized formulation was an iterative process starting with three steps of refinement based on properties of the solution, generated aerosol and dose delivery.

In August 2022, we engaged Curia Global, Inc. (“Curia”) to further develop and manufacture GMP-grade IHL-216A. Curia, formerly AMRI, is a leading contract research, development and manufacturing organization providing products and services from R&D through commercial manufacturing to pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical customers.

Vector’s and Curia’s engagement represents substantial progress in the development of IHL-216A and follows positive results from extensive proof-of-concept and optimization studies undertaken at Vectura. Curia is engaged to scale-up the fill-finish manufacture of IHL- 216A in compliance with Current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”). Curia will also generate data on the quality and stability of IHL-216A to support future regulatory filings, including a FDA pre-IND package and subsequent IND application. The first cGMP batch manufactured at Curia will be used in a phase 1 clinical trial. Incannex received feedback from the FDA on the proposed clinical development of IHL-216A in a pre-IND meeting in September 2022. We are currently taking on board the recommendations of the FDA to adjust the clinical development strategy and incorporate the FDA’s suggestions on the Phase 1 clinical trial design.

In September 2022, via written pre-IND meeting correspondence, the FDA provided valuable, multidisciplinary feedback on the proposed clinical development of IHL-216A and acknowledged that treatment of TBI is a significant unmet medical need that requires innovative treatment solutions. The FDA also confirmed that FDA505(b)2 was the appropriate regulatory pathway for IHL-216A, whereby some of the information required for marketing approval may derive from studies already completed on the drug components of IHL-216A and in the public domain.

FDA provided critical guidance on the data requirements for opening an IND for IHL-216A, particularly related to the intricacies of developing an inhaled drug product and conducting clinical trials that involve an anaesthetic. Incannex is drafting a follow-up request for additional information on the FDA’s recommendations and will provide an update to ASX and Nasdaq investor platforms when it has been received.

Due to the product’s potential therapeutic utility in contact sports, IHL-216A has been developed to satisfy the World Anti-doping Authority (“WADA”) specifications for use by elite and amateur athletes at risk of TBI and CTE.

Stage 1 pre-clinical study for IHL-216A for TBI and CTE

In December 2020, we completed an animal study to formally assess the neuroprotective capability of IHL-216A. The study introduced rodents to head trauma in a highly controlled manner to inflict a reproducible injury. Various doses of IHL-216A or its active pharmaceutical ingredients were administered to eight cohorts of rodents soon after traumatic head injury. Behavioral tests were used to assess the neurocognitive and motor function over time. We also monitored secondary injury cascades, and performed micro-scale cellular analysis post-mortem to discern and compare neuronal damage across the cohorts.

As detailed below, we found that the IHL-216A components, CBD and isoflurane, act synergistically to reduce indicators of neuronal damage, neuroinflammation and behavioral deficits that are consequences of TBI, as IHL-216A had a greater effect than the predicted effect of CBD and isoflurane combined. The predicted result is determined by analyzing the results of isoflurane and CBD independently, and then based on those results predicting how well the drugs would do in combination; to the extent IHL-216A exceeds the predicted result, we can conclude that the drugs strengthen the effectiveness of one another and synergy exists. The study also found that IHL-216A reduced neuronal damage, neuroinflammation and cognitive deficits in a rodent model of TBI to a greater extent than either CBD or isoflurane applied on a standalone basis. These results have not been assessed for statistical significance.

Post-mortem analysis of rat brains also detected synergy between CBD and isoflurane. Brains were fixed and sectioned prior to Nissl staining to identify neuronal damage. Nissl staining is a microscopy technique to visualise Nissl bodies. Healthy neurons typically have more Nissl bodies than damaged ones. Neuronal damage is indicated by the ratio of Nissl bodies to neurons across different sections of the hippocampus with a lower Nissl/neuron ratio indicative of increased neuronal damage. Synergy between CBD and isoflurane was detected in hippocampal regions cornu ammonis 1 (CA1) and cornu ammonis 2 (CA2). These regions of the brain are known to be important in the formation and storage of memories. In the study, the improvement in Nissl/Neuron ratio observed for IHL-216A treated animals was increased by 53% for CA1 and 60% for CA2 relative to CBD alone, 28% for CA1 and 145% for CA2 relative to isoflurane alone, and by 20% for CA1 and 53% for CA2 relative to the predicted effect of CBD and isoflurane combined. These results demonstrated that less neuronal damage was observed in the rats treated with IHL-216A relative to the predicted value.

Figure 1. Synergistic activity of CBD and isoflurane (IHL-216A) in neuronal damage as assessed by Nissl staining.    Rodents that had undergone TBI and treated with CBD and/or isoflurane or vehicle were assessed for neuronal damage by post-mortem analysis of fixed brain sections by Nissl staining. Nissl staining permits the quantitation of the ratio of Nissl bodies to total neurons, a lower ratio being indicative of increased neuronal damage. The Nissl/neuron ratio observed in hippocampal regions (A) CA1 and (B) CA2 contralateral to the site of injury in the group treated with IHL-216A was greater than that predicted based on the groups treated with each drug alone, which is indicative of synergy. Values are average of the respective treatment group. Group sizes: Uninjured n=6, vehicle n=6, CBD n=6, isoflurane n=5, IHL-216A n=6. Neuroinflammation Marker — Iba1.

A post-mortem analysis of the rat brains also determined that CBD and isoflurane were synergistic in reducing levels of the neuroinflammation marker Iba1 as detected using immunofluorescence. Iba1 is a protein expressed in microglia, a type of innate immune cell in the brain, that is an established marker of microglial activation and neuroinflammation. The levels of Iba1 in the brain are detected using immunofluorescence, which is a microscopy technique that employs antibodies specific to Iba1 which are detected using a fluorescent tag. Increased levels of Iba1 are indicative of increased neuroinflammation. In groups treated with IHL-216A, levels of the Iba1 neuroinflammation marker were reduced by 35% more relative to CBD alone and 123% more relative to isoflurane administered alone. IHL-216A also reduced the Iba1 neuroinflammation marker by 10% more than the predicted value of the combined CBD and isoflurane treatments.

Figure 2. Synergistic activity of CBD and isoflurane (IHL-216A) in reducing levels of the neuroinflammatory marker Iba1.    Rodents that had undergone TBI and treated with CBD and/or isoflurane or vehicle were assessed for neuroinflammation through immunofluorescence analysis of the neuroinflammatory marker Iba1. Iba1 levels increase after TBI and a reduction in Iba1 is indicative of a reduction in neuroinflammation. Iba1 levels in brain sections ipsilateral to the site of injury in the group treated with IHL-216A were reduced more than would be predicted based on the reduction observed in groups treated with each drug alone, which is indicative of synergy. Values are average of the respective treatment group. Group sizes: Uninjured n=6, vehicle n=5, CBD n=6, isoflurane n=3, IHL-216A n=5.

Synergy between CBD and isoflurane was detected in the behavioral outcomes assessed using the Morris Water Maze. In the Morris Water Maze animals are trained to find a platform in a pool of water. After a number of training sessions, the platform is removed and the mice are monitored to determine whether they return to the location of the platform, which is a measure of spatial learning and memory. The number of animals treated with IHL-216A that returned to the location of the platform per group and the proportion of rats in the group that returned to the location of the platform was greater than that predicted based on the effect of CBD and isoflurane by 87 % and 24 % respectively. The improved performance of IHL-216A treated rats compared to the predicted effect demonstrated the synergistic effect of CBD and isoflurane.

Figure 3. Synergistic activity of CBD and isoflurane (IHL-216A) in the Morris Water Maze assessment. Rodents that had undergone TBI and treated with CBD and/or isoflurane or vehicle were assessed for spatial learning and memory using the Morris Water Maze. The observed performance with respect to both (A) relative instances of animal in platform location and (B) proportion of animals in that reached the platform location was better in the group treated with the CBD isoflurane combination (IHL-216A) than what was predicted based on the performance of the groups treated with each drug alone, which is indicative of synergy. Values are average of the respective treatment group. Group sizes: Uninjured n=6, vehicle n=6, CBD n=5, isoflurane n=6, IHL-216A n=6.

Stage 2 pre-clinical study for IHL-216A

In May 2022, we announced that the stage 2 study had been completed and that IHL-216A was observed to have a strong neuroprotective effect in a widely, known model of sports concussion developed in collaboration with the NFL to accurately represent the type of brain injury that occurs in sports-related concussion. This study compared six groups of twenty-four Sprague Dawley rats When animals were tested in a Y-maze task, which assesses spatial memory by determining the animal’s ability to discriminate between a novel (new) and familiar arm, twenty-four hours after injury, animals treated with IHL-216A were found to have no difference in discrimination index compared sham (uninjured) animals (mean difference= 0.0598, p=0.5855) (Figure 1). In contrast, injured animals treated with either vehicle or isoflurane alone after injury, the discrimination index was significantly reduced compared to sham animals (mean diff=0.2704, p=0.0498 and mean diff=0.3095, p=0.0245 respectively). The group treated with CBD alone had intermediate performance in the Y-maze between sham and vehicle treated animals (mean diff.0.1745, p==0.2933). These findings indicate that the defect in spatial memory observed at 1 day post injury is restored in animals treated with IHL-216A.

IHL-216A restores the deficit in Y-maze novel/familiar arm discrimination index assessment 24 h post TBI. A Y-maze was used to assess spatial memory 24 h after induction of TBI. Sham + Vehicle treated animals displayed a clear preference for the novel arm. This preference was reduced in TBI + vehicle animals, indicating that there is a deficit in novel arm discrimination associated with TBI. 10 Each group consisted of 24 rodents.

IHL-675A

IHL-675A is a multi-use anti-inflammatory drug targeting rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and lung inflammation (COPD, asthma, bronchitis, and ARDS). IHL-675A comprises a combination of hydroxychloroquine, a registered pharmaceutical, and CBD. Hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) is a disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug that regulates the activity of the immune system, which may be overactive in some conditions. HCQ can modify the underlying disease process, rather than simply treating the symptoms. We have demonstrated that IHL-675A components, cannabidiol and hydroxychloroquine, act synergistically to inhibit production of key inflammatory cytokines in an in vitro study and in 4 distinct successful in vivo experiments using established models of inflammation. We are able to determine whether synergies exist in IHL-675A studies by comparing the predicted result of CBD and HCQ acting together to the actual IHL-675A results. The predicted result is determined by analyzing the results of HCQ and CBD independently in the study, and then based on those results predicting how well the drugs would do on a combined basis; to the extent IHL-675A exceeds the predicted result, we can conclude that the drugs strengthen the effectiveness of one another and synergies exist.

We have evaluated the results of these experiments and believe IHL-675A to be a multi-use drug candidate for the prevention and treatment of inflammatory lung conditions (ARDS, COPD, asthma, and bronchitis), rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel diseases. Potentially, this could mean that IHL-675A is a better alternative to CBD based products for certain inflammatory diseases, subject to further examination.

We have completed a pre-IND meeting with the FDA to discuss the regulatory pathway for the development of IHL-675A for lung inflammation in the United States and plan to open INDs for each of the three indications. FDA agreed that marketing applications for IHL-675A should be 505(b)(2) applications due to the existence of certain safety and efficacy information on the active ingredients of IHL-675A originating from historical studies that we are entitled to use in a new drug application. In the context of the IHL-675A development program, this means that we do not have to perform many of the nonclinical toxicology studies that are required for approval of a new chemical entity because there is adequate toxicology data for both CBD and HCQ available in pre-existing scientific literature or in regulatory submissions for the respective reference listed drugs. However, we still need to demonstrate IHL-675A is safe and effective in the target indications via a series of randomized, controlled clinical trials.

In July 2022, we received approval from the Bellberry Human Research Ethics Committee (“HREC”) for a phase 1 clinical trial investigating the proprietary multi-use of IHL-675A. The trial measured the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profiles of IHL-675A compared to the reference listed drugs, Epidiolex (CBD) and Plaquenil (HCQ). Three cohorts of 12 participants (n = 36) received either IHL-675A, CBD or HCQ and the assessments were identical across the three arms of the trial. Patient recruitment commenced in August 2022 and dosing was completed in September 2022. Participants will continue to be monitored until the end of October 2022, after which blood samples will be assessed for levels of CBD, HCQ and major metabolites to characterize the pharmacokinetics of each active pharmaceutical ingredient. The CSR will be available in Q1 2023.

