10-K

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

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

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

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

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

If any emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards 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 controls over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates, based on the closing sales price of such stock on June 30, 2021 was $12,901,142.

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock as of March 28, 2022 was 2,827,410.

As of September 10, 2019, JanOne Inc. (formerly known as Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc.) and subsidiaries (collectively, “we,” the “Company,” or “JanOne”) changed its name and broadened its business to focus on being a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focused on finding treatments for conditions that cause severe pain and bringing drugs to market with non-addictive pain-relieving properties.

One of the Company’s goals is to reduce the need for prescriptions for dangerous opioid drugs by treating underlying diseases that cause severe pain. The Company’s first drug candidate is a treatment for Peripheral Artery Disease (“PAD”), a condition that can cause severe pain and affects over 8.5 million people in the United States. The Company intends to champion new initiatives—digital technologies, educational advocacy, and revolutionary painkilling drugs that address what we believe is a multibillion dollar a year market—to help combat the opioid crisis, which claims tens of thousands of lives each year.

The new name of the Company, JanOne Inc., was strategically chosen to express the start of a new day in the fight against the opioid epidemic. January one is the first day of a New Year—universally considered as a day of optimism, resolution, and hope. JanOne stands by its new strategic commitment to fresh thinking and innovative means to assist in ending the worst drug crisis in our nation’s history. The Company also adopted a new Nasdaq ticker symbol, NASDAQ: JAN, a new CUSIP number, 03814F403, and a new website address: www.janone.com.

We continue to operate our legacy businesses, ARCA Recycling, Inc. (“ARCA Recycling”) and Customer Connexx, LLC (“Connexx”), in our Recycling segment, as well as GeoTraq Inc. (“GeoTraq”), in our Technology segment. ARCA Recycling recycles major household appliances in North America by providing turnkey appliance recycling and replacement services for utilities and other sponsors of energy efficiency programs. Connexx is a company that provides call center services for recycling businesses. GeoTraq has been engaged in the development and design of cellular transceiver modules and associated wireless services.

The information contained in or accessible from our website is not incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K”), and it should not be considered part of this Form 10-K. We have included our website address in this Form 10-K solely as an inactive textual reference.

The Company was incorporated in Minnesota in 1983, although, through its predecessors, we began operating our legacy recycling business in 1976. On March 12, 2018, we reincorporated in the State of Nevada. Our principal office is located at 325 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 102, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.

On February 19, 2021, the Company, together with its subsidiaries (a) ARCA Recycling and (b) Connexx entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (the “ARCA/Connexx Disposition Agreement”) with (i) ARCA Affiliated Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation, (ii) ARCA Services Inc., a Delaware corporation, and (iii) Connexx Services Inc, a Delaware corporation (collectively, the “Buyers”), pursuant to which the Buyers agreed to acquire substantially all of the assets, and assume certain liabilities, of ARCA Recycling and Connexx (the “Disposition Transaction”). The principal of the Buyers is Virland A. Johnson, our Chief Financial Officer. The Disposition Transaction was previously expected to be consummated on or before August 18, 2021 (the “Outside Date”). On August 12, 2021, the parties entered into Amendment No. One to the ARCA/Connexx Disposition Agreement (“Amendment No. One”) to extend the Outside Date to September 30, 2021. Accordingly, in the event the Disposition Transaction did not close by such amended date, the Purchase Agreement could be terminated and, in accordance with its terms, the Buyers could be required to pay to us a “break fee” of $250,000. On November 14, 2021, the parties entered into Amendment No. Two to the ARCA/Connexx Disposition Agreement, which provided for the immediate termination of the transactions contemplated by the ARCA/Connexx Disposition Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. One, and amended the terms of the “break fee.” The break fee was amended to an aggregate of $100,000, payable in two $50,000 installments: (i) the first of which is due to be paid not later than August 12, 2022 (the one-year anniversary of the Agreement No. One) and (ii) the second of which is due to be paid not later than the last day of our next fiscal year, December 31, 2022. However, if, prior to the date on which either installment of the amended break fee is payable, ARCA Recycling and Connexx have not been sold to an otherwise unaffiliated third party for an aggregate amount less than $25 million, then the Buyers will be relieved of their obligation to pay any not-yet-then-due installment of the break fee. Additionally, if, prior to the date on which the second installment of the amended break fee is payable and ARCA Recycling and Connexx have not been sold to any third party, then the Buyers will be relieved of their obligation to pay to us the second installment of the break fee. Finally, if, prior to a date on which either installment of the amended break fee is due, we have sold ARCA Recycling and Connexx to the Buyers, then, the purchase price therefor will be reduced by an amount equivalent to any break fee that had been previously paid to us by the Buyers and the Buyers shall also be relieved of their obligation to pay to us any not-yet-due installment of the break fee.

During the year ended January 1, 2022, we determined that long-term revenue projections for the Technology segment would be unattainable, and, as such, performed a qualitative assessment of the GeoTraq intangible asset, in accordance with ASC 350-30, General intangibles other than goodwill. The triggering events for this assessment were (i) its history of negative cash flow and operating losses since acquisition, (ii) no foreseeable revenues during the final three years of its useful life that would allow for full cost recovery, and (iii) no further investment in GeoTraq is imminent due to the Company's lack of resources (human and financial). The assessment further concluded that any opportunities for investment from outside the Company was minimal due to barriers to entry, and inflationary and supply-chain-related issues. Consequently, during the year ended January 1, 2022, the Company took a full write-down of the unamortized portion of the GeoTraq intangible asset of approximately $9.8 million.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on becoming the leader in identifying, acquiring, licensing, developing, partnering, and commercializing novel, non-opioid and non-addictive therapies to address the large unmet medical need for the treatment of pain and addiction. Our initial product candidate, JAN101 (formerly known as TV1001SR), is a potential treatment for PAD, a vascular disease that affects more than 8.5 million people in the U.S. and more than 60 million people worldwide. We expect to commence Phase IIb clinical trials for the treatment of PAD in 2022. We are also researching the potential impact our compound JAN101 could have in patients with COVID-19, as many doctors around the world and affiliated with our Company believes COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that directly affects the vascular system. In March 2021, we determined to defer our current, on-going pursuit of JAN101 as a potential treatment for COVID-19 vascular complications. In connection with that determination, we determined that we would not then file a utility patent nor submit an investigational new drug application (“IND”) to the FDA. This determination was based on several factors, including the current, positive effect that three vaccines are having on the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Should the vaccines ultimately

prove less effective than currently expected or should new COVID-19 variants result in another pandemic, we may then determine to end our deferral of pursuing JAN101 as a treatment of COVID-19 vascular complications.

JAN101, formerly known as TV1001SR, our initial product candidate, is a patented oral, sustained release pharmaceutical composition of sodium nitrite that targets poor blood flow to the extremities, such as those with vascular complications of diabetes or PAD and treats pain. A conclusion from a round of human studies found JAN101 prevents the prevalent reports of headaches by patients treated with an immediate release formulation of sodium nitrite. In a previous study of patients with PAD, a 40 mg BID treatment with immediate release sodium nitrite led to a statistically significant reduction in reported pain, while an 80 mg BID treatment had a more pronounced effect on bioactivity and Flow Mediated Dilation, a measure of vascular function. However, a number of subjects in both treatment groups reported headaches and dizziness following treatment. Although this did not result in subjects discontinuing treatment, JAN101 was developed to overcome this side effect. JAN101 was tested in a bridging study of diabetic neuropathy subjects and, during that bridging study, the subjects did not report headaches or dizziness. Subjects in this bridging study also reported less pain following treatment and improvements in bioactivity (quantitative sensory testing, a measure of nerve function) were similar to the PAD study, where the 80 mg dosing group had the greatest improvement in Flow Mediated Dilation. The ability to alleviate pain with BID treatment of JAN101 offers promise for a new non-addictive, non-sedating treatment of chronic pain.

JAN101 does not mask pain, but instead treats the cause of pain by improving tissue and vascular function.

In initial research studies, sodium nitrite effectively restored ischemic tissue blood flow and was effective in a wide range of pathologies involving alterations of angiogenesis – development of new blood vessels – including diabetes, wound healing, and tissue necrosis. Beneficial effects include enhancing angiogenesis, endothelial cell proliferation, and arteriogenesis. There is also a strong association between reduced circulating nitrite levels and cardiovascular diseases in humans. We describe some of the associations and beneficial effects of sodium nitrite/nitrite below.

Plasma nitrite levels were inversely related to number of cardiovascular risk factors a subject had and decreased plasma nitrite was associated with decreased flow mediated vasodilation (FMD) and increased intimal medial thickness (IMT) (both are indicators of vascular pathology). Kleinbongard, et al. (2006) Free Radic Biol and Medicine 40:295-302.

Exercise is a well-known stimulator of endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity, an enzyme that enhances nitric oxide (NO) production, which leads to increased plasma nitrite. In the study by Allen, et al., these authors revealed that baseline plasma levels of nitrite were less in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) or DM + PAD. Importantly,

increases in plasma nitrite levels were not observed in either DM, PAD or DM + PAD patients after supervised exercise. These data reveal that baseline nitrite availability is compromised in DM patients and that supervised exercise is unable to increase plasma nitrite levels but actually results in a decrease in nitrite, highlighting a physiological efficiency of this molecule. Allen, et al., Nitric Oxide 2009 20:231-2377.

Skeletal Muscle Nitrite and Metabolite Levels are Reduced in Critical Limb Ischemia (CLI) Patients

Skeletal muscle nitrite, nitrosothiol (RSNO), nitric oxide-heme, and cGMP are all significantly reduced in CLI (the most severe form of PAD) patients. Diabetic patients with CLI show even further nitrite reductions.

In summary, nitrite levels in various cardiovascular and vascular diseases appear to be inversely related to the severity of the disease in humans:

Given the association between low levels of circulating nitrite and human diseases, supplementation with sodium nitrite has been studied preclinically in animals. Below are summaries of some of the more important findings:

Nitrite Therapy Selectively Increases Ischemic Tissue Vascular Density in a NO-dependent Manner

Chronic sodium nitrite therapy increases ischemic tissue vascular density in a NO-dependent manner. A and B show representative images of CD31 (red) and DAPI nuclear (blue) staining from sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate ischemic gastrocnemius muscle tissue at day 7. C and D report the vascular density of ischemic gastrocnemius muscle tissue at days 3 and 7 for 165 μg/kg sodium nitrite and nitrate treatments, respectively. E and F demonstrate the vascular density of ischemic gastrocnemius muscle tissue at days 3 and 7 from 165 μg/kg sodium nitrite plus carboxy PTIO. (Scale bar, 150 μm.) n = 10 mice per treatment group. Kumar D., et al., PNAS; 2008; 105:7540-7545.

Chronic sodium nitrite therapy acutely increases ischemic tissue blood flow and stimulates arteriogenesis. A and B report 165 μg/kg sodium nitrite-induced acute changes in blood flow of chronically ischemic tissues at various time points with or without cPTIO, respectively. C reports the number of arterial branches between PBS and nitrite therapies. D and E illustrate vascular casting of the arterial vasculature in ischemic hind limbs of day 7 nitrite or PBS-treated mice, respectively. *, P < 0.01 vs. sodium nitrate. N = 10 mice per treatment group. Kumar D., et.al., PNAS;2008; 105:7540-7545.