In October 2022, we announced that dosing in the Phase 1 trial had been completed and no adverse events of concern had been reported. This announcement also included that the next steps were that the company has commenced arranging for a Phase 2 clinical trial investigating safety and efficacy in arthritis patients and preparations for a pre-IND meeting with the FDA on the use of IHL-675A for treatment of arthritis.

Subject to clinical success, the results of the phase 1 clinical trial will form part of three IND applications with the FDA for each of the initial three indications the Company is pursuing for IHL-675A. These indications are rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and lung inflammation, representing major markets for Incannex to pursue with IHL-675A. Once the IND applications are evaluated and approved, we intend to conduct clinical trials partly or wholly in the United States.

Lung Inflammation (COPD, Asthma, ARDS and Bronchitis)

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”) is a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs. Symptoms include breathing difficulty, cough, mucus (sputum) production and wheezing. It is typically caused by long-term exposure to irritating gases or particulate matter, most often from cigarette smoke. People with COPD are at increased risk of developing heart disease, lung cancer and a variety of other conditions.

Asthma is a condition in which inflammation causes the airways to narrow and swell and which may cause the patient to produce extra mucus. This can make breathing difficult and trigger coughing, a whistling sound (wheezing) during breathing and shortness of breath. For some people, asthma is a minor nuisance. For others, it can be a major problem that interferes with daily activities and may lead to a life-threatening asthma attack. According to Allied Market Research, the Global COPD and asthma drug market is expected to reach US$50.4 billion by 2022, growing at a CAGR of 3.7% from 2016 to 2022.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (“ARDS”) occurs when fluid builds up in the air sacs (alveoli) located in the lungs. The fluid prevents oxygen from reaching the bloodstream. This deprives organs of the oxygen they need to function. ARDS typically occurs in people who are already critically ill or who have significant injuries. Severe shortness of breath (the main symptom of ARDS) usually develops within a few hours to a few days after the primary injury or infection. It is the one of the main causes of death resulting from COVID-19 and many people who develop ARDS do not survive. The risk of death increases with age and severity of illness. People who survive ARDS may experience lasting damage to their lungs.

Bronchitis is an inflammation of the lining of the bronchial tubes of the lungs. Bronchitis may be either acute or chronic. While acute bronchitis is common, chronic bronchitis, a more serious condition, is a constant irritation or inflammation of the lining of the bronchial tubes.

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disorder that can affect joints, skin, eyes, lungs, heart and blood vessels. As an autoimmune disorder, rheumatoid arthritis is caused by attacks to body tissues by one’s immune system. Unlike the wear-and-tear damage caused by osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis causes a painful swelling that can eventually result in bone erosion and joint deformity. The total global addressable market for the pharmaceutical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is estimated at US$57 billion.

HCQ is approved for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the form of hydroxychloroquine sulphate and marketed as Plaquenil.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Inflammatory Bowel Disease (“IBD”) is an umbrella term used to describe disorders that involve chronic inflammation of the digestive tract. Significant types of IBD include:

Both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease are usually characterized by diarrhea, rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, fatigue and weight loss. IBD can be debilitating and sometimes leads to life-threatening complications.

The precise cause of inflammatory bowel disease remains unknown. Previously, diet and stress were suspected. However, currently medical practitioners acknowledge that these factors may aggravate, but are not the cause, of IBD. One possible cause is an immune system malfunction. When the immune system attempts to defeat an invading virus or bacterium, an abnormal immune response can cause the immune system to attack the cells in the digestive tract. The total global addressable market for IBD is estimated at US$20 billion in 2021 and the IBD global market is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 4.8% from 2021 to 2028.

Preclinical in vitro study of IHL-675A against inflammation

On November 5, 2020, we released the results of our first in vitro study to investigate the synergistic activity of IHL-675A to inhibit inflammation. To test the anti-inflammatory potential of IHL-675A, human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (“PBMCs”) were stimulated with bacterial lipopolysaccharide (“LPS”). PBMCs were incubated with a range of concentrations of CBD and HCQ in combination or each drug alone and then stimulated with LPS to induce an inflammatory response. The inflammatory response was assessed by measuring cytokine levels in the culture medium after 24 hours. A reduction in cytokine levels in response to drug treatment is indicative of anti-inflammatory activity.

Cytokine levels were averaged across three replicates from two donors and normalized to maximum values to yield a relative inhibition value. A relative inhibition of 1 is complete inhibition of cytokine release whereas a value of 0 is no inhibition of cytokine release. Anti-inflammatory synergy was determined using the standard scientific “Excess over Bliss” (“EOB”) method where the predicted inhibition, as calculated using the formula E_{pred A+B}=(E_A+E_B)-(E_AE_B), is subtracted from the observed inhibition to yield an EOB score. An EOB score of greater than zero indicates that the combination is synergistic. None of the below data has been analysed for statistical significance.

The study demonstrated that CBD and HCQ act synergistically to inhibit production of the assessed inflammatory cytokines IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1aα, and MIP-1α by PBMCs from the donors. The average EOB scores ranged from 0.32-0.57. The reduction in levels of the five cytokines (relative to vehicle treated PBMCs) observed in PBMCs treated with IHL-675A was 436% to 1320% greater relative to those treated with HCQ alone, 109% to 767% greater relative to those treated with CBD alone and 87% to 767% greater relative to the predicted combinatorial effect of CBD and HCQ. The results in Figures A, B, C, D and E presented below, display the optimal fixed dose IHL-675A combination assessed for each cytokine. The bars noted as Predicted CBD+HCQ represent what our expectation was based on the activity of each drug individually. The observed inhibition of cytokine release upon treatment with the CBD HCQ combination was greater than predicted based on the activity of each drug alone for each cytokine analyzed.

Figure 4. Inhibition of LPS-induced cytokine release from human PBMCs by CBD and HCQ.    Data is presented is the average relative inhibition for the PBMC donors. Predicted inhibition by CBD+HCQ was calculated using the formula E_{pred A+B}=(E_A+E_B)-(E_AE_B). Observed CBD+HCQ is the level of inhibition observed in the experiment. (A) IL-1b, (B) IL-1a, (C) IL-6, (D) MIP-1a, and (E) TNF-a. Error bars are standard error of the mean of the donors.

Preclinical in vivo study of IHL-675A against inflammation

In November of 2020, we announced the results of an in vivo study assessing IHL-675A in a mouse model of sepsis. To determine whether CBD and HCQ synergize in vivo, mice from 11 groups of 10 mice, weighing 18-20g were injected with CBD and HCQ both alone and in combination. After one hour, the mice were injected with LPS to induce an inflammatory response. Each mouse in every cohort was assessed for each of the 5 inflammatory cytokines. Two hours after LPS injection, blood was collected from the mice by cardiac puncture. Sera were processed and analyzed for cytokine levels using a Luminex based assay. For synergy analysis, data was baseline subtracted using sham treated (no LPS injection) cytokine levels and then the values for each cytokine were normalized relative to maximum values across the groups. The normalized values were used to calculate the relative inhibition where a value of 1 is complete inhibition and a value of 0 is no inhibition. Synergy was calculated using the EOB method, or the difference between the observed and predicted inhibition between the combination of drug concentrations where the predicted inhibition is determined using the equation E_{pred A+B}=(E_A+E_B)-(E_AE_B). An EOB score of greater than 0 is indicative of synergy.

The results of the in vivo study are presented in Figure 5, showing the optimal fixed dose IHL-675A combination assessed for each cytokine in 11 groups of 10 mice. The bars noted as ‘Predicted CBD + HCQ’ represent IHL’s expectation based on the activity of each drug alone. The observed results from the study significantly exceeded the predicted results across the inflammatory cytokines analyzed. CBD and HCQ synergize to inhibit the production of inflammatory cytokines IL-1β, IL-6, TNF- α, IL12(p70), and IFN-γ in a mouse model of LPS induced sepsis. The average EOB scores ranged from 0.15-0.30. Levels of the five inflammatory cytokines were reduced compared to animals treated with vehicle to a greater extent in animals treated with IHL-675A than in those treated with CBD alone. Reduction in cytokine levels compared to vehicle treated group in the group treated with IHL-675A was 26% to 81% greater relative to the predicted effect of the CBD HCQ combination across the five analyzed cytokines after 2 hours.

Figure 5. Synergistic anti-inflammatory activity of CBD and HCQ in a mouse sepsis model.    The anti-inflammatory activity of the combination of CBD and HCQ was greater than that predicted using the Excess over Bliss method. The CBD+HCQ combination was synergistic at inhibiting release of IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, IL12(p70), and IFN-γ.

Preclinical in vivo study of IHL-675A against Pulmonary Inflammation (ARDS, COPD, Asthma and Bronchitis)

In February 2021, we announced the results of an in vivo study assessing IHL-675A anti-inflammatory capabilities regarding chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, bronchitis, and other inflammatory respiratory conditions. We also assessed the anti-inflammatory effect of our proprietary IHL-675A formulation on Pulmonary Neutrophilia, which is a primary underlying cause of COPD, asthma, bronchitis, and other inflammatory respiratory conditions. We reported encouraging results, as discussed below, which facilitate a substantial expansion of the potential uses for IHL-675A and represent new patient treatment opportunities.

A rodent model of pulmonary inflammation was used to assess the anti-inflammatory efficacy of IHL-675A in lungs. In this study, ten groups of six mice each were pre-treated with either CBD, HCQ or IHL-675A prior to intratracheal administration of bacterial lipopolysaccharide (“LPS”), which was then inhaled and acts as an inflammatory stimulus in the lungs. A sham group where LPS was not administered to the mice was also included as a control. The lungs were flushed with a saline solution 24 hours after LPS administration and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (‘BALF’) was analyzed for cytokine levels using a Luminex based assay. Cytokines are proteins that mediate the inflammatory response and a reduction in cytokine levels is indicative of reduced inflammation. A white blood cell (‘WBC’) count was also performed on the BALF. When inflammation occurs in the lungs, WBCs are recruited as part of the inflammatory response. A reduction in WBC count is also indicative of reduced inflammation.

Cytokine levels were normalized to those detected in vehicle treated mice and then the relative inhibition was calculated. IHL-675A reduced levels of all assessed inflammatory cytokines IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, CXCL1 and MCP-1 to a greater extent than either CBD or HCQ alone. WBC counts were normalized using the same method used for cytokines and IHL-675A reduced WBC counts to a greater extent than CBD or HCQ alone. These results indicate that IHL-675A has superior anti-inflammatory activity compared to CBD and HCQ in a mouse pulmonary inflammation model. Based on these results IHL-675A will be assessed for efficacy in the treatment of pulmonary inflammation in humans. These results have not been analysed for statistical significance.

Figure 6. Reduction in cytokine levels and white blood cell count in BALF resulting from treatment with by IHL-675A, CBD or HCQ in a mouse model of pulmonary inflammation.    Mice were treated with CBD, HCQ or a combination of CBD and HCQ (IHL-675A) and then LPS was administered intratracheally. Twenty-four hours after LPS administration bronchioalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) was analyzed for cytokine levels and white blood cell count. The reduction in cytokine levels by IHL-675A was greater than that for either drug alone. Drug concentrations were 1 mg/kg CBD and 25 mg/kg HCQ for (A) IL-1β, (B) IL-6, (C) MCP1 and (E) TNF-α, 10 mg/kg CBD and 2.5 mg/kg HCQ for CXCL-1 and WBC (white blood cell count).

Preclinical study of IHL-675A in a model of Rheumatoid Arthritis

In March 2021, we announced the results of an in vivo study assessing IHL-675A’s anti-inflammatory capabilities in a rheumatoid arthritis model. Results indicate that a low dose of IHL-675A was 1.06 to 3.52 times more effective at reducing disease severity scores across multiple assessments including clinical score, paw volume, pannus score, total histology score and serum cytokine levels compared to a standard dose of HCQ only. HCQ is approved and widely used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the form of hydroxychloroquine sulfate, which is marketed as Plaquenil.

In this model of rheumatoid arthritis, female Lewis rats were challenged with porcine type-II collagen with Freund’s adjuvant on Day 1 (0.2 mg/0.2 mL/rat) by subcutaneous injection at the base of the tail to induce arthritis. A booster injection at 0.1 mg/0.1 mL/rat was injected on day 7. On day 16, rats were allocated into groups of six. There were ten groups of modelled rats and one sham injected group. CBD, HCQ or IHL-675A were injected intraperitoneally once per day from day 17 to 30 (total of 14 days). Drug doses were 1 and 10 mg/kg CBD and 2.5 and 25 mg/kg HCQ. The 10 mg/kg CBD and 25 mg/kg HCQ doses were selected as they are representative of standard doses in humans based on the FDA body surface area dose equivalence estimation for rats to humans of 6/37. For a 60 kg person, the 10 mg/kg CBD dose in rats is equivalent to 97 mg and the 25 mg/kg HCQ dose in rats is equivalent to 243 mg. The maintenance dose range recommended for rheumatoid arthritis in the Plaquenil prescribing information is 200-400 mg daily.