Nitrite Therapy Restores Diabetic Ischemic Hind-Limb Blood Flow and Promotes Wound Heal

Unilateral femoral artery ligation was performed on 18-20 week old male Db/Db mice. Mice were randomized to PBS or sodium nitrite (165 μg/kg) therapy twice daily via I.P. injection. Laser doppler flowmetry was performed at the indicated time points. Increased wound dehiscence was noted in the PBS treated animals at day 7 but not in nitrite treated animals. (Bir, et al., Diabetes 2014, 63(1):270-81).

Nitrite therapy prevented ischemia mediated endothelial cell density loss in normal C57BL/6J ischemic limbs. Nitrite therapy significantly restored endothelial cell density in ischemic limbs of diabetic mice to normal C57BL/6J levels compared to PBS therapy of non-ischemic and ischemic conditions. These data suggest that nitrite therapy may be useful in attenuating microvascular rarefaction due to loss of nitric oxide that is observed during metabolic dysfunction (Frisbee JC AJP Integr Comp Physiol 2005 289(2):R307-16; Stepp et al Microcirculation 2007 14(4-5): 311-6).

Studies were performed to determine whether nitrite mediated therapy would be effective in tissue that had been left ischemic for 5 days after femoral artery ligation. Femoral artery ligation was performed in C57BL/6J mice and the animals randomized to either PBS or sodium nitrite therapy 5 days after artery ligation. Treatments were given b.i.d. via I.P. injection. Ischemic limb blood flow was measured using laser doppler flowmetry. (Bir, et al., Diabetes 2014, 63(1):270-81).

Delayed nitrite therapy increases SPY angiogram arteriogenesis. Representative temporal SPY angiogram image stills (3–6s) are shown at 11 days following ligation and 6 days after beginning therapy (either PBS or sodium nitrite). Left: PBS control angiogram. Right: sodium nitrite angiogram following injection of ICG. n = 5 animals per cohort. Circles identify limb anatomical regions of vascular blush, whereas arrows indicate perfused vessels that progressively occur over time.

Delayed sodium nitrite (165 ug/kg) or control PBS therapy was stated 5 days post-femoral artery ligation in nine-month old Db/Db mice. Nitrite therapy significantly prevented tissue necrosis (panel B) compared to control PBS therapy (panel A). Panel D reports tissue necrosis severity as a function of degree of limb and digit involvement. Nitrite therapy, but not PBS control or sodium nitrate, significantly prevented tissue necrosis. (Bir, et al., Diabetes 2014, 63(1):270-81).

Sodium nitrite has long been known to be a potent vasodilator (transiently increasing blood vessel diameter) that can lead to a drop in blood pressure when given acutely. The above studies indicate that chronic administration at low doses promotes angiogenesis, unlike one-time nitrite therapy, which does not stimulate angiogenesis. In addition, these studies and a large number of other studies not reviewed above show:

Our initial product candidate is designed to treat diseases associated with poor vascular function. The following table summarizes our current product candidate:

Therapeutic Area Peripheral Artery Disease Pain COVID-19 Drug JAN101 Pre-IND Phase 1 Phase 2a Phase 2b Phase

As mentioned previously, we determined to defer our on-going pursuit of JAN101 as a potential treatment for COVID-19 vascular complications. In connection with that determination, we determined that we would not then file a utility patent nor submit an investigational new drug application to the FDA. This determination was based on several factors, including the current, positive effect that three vaccines are having on the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Should the vaccines ultimately prove less effective than currently expected or should new COVID-19 variants result in another pandemic, we may then determine to end our deferral of pursuing JAN101 as a treatment of COVID-19 vascular complications.

Pain is a protective reaction that alerts the body to the presence of actual or potential tissue damage so that necessary corrective responses can be mounted. The National Institutes of Health (the “NIH”) defines chronic pain as pain that persists beyond the normal healing time of an injury or that persists longer than three months. It is estimated that chronic pain affects 100 million individuals in the United States and over 1.5 billion people worldwide; thus, more people suffer from chronic pain than diabetes, heart disease, and cancer combined (Cowen Therapeutic Categories Outlook, March 2019). Chronic pain exacts a tremendous cost in terms of direct treatment and rehabilitation expenditures, lost worker productivity, prevalent addiction to opioid-based drugs, and emotional and financial burden for patients and their families. According to an Institute of Medicine of the National Academies report, pain is a significant public health problem in the United States that costs society between $560 billion and $635 billion annually. Despite the magnitude of the pain problem, innovation in the development of therapeutic solutions has been largely absent. Since 2010, there have been 20 approvals by the FDA for the treatment of pain, of which 12 were opioid variants, one was an extended-release generic corticosteroid, five were variants of aspirin, and two were variants of other existing drugs. We are developing a novel product candidate designed to overcome the limitations of current treatment options for patients with PAD who suffer from chronic pain. According to a research study by Stanford University, more than 24% of patients with PAD are at risk of high opioid use. By treating pain at the source and presenting patients and physicians with better and safer treatment alternatives, we expect to minimize opioids at the prescription pad. Given the properties of JAN101, we have made the strategic decision to focus initially on pain associated with PAD by treating the underlying cause of PAD.

Peripheral artery disease (“PAD”) is a general term for conditions in which arterial blood flow to the limbs is partially blocked. When there is less blood present in the extremities relative to demand, muscle pain and fatigue result, especially in the calf, which is also known as “intermittent claudication.” In many patients, pain and fatigue are relieved through rest. Roughly half of patients with PAD are asymptomatic. The most common cause of PAD / intermittent claudication is atherosclerosis. Diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and smoking are all risk factors that can increase the likelihood of PAD. In atherosclerosis, fat deposits (plaques) build up along arterial walls, resulting in a reduction in blood flow in the legs. This same process can cause strokes if the arteries leading up to the brain are affected.

Because of the high rate of asymptomatic patients, prevalence figures vary widely. Some estimate that up to 200 million people worldwide have PAD, ranging from asymptomatic disease to severe. Prevalence increases as a function of patient age, rising sharply after the age of 60. Thus, in countries with an aging population, it is expected that the prevalence of PAD will only increase. There is also a strong ethnic and racial component to PAD prevalence, which may be due to cultural differences in diet and exercise, along with genetic differences. Some suggest a prevalence of eight to 12 million in the United States alone, with roughly one-third experiencing pain when walking, which improves upon resting. The diagnosis of PAD usually begins with patient complaints of pain in the extremities. If the patient is already being treated or monitored for diabetes or other risk factors, then the physician will check for a weak or absent pulse in the extremity. Decreased blood pressure, poor wound healing, and whooshing sounds (via stethoscope) in the legs are also tell-tale signs of PAD / intermittent claudication. Angiograms, electrocardiograms, and ultrasounds can also be used to image and confirm the diagnosis.

The non-drug treatment of PAD / intermittent claudication may be divided into four general categories:

•

Exercise – Patients who walk, cycle, stretch, or swim can experience marked improvement. Formal programs involving treadmills and track walking (usually three to five times per week) are frequently provided to patients. However, if the pain is triggered by exercise (claudication) and is significant, it can discourage the patient from exercise.

The underlying condition is not addressed by surgery. Surgical approaches will not, in the long run, improve exercise capacity and walking distance. Only exercise itself, coupled with lifestyle changes and drug approaches, has this benefit.

Prescription drugs for the treatment of the underlying PAD may be divided into multiple categories, depending on the underlying condition and severity:

•

Pain – To our knowledge, no drugs are specifically indicated for PAD-associated pain. Pentoxifylline, for example, is indicated “…for the treatment of patients with intermittent claudication on the basis of chronic occlusive arterial disease of the limbs.” (Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, 2010). However, the evidence supporting the effectiveness of pentoxifylline is mixed. Short-term courses of NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, may be used, provided the patient is not on another anticoagulant, like aspirin. Non-drug pain relievers, such as TENS and massage therapy, may also be used in these patients. Opioids may also be used, which creates a risk for addiction and potential misuse at the medicine cabinet by family members.

The lack of any truly effective treatment of PAD, along with encouraging early trial results using JAN101 on both improving vascular function and reducing pain in PAD patients, has created an opportunity potentially to treat this large unmet medical need. By improving vascular function, JAN101 has the potential to reduce associated pain and improve PAD patients’ quality of life.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a recently discovered coronavirus.

Most people infected with the COVID-19 virus will experience mild-to-moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment. Older people, and those with underlying medical problems like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, and cancer are more likely to develop serious illness. The COVID-19 virus spreads primarily through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

One of the hallmarks of severe cases of COVID-19 is acute respiratory distress syndrome (“ARDS”), a rapid, widespread inflammation of the lungs that can lead to respiratory failure and death. In addition to the widely reported lung injuries associated with COVID-19, clinicians around the world are reporting that the disease also could be causing cardiac injuries in patients that sometimes lead to cardiac arrest. Kidney damage also is becoming a commonly reported issue among COVID-19 patients.

A study in the May, 28 2020 in the New England Journal published research detailing the post-mortem features of seven patients who died of COVID-19 provides critical insights, including evidence of extensive damage to the lining of the blood vessels, abnormal blood vessel growth in the lungs, and widespread blood clotting. The study led by Steven Mentzer, HMS professor of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and done in collaboration with a team of international researchers, showed that infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, caused severe damage to the endothelial cells that line blood vessels and triggered widespread blood clotting. The team also identified signs of a distinctive pattern of vascular disease progression in some cases of COVID-19, compared with patterns seen in equally severe influenza virus infection. The findings highlight these key takeaways:

•

While caused by a respiratory virus, COVID-19 manifests as a vascular disease that leads to severe injuries to blood vessels throughout the lungs. The damage to vascular cells may help explain why serious blood clotting has been observed in many patients.

•

The substantial new blood vessel growth seen in the lungs of COVID-19 patients occurs primarily through a mechanism known as intussusceptive angiogenesis—the splitting of existing blood vessels to form new ones—perhaps as a repair response to blood clotting and blood vessel damage, according to the authors.

Damaged blood vessels may also underlie other problems, such as COVID toe, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), stroke and other seemingly unrelated problems seen with COVID-19.

As discussed previously, in March 2021, we determined to defer our pursuit of JAN101 as a potential treatment for COVID-19 vascular complications. Should new COVID-19 variants result in another pandemic, we may then determine to end our deferral of pursuing JAN101 as a treatment of COVID-19 vascular complications.

Tony Giordano, Ph.D., our Chief Scientific Officer, joined the Company in December 2019 from the Cleveland Clinic, the No.2 rated hospital in the country, where he served as Senior Director of Special Projects in the Business Development group. Dr. Giordano has extensive experience in commercialization and drug development, having served as Vice President or President of seven different biotechnology companies he co-founded, including companies developing platform technologies, a cancer vaccine, and Alzheimer’s Disease and cardiovascular therapies. He has managed numerous clinical trials and the launch of a medical food product. Dr. Giordano has also served as an Associate Professor and Assistant Dean of Research and Business Development at LSU Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, Louisiana (“LSU Health Shreveport”), at which he led the licensing efforts at the campus and at Abbott Labs, where, in addition to serving as a Senior Research Scientist, he was involved in technology assessment activities. Dr. Giordano has a Ph.D. focused in Molecular Genetics from The Ohio State University and completed Fellowships at the NIH NCI-Designated Cancer Centers and the NIH National Institute of Aging.

Dr. Amol Soin, our Chief Medical Officer, joined the Company in January 2020. Dr. Soin is considered one of the nation’s top pain experts and is the Founder and Chairman of the Ohio Pain Clinic. Dr. Soin brings significant expertise for treating neuropathic and chronic pain and extensive research experience for non-opioid, nonaddictive pain

solutions to the JanOne management team. In his role as Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Soin will guide JanOne’s drug development activities, manage clinical research, set patient safety standards, and ensure regulatory compliance. In addition, Dr. Soin will play an integral role in establishing partnerships and drug candidate selection as we expand our pipeline. Dr. Soin received his undergraduate degree from University of Akron, his MBA from University of Tennessee, his MD from Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, and his master’s in science from Brown University and he has also studied at Dartmouth College. He is board certified in anesthesiology and pain medicine and a fellow of interventional pain management at the World Institute of Pain, and served as a pain management fellow at the Cleveland Clinic, the oldest and largest academic pain management department in the United States. The founder and chairman of the Ohio Pain Clinic, Dr. Soin has also held several prestigious positions, including President of the Ohio Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, President of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians Foundation, President of the Society of Interventional Pain Management Surgery Centers, and President – elect of TriState Pain Society. He was appointed by Governor Kasich to the Ohio Medical Board in 2012 to two 5-year terms and has served as the Ohio Medical Board’s president, where he was instrumental in passing statewide rules and guidelines to help the opioid crisis.

In November 2019, we formed a Scientific Board of Advisors (the “SBA”) and the following doctors and scientists currently are members of our SBA:

Chris Kevil, Ph.D., Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board – Dr. Kevil, an internationally known expert in vascular pathophysiology, PAD, and nitric oxide biology, discovered the role of sodium nitrite in promoting angiogenesis that led to the development of TV1001, now known as JAN101. Dr. Kevil earned his Ph.D. degree from LSU Health Shreveport in Molecular and Cellular Physiology, followed by a fellowship at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) with an emphasis on redox pathophysiology. Returning to LSU Health Shreveport in the Department of Pathology, he established cutting edge research programs regarding redox biology regulation of peripheral vascular diseases. This led to ground-breaking insights on how glutathione, nitrite/nitric oxide, and hydrogen sulfide regulate vascular health during ischemia.

Edgar Ross, MD, Dr. Ross is the current Director of the Pain Management Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Ross is recognized as Castle Connolly’s America’s top doctors for the fifth year in a row. In addition to serving as chairman of Pfizer’s partnership on pain, Dr. Ross also has served as a member of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Opioid Prescribing Policy Committee.

John Cooke, MD, Ph.D. – Dr. Cooke is the Chair of the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences at the Houston Methodist Research Institute, Director of the Center for Cardiovascular Regeneration, and Medical Director of the RNA Therapeutics Program in the Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center in Houston, Texas. He trained in cardiovascular medicine and obtained a Ph.D. in physiology at the Mayo Clinic. He was recruited to Harvard Medical School as an assistant professor of medicine. In 1990, he was recruited to Stanford University to spearhead its program in vascular biology and medicine, and was appointed professor in the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine, and associate director of the Stanford Cardiovascular Institute until his recruitment to Houston Methodist in 2013. Dr. Cooke has published over 500 research papers, position papers, reviews, book chapters, and patents in the arena of vascular medicine and biology with over 30,000 citations. He has served on national and international committees that deal with cardiovascular diseases, including the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, Society for Vascular Medicine, and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. He has served as president of the Society for Vascular Medicine, as a director of the American Board of Vascular Medicine, and as an associate editor of Vascular Medicine.

Joshua Beckman, MD – Dr. Beckman founded and is director of the Section of Vascular Medicine in the Division of Cardiovascular and is Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. The overriding theme linking all of his career activities is vascular function in health and disease. Dr. Beckman’s primary research focuses on the mechanisms by which diabetes mellitus impairs vascular function. Secondary investigations involve studying the effect on endothelial function of non-diabetes-related insulin resistance, androgen deprivation, and vascular function in venous bypass grafts. Dr. Beckman has been involved in numerous clinical studies and has published over 300 research papers with over 30,000 citations. In addition to a number of other journals, Dr. Beckman serves in editorial roles at Vascular Medicine and Circulation,two of the premier journals in the cardiovascular space.

Nicolas Goeders, Ph.D. – Dr. Goeders is a Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Neuroscience at LSU Health Shreveport. He has conducted addiction research for the past 30 years and is regarded as one of the world’s leaders on the role for stress in substance abuse disorder. His work has helped to determine the mechanisms responsible for how stress contributes to relapse to drug use. He has published over 100 manuscripts, has written 15 book chapters, and was issued five patents, one of which is a drug currently in clinical development. Dr. Goeders also serves as the Executive Director of the Louisiana Addiction Research Center.

Our focus is to develop and commercialize novel, non-opioid, and non-addictive therapies to address, safely and effectively, the significant unmet medical need of chronic pain or treat conditions that cause pain. The principal elements of our strategy to achieve this mission are the following:

•

License, acquire, develop, and create novel, non-opioid and non-addictive therapies by leveraging our understanding of pain biology to address the large and growing problem of pain. While innovation in medical sciences has led to exciting new treatment options in many disease areas, pain has seen limited innovation in recent years. We have a deep understanding of the pathophysiology of pain and diseases that cause pain. We intend to leverage this understanding to bring innovation in the pain treatment paradigm through targeted acquisitions of companies or assets in development. Our advisors and doctors have years of collective experience in leadership positions at institutions and substantial scientific experience and understand the complexity of designing and executing clinical trials for and developing therapies.

•

Advance the development of our initial product candidate, JAN101, designed for the treatment of patients with PAD and pain associated with the disease. There are limited therapeutic options available for patients with PAD and we believe that JAN101 has the potential to transform the standard of care to a twice-a-day pill to improve moderate to severe PAD substantially. We have engaged a contract research organization (“CRO”), CPC Clinical Research, to function as our trial manager and currently plan to begin enrolling subjects for the first Phase IIb trials for JAN101 in late 2022. We expect to report topline results promptly following receipt of the data from the CRO.

•

Leverage clinical activity of JAN101 possibly to expand into new indications, including complications associated with COVID-19. We believe that JAN101 may have utility in treating vascular complications in patients with COVID-19, as we believe COVID-19 is an endothelial cell disease that manifests its complications in the vascular system and major organs, causing complications in recovered patients. In November 2020, we filed an investigational new drug application for our COVID-19 indication (which was subsequently converted to a pre-IND). In March 2021, we determined to defer our current, on-going pursuit of JAN101 as a potential treatment for COVID-19 vascular complications. In connection with that determination, we determined that we would not then file a utility patent nor submit an investigational new drug application to the FDA. This determination was based on several factors, including the current, positive effect that three vaccines are having on the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Should the vaccines ultimately prove less effective than currently expected or should new COVID-19 variants result in another pandemic, we may then determine to end our deferral of pursuing JAN101 as a treatment of COVID-19 vascular complications.

•

Advance our initial product candidate through clinical development and pursue development of additional product candidates through acquisitions. Our objective is to build a well-balanced, multi-asset portfolio targeting the large population of patients with chronic and acute pain. To achieve this, in addition to JAN101, we intend to pursue partnerships, licensing agreements, and potential acquisitions of other pharma companies. We continue our search for assets with indications where we believe they could have meaningful impact and address the large unmet medical need. In addition, we may choose to selectively in-license or acquire complementary product candidates by leveraging the insights, network, and experience of our team.

•

Maximize the commercial potential of all our product candidates. We currently intend to retain all commercial rights to JAN101 in the United States and selectively partner outside of the United States. Because we believe that PAD is an attractive market for many major pharmaceutical companies, we may sub-license or partner certain indications if we believe it may enhance stockholder value. As we continue to build and develop our product portfolio, we may opportunistically pursue strategic partnerships that maximize the value of our pipeline while seeking to develop other indications.

The NIH defines chronic pain as pain that persists either beyond the normal healing time of an injury or longer than three months. We believe that chronic pain represents a significant public health crisis. It is estimated that chronic pain affects 100 million individuals in the United States and over 1.5 billion people worldwide; thus, more people suffer from chronic pain than diabetes, heart disease, and cancer combined (Cowen Therapeutic Categories Outlook, March 2019). Chronic pain exacts a tremendous cost in terms of direct treatment and rehabilitation expenditures, lost worker productivity, prevalent addiction to opioid-based drugs, and emotional and financial burden for patients and their families. According to an Institute of Medicine of the National Academies report, pain is a significant public health problem in the United States that costs society between $560 billion and $635 billion annually. Chronic pain is the leading cause of long-term disability in the United States, and approximately 23 million adults in the United States experience severe pain over a three-month period. Globally, the prevalence of chronic pain is even larger, with over one billion people worldwide affected each year. Common types of chronic pain include those of neuropathic and inflammatory origin and may involve the skin, muscles, joints, bones, tendons, ligaments, and other soft tissues. Chronic pain is associated with a variety of clinical conditions including, but not limited to, arthritis, spinal conditions, cancer, fibromyalgia, diabetes, surgical recovery, visceral injury, and general trauma.

Pain is a necessary protective reaction that alerts the body to the presence of actual or potential tissue damage so that necessary corrective responses can be mounted. Pain is signaled by specialized cells in the peripheral nervous system called nociceptors, or pain-sensing fibers. These pain-sensing fibers normally transmit information about stimuli that approach or exceed harmful intensity from different locations in the body to the brain, which registers this information as a sensation of pain. In the case of tissue injury due to trauma or infection, pain accompanies the associated inflammation, persists for the duration of the inflammatory response, and aids healing by inhibiting use of the affected body part.

Pain also can modify the central nervous system such that the brain becomes sensitized and registers more pain with less provocation. This is called central sensitization. When central sensitization occurs, the nervous system goes through a process called wind-up and gets regulated in a persistent state of high reactivity. This persistent, or up-regulated, state of reactivity lowers the threshold for what triggers the sensation of pain and can result in the sensation of pain even after the initial injury might have healed.

When there is dysfunction in pain signaling, injury to the nervous system, or an unhealed injury, pain becomes no longer just a symptom, but a disease in itself.

Some of the most widely used therapies to treat chronic inflammatory pain are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (“NSAIDs”). NSAIDs can have significant side effects that include gastrointestinal bleeding, gastritis, high blood pressure, fluid retention, kidney problems, heart problems, and rashes. On April 7, 2005, the FDA announced a decision to require boxed warnings of potential cardiovascular risk for all NSAIDs.

Corticosteroids, or steroids, also possess anti-inflammatory properties and are commonly used in the practice of pain management, either systemically or locally, depending on the condition. Steroids work by decreasing inflammation and reducing the activity of the immune system. While steroids are commonly used, they may have numerous and serious side effects. These side effects may include allergic or hypersensitivity reactions, increased risk for infection, adrenal insufficiency, diabetes or decreased glucose tolerance, hypertension, loss of bone density, and loss of joint cartilage volume. In addition, steroids should not be administered when there is an infection present because steroids can inhibit the body’s natural infection-fighting immune response. Also, if a joint is already damaged or is subject to chronic deterioration, intra-articular, or IA steroid injections are not likely to provide any long-term restorative benefit. For the above reasons, IA steroid injections are generally recommended to be administered no more often than every six weeks and not more than three to four times per year.