Disease severity was assessed by measuring hind paw volume with a plethysmometer and using a qualitative severity score system on days 1, 7 ,10, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30. Post termination on day 30, blood was collected from all rats and analyzed for levels of the inflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-6 using commercially available ELISA kits. These two cytokines were selected as they are known to be involved in the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis. Both hind paws were harvested, weighed and formalin-fixed for histopathology. Histopathological evaluation consisted of an evaluation of cartilage and bone destruction by pannus formation (an abnormal layer of fibrovascular or granulated tissue) and mononuclear cell infiltration in synovial joint tissues. A total histology score, which is a sum of the pannus formation and mononuclear cell infiltration scores, was also calculated. For all assessments, the score was sham subtracted and then the reduction relative to the vehicle group was calculated.

In the in the rat model of arthritis, IHL-675A treated animals had a greater reduction (relative to vehicle treated animals) in clinical score and paw volume at days 24 and 30, pannus formation, total histology score, IL-1β and IL-6 than animals treated with HCQ alone or CBD alone (at equivalent doses). The reduction in disease assessments by IHL-675A was 1.07-8.72 times that observed for HCQ alone at an equivalent dose, which indicates that IHL-675A has a benefit in a rat model of arthritis greater than that of HCQ alone and demonstrates that IHL-675A has potential as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in humans.

Figure 7. Comparison of IHL-675A to its component drugs CBD and HCQ in reduction of disease assessments in a rat model of rheumatoid arthritis.    Groups of rats that had undergone collagen-induced arthritis modelling were treated with IHL-675A, CBD or HCQ at equivalent doses (1 mg/kg CBD, 2.5 mg/kg HCQ). The reduction in arthritis disease severity in IHL-675A treated rats was greater than for either CBD or HCQ treated rats with respect to (A) clinical score at day 24, (B) paw volume at day 24, (C) pannus formation, (D) total histology score, (E) serum IL-1b levels and (F) serum IL-6 levels.

Preclinical studies of IHL-675A in models of inflammatory bowel disease

In February 2021, we announced the results of an in vivo study assessing IHL-675A’s anti-inflammatory capabilities regarding inflammatory bowel disease. IHL-675A demonstrated a reduction in the Colitis index of 46%, while CBD only and HCQ only treatment achieved a reduction of 25% and 27% respectively, demonstrating that IHL-675A has superior anti-inflammatory activity compared to CBD only and HCQ only, which indicates that IHL-675A has the potential to be a treatment for inflammatory bowel disease in humans.

This study used eleven groups of six mice. Mice were treated with IHL-675A, CBD or HCQ for four consecutive days after administration of TNBS/ethanol to induce ulcerative colitis. A vehicle treated group and sham group were included in the study. Stool consistency was monitored over the course of the experiment. On Day 5 mice were sacrificed, blood collected for cytokine analysis and the colon removed for analysis.

Endpoint measurements include stool consistency score (an ordinal scale that measures stool consistency with a higher number indicative of looser stools) , colon weight, colon macroscopic damage score (an ordinal scale that combines adhesions, strictures, ulcers/inflammations and instances of wall thickening), colitis index (a composite scale from the histological examination of colon sections) and myeloperoxidase (an enzyme abundantly expressed in neutrophil granulocytes that contributes to inflammatory damage in IBD) levels in the colon tissue at day 5. The results from each of these endpoints were sham subtracted and the relative reduction was calculated. The data was not analysed for statistical significance.

Animals treated with IHL-675A displayed a greater reduction (relative to vehicle treated animals) in colitis index, macroscopic damage score, stool consistency score, colon to body weight ratio and myeloperoxidase (MPO) levels than animals treated with either CBD or HCQ alone. These results indicate that IHL-675A has a benefit in a mouse model of ulcerative colitis greater than that of CBD or HCQ alone, which indicates that IHL-675A is a potential treatment for inflammatory bowel disease in humans.

Figure 8. Reduction in colitis score assessments by CBD and HCQ (IHL-675A) in a mouse model of colitis.    Colitis was induced in mice by intracolonic installation of TNBS/ethanol and then treated with CBD, HCQ or CBD and HCQ (IHL-675A). After 4 days, mice were sacrifice and the colons extracted for macro and microscopic analysis. The reduction in colitis severity was greater in mice treated with IHL-675A than for either CBD or HCQ alone for (A) colitis index, (B) macroscopic damage score, (C) relative colon weight, (D) stool consistency and (E) MPO levels. Drug dose in all assessments was 1 mg/kg CBD and 2.5 mg/kg HCQ.

Phase 1 clinical trial for IHL-675A

We designed a Phase 1 clinical trial to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of IHL-675A in healthy volunteers that was conducted in Australia, the results of which will form part of our FDA IND submissions across the indications of lung inflammation, rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. The aims of this study are to demonstrate that there are no, or minimal, additional risks/side effects associated with the combination of CBD and HCQ compared to each drug alone and that the uptake and metabolism (pharmacokinetics) of the two drugs do not interfere with one another. A total of 36 subjects participated in the trial, evenly divided across three arms. The three arms of 12 subjects each received one of IHL-675A, Epidiolex (CBD), or Plaquenil (HCQ). The safety and pharmacokinetic assessments were identical across the three arms.

CBD and HCQ both have both been used historically as treatments for our targeted indications when used independently. However, as with any pharmaceuticals there are risks involved. Part of the strategy in the design of IHL-675A is that the combination of CBD with HCQ permits a reduction in HCQ, which reduces the known risks associated with cumulative HCQ dose, without sacrificing efficacy. Results from the preclinical studies we have conducted to-date have led to the hypothesis that a lower cumulative dose of HCQ, when combined with CBD, will also reduce disease severity scores in IHL-675A’s target indications in humans. Nonetheless, there is always potential for two drugs to interact and exacerbate minor concerns that exist when used alone or lead to new safety concerns. Demonstrating that a combination drug containing CBD and HCQ has a similar safety profile to the component drugs is an important step in the development program and is a requirement set out by regulatory agencies. This clinical trial will be performed in a Phase 1 unit with around the clock monitoring in the event that an adverse event needs to be managed. Safety assessments will include cardiac monitoring via ECG and blood biomarkers, serum liver enzyme levels, blood cell counts and biochemistry, monitoring of vital signs and mental health questionnaires. Due to the substantial evidence of synergy between HCQ and CBD required to produce a superior outcome on inflammatory markers, dosages of HCQ and CBD may be significantly lower than for treatment with the individual drugs and this will be further evaluated in clinical trials.

The other component of this study is monitoring the pharmacokinetics of the two active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”) of IHL-675A, CBD and HCQ, and comparing them to their respective reference listed drugs Epidiolex and Plaquenil. Study participants were dosed with either IHL-675A, Epidiolex or Plaquenil with equivalent amounts of the respective API. Blood samples were drawn at predetermined intervals over a 72-hour period and analyzed for levels of CBD and HCQ as well as their major metabolites. For each molecule the maximum concentration (“C_max”), time to maximum concentration (“T_max ”) and total exposure (“AUC”) will be determined. The pharmacokinetic parameters for IHL-675A, Epidolex and Plaquenil will be compared to determine whether the APIs in IHL-675A are bioequivalent to the reference listed drugs. Bioequivalence is an important component of the FDA 505(b)2 approval pathway that IHL is targeting with IHL-675A.

Approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee to conduct the phase 1 study was received in July 2022. Participant recruitment commenced in August 2022 and dosing was completed in September 2022. Participants will continue to be monitored until the end of October 2022, after which blood samples collected during the study will be assessed for levels of CBD, HCQ and major metabolites to characterise the pharmacokinetics of each active pharmaceutical ingredient. The CSR will be available in Q1 2023. IHL-675A has been well tolerated, with no adverse events of concern reported to date. No serious adverse events have been reported.

Results from this study, which has received clearance from the Bellberry human research ethics committee to proceed, will form a component of future regulatory applications for IHL-675A and will also inform the design of Phase 2 efficacy and safety studies across indications.

Psilocybin-assisted Psychotherapy for General Anxiety Disorder (Psi-GAD)

Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Generalized Anxiety Disorder (“GAD”) is characterized by diffuse, excessive, uncontrollable anxiety that frequently occurs and is not restricted to any particular environmental circumstances. Symptoms are variable, including feelings of persistent and excessive worry, nervousness, restlessness, difficulty in concentrating fatigue, irregular sleeping patterns, muscle tension, irritability, and nausea.

Generalized anxiety disorder is a relatively common and serious psychiatric condition affecting around 4-6% of the population during their lifetime. GAD can severely affect quality of life and professional career prospects. An estimated 8 million people in Australia and the United States have moderate to severe GAD at any point in time, of which, 1 million people reside in Australia and 7 million people reside in the United States.

Existing treatments

International guidelines for GAD treatment recommend selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (“SSRIs”), serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (“SNRIs”), and pregabalin as first-line options, with benzodiazepines such as diazepam as second-line options. GAD is also treated with psychotherapy alone or in combination with pharmacotherapies. However, these treatments show limited efficacy, with less than half of patients achieving remission following these treatments and substantial treatment side-effects and cost. In particular, the side effects associated with long term use of these pharmacotherapies include emotional numbness, reduced positivity, weight gain, sexual disfunctions, and suicidal thoughts. Due to the limitations of existing treatments, we believe there is significant unmet need for new therapies to improve quality of life outcomes for patient diagnosed with GAD.

Psilocybin as a treatment for generalized anxiety disorder

Psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy may provide rapid, significant, and lasting benefit in treating unipolar depression, depression and anxiety symptoms associated with a terminal illness, and substance misuse. Psilocybin is a psychoactive molecule that occurs naturally in several genera of mushrooms, which primarily acts on the serotonin receptor system, and can modulate states of consciousness, cognition, perception, and mood.

When combined with specialized forms of psychotherapeutic support, psilocybin does not lead to clinically significant adverse events and can reduce scores on mental health severity assessments. Through the 1950s and 1960s, tens of thousands of individuals participated in psychedelic research. While methodologically limited by modern standards, the findings from many of these studies showed substantial improvements in anxiety, depression and addiction levels, and quality of life.

Following decades of socio-political obstruction to psychedelic treatments, an increasing number of clinical psychedelic trials are now being conducted at highly esteemed institutions around the world, including Imperial College London, John Hopkins University, University of California, and now Monash University, Melbourne, in partnership with us.

Over the past decade, the therapeutic potential of psilocybin in anxiety, depression and addiction has been demonstrated in various academic-sponsored studies. In these studies, psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy, provided a rapid reduction in anxiety and depression symptoms on the day of administration with generally maintained treatment effects at follow-up assessments many months later. These studies have shown psilocybin to be generally well-tolerated, with low toxicity and no serious adverse events reported.

We believe that the following four studies detailed below support psilocybin-assisted therapy for treating anxiety using treatment dosages up to 30mg/70kg:

Two psilocybin research programs for depression have received breakthrough designation from the FDA. A small number of other psilocybin treatment development programs are underway globally. Should the results from any of these research programs be positive, approval of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy as a prescription treatment could occur within the next five years.

Our investigational psilocybin therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Our psilocybin therapy combines psilocybin with psychological therapy that has been specifically designed for patients diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder by a multidisciplinary team of experts lead by Principal Investigator Dr Paul Liknaitzky, along with Co-Investigators Professor Suresh Sundram and Professor Murat Yucel. The wider research team includes experts in psychedelic-assisted therapies, psychometric evaluation, qualitative research, therapist training, and risk management. We are in the process of coordinating two clinical trials as part of our clinical development program. On October 28, 2021, we conducted a pre-IND meeting with the FDA on the psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for GAD program, which was ultimately aimed at FDA approval of our psilocybin therapy administered to patients with GAD.

Phase 2 exploratory clinical trial

Our Phase 2 Australian exploratory clinical trial was approved by the human research ethics committee (“HREC”) in late 2021 and this approval from an independent board of examiners permitted us to recruit trial participants in Australia. Participant screening and recruitment commenced in February 2022 and the first participants to the trial commenced treatment in March 2022.