Opioids are some of the most widely prescribed therapeutics for chronic and acute pain, and sales of these drugs have quadrupled between 1999 and 2010.According to a National Survey on Drug Use and Health report, in 2016 more than one-third of adult Americans were prescribed opioids and 230 million opioid prescriptions were written that year in the United States. Opioids act by binding to specific receptors located on neurons in both the central and peripheral nervous system throughout the body including in the brain, spinal cord, and other nervous tissue. Although they can be effective in providing pain relief, the increased medical use of opioids has been accompanied by an increase in the abuse and misuse of prescription opioids. In addition, for most patients, chronic opioid use is a poor option due to an intolerance to the many side effects, including nausea, vomiting, drowsiness, and constipation, and the propensity for opioids to become less effective with long-term use. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”), almost two million individuals abused or were dependent on prescription opioids in 2014. CDC figures show that the number of opioid-related overdose deaths has quadrupled between 1999 and 2010, and currently approximately 40% of opioid overdose deaths in the United States involve a prescription opioid. This increase in prescription opioid-related deaths in the United States prompted former President Trump to declare the opioid crisis a national Public Health Emergency in October 2017. Opioid abuse has become an epidemic in the United States, ranking as the nation’s second most prevalent illegal drug problem. These major issues create the need to find new approaches to treating chronic pain.

The unmet medical need for treating PAD and chronic pain reflects the historic failure to develop novel classes of analgesics with comparable or greater efficacy, an acceptable level of adverse effects and a lower abuse liability than those currently available. Some of the reasons for this include the heterogeneity of chronic pain and its related conditions, and the complexity and diversity of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms for pain. However, recent advances in the understanding of the neurobiology of pain are beginning to offer opportunities to identify new drug targets and develop new therapeutic strategies.

We have taken an innovative and targeted approach to identifying treatments for chronic pain that leverages our understanding of the pathophysiology of pain. Pain is variable. For example, it can be inflammatory or neuropathic in nature, and it may be localized to a specific area of the body or it may be generalized throughout. We believe that the most effective way to treat chronic pain is through therapies that specifically target the origin of the pain signal. We strive to maximize our initial product candidate’s potential based on its unique mechanism of action related to the origin of the pain signal.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Study of the Effects of a Sustained Release Formulation of Sodium Nitrite (SR-nitrite) on Patients with Diabetic Neuropathy

Background: Sodium nitrite has been reported to be effective in reducing chronic peripheral pain pain.

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 40 and 80 mg, BID, of an oral sustained release formulation of sodium nitrite (SR-nitrite) in patients suffering from diabetic neuropathy, and to determine whether SR-nitrite would reduce the frequency of headaches reported previously by subjects receiving the same doses of an immediate release formulation. Study Design: Phase II, single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial. Setting: The Ohio Pain Clinic and Kettering Medical Center.

Methods: Twenty-four patients were randomized to 40 mg or 80 mg SR-nitrite or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary objective was to determine whether headaches would be reduced using SR-nitrite. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean difference in the change of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) pain score from baseline to that reported after 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline for the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Scale, the RAND 36 questionnaire, Short-Form McGill Questionnaire, daily patient reported score for neuropathic pain, changes in HbA1c, PulseOx, and quantitative sensory testing. Results: The number of subjects reporting adverse events and the number of adverse events did not change with dose. There were no reports of treatment-related headaches. Although no significant differences were identified in patient responses to the questionnaires, a trend was observed. In the NPSI assessment, patients in the 40 mg and 80 mg dosing groups reported a 12.7% and 22.0% reduction in pain, respectively, compared to an 8.4% reduction by patients in the placebo group. A trend was also observed with the BPI total severity score. However, the 40 mg dosing group reported the greatest reduction in pain using the McGill Pain index and via patient logs of daily pain scores, where the mean of pain scores reported by subjects in the 40 mg group dropped by day 41 and generally stayed lower than the mean of scores reported by subjects in either of the other two groups. Patients in the 80 mg SR-nitrite group had an improvement in both Nerve Sensory Conductance and Nerve Sensory Velocity. No changes were observed in HbA1c levels or PulseOx.

Conclusion: Sustained release sodium nitrite prevents the prevalent reports of headaches by patients treated with an immediate release formulation of sodium nitrite. In a previous study of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), 40 mg BID treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in reported pain. Similar trends were observed at the end of the trial period for most of the pain questionnaires used in the study. The 80 mg BID treatment had the more pronounced effect on bioactivity (quantitative sensory testing), which was similar to the PAD study, where this dosing group had the greatest improvement in Flow Mediated Dilation . The ability to alleviate pain with BID treatment of SR-nitrite offers promise for a new non-addictive, non-sedating treatment of chronic pain and warrants further study.

Microcirculatory injury, which is common in diabetic patients, can lead to a number of problems. Prominent among these is diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). About 10% of patients will have evidence of DPN at the time they are initially evaluated, and almost 50% of diabetic patients will ultimately develop DPN. Of diabetic patients with DPN, 40% to 50% suffer from chronic pain, as well as paresthesia, sensory loss, and weakness, and have at least an eight-fold increased risk of undergoing a distal lower extremity amputation compared to similar non-diabetics. Endothelial cells play an important part in the regulation of microcirculation, as they maintain vascular tone by secreting both vasodilators and vasoconstrictors. A central feature of diabetic microvascular disease (MVD) is endothelial dysfunction, which, in turn, plays an important role in the development and progression of DPN. The pathophysiological factors leading to endothelial dysfunction in diabetes include chronic hyperglycemia and protein glycosylation, insulin resistance, inflammation, and increased oxidative stress. Studies have now shown a close relationship between endothelial dysfunction and diminished nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability. Endogenously produced NO has a half-life measured in seconds, and is rapidly oxidized to nitrite (NO2–) and nitrate (NO3–) end-products, the latter of which is biologically inert. In the presence of microcirculatory ischemia and endothelial cell dysfunction, however, endogenous NO production by eNOS is much more limited. In such circumstances, circulating NO2– can be non-enzymatically reduced to increase NO availability. In addition to serving as a circulating NO reservoir, nitrite itself has also been shown to have direct and potent vasodilatory effects in vitro and in vivo. The findings that NO2– mediates vasodilatation, both directly and through NO generation, has led to growing interest in the potential effectiveness of nitrite as a therapeutic agent in conditions associated with DPN and endothelial

dysfunction. Such conditions include diabetic microvascular disease, DPN, and retinopathy, in which low levels of NO and NO2–, as well as elevated levels of nitrate (NO3–), suggest that the complete oxidation of NO occurs during diabetes with insufficient NO2– reserves to restore NO bioavailability. Previous human studies with an oral formulation of NaNO2 have shown that administration twice daily improves vascular function. In the peripheral arterial disease study, subjects who received the lower dose of NaNO2 reported a significant reduction in pain. Although side effects were minimal, headaches and dizziness were reported by a large number of subjects, likely due to the rapid release of NaNO2 leading to vasodilation. An oral, sustained-release formulation of NaNO2 (SR-nitrite) was developed in an attempt to overcome these problems and was tested in a porcine model of metabolic syndrome with critical limb ischemia. SR-nitrite-treated animals showed increased myocardial NO bioavailability, diminished oxidative stress, and cytoprotection in ischemic tissue. Importantly, 24-hour telemetry recordings of blood pressure showed no evidence of vasodilation. In the above study, we hypothesized that the SR-nitrite would reduce or eliminate headaches reported in patients following administration of the immediate release formulation. Given the promising results on reducing pain in diabetic patients with PAD reported in the previous study, patients with diabetic neuropathy were utilized in this study to determine whether any trends in reducing pain could be observed. The study design was a randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind phase II study was carried out to investigate the safety and potential biological activity of multiple doses of an oral, sustained-release formulation of sodium nitrite (SR-nitrite; TheraVasc Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA), BID in doses of 40 mg and 80 mg over a 12-week treatment period, in human subjects with diabetes and neuropathic pain in the lower extremities and feet. The trial was approved by the Copernicus Group Institutional Review Board and listed on ClinicalTrials.gov: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02412852. The study was funded by TheraVasc Inc. (“TheraVasc”).

Sodium nitrite has been previously approved as one of the active components of cyanide poisoning antidote. This means the approval path for JAN101 is through a 505(b)(2) (“NDA”), which we intend to pursue.

We currently intend to use third-party providers and manufacturers to support the commercialization JAN101, if we are successful in obtaining FDA approval. We believe that we can promote JAN101 to the patients suffering from PAD in a cost effective manner. We anticipate our commercial operation will include outside sales management, outside sales support, distribution support, and an internal marketing group. Additional requisite capabilities will include focused management of key accounts, such as managed-care organizations, group purchasing organizations, and government accounts. We intend selectively to partner with third parties with vast experience in the space, as we have been partnering for every aspect of development.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive research and development efforts, rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We are currently focused on the development and commercialization of our asset pipeline of novel, non-opioid, and non-addictive therapies for PAD. The number of patients suffering from chronic PAD is large and growing. While we believe that our initial product candidate and our Chief Scientific Officer’s development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and specialty pharmaceutical companies that market or develop therapeutics to treat chronic pain. Academic research institutions, governmental agencies, as well as public and private institutions are also potential sources of competitive products and technologies. Our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources, robust drug pipelines, established presence in the market, and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, pre-clinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement, and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified clinical, regulatory, scientific, sales, marketing, and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. The key competitive factors affecting the success of our initial product candidate (as well as other subsequent product candidates), if and when approved, is likely to be its efficacy, durability, safety, price, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Significant competition exists in the PAD pain field. Although we believe our approach to developing novel treatments for pain is unique from most other existing or investigational therapies, such as NSAIDs, corticosteroids, and opioids, we will need to compete with all currently available and future therapies within the indications where our development is focused. With respect to JAN101, the main classes of marketed products that are available for the treatment of PAD pain include NSAIDs and opioids. Furthermore, numerous monoclonal antibodies targeting nerve growth factor, or NGF inhibitors, are in clinical development, including two product candidates in Phase III.

There are a number of companies developing or marketing therapies for the treatment and management of pain that may compete with our initial product candidate, including many major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Our success depends in large part upon our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our products and technologies, and to operate without infringing or otherwise violating the proprietary rights of others. We endeavor to protect our products using a combination of intellectual property protections and available government regulatory and marketing exclusivities afforded to new medicines. For example, we endeavor to protect our products by, among other methods, filing United States and, potentially in the future, foreign, patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also use other forms of protection, such as confidential information, trade secrets, and know-how, and trademarks to protect our intellectual property, particularly where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable.

The proprietary nature of, and protection for, our initial product candidate, processes, and know-how are important to our business. Our policy is to pursue, maintain, and defend intellectual property rights, and to protect the technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to our business.

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. For example, we have developed methods for more efficient manufacture of sustained released sodium nitrite tablets. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors, and commercial partners.