The study is a Phase 2 randomized triple-blind active-placebo-controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for GAD. Participants experience two psilocybin or active-placebo dosing sessions and up to 11 non-drug, specialist psychotherapy sessions over a period of 10 weeks. Primary outcomes are safety, efficacy and tolerability, and secondary outcomes are quality of life, functional impairment, and comorbidities. Safety is assessed by monitoring adverse events including but not limited to liver function tests and scores on the Ultra Brief Checklist of Suicidality. Efficacy is assessed by comparing the change in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale from baseline between the placebo and treatment group. Tolerability is assessed by comparing the proportion of participants who complete both dosing sessions in the placebo and treatment groups. Secondary endpoints will be assessed by monitoring disability, comorbidity, productivity and quality of life using patient reported outcome measures.

A preliminary analysis of patient data will be conducted by an independent data safety monitoring board after 30 patients have completed primary endpoint assessment. All 30 participants have been enrolled and commenced their treatment programs within Q3, 2022. The preliminary analysis will allow the trial investigators to inform the second part of the trial (n=42) and, or decide to initiate activities to commence a pivotal phase 2b clinical trial that Incannex is actively planning.

FDA development plan and pre-IND meeting

In October 2021, we conducted a pre-IND meeting with the FDA on the psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for GAD program. The pre-IND meeting package was prepared with the assistance of Camargo Pharmaceuticals LLC, who also attended the meeting with us. The FDA confirmed, in both writing and teleconference, that the therapeutic strategy for a psilocybin-assisted therapy for GAD is appropriate and conveyed interest in its development. FDA also provided guidance on Incannex’s proposed long-term development strategy with regards to what will be required for a successful NDA (FDA approval) and marketing authorization. Specific feedback from the FDA on our proposed clinical trial designs will shape a pivotal Phase 2b clinical trial, which will be the IND opening study following either interim or full results from the Phase 2 exploratory trial.

Psilocybin therapy protocol

Our psilocybin therapy comprises administration of medication with psychotherapy by mental health professionals that have undergone our specialised therapist training program. Therapy is designed to optimize patient safety and therapeutic outcomes in GAD with specific support before, during and after psilocybin dosing sessions.

Each participant receives two therapeutic doses of our investigational product, which will be composed of a specified dosage of psilocybin, with psychotherapy before, during and after each dose session. The psychotherapy comprises four distinct phases:

Monash University

In December 2020, we entered into a partnership agreement with Monash University (“Monash”) in Australia to conduct a psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy trial to treat GAD. Monash sponsors our initial Phase 2 exploratory clinical trial, ensuring rigorous scientific independence and the highest standards in ethical and safe research. We are funding and supporting this investigator-initiated trial, and retain all intellectual property created by the trial. We are also investigating the commencement of other psychedelic medicine research projects that would offer an opportunity to address what we believe is an unmet need in patients diagnosed with other mental illnesses.

Monash is one of Australia’s leading universities and consistently ranks among the world’s top 100. Psychedelic treatment for our exploratory trials are delivered within BrainPark, a state-of-the-art research platform at Monash’s Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health and Biomedical Imaging Facility, that provides a highly conducive environment for psychedelic treatments in a research context. Both the School of Psychological Sciences within the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, and the Department of Psychiatry within the School of Clinical Sciences, have combined forces to conduct psychedelic research and the team comprises leading researchers and clinicians in relevant fields of psychiatry, psychotherapy, and mental health treatment development.

Virtual Reality (“VR”) Exposure Response Therapy (“ERP”) and psychedelics

In March 2022, we entered into a license agreement with Monash to develop a novel treatment that combines Virtual Reality and psychedelics. The license agreement provides an exclusive and perpetual license over an immersive therapeutic Virtual Reality environment developed by BrainPark. The license allows Incannex to investigate the use of the Virtual Reality therapy tool in combination with a psychedelic drug to develop a new treatment for severe forms of one of more anxiety disorders.

The associated research and development will be led by Dr Paul Liknaitzky at Monash, a highly reputable, globally recognized, and innovative university that ranked #40 in the world in the US News and World Report 2022. Incannex and Monash are in advanced stages of discussion in relation to a research agreement for the clinical trials required to develop the new treatment form. The initial clinical trial will assess efficacy, safety, tolerability, and optimal dose of the treatment method.

Clinical trial investigators

The Principal Investigator is Dr Paul Liknaitzky, with Co-Investigators Professor Murat Yucel and Professor Suresh Sundram.

Dr. Liknaitzky is Head of the Clinical Psychedelic Research Lab within the Turner Institute and the Department of Psychiatry, at Monash. He is a Chief Principal Investigator and Research Fellow at Monash University, and has Adjunct or Honorary appointments at St Vincent’s Hospital, Macquarie University, Deakin University, and the University of Melbourne. He earned an Honours in Neuroscience and a PhD in Psychology from the University of Melbourne. His work examines mechanisms of mental illness and treatment development primarily within mood, anxiety and addiction research. Liknaitzky is an Investigator across a number of Australia’s first clinical psychedelic trials. He has been invited to deliver numerous academic, professional, and public talks on psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and has been interviewed on the topic for print media, radio, and podcasts. Liknaitzky leads Australia’s first clinical psychedelic lab, coordinates Australia’s first applied psychedelic therapist training program, and is establishing Australia’s largest psychedelic trial (Psi-GAD). His work is focused on developing a rigorous program of research in psychedelic medicine at Monash University that seeks to evaluate therapeutic effects, innovate on treatment design, mitigate known risks, explore potential drawbacks, and understand therapeutic mechanisms.

Professor Murat Yucel gained a PhD combined with specialist clinical training in Clinical Neuropsychology in 2001 at La Trobe University. He then worked across as numerous mental health research centres at the University of Melbourne and was promoted to professor in 2012. He now works within the Monash School of Psychological Sciences, where he heads the mental health and addiction research programs. He is a director of BrainPark — a world-first neuroscience research clinic designed to bring the latest neuroscience with diagnostic or therapeutic benefit to the community in an accessible way.

Professor Suresh Sundram is the Head, Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University and Director of Research, Mental Health Program, Monash Health. He has been investigating the molecular pathology of schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders using pharmacological, neurochemical and neuropathological approaches. These inter-related methods have been applied to parse components of the disorder such as treatment resistance and suicide to better understand their neurobiological substrates. He undertook his doctoral and post-doctoral studies at the Mental Health Research Institute in Melbourne before establishing his laboratory there and subsequently at the Florey Institute and concurrently establishing a clinical research laboratory undertaking clinical trial and biomarker research in psychotic disorders. He then transferred to and integrated his research program at Monash University and Monash Medical Centre.

Intellectual Property Strategy

We strategically protect our innovations with a harmonized IP strategy, combining patent protection with regulatory and market exclusivity. We are pursuing patent protection for aspects of our psilocybin therapy program. The patent position that will be available to us is unlikely to cover psilocybin alone as a clinical entity. However, we are pursuing a patent position in relation methods of treatment using psilocybin including combination therapies (e.g., formulations, actives plus psychotherapeutic modalities) and other therapeutic methods (e.g., specific dosage regimens).

Cannabinoid Chewing Gums and chewable tablets

Medicated chewing gum and chewable tablets (‘MCGT’) is a drug delivery system growing in favour in the medical community due to its application as an extended-release dosage form that supports continuous, ongoing release of the medicine contained. MCGTs are fast acting as they deliver the active ingredients into the oral mucosa, reducing the potential for gastric intolerance amongst patients. These qualities make MCGTs an excellent delivery system for medicinal combinations designed to treat sustaining pain and addiction disorders. MCGTs are also well tolerated by patients as there are no capsules to swallow or liquids to administer. The benefits of mastication, otherwise known as chewing, are well documented and include improved cerebral circulation, an anti-anxiety effect, memory improvement, neuroprotection, and an analgesic effect. These qualities make MCGTs an excellent delivery system for medicinal combinations designed to treat sustaining pain and addiction disorders.

Our subsidiary APIRx has multiple patents for cannabinoid-based drug candidates designed for treatment of addiction to different drug classes (including marijuana addiction, smoking addiction and opioid addiction) as well as sustaining pain (including for pain and spasticity in Multiple Sclerosis as well as nausea and vomiting in Chemotherapy).

MedChew Dronabinol for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting

According to the WHO, cancer is one of the leading causes for death and chemotherapy is utilized by approximately ten (10) million cancer patients annually and this statistic is expected to grow by 53% by 2040. Nausea and vomiting are two of the most dreaded cancer treatment-related side effects. Dronabinol, which is synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinol (‘THC’) is an approved treatment of chemotherapy associated nausea and vomiting as well as anorexia associated with HIV/AIDS. Oral dronabinol is taken up slowly, however, taking 1-2.5 hours to reach peak plasma concentration, and is also subject to first pass metabolism, which means that only 10-20% of the dose reaches the circulation.

MedChew Dronabinol is a chewable variant of Dronabinol that has been developed and patented by APIRx to bypass first pass metabolism. In a phase 1a study of MedChew Dronabinol, THC appears in circulation within 10 minutes and a sustained release profile of 4 to 8 hours was observed in most study subjects so that the product is more useful in the time in which it is required. The next developmental step for the product is to conduct a bioavailability/bioequivalence clinical study to support application for approval by bridging to publicly available data on Marinol, the marketing name of generic dronabinol. The economic size of the global drug market for chemotherapy induced Nausea and Vomiting is anticipated to be US$3.1B per annum by 2024.

MedChew Rx for pain and spasticity in multiple sclerosis (‘MS’)

Up to 84% of people suffering from MS also experience spasticity, which causes involuntary muscle stiffness and spasms. Pain is also a common symptom in MS, with up to two-thirds of people with MS reporting pain in worldwide studies. MedChew™ Rx is absorbed through the oral mucosal membrane and bypasses the liver, and first pass metabolism. MedChewTM Rx contains the same constituent formulation of CBD and THC as the product Sativex, which was initially approved in Canada in 2005 and is now available in 25 countries, including 18 in Europe, and Australia. MedChew Rx, however, facilitates extended dosing and reduces the need to readminister, which for Sativex is up to 12 times per day. It does not contain alcohol, which Sativex does, and will not exacerbate the dry mouth that is often associated with MS pharmacotherapy. MedChew Rx has underlying patent protection via granted patents related to chewing gums comprising cannabinoids. APIRx staff have completed regulatory meetings with Swiss-Medic (Switzerland) and CBG-MEG (Netherlands). There is potential to fast track to drug approval in Europe with a bioequivalence phase 1 study to bridge to Sativex CBD/THC oral spray safety and efficacy data.

Medicated Chewing Gum and Chewable Tablets for Treatment of Addiction

CheWell for Cannabis Dependence

CheWell is a CBD chewable tablet with high bioavailability that can be used in the treatment of people with marijuana addiction. Cannabis dependence is predicted to be the fastest growing segment of drug dependence market and preliminary data observed by APIRx suggest a possible beneficial impact of CBD on mitigating the craving effect of cannabis. A case report has shown positive outcomes for one patient treated with CBD during the withdrawal and relapse phase of cannabis dependence. A pre-IND for the use of CheWell in patients with cannabis dependence with the FDA is currently in preparation.

We have data for CheWell as a high bioavailability product. A Phase 1 pharmacokinetic (PK) study demonstrated that the patented CheWell formulation led to >10x increase in CBD bioavailability compared to the standard CBD chewing gum delivery mechanisms. Data from 36 patient phase 2 proof of concept trial observed a 50% reduction in abdominal pain in CheWell treated Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients, supporting a therapeutic effect in IBS. International regulatory analysis is being undertaken to identify what is required for commercial launch in different jurisdictions. Improved bioavailability means that even small doses of CBD within MCGTs could be highly effective even without a prescription from a doctor, thus meeting the TGA requirements for an OTC product. Increased bioavailability also reduces cost of goods, which increases margins. First marketing claim will be for IBS, however, the CheWell product could provide a therapeutic benefit for a range of indications where CBD may assist patients.

CanQuit for Smoking Cessation

CanQuit is a medicated chewing gum that combines cannabinoids and nicotine to reduce addictions to cigarettes or tobacco vaping utensils. CanQuit is designed to better assist addicted smokers to quit smoking and we intend to trial our product for effectiveness against existing nicotine chewing gums. A more effective and cost effective cannabinoid/nicotine combination medicated gum may have the potential to disrupt the incumbent global nicotine gum market, which had observed sales of US$ 5.2B in 2020.