On November 19, 2019, we entered into a Patent and Know How License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) with UAB Research Foundation (“UABRF”), TheraVasc, and the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, acting on behalf of LSU Health Shreveport, together with UABRF and TheraVasc, the “Licensors”). Under the License Agreement, the Licensors have agreed to grant to JanOne an exclusive, worldwide license, including the right to sublicense, to the Licensors’ patent rights and know-how related to the Licensors’ sustained release formulation of sodium nitrite. Under the License Agreement, we have agreed to pay a non-refundable upfront license fee and certain milestone payments upon the achievement of certain milestones of up to approximately $6.5 million and certain royalty payments and annual license maintenance fees. The License Agreement requires us to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize JAN101.

We currently do not have any marketing and sales organization. We have retained global rights to our initial product candidate, and, if it or one of our potential subsequent product candidates is approved by the FDA to market in the United States, we expect that our sales force will be supported by sales management, internal sales support, an outside marketing group, and distribution support. We intend to invest in our commercial capabilities prudently by focusing our marketing efforts on the physician subspecialties that treat patients with PAD. These physicians include, but are not limited to, pain management specialists, rheumatologist, surgeons, and sports medicine physicians. We will also evaluate licensing and partnering with third parties to help us reach other sales channels and geographic markets inside and outside of the United States.

The FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose substantial and burdensome requirements upon companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing, and distribution of drugs, such as those we are developing. These agencies, and other federal, state, and local entities regulate, among other things, the research and development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and export and import of product candidates.

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, the approval process, or thereafter, may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties.

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

•

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

Pre-clinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity, and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the pre-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some pre-clinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during clinical trials, due to safety concerns about on-going or proposed clinical trials, or non-compliance with specific FDA requirements, and the trials may not begin or continue until the FDA notifies the sponsor that the hold has been lifted. Through the 505(b)2 regulatory path, the FDA allows a sponsor to rely on well documented, published studies to support the clinical development of the product. The FDA has indicated that it will accept published data in support of the Company’s development program for JAN101 but prior to filing an NDA would require the Company to complete developmental and reproductive toxicology studies.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on their www.clinicaltrials.gov website. The information contained in, or accessible through, this website does not constitute a part of this Annual Report. We have included this website address solely as an inactive, textual reference.

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase IV clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase IV clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. In addition, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase II, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at

other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of the Phase II clinical trial to discuss Phase II clinical results and present plans for the pivotal Phase III clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the new drug. JanOne submitted briefing materials in 2021 describing the previous research and development activities and planned clinical trials. The Company is now working to implement suggestions by the FDA to be ready to submit a protocol amendment in late 2022.

Concurrently with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug 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 product candidates and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

While the IND is active and before approval, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and non-clinical studies performed since the last progress report must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

The results of product development, pre-clinical, and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling, and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (the “PDUFA”), guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of 10 months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes 12 months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after the application is submitted. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates, and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee; but, it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

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

After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved

in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional Phase III trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, non-clinical studies, or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA that addresses all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such additional data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. In addition, the FDA may require a sponsor to conduct Phase IV clinical testing, which involves clinical trials designed to assess a drug’s safety and effectiveness further after NDA approval, and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that already have been commercialized. The FDA may also place other conditions on approval, including the requirement for REMS, to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of products. Marketing approval may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory requirements or if problems occur following initial marketing.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (the “FDASIA”) made permanent the Pediatric Research Equity Act (the “PREA”), which requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most drugs, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs and supplements must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or the FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track Designation, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy designation, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a Fast Track Designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. The FDA may review sections of the NDA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review of 10 months under current PDUFA guidelines. Under the new PDUFA agreement, these six- and 10-month review periods are measured from the “filing” date, rather than the receipt date for NDAs for new molecular entities, which typically adds approximately two months to the timeline for review and decision from the date of submission. Most products that are eligible for Fast Track Designation are also likely to be considered appropriate to receive a priority review.

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may be eligible for accelerated approval and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials that establish that the drug product has an effect (i) on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or (ii) on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, including taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures.

Moreover, under the provisions of the FDASIA, a sponsor can request designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are also eligible for accelerated approval. The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our initial (or subsequent) product candidates, as appropriate.

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user program fee requirements for any marketed products.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase IV clinical trials, and surveillance to assess further and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP requirements and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

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

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs or devices may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have promoted off-label uses improperly may be subject to significant liability.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, added two pathways for FDA drug approval. First, the Hatch-Waxman amendments to the FDCA authorized the FDA to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from trials not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference from the data owner. The applicant may rely upon the FDA’s findings of safety and efficacy for an approved product that acts as the “listed drug.” The FDA may also require 505(b)(2) applicants to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the listed drug. The FDA may then approve a new product candidate for all, or some, of the label indications for which the branded reference drug has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant.

Second, the Hatch-Waxman amendments to the FDCA also established a statutory procedure for submission and FDA review and approval of abbreviated new drug applications (“ANDAs”) for generic versions of branded drugs previously approved by the FDA (such previously approved drugs are referred to as “listed drugs”). An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, drug product formulation, specifications, and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. Premarket applications for generic drugs are termed abbreviated because they generally do not include pre-clinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. However, a generic manufacturer is typically required to conduct bioequivalence studies of its test product against the listed drug. The bioequivalence studies for orally administered, systemically available drug products assess the rate and extent to which active pharmaceutical ingredient (the “API”) is absorbed into the bloodstream from the drug product and becomes available at the site of action. Bioequivalence is established when there is an absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent for absorption of the generic product and the listed drug. For some drugs, other means of demonstrating bioequivalence may be required by the FDA, especially where rate and/or extent of absorption are difficult or impossible to measure. The FDA will approve the generic product as suitable for an ANDA application if it finds that the generic product does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness as compared to the innovator product. A product is not eligible for ANDA approval if the FDA determines that it is not bioequivalent to the referenced innovator drug, if it is intended for a different use, or if it is not subject to an approved Suitability Petition.

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA certain patents whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of an NDA, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the Orange Book or a 505(b)(2) NDA that references a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification. A notice of the paragraph IV certification must be provided to each owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification and to the holder of the approved NDA to which the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application refers. The applicant may also elect to submit a “section viii” statement certifying that its proposed label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent.

If the referenced NDA holder and patent owners assert a patent challenge directed to one of the Orange Book-listed patents within 45 days of the receipt of the paragraph IV certification notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the paragraph IV certification expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the applicant. The ANDA or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the branded reference drug has expired.

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. The FDCA alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the pre-clinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of marketing exclusivity available in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity provides for an additional six months of marketing exclusivity attached to another period of exclusivity if a sponsor conducts clinical trials in children in response to a written request from the FDA. The issuance of a written request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described clinical trials. In addition, orphan drug exclusivity, as described above, may offer a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, except in certain circumstances.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any therapeutic product candidate for which we may seek regulatory approval. Sales in the United States will depend in part on the availability of adequate financial coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, which include government health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the Veterans Administration, as well as managed care organizations and private health insurers. Prices at which we or our customers seek reimbursement for our initial or subsequent therapeutic product candidates can be subject to challenge, reduction, or denial by payors.

The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product is typically separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be available. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for marketing, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of any products, which would be in addition to the costs expended to obtain regulatory approvals. Third-party payors may not consider our initial or subsequent product candidates to be medically necessary or cost-effective compared to other available therapies, or the rebate percentages required to secure favorable coverage may not yield an adequate margin over cost or may not enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in drug development.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of drug product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the profitable sale of drug product candidates.

Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality, and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. In March 2010, the Affordable Care Act, formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”), was enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President. It substantially changed the methods by which healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacted the United States pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things: (i) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid-managed care organizations; (ii) established an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents apportioned among these entities according to their market share in some government healthcare programs; (iii) expanded the availability of lower pricing under the 340B drug pricing program by adding new entities to the program; (iv) increased the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; (v) expanded the eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; (vi) created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and (vii) established a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drugs.

Some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be implemented, and there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” Additionally, on January 22, 2018, former President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of two percent per fiscal year and reduced payments to several types of Medicare providers. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Federal and state healthcare laws and regulations restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical industry. The United States laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

•

the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons from soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce, or in return for, the purchase or recommendation of an item or service reimbursable under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs;

•

the federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment from Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent;

•

HIPAA, as amended by the federal Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and its implementing regulations, also imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information;

•

the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which among other things, requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, and biologics that are reimbursable by a federal healthcare program to report annually to the United States Department of Health and Human Services information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; and

To the extent that our initial or subsequent product candidates, if and when approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

In order to market our future products in the European Economic Area (the “EEA”) and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EEA, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization (an “MA”). There are two types of marketing authorizations:

•

the Community MA, which is issued by the European Commission through the Centralized Procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”) and which is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA. The Centralized Procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products, and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment certain diseases, such as AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, and auto-immune and viral diseases. The Centralized Procedure is optional for products that contain a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific, or technical innovation or that are in the interest of public health in the EU; and

•

National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the Centralized Procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EEA, a National MA can be recognized in another Member State through the Mutual Recognition Procedure. If the product has not received a National MA in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the Decentralized Procedure.

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

In the EEA, new products authorized for marketing, or reference products, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The 10-year market exclusivity period can 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 that, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. In Japan, medicinal products approved for administration to a patient via a new route of administration qualify for six years of market exclusivity.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the European Union must be conducted in accordance with European Union and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization (the “ICH”) guidelines on GCPs. Additional GCP guidelines from the European Commission, focusing in particular on traceability, apply to clinical trials of advanced therapy medicinal products. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the European Union, it must appoint an entity within the European Union to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must purchase a clinical trial insurance policy and, in most EU countries, the sponsor is liable to provide “no fault” compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

Prior to commencing a clinical trial, the sponsor must obtain a clinical trial authorization from the competent authority, and a positive opinion from an IEC. The application for a clinical trial authorization must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier that contains information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. Currently, clinical trial authorization applications must be submitted to the competent authority in each EU Member State in which the trial will be conducted. Under the new Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 536/2014), which took effect on January 31, 2022, there will be a centralized application procedure where one national authority takes the lead in reviewing the application and the other national authorities have only a limited involvement. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted with the clinical trial applications must be notified to or approved by the relevant competent authorities and ethics committees. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP. Other national and European Union-wide regulatory requirements also apply.

We started our business in 1976 as a used appliance retailer that reconditioned old appliances to sell in our stores. Under contracts with national and regional retailers of new appliances, we collected the replaced appliance from the retailer’s customer’s residence when one of their stores delivered a new appliance. Any old appliances that we could not sell in our stores were sold to scrap metal processors. In the late 1980s, stricter environmental regulations began to affect the disposal of unwanted appliances and we were no longer able to take appliances that contained hazardous components to scrap metal processors. At that time, we began to develop systems and equipment to remove the harmful materials so that metal processors would accept the appliance shells for processing. We then offered our services for disposing of appliances in an environmentally sound manner to appliance manufacturers and retailers, waste hauling companies, rental property managers, local governments, and the public. In 1989, we began contracting with electric utility companies to provide turnkey appliance recycling services to support their energy conservation efforts. Since that time, we have provided our services to approximately 400 utilities and other providers of energy efficiency programs throughout North America.

We currently have contracts to recycle, or to replace and recycle, major household appliances for approximately 100 utilities and other providers of energy efficiency services across North America. We operate 17 recycling centers in the United States and Canada to process and recycle old appliances according to all federal, state, provincial, and local rules and regulations. We use United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) Responsible Appliance Disposal (“RAD”) Program-compliant methods to remove and manage hazardous components and materials properly, including CFC refrigerants, mercury, polyurethane foam insulation, and recyclable materials, such as ferrous and nonferrous metals, plastics, and glass. All of our facilities comply with licensing and permitting requirements, and employees who process appliances receive extensive safety and hazardous materials training.

Improper disposal of old appliances threatens air, ground, and water resources because many types of major appliances contain substances that can damage the environment. These harmful materials include:

Chlorofluorocarbon (“CFC”), hydrochlorofluorocarbon, and hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants (collectively, “Refrigerants”), which cause long-term damage to the earth’s ozone layer and may contribute to global climate change. Refrigerators, freezers, room air conditioners, and dehumidifiers commonly contain Refrigerants;

The federal government requires the recovery of refrigerants upon appliance disposal and also regulates the management of hazardous materials found in appliances. Most state and local governments have also enacted laws affecting how their residents dispose of unwanted appliances. For example, many areas restrict landfills and scrap metal processors from accepting appliances unless the units have been processed to remove environmentally harmful materials. As a result, old appliances usually cannot be discarded directly through ordinary solid waste systems.

In addition to these solid waste management and environmental issues, energy conservation is another compelling reason for proper disposal of old appliances. The Department of Energy’s updated appliance energy efficiency standards that took effect in September 2014 require new refrigerators to be 25-to-30% more efficient than those manufactured only one year earlier. Refrigerators manufactured today use about one-fifth as much electricity as units manufactured in the mid-1970s.

While new refrigerators can save a significant amount of energy in the home, more than 30% of all United States households have a second refrigerator in the basement or garage. These units are typically 15-to-25 years old and consume about 750-to-1500 kilowatt-hours per year, increasing electric bills by more than $150 annually per household.

Utilities have become important participants in dealing with energy inefficient appliances as a way of reducing peak demand on their systems and avoiding the capital and environmental costs of adding new generating capacity. To encourage the permanent removal of energy inefficient appliances from use, many electric utility companies sponsor programs through which their residential customers can retire working refrigerators, freezers, and room air conditioners. Utility companies often provide assistance and incentives for consumers to discontinue use of a surplus appliance or to replace their old, inefficient appliances with newer, more efficient models. To help accomplish this, some utilities offer appliance replacement programs for some segments of their customers, through which older model kitchen and laundry appliances are recycled and new highly efficient ENERGY STAR® units are installed.

The EPA has been supportive of efforts by electric utilities and other entities that sponsor appliance recycling programs to ensure that the collected units are managed in an environmentally sound manner. In October 2006, the EPA launched its RAD program, a voluntary partnership program designed to help protect the ozone layer and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Through the program, RAD partners use best practices to recover ozone-depleting chemicals and other harmful materials from old refrigerators, freezers, room air conditioners, and dehumidifiers. Because of our appliance recycling expertise, we were active participants in helping to design the RAD program and currently submit annual reports to the EPA to document the environmental benefits our utility customers that are RAD partners have achieved through their recycling programs.

Our wholly-owned subsidiaries in our Recycling segment include, ARCA Canada, a Canadian corporation formed in September 2006 (“ARCA Canada”), ARCA Recycling, a California corporation formed in November 1991, and Connexx, a Nevada limited liability company formed in October 2016 that provides call center services for recycling business.

On August 18, 2017, in a move to diversify our offering beyond our then-current appliance recycling capabilities, we acquired GeoTraq, which became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. In connection with the acquisition, the Company tendered to the three owners of GeoTraq an aggregate of $200,000 and promissory notes in the aggregate initial principal amount of $800,000, and issued to them an aggregate of 288,588 shares of the Company’s Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (which were subsequently exchanged for shares of Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock as discussed in this Form 10-K).

GeoTraq is a Mobile Internet of Things (“IoT”) technology company that designs innovative wireless modules that provide Location Based Services (“LBS”) and connect external sensors to the IoT. GeoTraq is planning to manufacture and sell wireless transceiver modules and subscription services that will allow connectivity using publicly available global Mobile IoT networks. GeoTraq addresses the large LBS market segment that is currently under served with existing solutions due to high deployment costs (hardware, service, logistics), limited battery life and large form factors. We believe that there is a large under-served portion of the LBS market that is not addressed by existing solutions. RFID and Wi-Fi require proximity for asset tracking, while GPS is too bulky and uses too much power for many needs. GeoTraq addresses the white space in-between by designing wireless transceiver modules with technology that provides LBS directly from global Mobile IoT networks. GeoTraq’s technology allows for a substantially lower cost solution, extended service life, a small form factor, and even disposable devices, which we believe can significantly reduce return logistics costs.

GeoTraq applied for and was granted Patent No. 10,182,402, which covers various aspects of operation of its Mobile IoT wireless modules. A description of the patent features and its various claims includes:

An apparatus comprising: an interval timer; a power control; a Short Message Service (SMS) packetizer; a geo-locator; a radio frequency (RF) communicator; and a controller and a memory, the memory comprising instructions for the controller to operate the interval timer cooperatively with the power control to cause a transition of the geo-locator from a sleep state to a wake state after a preset defined time interval, and to operate the geo-locator to receive signal strength levels and corresponding cell IDs from a plurality of cellular base stations, and to operate the SMS packetizer to package the signal strength levels and the corresponding cell IDs into a first outgoing SMS message, and to communicate the first outgoing SMS message to a preset address using the RF communicator.

The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a subscriber identity module (SIM); and the memory further comprising instructions to block visibility to the SIM by the geo-locator for a limited duration after the transition of the geo-locator from the sleep state to the wake state after the defined time interval.

The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: the memory further comprising instructions to override a preset floor on the signal strength levels during the limited duration after the transition of the geo-locator from the sleep state to the wake state after the defined time interval.

The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: the memory further comprising instructions to receive a response SMS message via the RF communicator, the response SMS message being a response to the first outgoing SMS message; a parser to extract geo-locations for cell IDs from the response SMS message; and the memory further comprising instructions to associate the geo-locations for each of the cell IDs from the response message with corresponding cell IDs in the memory.

A method comprising: applying an interval timer to a power control to control power for a subscriber identify module (SIM), a SMS packetizer, a geo-locator, and a radio frequency (RF) communicator after a preset defined time interval; operating the interval timer cooperatively with the power control to cause a transition of the geo-locator from a sleep state to a wake state after the defined time interval; operating the geo-locator to receive signal strength levels and corresponding cell ids from a plurality of cellular base stations; operating the SMS packetizer to package the signal strength levels and the corresponding cell IDs into an outgoing SMS message; and communicating the outgoing SMS message to a preset address using the RF communicator.

10.

The method of claim 7, further comprising: receiving a command SMS message via the RF communicator; extracting a time interval command from the command SMS message; and applying the time interval command to the interval timer to set the defined time interval.

11.

The method of claim 7, further comprising: receiving a response SMS message via the RF communicator in response to the outgoing SMS message; extracting geo-locations for cell IDs from the response SMS message; and associating the geo-locations for each of the cell ids from the response SMS message with corresponding cell IDs in a memory.

With the GeoTraq acquisition, we expected to have the ability to deploy IoT devices to locate, monitor and track the movement of inventory and other assets and monitor connected sensors, however, our GeoTraq subsidiary has not generated any revenue to date, including in the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022. Consequently, during the year ended January 1, 2022, the Company took a full write-down of the unamortized portion of the GeoTraq intangible asset of approximately $9.8 million (see Note 8 of the Consolidated Financial Statements below).

Prior to December 30, 2017, we sold new and out-of-the-box major household appliances in the United States though a chain of Company-owned retail stores operating under the name ApplianceSmart®. On December 30, 2017, we, together with our then-subsidiary, ApplianceSmart, Inc. (“ApplianceSmart”), entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement (the “ApplianceSmart Disposition Agreement”) with ApplianceSmart Holdings LLC (the “Purchaser”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Live Ventures Incorporated (“Live Ventures”; Nasdaq: Live), pursuant to which we sold to the Purchaser all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of ApplianceSmart (the “ApplianceSmart Stock”) in exchange for $6.5 million. Effective April 1, 2018, the Purchaser issued to us a three-year promissory note (the “ApplianceSmart Note”) in the original principal amount of $3.9 million for the balance of the purchase price. ApplianceSmart guaranteed the repayment of the ApplianceSmart Note. On December 26, 2018, the ApplianceSmart Note was amended and restated to grant ARCA Recycling a security interest in the assets of the Purchaser, ApplianceSmart, and ApplianceSmart Contracting Inc. in exchange for modifying the repayment terms to provide for the payment in full of all accrued interest and principal on April 1, 2021, the maturity date of the ApplianceSmart Note. On March 15, 2019, we entered into subordination agreements with various third parties, pursuant to which we agreed to subordinate the payment of indebtedness under the ApplianceSmart Note and our security interest in the assets of ApplianceSmart and other related parties in exchange for receipt of a payment of up to $1.2 million within 15 days of the subordination agreement. On December 9, 2019, ApplianceSmart filed a voluntary petition (the “Chapter 11 Case”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”), seeking relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code. As of January 1, 2022, the indebtedness owed by ApplianceSmart to us is approximately $2.9 million. However, we recorded a full valuation allowance for

the entire amount of the indebtedness due to the uncertainty of repayment. On January 10, 2022, ApplianceSmart paid $25,000 to us in full settlement of its debt, as provided for in ApplianceSmart’s confirmed Plan of Reorganization. A final decree was issued by the Bankruptcy Court on February 28, 2022, upon the full satisfaction of the Plan, at which time ApplianceSmart emerged from Chapter 11.

Recycling: We contract with utility companies or their program administrators and other sponsors of energy efficiency programs to provide a full range of appliance recycling and replacement services to help them achieve their energy savings goals. The contracts usually have terms of one-to-three years, with provisions for renewal at the option of the utility. Under some contracts, we manage all aspects, including advertising of the appliance recycling or replacement program. Under other contracts, we provide only specified services, such as collection and recycling.

GeoTraq: GeoTraq currently has no customers. GeoTraq sources its raw materials, including electronic chips, computers, and software from various third parties. GeoTraq is dependent on a single supplier for its modules.

Our recycling segment generates revenues from two sources: recycling and byproducts. Recycling revenues were generated by charging fees for collecting and recycling appliances for utilities and other sponsors of energy efficiency programs and through the sale of new ENERGY STAR® appliances to utility companies for installation in the homes of a specific segment of their customers. Byproduct revenues were generated by selling scrap materials, such as metal and plastics, from appliances we collected and recycled.

Our technology segment is engaged in the development, design, and ultimately, we expect, the sale of cellular transceiver modules, also known as Mobile IoT modules.

Promotional activities for programs in which the utility sponsor conducts all advertising are generally stronger during the second and third calendar quarters, leading to higher customer demand for services during that time period. As a result, we experience a surge in business during the second and third calendar quarters, which generally declines through the succeeding fourth and first calendar quarters until seasonal advertising activities resume.

Our technology segment did not have any customers at January 1, 2022. Upon the completion of a qualified assessment, the Company determined that long-term revenue projections for this segment are, more likely than not, unattainable, and, as such, took a full write-down of the unamortized portion of the GeoTraq intangible asset of approximately $9.8 million with the intention of suspending operations.