CanQuit O for Opioid Addiction

CanQuit O is a medicated chewing gum that combines cannabinoids with opioid agonists and/or antagonists, which is designed to suppress opioid-based drug addiction in people addicted to opioids. We intend CanQuit O to be a prescription product to help combat the ongoing opioid addiction crisis in the United States and elsewhere. We believe CanQuit O has the potential to be a simple solution to a complex addiction disorder and nationwide problem with far reaching consequences. Opioid use disorder has an annual addressable market size estimated to be US$64B by 2028 and with many people being addicted but untreated.

CanChew Rx and SuppoCan for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

There are 68 million people worldwide who suffer from IBD globally. Signs and symptoms of IBD, which encompass both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, include diarrhea, fatigue, abdominal pain and cramping, reduced appetite, and unintended weight loss. the main medications currently availablefor IBD are anti-inflammatory medications and analgesics. Anti-inflammatories include courses of corticosteroids which are used to induce remission but are immunosuppressing. APIRx has developed a CBD-containing controlled-release functional chewing gum called CanChew Rx and SuppoCan to be used in conjunction with one another. SuppoCan is a CBD-containing suppository to facilitate local delivery of cannabinoids. In experiments, CBD has shown efficacy in treating IBD in animals and we intend to undertake a phase 1 clinical trial to assess CanChew Rx and SuppoCan.

OraxiMax for Periodontal Disease and Gingivitis

Up to 50% of adults worldwide suffer from moderate to severe periodontitis and/or gingivitis. Periodontal disease treatment has been limited to professional dental cleaning and the use of systemic antibiotics. We are developing OraxiMax Toothpaste and Mouthwash contain CBD and Cannabigerol (CBG) which can prevent dental plaque formation, and thus gingivitis and periodontitis. Due to their proprietary formulations, the local availability of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (“APIs”) are increased while systemic absorption is kept to minimum.

Benefits of CBD in dental protection include:

We have observed encouraging bioavailability data for OraxiMax products and intend to undertake a phase 2 study to demonstrate appropriate safety and efficacy to register the products with the FDA.

Topical cannabinoid development

APIRx developed and patented a combination of CBD and CBG, a minor cannabinoid that also has potent anti-inflammatory properties, in a topical formulation. The topical solutions combine anti-inflammatory activity with antimicrobial activity of CBD/CBG to treat skin diseases. APIRx completed in-human proof of concept studies in three different skin diseases with dosing occurring for 6 weeks. Our drug product was well tolerated and displayed a 10% improvement in patients with Vitiligo, up to a 33% improvement in patients with Psoriasis and up to a 22% improvement in patients with atopic dermatitis. Patents are pending for compositions and methods of use for treatment of each of the three indications and we intend to hold a pre-IND meeting with the FDA to discuss our best development pathways for the topical cannabinoid solutions.

Cannabinoids for Ophthalmic Conditions

Through the Acquisition, we have two granted patents for ophthalmic formulations of cannabinoids. Anecdotal evidence supports therapeutic benefit for cannabis and cannabinoids drug products in the treatment of ophthalmic conditions, such as glaucoma, conjunctivitis, age related macular degeneration, and dry eye syndrome. We believe that a therapeutic effect in these eye conditions is derived from the neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory, and anti-microbial activities of cannabinoids. We intend to undertake a phase 1 safety and proof of concept clinical trial to advance the development of cannabinoids for ophthalmic conditions.

Intellectual Property

We have implemented a patent filing strategy as we develop our products and therapies in conjunction with our medical advisory board. As of June 30, 2022, we own pending patent applications relating to our cannabinoid drug candidates. A summary of the number of patents, patent types and jurisdictions in listed in the table below. Once converted to the complete/PCT stage, the provisional patents will also be applicable to all PCT contracting states. International search reports and written opinions of the International Search Authority have confirmed that the key claims in our filed Patent Cooperation Treaty applications are novel and inventive and that the invention meets the requirements of industrial applicability. The preparation of the International Search Report (ISR) and International Search Opinion (ISO) for PCT applications is one of the main procedural steps of the international phase of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The purpose of conducting the searches at the international phase is to identify the relevant prior art and for the International Searching Authority to establish a preliminary opinion as to whether the claims are novel, involve an inventive step and are industrially applicable. While the ISR and the ISO are non-binding, in the sense that national patent offices are not obliged to accept any finding of the International Searching Authority, these reports often represented a useful guide in relation to the patentability of the subject matter claimed in the PCT application.

In the context of the PCT applications that cover the cannabinoid drug candidates, IHL-216A, IHL-675A and IHL-42X, the International Searching Authority is the Australian Patent Office. Accordingly, the opinion expressed in the ISR / ISO for each of these PCT applications is based on searches that have been conducted by Australian Patent Examiners.

The cannabinoid drug candidate, IHL-675A, is a combination of CBD and hydroxychloroquine, which is specifically defined by claim 16 of International (PCT) Application No. PCT/AU2021/050226. The International Searching Authority considers claim 16 to be both novel and inventive.

The cannabinoid drug candidate, IHL-42X, is a combination of THC and acetazolamide for use in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), which is specifically defined by claim 3 of International (PCT) Application No. PCT/AU2021/050734. The International Searching Authority considers claim 3 to be both novel and inventive.

The cannabinoid drug candidate, IHL-216A, is a combination of CBD and isoflurane, which is specifically defined by claim 23 of International (PCT) Application No. PCT/AU2020/051056. The International Searching Authority considers claim 23 to be both novel and inventive.

In addition to pursing patent protection for all of our assets, we rely on unpatented trade secrets, know-how and other confidential information as well as proprietary technological innovation and expertise that are protected in part by confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees, advisors and consultants.

Patent matters in biotechnology are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. The availability and breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents cannot be predicted. Statutory differences in patentable subject matter may limit the scope of protection we can obtain on some or all of our licensed inventions or prevent us from obtaining patent protection either of which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Since patent applications are not published until at least 18 months from their first filing date and the publication of discoveries in the scientific literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we, or any of our licensors, were the first creator of inventions covered by pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors, were the first to file patent applications for such inventions. Additionally, the grant and enforceability of a patent is dependent on a number of factors that may vary between jurisdictions. These factors may include the novelty of the invention, the requirement that the invention not be obvious in the light of prior art (including prior use or publication of the invention), the utility of the invention and the extent to which the patent clearly describes the best method of working the invention. In short, this means that claims granted in various territories may vary and thereby influence commercial outcomes.

While we have applied for and will continue to file for protection as appropriate for our therapeutic products and technologies, we cannot be certain that any future patent applications we file, or licensed to us, will be granted, or that we will develop additional proprietary products or processes that are patentable or that we will be able to license any other patentable products or processes. We cannot be certain that others will not independently develop similar products or processes, duplicate any of the products or processes developed or being developed by the company or licensed to us, or design around the patents owned or licensed by us, or that any patents owned or licensed by us will provide us with competitive advantages.

Furthermore, we cannot be certain that patents held by third parties will not prevent the commercialization of products incorporating the technology developed by us or licensed to us, or that third parties will not challenge or seek to narrow, invalidate or circumvent any of the issued, pending or future patents owned or licensed by us.

Our commercial success will also depend, in part, on our ability to avoid infringement of patents issued to others. If a court determines that we were infringing any third-party patents, we could be required to pay damages, alter our products or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. We cannot be certain that the licenses required under patents held by third parties would be made available on terms acceptable to us or at all. To the extent that we are unable to obtain such licenses, we could be foreclosed from the development, export, manufacture or commercialization of the product requiring such license or encounter delays in product introductions while we attempt to design around such patents, and any of these circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We may have to resort to litigation to enforce any patents issued or licensed to us or to determine the scope and validity of third-party proprietary rights. Such litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of effort by us. We may have to participate in opposition proceedings before the Australian Patent and Trademark Office or another foreign patent office, or in interference proceedings declared by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, to determine the priority of invention for patent applications filed by competitors. Any such litigation interference or opposition proceeding, regardless of outcome, could be expensive and time consuming, and adverse determinations in any such proceedings could prevent us from developing, manufacturing or commercializing our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

As of June 30, 2022, the Company also owns trademark registrations in Australia, United States, Europe, China and Japan.

Patent Portfolio

The following table presents our portfolio of patents and patent applications filed by Incannex, including their status (as at June 30, 2022) and title.

The acquisition of APIRx added 19 granted patents and 23 pending patent applications to the Incannex patent portfolio. These patents cover all aspects of cannabinoid drug development including extraction, API modification, formulation and methods of use.

Competition

We are targeting indications that have no registered, limited or costly pharmacological solutions. Thus, competitor drugs for the indications we are assessing with our drug candidates either do not exist or are limited in efficacy or have unpleasant side effect profiles for certain cohorts of patients. The table below outlines existing drugs and therapies used to treat the illnesses we aim to treat with our drug candidates and their associated pitfalls for patients.

Regulatory Authorities

The ongoing research and development, clinical, regulatory, commercial and manufacturing activities of our drug candidates are subject to extensive regulation by numerous governmental authorities, including (i) in Australia, principally the Therapeutics Goods Administration, or TGA; (ii) in the United States, principally the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, as well as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA); and (iii) in Europe, principally the European Medicines Agency, or EMA and local competent authorities, ethics committees (ECs), institutional research boards (IRBs) and other regulatory authorities at federal, state or local levels. We, along with our third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval and post-approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our drug candidates.

United States

FDA process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and its implementing regulations. Regulations that govern the pharmaceutical quality, safety, efficacy, labeling, storage, record keeping, advertising and promotion of such products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and their implementing regulations. In particular, controlled substances, like synthetic cannabidiol and THC, are regulated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA.

The process of obtaining FDA approval and achieving and maintaining compliance with applicable laws and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements may result in refusal to approve pending applications, a clinical hold, warning letters, civil or criminal penalties, recall or seizure of products, partial or total suspension of production or withdrawal of the product from the market. FDA approval is required before any new drug or biologic, including a new use of a previously approved drug, can be marketed in the United States. All applications for FDA approval must contain, among other things, information relating to safety and efficacy, pharmaceutical quality, packaging, labeling and quality control.

Government oversight of the pharmaceutical industry is usually classified into pre-approval and post-approval categories. Most of the therapeutically significant innovative products marketed today are the subject of New Drug Applications, or NDAs, or Biologics License Applications, or BLAs. Pre-approval activities are used to assure the product is safe and effective before marketing.

Drug Approval Process — FDA

None of our drug candidates may be marketed in the United States until the drug has received FDA approval. The steps required before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally include the following:

The manufacturing and quality, as well as preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot guarantee approval of our drug candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Notably, the FDA may reach different conclusions than we have after analyzing the same data, or there may difference of opinion amongst members of FDA’s review team.

The FDA may inspect and audit domestic and foreign development facilities, planned production facilities, clinical trial sites and laboratory facilities. There is a pre-approval inspection after submission to market a new product, routine inspection of a regulated facility and a “for-cause” inspection to investigate a specific problem that has come to FDA’s attention. After the product is approved and marketed, the FDA uses different mechanisms for assuring that firms adhere to the terms and conditions of approval described in the application and that the product is manufactured in a consistent and controlled manner. This is done by periodic unannounced inspections of production and quality control facilities by FDA’s field investigators and analysts.

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of toxicity in animals and in vitro (laboratory tests). The results of preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of an IND application to the FDA. The IND application is based on the results of initial testing done on animals for pharmacology and toxicity, which is used to develop a plan for testing the drug on humans. Only after preclinical testing, FDA determines whether the drug should be tested in people.

Further, an independent institutional review board, or IRB, covering each medical center proposing to conduct clinical trials must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that center and it must monitor the study until completed. The FDA, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, regulations, which include requirements that all research subjects provide informed consent and that all clinical studies be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators.

Clinical trials (under an IND) involve administration of the investigational drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be provided to the FDA as part of a separate submission to the IND. Further, an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, for each medical center proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the study protocol and informed consent information for study subjects for any clinical trial before it commences at that center, and the IRB must monitor the study until it is completed. There are also requirements governing reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries. Study subjects must sign an informed consent form before participating in a clinical trial.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical studies must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse reactions in case of an open IND. For purposes of an NDA or BLA submission and approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in the following sequential phases, which may overlap:

Concurrent with clinical studies, sponsors usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the product and finalize a process for manufacturing the product 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 develop and validate methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Moreover, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to assure product integrity and demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with the aforementioned manufacturing information, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA/NDA. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA agrees to specific goals for NDA/BLA review time. The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources. The FDA will review the BLA/NDA and may deem it to be inadequate to support approval, and we cannot be sure that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. The FDA may also refer the application to the appropriate advisory committee, typically a panel of clinicians, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of the advisory committee, but it typically follows such recommendations.

The FDA may deny approval of a BLA/NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or it may require additional clinical data or additional pivotal Phase III clinical trials. Even if such data are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA/BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than the sponsor does. Once issued, product approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems occur after the product reaches the market. In addition, the FDA may require testing, including Phase IV clinical trials, and surveillance programs to monitor the effect of approved products that have been commercialized, and the FDA has the power to prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of these post-marketing programs which may include pediatric assessment, and potentially studies required for an application for a new indication, new dosage form, a new dosing regimen, a new route of administration or a new active ingredient. Products may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, approval of a new or supplemental BLA may be required, which may involve conducting additional preclinical studies and clinical trials.

Expedited Review and Approval

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval, and breakthrough therapy designation, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for reviewing drugs and/or provide for approval on the basis of surrogate endpoints. Even if a drug qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the drug no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. In particular, if accelerated approval is granted for any particular drug candidate, the FDA can subsequently revoke the marketing authorization for such product if post-market clinical trial results are unsuccessful. Generally, drugs that may be eligible for these programs are those for serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs, and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments.

Other U.S. Regulatory Requirements

After approval, products are subject to extensive continuing regulation by the FDA, which include company obligations to manufacture products in accordance with GMP, maintain and provide to the FDA updated safety and efficacy information, report adverse experiences with the product, keep certain records and submit periodic reports, obtain FDA approval of certain manufacturing or labelling changes and comply with FDA promotion and advertising requirements and restrictions. Failure to meet these obligations can result in various adverse consequences, both voluntary and FDA-imposed, including product recalls, withdrawal of approval, restrictions on marketing, and the imposition of civil fines and criminal penalties against the BLA holder — all of which may become public. In addition, later discovery of previously unknown safety or efficacy issues may result in restrictions on the product, manufacturer or application holder.

We, and any manufacturers of our drug candidates, are required to comply with applicable FDA manufacturing requirements contained in the FDA’s GMP regulations. GMP regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation. The manufacturing facilities for our drug candidates must meet GMP requirements. We, and any third-party manufacturers, are also subject to periodic inspections of facilities by the FDA and other authorities, including procedures and operations used in the testing and manufacture of our drug candidates to assess our compliance with applicable regulations.

With respect to post-market product advertising and promotion, the FDA imposes a number of complex regulations on entities that advertise and promote pharmaceuticals, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labelling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet. Failure to comply with FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, enforcement letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors and civil or criminal penalties. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labelling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented. A BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing BLA supplements as it does in reviewing BLAs.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports is required following FDA approval of a BLA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase IV testing, risk mitigation strategies, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product.

Controlled Substances

The CSA and its implementing regulations establish a “closed system” of distribution for controlled substances. The CSA imposes registration, security, recordkeeping and reporting, storage, manufacturing, distribution, labeling, importation, exportation, disposal and other requirements under the oversight of the DEA. The DEA is the federal agency responsible for regulating controlled substances, and requires those individuals or entities that manufacture, import, export, distribute, research, or dispense controlled substances to comply with the regulatory requirements to prevent the diversion of controlled substances to illicit channels of commerce.

Facilities that research, manufacture, distribute, import or export any controlled substance must register annually with the DEA. The DEA registration is specific to the particular location, activity(ies) and controlled substances utilized. For example, separate registrations are required for importation and manufacturing activities, and each registration authorizes which schedules of controlled substances the registrant may handle. However, certain coincident activities are permitted without obtaining a separate DEA registration, such as distribution of controlled substances by the manufacturer that produces them.

The DEA categorizes controlled substances into one of five schedules — Schedule I, II, III, IV, or V — with varying qualifications for listing in each schedule. Scheduling determination by the DEA are dependent on approval of a substance or a specific formulation of a substance. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse, have no currently “accepted medical use” in treatment in the United States and lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision. They may be used only in federally-approved research programs and may not be marketed or sold for dispensing to patients in the United States. Pharmaceutical products having a currently accepted medical use may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V substances, with Schedule II substances presenting the highest potential for abuse and physical or psychological dependence, and Schedule V substances presenting the lowest relative potential for abuse and dependence. The regulatory requirements are more restrictive for Schedule II substances than Schedule III-V substances. For example, all Schedule II drug prescriptions must be signed by a physician, physically presented to a pharmacist in most situations, and cannot be refilled. Marijuana and THC are Schedule I controlled substances under the CSA. Products approved for medical use in the United States that contain marijuana, THC or marijuana/THC extracts, must be placed in Schedules II-V, since approval by the FDA satisfies the “acceptable medical use” requirement. While marijuana and THC are controlled substances, the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 amended the CSA to exclude Cannabis meeting the statutory definition of hemp from the definition of marijuana. As a result, Cannabis that contains 0.3 percent or less of delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis is no longer considered a controlled substance. By extension, Cannabis-derived cannabidiol that satisfies the same limitation concerning delta-9 THC is also excluded from CSA regulatory controls. Because the definition of hemp does not expressly include synthetic equivalents of Cannabis or its derivatives, however, there is a lack of clarity about the CSA control status of pharmaceutically manufactured cannabidiol. Absent guidance to the contrary from the DEA, Cannabis and those products which contain Cannabis, that do not meet the definition of hemp remain in Schedule I of the CSA for purposes of development and research activities.

The DEA inspects all manufacturing facilities to review security, record keeping, reporting and compliance with other DEA regulatory requirements prior to issuing a controlled substance registration. The specific security requirements vary by the type of business activity and the schedule and quantity of controlled substances handled. The most stringent requirements apply to manufacturers of Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Required security measures commonly include background checks on employees and physical control of controlled substances through storage in approved vaults, safes and cages, and through use of alarm systems and surveillance cameras. An application for a manufacturing registration as a bulk manufacturer (not a dosage form manufacturer or a repacker/relabeler) for a Schedule I or II substance must be published in the Federal Register and is open for 30 days to permit interested persons to submit comments, objections, or requests for a hearing. A copy of the notice of the Federal Register publication is forwarded by the DEA to all those registered, or applicants for registration, as bulk manufacturers of that substance. Once registered, manufacturing facilities must maintain records documenting the manufacture, receipt and distribution of all controlled substances. Manufacturers must submit periodic reports to the DEA of the distribution of Schedule I and II controlled substances, Schedule III narcotic substances, and other designated substances. Registrants must also report any controlled substance thefts or significant losses and must adhere to certain requirements to dispose of controlled substances. As with applications for registration as a bulk manufacturer, an application for an importer registration for a Schedule I or II substance must also be published in the Federal Register, which remains open for 30 days for comments. Imports of Schedule I and II controlled substances for commercial purposes are generally restricted to substances not already available from a domestic supplier or where there is not adequate competition among domestic suppliers. In addition to an importer or exporter registration, importers and exporters must obtain a permit for every import or export of a Schedule I and II substance, Schedule III, IV and V narcotic, specially designated Schedule III non-narcotics, or Schedule IV or V narcotic controlled in Schedule I or II by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances and submit import or export declarations for Schedule III, IV and V non-narcotics.

For drugs manufactured in the United States, the DEA establishes annually an aggregate quota for the amount of substances within Schedules I and II that may be manufactured or produced in the United States based on the DEA’s estimate of the quantity needed to meet legitimate medical, scientific, research and industrial needs. This limited aggregate amount of Cannabis that the DEA allows to be produced in the United States each year is allocated among individual companies, which, in turn, must annually apply to the DEA for individual manufacturing and procurement quotas. The quotas apply equally to the manufacturing of the active pharmaceutical ingredient and production of dosage forms. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas a few times per year, and individual manufacturing or procurement quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments for individual companies.

The states also maintain separate controlled substance laws and regulations, including licensing, recordkeeping, security, distribution, and dispensing requirements. State Authorities, including Boards of Pharmacy, regulate use of controlled substances in each state. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in the loss or diversion of controlled substances, can result in enforcement action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, operations and financial condition. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could lead to criminal prosecution.

We will not be subject to the DEA approval to conduct our clinical trials for the foreseeable future because we have conducted and plan to continue to conduct clinical trials for each clinical drug program in Australia. We may also decide to develop, manufacture or commercialize our drug candidates in additional countries. As a result, we will be subject to controlled substance laws and regulations from the TGA in Australia, Health Canada’s Office of Controlled Substances in Canada, the Drugs & Firearms Unit (Home Office) of the National Drug Control System in the United Kingdom, and from other regulatory agencies in other countries where we develop, manufacture or commercialize each drug asset in the future.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our drug candidates. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials vary greatly from country to country.

European Union and United Kingdom

In the European Economic Area, or EEA, which is comprised of the Member States of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA by the EMA. Under European Union regulatory systems, we must submit and obtain authorization for a clinical trial application in each member state in which we intend to conduct a clinical trial. When conducting clinical trials in the European Union, we must adhere to the provisions of the European Union Clinical Trials Directive (Directive 2001/20/EC) and the laws and regulations of the EU Member States implementing them. These provisions require, among other things, that the prior authorization of an Ethics Committee and the competent Member State authority is obtained before commencing the clinical trial. In April 2014, the European Union passed the Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation 536/2014), which will replace the current Clinical Trials Directive. To ensure that the rules for clinical trials are identical throughout the European Union, the EU Clinical Trials Regulation was passed as a regulation that is directly applicable in all EU member states. All clinical trials performed in the European Union are required to be conducted in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive until the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable. According to the current plans of the EMA, the Clinical Trials Regulation is expected to become applicable.

After we have completed our clinical trials, we must obtain marketing authorization before we can market our product. We may submit applications for marketing authorizations under a centralized procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all European Union member states.

The European Medicines Agency, or EMA, is a body of the European Union located in Amsterdam. The EMA is responsible for the scientific evaluation of medicines developed by pharmaceutical companies for use in the European Union. The EMA is involved in the scientific evaluation of medicines that fall within the scope of the centralized procedure. Like the FDA there is a harmonization between regulators and the EMA may inspect and audit the development facilities, planned production facilities, clinical trial sites and laboratory facilities. Additionally, after the product is approved and marketed, the EMA uses different mechanisms for assuring that firms adhere to the terms and conditions of approval described in the application and that the product is manufactured in a consistent and controlled manner. This is done by periodic unannounced inspections of production and quality control facilities.

If any of our drug candidates receive marketing approval in the EEA, we expect they will benefit from 8 years of data protection and 10 years of market protection. The periods run in parallel so effectively 8 years of data protection plus 2 years of market protection is granted. This means that a biosimilar application referencing our safety and efficacy data held on file at the EMA cannot be filed until the end of the data protection period of 8 years, and the biosimilar cannot be placed on the market until after a further 2 years have elapsed (8 + 2). Furthermore, an additional 1 year of market protection is available (8 + 2 + 1) where we obtain approval of a second indication having a significant clinical benefit in the initial 8-year period.

Similarly, since the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) came into force in 2010, the United States provides 4 years of data exclusivity and 12 years of marketing exclusivity for a new biologic. The periods of exclusivity run in parallel, meaning that the FDA will not accept a biosimilar filing for 4 years and will not approve the biosimilar for a further 8 years (4 + 8).

Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of Medicinal Products in the European Union

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also 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 products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, an applicant will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can initiate clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. Specifically, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union generally follows the same lines as in the United States, although the approval of a medicinal product in the United States is no guarantee of approval of the same product in the European Union, either at all or within the same timescale as approval may be granted in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of pharmaceutical development, non-clinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the medicinal product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to relevant competent authorities for clinical trials authorization for a marketing authorization application, or MAA, and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the European Union or its member states (as well as Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein). If we fail to comply with applicable requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Clinical Trial Approval

Pursuant to the currently applicable Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented through national legislation of the member states. Under this system, an applicant must obtain approval from the national competent authority, or NCA, of a European Union member state in which the clinical trial is to be conducted or in multiple member states if the clinical trial is to be conducted in a number of member states. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the independent ethics committee, or EC, has issued a favorable opinion in relation to the clinical trial. The clinical trial application must be accompanied by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC and corresponding national laws of the member states and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the member state where they occurred.

In April 2014, the European Union adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. It will overhaul the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the European Union. Specifically, the new legislation, which will be directly applicable in all EU member states (meaning that no national implementing legislation in each European Union member state is required), aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. For instance, the new Clinical Trials Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The new Clinical Trials Regulation became effective on January 31, 2022.