We generally compete for contracts with several other appliance recycling businesses, energy services management companies, and new-appliance retailers. We also compete with small hauling or recycling companies that are based in the program’s service territory. Many of these companies, including used-appliance dealers that call themselves “appliance recyclers,” resell in the secondary market a percentage of the used appliances they accept for recycling.

Our primary competition for appliance recycling and replacement contracts with existing and new customers comes from a variety of sources, including:

In addition, some utility companies and other customers provide all or some of the services required to operate their appliance recycling and replacement programs internally, rather than contracting with outside vendors.

GeoTraq operates in an industry segment that is made of numerous competing technologies designed to connect devices to the IoT. The business’s wireless solution uses IoT based on LTE CAT-M and the newly released NB-IoT protocols that were defined in the GSMA’s (Groupe Speciale Mobile Association) 3GPP Release 13 standard. The Mobile IoT industry utilizes radio spectrum that is licensed to wireless carries by various governmental regulatory agencies around the world. Mobile IoT is extremely competitive and constantly changing as carriers, manufacturers, and solution providers offer innovation to the IoT marketplace. GeoTraq believes there is a large under-served opportunity for “Simple IoT” solutions that significantly reduce the complexity, cycle time and cost of deploying LBS and sensor monitoring solutions. The company’s transceiver modules and associated wireless connectivity subscription service is specifically targeted at accomplishing these objectives.

As discussed above, at January 1, 2022, the Company took a full write-down of the unamortized portion of the GeoTraq intangible asset of approximately $9.8 million with the intention of suspending operations.

Federal, state, and local governments regulate appliance collection, recycling, and sales activities. While some requirements apply nationwide, others vary by market. The many laws and regulations that affect appliance recycling include landfill disposal restrictions, hazardous waste management requirements, and air quality standards. For example, the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act prohibit the venting of all Refrigerants while servicing or disposing of appliances.

Each of our recycling facilities maintains the appropriate registrations, permits, and licenses for operating at its location. We register our recycling centers as hazardous waste generators with the EPA and obtain all appropriate regional and local licenses for managing hazardous wastes. Licensed hazardous waste companies transport and recycle or dispose of the hazardous materials we generate. Our collection vehicles and our transportation employees are required to comply with all United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) licensing requirements.

Approximately 35 of ARCA Recycling’s clients participate in the EPA’s voluntary RAD program by committing to employ best environmental practices to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases through the proper disposal of refrigeration appliances at end of life. We prepare annual RAD program reports that quantify the materials collected to submit to EPA on behalf of our clients.

Although we believe that further governmental regulation of the appliance recycling industry could have a positive effect on us, we cannot predict the direction of future legislation. Under some circumstances, for example, further regulation could materially increase our operational costs or reduce environmental requirements for disposing of appliances at end of life. In addition, under some circumstances we may be subject to contingent liabilities because we handle hazardous materials. We believe we are in compliance with all government regulations regarding the handling of hazardous materials, and we have environmental insurance to mitigate the impact of any potential contingent liability.

GeoTraq’s Mobile IoT modules utilize low-power wireless transmitters that emit RF energy waves, which are subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and may be subject to regulation by other domestic and international agencies. GeoTraq believes that FCC rules Part 15, Part 20, Part 22, Part 24, and Part 27 may apply to the company’s products. GeoTraq believes that its products are safe and would utilize FCC accredited testing laboratories to verify and certify that its modules comply with all required regulatory requirements if operations were to continue, as well as seeking and obtaining necessary licenses and permits from the FCC and other regulatory

agencies as required by law. As discussed above, as of January 1, 2022, because GeoTraq has not generated any revenue, nor does the Company believe that it will generate any meaningful revenue in the foreseeable future, the Company has taken a full write-down of the unamortized portion of the GeoTraq intangible asset of approximately $9.8 million (see Note 8 of the Consolidated Financial Statements below).

As of January 1, 2022, we had 170 employees, of which 161 were full-time employees.

You should carefully consider the risks described below with respect to an investment in our shares. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, operating results or cash provided by operations could be materially harmed. As a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you might lose all or part of your investment. When evaluating an investment in our common stock, you should also refer to the other information in this Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes.

Our results of operations may be negatively impacted by the coronavirus outbreak.

In December 2019, the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) surfaced in Wuhan, China. The World Health Organization declared a global emergency on January 30, 2020, and most countries initiated travel restrictions limiting travel to other countries and lock-downs within their borders. While various vaccines have been introduced into the marketplace, the impacts of variant strains of the COVID-19 virus are still unknown.

The widespread health crisis has adversely affected the global economy, resulting in an economic downturn that could impact demand for our products.

To date, the outbreak had a material adverse impact on our operations. For example, several customers in our appliance recycling and appliance replacement business have previously suspended our ability to pick up and or replace their customers’ appliances resulting in decreased revenues for both recycling and replacement business. The future impact of the outbreak is highly uncertain and cannot be predicted and there is no assurance that the outbreak will not have another material adverse impact on the future results of the Company. The extent of the impact, if any, will depend on future developments, including actions taken to contain the coronavirus.

Our clinical development of JAN101 may be negatively impacted by the coronavirus outbreak

A key task for the Company in 2022 is to begin late-stage clinical development with its pharmaceutical product, JAN101. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted clinical trials, delaying recruitment in most non-COVID-19 clinical trials and even eliminating recruitment in some trials. While clinical sites have largely resumed conducting non-COVID-19 clinical trials, the backlog of subjects may adversely affect our ability to recruit for its trial, leading to longer and more expensive trials. In addition, the unknown effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, particularly concerning variant strains of COVID-19, could lead to clinical sites terminating patient recruitment again during the course of the study.

If we fail to implement our biopharmaceutical business strategy or if our biopharmaceutical business strategy is ineffective, our financial performance could be materially and adversely affected.

Our future financial performance and success are dependent in large part upon the effectiveness of our new biopharmaceutical business strategy and our ability to implement our biopharmaceutical business strategy successfully. Implementation of our strategy will require effective management of our operational, financial, and human resources and will place significant demands on those resources. There are risks involved in pursuing our strategy, including those under the caption “Risks Relating to Our Biotechnology Segment”. In addition to the risks set forth elsewhere in this Form 10-K, effectiveness of and the successful implementation of our business strategy could also be affected by a number of factors beyond our control, such as increased competition, legal developments, government regulation, general economic conditions, increased operating costs or expenses, and changes in industry trends. We may decide to alter or discontinue certain aspects of our business strategy at any time. If we are not able to implement our business strategy successfully, our long-term growth and profitability may be adversely affected. Even if we are able to implement some or all of the initiatives of our business strategy successfully, our operating results may not improve and could decline substantially.

On February 19, 2021, we, together with our subsidiaries (a) ARCA Recycling and (b) Connexx entered into the ARCA/Connexx Disposition Agreement with the Buyers, pursuant to which the Buyers agreed to acquire substantially all of the assets, and assume certain liabilities, of ARCA Recycling and Connexx in the Disposition Transaction. The principal of the Buyers is Virland A. Johnson, our Chief Financial Officer. The Disposition Transaction is expected to be consummated on or before July 15, 2022, and is subject to certain customary closing conditions, which makes its completion and timing uncertain. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Disposition Transaction will be consummated on the anticipated schedule or at all. If we are unable to complete the Disposition Transaction, we may be required to identify a new purchaser and renegotiate the sale of the recycling business, and any such new sale would also be subject to new regulatory and other conditions. Such renegotiation and conditions and the process of obtaining regulatory approvals could have the effect of delaying or impeding consummation of the sale of the recycling business. A delay or failure to sell the recycling business could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, or results of operations.

We have identified and disclosed in this Form 10-K material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If we are not able to remediate these material weaknesses and maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial results, which could cause our stock price to fall or result in our stock being delisted.

We need to devote significant resources and time to comply with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley”) with respect to internal control over financial reporting. In addition, Section 404 under Sarbanes-Oxley requires that we assess the design and operating effectiveness of our controls over financial reporting, which are necessary for us to provide reliable and accurate financial reports.

As reported in Part II – Item 9A, Controls and Procedures, there were material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting at January 1, 2022. Specifically, management noted the following material weaknesses in internal control when conducting their evaluation of internal control as of January 1, 2022: (1) insufficient information technology general controls and segregation of duties. It was noted that people who were negotiating a contract were also involved in approving invoices without proper oversight. Additional controls and procedures are necessary and are being implemented to have checks and balances on significant transactions and governance with those charged with governance authority; (2) inadequate control design or lack of sufficient controls over significant accounting processes; the cutoff and reconciliation procedures were not effective with certain accrued and deferred expenses; (3) insufficient assessment of the impact of potentially significant transactions; and (4) insufficient processes and procedures related to proper recordkeeping of agreements and contracts. In addition, contract-to-invoice reconciliation was not effective with certain transportation service providers. As part of its remediation plan, processes and procedures have been implemented to help ensure accruals and invoices are reviewed for accuracy and properly recorded in the appropriate period.

We expect our systems and controls to become increasingly complex to the extent that we integrate acquisitions and as our business grows. To effectively manage our Company today and this anticipated complexity, we need to remediate these material weaknesses and continue to improve our operational, financial, and management controls and our reporting systems and procedures. Any failure to remediate these material weaknesses and implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in the implementation or operation of these controls, could harm our operating results or cause us to fail to meet our financial reporting obligations, which could adversely affect our business and jeopardize our listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market, either of which would harm our stock price.

Our biotechnology business was started in September 2019 and has limited operating history. We have not commenced revenue-producing operations. To date, our biotechnology-related operations have consisted of preliminary research and development, and characterization and testing of SR TV1001 (now known as JAN101), our initial product candidate. Our limited operating history makes it difficult for potential investors to evaluate our technology or the prospective operations of our biotechnology business. You should consider the prospects of our biotechnology business in light of the costs, uncertainties, delays, and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in the early stages of development, especially clinical-stage biopharmaceutical businesses such as ours. Potential investors should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties that a biotechnology business with a limited operating history faces. In particular, potential investors should consider that we may be unable to (i) successfully implement or execute the business plan of our biotechnology business or currently validate that our biotechnology business plan is sound; (ii) successfully complete clinical trials and obtain regulatory approval for the marketing of our initial product candidate; (iii) successfully demonstrate a favorable differentiation between our initial product candidate and the current products on the market; (iv) successfully manufacture our clinical drug product and establish a commercial drug supply; (v) secure market exclusivity and/or adequate intellectual property protection for our initial product candidate; and (vi) raise sufficient funds in the capital markets to effectuate our biotechnology business plan, including product and clinical development, regulatory approval, and commercialization for our initial product candidate.

Our business model is entirely dependent on certain patent rights licensed to us from the Licensors (as defined below), and the loss of those license rights would, in all likelihood, cause our business, as presently contemplated, to fail.

In November 2019, UABRF, TheraVasc, and the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, acting on behalf of LSU Health Shreveport, together with UABRF and TheraVasc, the “Licensors”), granted us an exclusive worldwide, royalty-bearing license to the patent rights for SR TV1001 (now known as JAN101) in the negotiated fields of use. The patent license agreement requires us to pay royalties and milestone payments and conform to a variety of covenants and agreements, and in the event of our breach of the agreement, the Licensors may elect to terminate the agreement. As of the date of this Form 10-K, we believe we are in compliance with the patent license agreement and consider our relationship with the Licensors to be excellent.