Marketing Authorization

To obtain a marketing authorization for a product in the European Economic Area (comprised of the EU member states plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), or EEA, an applicant must submit a MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the EEA member states (decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the EEA.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid throughout the EEA. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, our investigational COMP360 psilocybin therapy, as a new active substance indicated for the treatment of treatment-resistant depression, will have the option to be filed through the centralized procedure. For those products for which the use of the centralized procedure is not mandatory, applicants may elect to use the centralized procedure where either the product contains a new active substance indicated for the treatment of diseases other than those on the mandatory list, or where the applicant can show that the product constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or for which a centralized process is in the interest of public health.

Under the centralized procedure, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use, or the CHMP, which is the EMA’s committee that is responsible for human medicines, established at the EMA is responsible for conducting the assessment of whether a medicine meets the required quality, safety and efficacy requirements, and whether it has a positive risk/benefit/risk profile. Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA is 210 days from the receipt of a valid MAA, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, it provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, who make the final decision to grant a marketing authorization. Accelerated evaluation may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the timeframe of 210 days for assessment will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops), but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

PRIME Scheme

EMA now offers a scheme that is intended to reinforce early dialogue with, and regulatory support from, EMA in order to stimulate innovation, optimize development and enable accelerated assessment of PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME. It is intended to build upon the scientific advice scheme and accelerated assessment procedure offered by EMA. The scheme is voluntary and eligibility criteria must be met for a medicine to qualify for PRIME.

The PRIME scheme is open to medicines under development and for which the applicant intends to apply for an initial marketing authorization application through the centralized procedure. Eligible products must target conditions for which where is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the European Union or, if there is, the new medicine will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods or therapy or improving existing ones. Applicants will typically be at the exploratory clinical trial phase of development and will have preliminary clinical evidence in patients to demonstrate the promising activity of the medicine and its potential to address to a significant extent an unmet medical need. In exceptional cases, applicants from the academic sector or SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) may submit an eligibility request at an earlier stage of development if compelling non-clinical data in a relevant model provide early evidence of promising activity, and first in man studies indicate adequate exposure for the desired pharmacotherapeutic effects and tolerability.

If a medicine is selected for the PRIME scheme, EMA:

Medicines that are selected for the PRIME scheme are also expected to benefit from EMA’s accelerated assessment procedure at the time of application for marketing authorization. Where, during the course of development, a medicine no longer meets the eligibility criteria, support under the PRIME scheme may be withdrawn.

Pediatric Development

In the EEA, companies developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee, or PDCO, and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies, (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted by the PDCO of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date. Products that are granted a marketing authorization with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP are eligible for a six-month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval) even where the trial results are negative. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

Regulatory Data Protection in the European Union

In the EEA, innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon grant of a marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, as amended, and Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. Data exclusivity prevents generic and biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a marketing authorization for a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EEA. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity period. The overall 10-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on a MAA with a completely independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

A marketing authorization is valid for five years, in principle, and it may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To that end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least nine months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal period. Any authorization that is not followed by the placement of the product on the EEA market (in the case of the centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid.

Controlled Drugs Classification

The position in the member states of the European Union is not harmonized. Member states have implemented the relevant UN Conventions (the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs 1961 and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971) into their national legislation, which has led to differences in how controlled substances are regulated in different countries of the European Union. It is therefore important to determine at a national level whether a substance is controlled and to comply with the applicable legal requirements.

Regulatory Requirements After Marketing Authorization

Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product.

These include compliance with the European Union’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed. The holder of a marketing authorization must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance, who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs.

In addition, all new MAAs must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the marketing authorization. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies. RMPs and PSURs are routinely available to third parties requesting access, subject to limited redactions.

Furthermore, the manufacturing of authorized products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s cGMP requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the European Union, which mandate the methods, facilities and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of products to assure their safety and identity.

Finally, the marketing and promotion of authorized products, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of products, are strictly regulated in the European Union under Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. The advertising of prescription-only medicines to the general public is not permitted in the European Union, or in the UK under the Human Medicines Regulations 2021. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU Directive 2001/83/EC as amended, the details are governed by regulations in each European Union member state (as well as Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) and can differ from one country to another.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom (UK) has left the European Union and will declare its independent processes to approve clinical research and marketing authorizations. Since the regulatory framework in the UK covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU Directives and Regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of drug candidates in the UK, as UK legislation now has the potential to diverge from EU legislation. It remains to be seen how Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for drug candidates and products in the UK in the long-term. The MHRA has published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021, which will be updated as the UK’s regulatory position on medicinal products evolves over time. How precisely clinical research within the UK will be performed and how approval for drugs will be organized is subject to ongoing discussions

The UK will no longer be covered by centralized marketing authorizations (under the Northern Irish Protocol, centralized marketing authorizations will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized marketing authorization were automatically converted to Great Britain marketing authorizations on January 1, 2021. For a period of two years from January 1, 2021, the MHRA may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization in the centralized procedure, in order to more quickly grant a new Great Britain marketing authorization. A separate application will, however, still be required.

Australia

In Australia, the relevant regulatory body responsible for the pharmaceutical industry is the Therapeutics Goods Administration, or TGA. As with the EMA and FDA there is a harmonization and collaboration between regulatory authorities. The TGA requires notification of all clinical trials via an electronic submission of a Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) prior to commencing the clinical trial.

Third-Party Payer Coverage and Reimbursement

Although our drug candidates have not been commercialized for any indication, if they are approved for marketing, commercial success of our drug candidates will depend, in part, upon the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third party payers at the federal, state and private levels.

In the United States and internationally, sales of any product that we market in the future, and our ability to generate revenues on such sales, are dependent, in significant part, on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third party payors, such as state and federal governments, managed care providers and private insurance plans.

Private insurers, such as health maintenance organizations and managed care providers, have implemented cost-cutting and reimbursement initiatives and likely will continue to do so in the future. These include establishing formularies that govern the drugs and biologics that will be offered and the out-of-pocket obligations of member patients for such products. We may need to conduct pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our drug candidates for formulary coverage and reimbursement. Even with such studies, our drug candidates may be considered less safe, less effective or less cost-effective than existing products, and third-party payors may not provide coverage and reimbursement for our drug candidates, in whole or in part. In addition, particularly in the United States and increasingly in other countries, we are required to provide discounts and pay rebates to state and federal governments and agencies in connection with purchases of our drug candidates that are reimbursed by such entities. It is possible that future legislation in the United States and other jurisdictions could be enacted to potentially impact reimbursement rates for the drug candidates we are developing and may develop in the future and could further impact the levels of discounts and rebates paid to federal and state government entities. Any legislation that impacts these areas could impact, in a significant way, our ability to generate revenues from sales of drug candidates that, if successfully developed, we bring to market. Political, economic and regulatory influences are subjecting the healthcare industry in the United States to fundamental changes. There have been, and we expect there will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could significantly affect our future business.

Similar political, economic and regulatory developments are occurring in the European Union and may affect the ability of pharmaceutical companies to profitably commercialize their products. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the European Union or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles. The delivery of healthcare in the European Union, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than European Union, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect the ability of pharmaceutical companies to commercialize their products. In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In the future, there may continue to be additional proposals relating to the reform of the healthcare system in the United States and international healthcare systems. Future legislation, or regulatory actions implementing recent or future legislation may have a significant effect on our business. Our ability to successfully commercialize products depends in part on the extent to which reimbursement for the costs of our drug candidates and related treatments will be available in the United States and worldwide from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. The adoption of certain proposals could limit the prices we are able to charge for our drug candidates, the amounts of reimbursement available for our drug candidates, and limit the acceptance and availability of our drug candidates. Therefore, substantial uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved health care products by third party payors.

Inflation and Seasonality

Management believes inflation has not had a material impact on our operations or financial condition. Management further believes that our operations are not currently subject to seasonal influences due to our current lack of marketed products. Moreover, the targets of our drug candidates, are not seasonal diseases. Accordingly, once we have marketed products, management does not expect that our business will be subject to seasonal influences.

Manufacturing and Raw Materials

We have no manufacturing capabilities and are dependent on third parties for cost effective manufacture and manufacturing process development of our drug candidates. Problems with third party manufacturers or the manufacturing process as such may delay or jeopardize clinical trials and commercialization of our drug candidates.

Below is a list of our significant subsidiaries, including our ownership percentage, its date of formation and its jurisdiction. These subsidiaries were established to allow us to conduct commercial and clinical operations in Europe and the United States and expand our operations in Australia.

We own computer equipment, office furniture and laboratory equipment, which is primarily placed at our own offices and laboratories.

None.

Overview

We are a development stage enterprise at an early stage in the development of our drug candidate. We have incurred net losses since inception and expect to incur substantial and increasing losses for the next several years as we expand our research and development activities (“R&D”) and move our drug candidate into later stages of development. The process of carrying out the development of our drug candidates to later stages of development may require significant additional research and development expenditures, including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials, as well as for obtaining regulatory approval. To date, we have funded our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities, proceeds from the exercise of options, tax grants from R&D activities and interest income.

We receive tax incentives from the Australian government for R&D activities. Subject to certain exclusions, the Australian Government tax incentives provide benefits for eligible R&D activities.  Entities are entitled to either (i) a 43.5% refundable tax offset for eligible companies with an aggregated turnover of less than A$20 million per annum or (ii) a non-refundable 38.5% tax offset for all other eligible companies. Our aggregated turnover is less than A$20 million and not be controlled by one or more income tax exempt entities, we anticipate being entitled to a claim of 43.5% refundable tax offset for costs relating to eligible R&D activities during the year.

Results of Operations

The following tables set forth our results of operations in Australian dollars for the years ended June 30, 2022, 2021 and 2020.

Comparison of Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022 to June 30, 2021

Revenue

Revenue decreased from A$1,897,596 in fiscal 2021 to none in fiscal 2022. All our revenue in fiscal 2021 related to sales of cannabinoid products. In order to focus on the development of our drug candidates, we terminated our distribution agreement for the sale of cannabinoid products at the end of fiscal 2021 and, as a result, did not have any such sales in fiscal 2022.

Other Income

Other income increased from A$75,748 in fiscal 2021 to A$788,654 in fiscal 2022, due to an increase R&D tax refund for research and development activities from the Australian government in fiscal 2022.

Product costs

Production costs decreased from A$911,969 in fiscal 2021 to A$6,338 in fiscal 2022, due to primarily due to the cessation of sales of cannabinoid oil products at the end of fiscal 2021.

Administration expense

Administration expense increased from A$99,094 in fiscal 2021 to A$280,969 in fiscal 2022, due to an increase in general office expenses and expenses due to international payments impacted by foreign currency fluctuations.

Advertising and investor relations

Advertising and investor relations expense decreased 37% from A$4,345,874 in fiscal 2021 to A$2,746,226 in fiscal 2022, due to a decrease in share-based payments to our advisors.

Bad debt expense

Bad debt expense increased from none in fiscal 2021 to A$134,626 in fiscal 2022 due to an amount a third party owed us deemed irrecoverable at December 31, 2021.

Research and development costs

Research and development costs increased 13% from A$4,749,514 in fiscal 2021to A$5,371,821 in fiscal 2022, due to an increase in development costs related to our clinical trials, particularly with respect to IHL-675A, IHL-42X and IHL-216A.

Compliance, legal and regulatory

Compliance, legal and regulatory expense almost tripled from A$1,227,244 in fiscal 2021 to A$3,559,511 in fiscal 2022, due to an increase in expenses due to listing and compliance with the Nasdaq listing requirements while the regulatory costs required to conduct clinical trials and the costs to secure intellectual property positions in relation to our drug candidates remained stable.

Share based payments

Share-based payments expense more than doubled from A$600,043 in fiscal 2021 to A$1,464,550 in fiscal 2022, due to an increase in the costs associated with an increased number of share-based awards to employees and directors.

Occupancy expenses

Occupancy expenses decreased slightly from A$115,836 in fiscal 2021 to A$112,341 in fiscal 2022, due to a decrease in rental fees.

Salaries and employee benefit expense

Salaries and employee benefit expense increased from A$1,296,569 in fiscal 2021 to A$2,016,181 in fiscal 2022 due to an increase in headcount in the general administration department and an increase in our Chief Executive Officer’s salary.

Total comprehensive loss

Total comprehensive loss increased 31% from A$11,372,799 in fiscal 2021 to A$14,903,909 in fiscal 2022, mostly due to higher legal and regulatory expenses, expenses for development of our clinical trials as well as higher salaries and employee benefits.