We will be completely dependent on third parties to manufacture our initial product candidate, and the commercialization of our initial product candidate could be halted, delayed, or made less profitable if those third parties fail to obtain manufacturing approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of our initial product candidate, or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.

We do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the capability or infrastructure to manufacture our drug candidate for use in our clinical trials or for commercial sales, if any. As a result, we will be obligated to rely on contract manufacturers when we conduct clinical trials and if and when our initial or subsequent product candidates are approved for commercialization. In January 2020, we entered into a Master Agreement for Development, Manufacturing and Supply with CoreRx Inc. (“CoreRx”), pursuant to which CoreRx has agreed to provide to us certain product testing, development, and clinical manufacturing services. We have not entered into agreements with any contract manufacturers for commercial supply and may not be able to engage contract manufacturers for commercial supply of our initial or subsequent product candidates on favorable terms to us, or at all, should the need arise.

In a previous clinical trial, the manufacture of JAN101 by a different manufacturing company resulted in product that demonstrated initial instability that led to the product being out-of-specification. While the FDA allowed the trial to continue, there is no guarantee that if the product manufactured by CoreRx is similarly unstable, the FDA will allow us to continue to develop the product. Even if the product manufactured by CoreRx is stable, the FDA may require additional studies to confirm the stability of the product, increasing development cost and times.

The facilities used by CoreRx to manufacture our initial product candidate must be approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Such approvals are subject to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA to the FDA or their equivalents to other relevant regulatory authorities. We will not control the manufacturing process of our initial or subsequent product candidates and will be completely dependent on our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMPs, for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. These cGMP regulations cover all aspects of the manufacturing, testing, quality control, storage, distribution, and record keeping relating to our initial or subsequent product candidates. If our contract manufacturers do not successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, we will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for products made at their manufacturing facilities. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our initial or subsequent product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, manufacture, obtain regulatory approval for, or market our initial or subsequent product candidates, if approved. Likewise, we could be negatively impacted if any of our contract manufacturers elect to discontinue their business relationship with us.

Our contract manufacturer will be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and corresponding state and foreign agencies for compliance with cGMPs and similar regulatory requirements. We will not have control over our contract manufacturer’s compliance with these regulations and standards. Failure by our contract manufacturer to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, failure to grant approval to market our initial product candidate, delays, suspensions or withdrawals of approvals, inability to supply product, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect our biotechnology business. In addition, we will not have control over the ability of our contract manufacturer to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance, and qualified personnel. Failure by our contract manufacturer to comply with or maintain any of these standards could adversely affect our ability to develop, manufacture, obtain regulatory approval for or market our initial product candidate, if approved.

Our manufacturer must obtain the API from a third party. A number of groups manufacture our API; however, some of these are manufactured as a food product, and others, while manufactured under GMP, do not have the required Drug Master File on file with the FDA. CoreRx identified an API from Merck KGaA for use in the current production of clinical grade JAN101. At the time of the manufacture of the API, the product met the specifications outlined in both the drug substance monographs for Europe and the US. However, subsequent to the manufacture of the API, the US monograph was changed in the US Pharmacopeia (“USP”) and, while most of the tests conform, Merck KGaA was unable to complete two of the new testing requirements. Although the two tests are not considered safety issues and do not impact the quality of the product, there is no guarantee the FDA will approve the product for clinical trials if the two tests are not completed, which could delay our ability to start the Phase IIb clinical trial, as planned. Identifying an analytical laboratory to perform the two tasks may be difficult and could require development and validation of the tests, adding both time and costs to us. In addition, there is no guarantee that, once developed, the product will meet the specifications as outlined in the USP. Even if the FDA allows the current product to be used in the Phase IIb clinical trial, there is no guarantee that the FDA will allow further clinical work with the product or commercialization of the product until it is shown to conform to USP standards. We may be required to work with the API manufacturer to file the appropriate documents and there is no guarantee that the FDA will approve the filing. This could necessitate additional funding to hire an API manufacturer and produce the product under GMP with all necessary filings.

If, for any reason, these third parties are unable or unwilling to perform, we may not be able to locate alternative manufacturers or formulators or enter into favorable agreements with them and we cannot be certain that any such third parties will have the manufacturing capacity to meet future requirements. If these manufacturers or any alternate manufacturer of finished drug product experiences any significant difficulties in its respective manufacturing processes for APIs or finished products or should cease doing business with us for any reason, we could experience significant interruptions in the supply of our initial or subsequent product candidates or may not be able to create a supply of any of our ls at all. Were we to encounter manufacturing difficulties, our ability to produce a sufficient supply of any of our product candidates might be negatively affected. Our inability to coordinate the efforts of our

third-party manufacturing partners, or the lack of capacity available at our third-party manufacturing partners, could impair our ability to supply any of our product candidates at required levels. Because of the significant regulatory requirements that we would need to satisfy in order to qualify a new bulk drug substance or finished product manufacturer, if we face these or other difficulties with our then-current manufacturing partners, we could experience significant interruptions in the supply of any of our product candidates if we decided to transfer the manufacture of any of our product candidates to one or more alternative manufacturers in an effort to deal with such difficulties.

CoreRx currently serves as our sole manufacturer of JAN101. As CoreRx also manufactures other products, there can be no guarantee that CoreRx will have the capacity to manufacture additional clinical product for us in a timely manner, when required, which could lead to significant delays in initiating other clinical studies. CoreRx will unlikely have the capacity to manufacture the amount of product needed, if and when JAN101 is approved for marketing. This would necessitate identifying additional manufacturer(s) who may or may not be able to replicate the manufacturing process developed at CoreRx. In addition, the increase in quantities required for commercialization of the product, if commercialize occurs, could require modifying the manufacturing process to produce larger quantities of tablets more efficiently. Such modifications of the manufacturing process, if even possible, could result in significant delays in the delivery of the product.

We will be validating the manufacturing process, with appropriate process parameters and critical process, at CoreRx in 2022. Based on current batch sizes, these validated processes will support the manufacture of approximately 6.5 million tablets a month. This would allow us to enter the marketplace, but would support sales of only 1-2% of the addressable market. There is no guarantee that CoreRx will increase its manufacturing capacity when needed by us; thus, we will likely need to identify another approved manufacturer with increased capacity. In addition, we will need to revalidate the manufacturing process to demonstrate to the FDA the ability to reproducibly manufacture larger batch sizes, which will increase time and costs. If these activities are not carried out in a timely manner, a shortage of product could result following commercial launch, which could significantly affect sales and overall valuation of the Company.

Any manufacturing problem or the loss of our contract manufacturer could be disruptive to our operations and result in development delays and lost sales. Additionally, we will rely on third parties to supply the raw materials needed to manufacture our initial or subsequent product candidates. Any such reliance on suppliers may involve several risks, including a potential inability to obtain critical materials and reduced control over production costs, delivery schedules, reliability, and quality. Any unanticipated disruption to the operation of one of our contract manufacturers caused by problems with suppliers could delay shipment of any of our product candidates, increase our cost of goods sold and result in lost sales.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our initial or subsequent product candidates.

We will face a potential risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our initial or subsequent product candidates. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop, including our initial product candidate, or any materials that we use in it, allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing and manufacturing. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability, and a breach of warranties. In the United States, claims could also be asserted against us under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our initial or subsequent product candidates. Even successful defense of these claims would require us to employ significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in, among other things (i) decreased demand for our initial product candidate or any future products that we may develop; (ii) failure to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates; (iii) withdrawal of participants in our clinical trials; (iv) substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients; (v) product recalls

or withdrawals or labeling, marketing, or promotional restrictions; and (vi) the inability to commercialize our initial or subsequent product candidates. As of the date of this Form 10-K, we do not carry product liability insurance.

The success of our biotechnology business is entirely dependent on our ability to obtain the marketing approval for our initial product candidate by the FDA and the regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions in which we intend to market our initial product candidate, of which there can be no assurance.

We are not permitted to market our initial product candidate as prescription pharmaceutical products in the United States until we receive approval of an NDA from the FDA, or in any foreign countries until we receive the requisite approval from such countries. In the United States, the FDA generally requires the completion of clinical trials of each drug to establish its safety and efficacy and extensive pharmaceutical development to ensure its quality before an NDA is approved. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage result in the submission of an NDA to the FDA and even fewer are eventually approved for commercialization. As of the date of this Form 10-K, we have not submitted an NDA to the FDA or comparable applications to other regulatory authorities for any subsequent product candidates.

Because of the clinical trial history of JAN101, we believe that our initial product candidate will qualify for FDA approval through the FDA’s 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway and in corresponding regulatory paths in other foreign jurisdictions. Notwithstanding the use of the FDA’s 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we will be required to conduct Phase IIb and Phase III studies prior to filing for marketing approval of our initial product candidate.

Our success depends on our receipt of the regulatory approvals described above, and the issuance of such regulatory approvals is uncertain and subject to a number of risks, including the following: (i) the results of toxicology studies may not support the filing of an NDA for our initial product candidate; (ii) the FDA may require additional pharmacokinetic studies with JAN101, including studies with food, prior to allowing the Company to conduct Phase IIb and Phase III clinical trials; (iii) the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities or Institutional Review Boards (“IRBs”) may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials; (iv) we may not be able to provide acceptable evidence of our initial product candidate’s safety and efficacy; (v) the results of our clinical trials may not be satisfactory or may not meet the level of statistical or clinical significance required by the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory agencies for us to receive marketing approval for our initial product candidate; (vi) the dosing of our initial product candidate in a particular clinical trial may not be at an optimal level; (vii) patients in our clinical trials may suffer adverse effects for reasons that may or may not be related to our initial product candidate; (viii) the data collected from clinical trials may not be sufficient to support the submission of an NDA or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere; (ix) the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies; and (x) the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval of our initial product candidate.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals is expensive, often takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon, among other things, the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates involved, the jurisdiction in which regulatory approval is sought, and the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Changes in regulatory approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for a submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory approval obtained in one jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that a product candidate will receive regulatory approval in any or all other jurisdictions in which we may seek approval; but, the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to seek approval in a different jurisdiction. Failure to obtain regulatory approval for our initial product candidate for the foregoing, or any other reasons, will prevent us from commercializing our initial product candidate, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Clinical testing is expensive, is difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome.

Our business model depends in part on the successful development, regulatory approval, and commercialization of our initial product candidate, which may never occur. Our initial product candidate is in the early stages of

development and, as of the date of this Form 10-K, we have not progressed our initial product candidate beyond early clinical studies designed only to show safety. Three INDs have previously been submitted by previous licensees/assignees of JAN101 and were accepted by the FDA. These INDs were transferred to JanOne in 2020. Even though the INDs were transferred to us, the FDA may still require additional work prior to re-initiation of clinical trials. If we do not obtain such approvals to re-initiate trials as presently planned, the time in which we expect to commence clinical programs for any product candidate will be extended and such extension will increase our expenses, delay our potential receipt of any revenues, and increase our need for additional capital. Moreover, there is no guarantee that we will receive approval to commence human clinical trials or, if we do receive approval, that our clinical trials will be successful or that we will continue clinical development in support of an approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any indication. We note that most product candidates never reach the clinical development stage and even those that do commence clinical development have only a small chance of successfully completing