Comparison of Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2020

Revenue

Revenue increased to A$1,897,596 in fiscal year 2021 from A$604,884 in fiscal year 2020, due to an increase of sales of cannabinoid oil products in fiscal 2021. In order to focus on the development of our drug candidates, we terminated our distribution agreement for the sale of cannabinoid products at the end of fiscal 2021 and, as a result, will not have any future sales of such products.

Other Income

Other income decreased to A$75,748 in fiscal year 2021 from A$217,170 in fiscal year 2020, due to the discontinuation of the dental business.

Product costs

Production costs doubled to A$911,969 in fiscal year 2021 from A$450,345 in fiscal year 2020, due to higher costs involved in the production of the cannabinoid oil products as a result of higher sales.

Administration expense

Administration expense decreased to A$99,094 in fiscal year 2021 from A$457,673 in fiscal year 2020, due to discontinuation of our dental business.

Advertising and promotion

Advertising and promotion expense increased to A$4,345,874 in fiscal year 2021 from A$406,225 in fiscal year 2020, due to the costs of marketing of the cannabinoid oil products and the cost of investor relation activities.

Research and development costs

Research and development costs increased to A$4,749,514 in fiscal year 2021 from A$2,110,639 in fiscal year 2020, due to an increase in development costs related to our clinical trials, particularly with respect to IHL-675A, IHL-42X and IHL-216A.

Compliance, legal and regulatory

Compliance, legal and regulatory expense increased to A$1,227,244 in fiscal year 2021 from A$235,163 in fiscal year 2020, due to the regulatory costs required to conduct clinical trials and costs related to the sale of our cannabinoid oil products, and the cost to secure intellectual property positions in relation to our drug candidates and the cost of dual listing.

Share based payments

Share-based payments expense increased to A$600,043 in fiscal year 2021 from A$565,448 in fiscal year 2020, primarily due to the costs associated with an increased number of share-based awards to employees.

Occupancy expenses

Occupancy expenses increased to A$115,836 in fiscal year 2021 from A$2,085 in fiscal year 2020, due to the rental fees for our new Sydney office.

Salaries and employee benefit expense

Salaries and employee benefit expense more than doubled to A$1,296,569 in fiscal year 2021 from A$523,760 in fiscal year 2020, due to an increase in headcount.

Loss after tax from discontinuing operations

Loss after tax from discontinuing operations decreased to nil in fiscal year 2021 from A$768,352 in fiscal year 2020, due to the sale of the segment relating to the oral device business.

Total comprehensive loss

Total comprehensive loss increased to A$11,372,799 in fiscal year 2021 from A$3,929,284 in fiscal year 2020, primarily due to an increase in compliance, legal and regulatory expenses, expenses related to the development of our clinical trials and expenses associated with our salaries and employee benefits.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

During fiscal years 2022, 2021 and 2020, we did not have any unconsolidated entities such as structured finance or special purpose entities that can be used to facilitate off-balance sheet arrangements.

Contractual obligations

Excluding accounts payable, we did not have any contractual obligations as of June 30, 2022 that were not reflected in the balance sheet. Lease obligations for office premises are reflected in our balance sheet.

We have contracted with Monash University to conduct research trials in relation to Psi-GAD-1 over a 3-year period. 50% of the contractual obligation was paid on commencement of the contract in November 2020 and A$618,070 remains due and payable up through November 2023.

Contingent liabilities

We did not have any material contingent liabilities outstanding as of June 30, 2022.

Capital commitments

We did not have any material capital expenditure commitments outstanding as of June 30, 2022.

Since our inception, our operations have mainly been financed through the issuance of equity securities. Additional funding has come through interest earned from cash on term deposit.

As of June 30, 2022, we had cash of A$37,500,931. We anticipate that our current cash will be sufficient for the current fiscal year and to fund our operations until end of 2024. However, our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations is a forward-looking statement that involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary materially.

Due to our focus on research and development activities, we do not have ready access to credit facilities and, therefore, are not subject to externally imposed capital requirements. Our objective in relation to capital risk management is to balance our current working capital position against the requirements to meet research and development programs and corporate overheads.

We anticipate that we will require substantial additional funds in order to achieve our long-term goals and complete the research and development of our current drug candidates. We do not expect to generate significant revenue until we obtain regulatory approval to market and sell our drug candidate and sales of our drug candidate have commenced. We therefore expect to continue to incur substantial losses in the near future.

Our future capital requirements are difficult to forecast and will depend on many factors, including:

Cash Flows

Comparison of cash flows for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, with June 30, 2021

The following table summarizes our cash flows for the periods presented:

Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities increased from A$6,909,780 in fiscal 2021 to A$12,807,373 in fiscal 2022, primarily due to the expansion of our clinical trials.

Investing Activities

Net cash provided by investing activities decreased from A$29,277 in fiscal 2021 to none in fiscal year 2022, due to no investment activities undertaken in fiscal 2022.

Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities increased to A$41,184,687 in fiscal year 2022 from A$12,400,730 in fiscal year 2021, due to the exercise of options that raised net cash equal to A$40,274,243 in fiscal 2022.

Comparison of cash flows for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, with June 30, 2020

Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities increased to A$6,909,780 in fiscal year 2021 from A$3,907,334 in fiscal year 2020, primarily due to the expansion of our clinical trials.

Investing Activities

Net cash provided by investing activities increased to A$29,277 in fiscal year 2021 from A$13,000 in fiscal year 2020, primarily due to asset sales associated with the discontinuance of our dental devices business.

Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities increased to A$12,400,730 in fiscal year 2021 from A$7,404,392 in fiscal year 2020, primarily due to the exercise of options that raised net cash equal to A$12,401,230 in 2021.

For a description of our research and development programs and activities, see “Item 4. Information on the Company—B—. Business” Overview.

For year ended June 30, 2022, our expenditures for our each of our clinical trials were:

We anticipate being entitled to a claim of 43.5% refundable tax offset for costs relating to eligible R&D activities for each fiscal year from the Australian government.

We are a clinical stage pharmaceutical development company and it is not possible for us to predict with any degree of accuracy the outcome of our research or commercialization efforts.

Our primary expenditure involves research and development costs. Increases or decreases in research and development expenditure are attributable to the level of clinical trial activity and the amount of expenditure on those trials.

Since our acquisition of APIRx, we are exposed to foreign currency risk via trade and other payables we hold. We are required to make certain payments in U.S. dollars and other currencies.  

See note 2 to our audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022.

The following table sets forth our directors and senior management and the positions. There are no family relationships among any of the members of our board of directors and our senior management.

Joel Latham. Joel Latham has been the Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of Incannex since July 2018. Mr. Latham is responsible for the Company’s commercial operations, strategic decision-making, and oversight of all clinical development assets for Incannex. Prior to his appointment as Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Latham had been a key member of our senior leadership team acting as General Manager since 2016. During this time, he was instrumental in the marketing and procurement of multiple revenue-generating opportunities and partnerships, including with Pacific Smiles (ASX:PSQ), 1300 Smiles (ASX: ONT), the National Rugby League, the Australian Football League, ONE Fighting Championship, FIT Technologies and Cannvalate. During his time at the Company, Mr. Latham has been pivotal in the development and execution of Incannex’s drug development and regulatory strategy. Prior to joining Incannex in 2016, Mr. Latham had over 14 years’ experience, with major firms such as Mars Foods, Tabcorp and Philip Morris International in management and commercial operational roles.

Troy Valentine. Troy Valentine has been Chairman of the Board of Directors since December 2017. Mr. Valentine is a finance professional with managerial and Board experience spanning over 27 years. He commenced his career with Australian brokerage firm Hartley Poynton (now Euroz Hartleys Limited) in 1994 before moving to Patersons Securities (now Canaccord Genuity) in 2000 where he subsequently became an Associate Director. During his time at Patersons, he was responsible for managing both retail and institutional accounts. Mr. Valentine has significant corporate and capital raising experience, especially with start-ups and small to mid-cap size companies. He is currently also a director of Australian boutique corporate advisory firm Alignment Capital Pty Ltd, which he co-founded in 2014.

Peter Widdows. Peter Widdows has been a Director since 2018. He is a Fellow Chartered Accountant with experience across various functions of business. He has extensive experience in Australian and international consumer goods markets and has worked as a senior executive in numerous geographies, including Europe, the United States and Asia Pacific. In particular, Mr. Widdows served as the Regional Chief Executive Officer — Australasia and Greater China at the H. J. Heinz Company from 2008 to 2010 and as the Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director — Australia at the H. J. Heinz Company from 2002 to 2008 and as the General Manager Strategy & Planning at Starkist Foods Inc. in Cincinnati from 1998 to 2000. Since September 2018, Mr. Widdows has been Chairman of Sunny Queen Australia Ltd, Australia’s largest shell egg and egg-based meal producer and is also a Non-Executive Director of Youi Insurance Holdings Ltd, an Australian general insurance company.

Dr. George Anastassov. Dr. George Anastassov has been a Director since June 2022. Dr Anastassov has developed substantial experience regarding liaising and negotiating with FDA and the EMA, due to the fact that he has presented numerous regulatory submissions, including IND meeting packages and IND applications, to regulatory agencies over many years. Dr Anastassov is one of the developers of the first-in-the world cannabinoid-containing chewing gum-based delivery system. Prior to his appointment as a Director, Dr. Anastassov had been the founding managing director of APIRx Pharmaceuticals LLC since 2017 to 2022. whilst also being a key member of the medical and scientific advisory team, assisting with the development of the Combination Compounds. Previously, Dr Anastassov had been CEO and co-founder of AXIM Biotechnologies, which achieved an all-time-high market capitalization of approximately US$1.2 billion, since 2014 to 2018.

Robert Clark. Robert Clark has been a Director since August 2022. Mr. Clark is a senior-level strategic regulatory affairs expert with over 38 years of U.S. and international regulatory experience, including more than 20 years with Pfizer Inc. and more than 10 years with Novo Nordisk A/S. He is an expert on FDA and EMA matters, U.S. pharmaceutical advertising practices and regulatory aspects related to healthcare professionals and sales force activities. Since May 2012, Mr. Clark has been Vice President, U.S. Regulatory Affairs for Novo Nordisk, where he provides strategic leadership to a team of more than 50 regulatory staff and scientists in the development of new medicines. Prior to his appointment as a Director, Mr. Clark had been Vice President of Worldwide Regulatory Strategy and U.S. Regulatory Affairs at Pfizer from 1992 to 2021, where he led a team of up to 150 regional regulatory professionals supporting the drug development and approval processes.

Lekhram Changoer.    Mr. Changoer has been Chief Technology Officer of Incannex since June 2022. He is responsible for the development and implementation of science and technical strategies for clinical and commercial manufacturing of pharmacotherapies. Prior to joining Incannex, Mr. Changoer was Director at APIRx. Previously, Mr. Changoer was CTO and Co-founder of AXIM Biotechnologies since 2014 to 2018.

Madhukar Bhalla.    Madhukar Bhalla has been Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary of Incannex since June 2021. Since July 2018, he has been acting as Company Secretary and Corporate Administrator at Classic Minerals Limited, an ASX-listed Australian company. Between November 2017 and July 2018, Mr. Bhalla acted as Corporate Governance and HR Manager at Role Models and Leaders Australia and, from 2016 to 2018, he acted as the Company Secretary for FairStar Resources Limited.

Remuneration Principles

Remuneration of all executive and non-executive directors and officers is determined by the board of directors.

We are committed to remunerating senior executives and executive directors in a manner that is market-competitive and consistent with “Best Practice” including the interests of shareholders. Remuneration packages are based on fixed and variable components, determined by the executives’ position, experience and performance, and may be satisfied via cash or equity.

Non-executive directors are remunerated out of the aggregate amount approved by shareholders and at a level that is consistent with industry standards. Non-executive directors do not receive performance-based bonuses and prior shareholder approval is required to participate in any issue of equity. No retirement benefits are payable other than statutory superannuation, if applicable.

Our remuneration policy is not directly based on our financial performance, rather on industry practice, given we operate in the biotechnology sector and our primary focus is research activities with a long-term objective of developing and commercializing the research and development results.

We envisage our performance in terms of earnings will remain negative while we continue in the research and development phase.

The purpose of a performance bonus is to reward individual performance in line with our objectives. Consequently, performance-based remuneration is paid to an individual where the individual’s performance clearly contributes to a successful outcome. This is regularly measured in respect of performance against key performance indicators.

We use a variety of key performance indicators to determine achievement, depending on the role of the executive being assessed. These include: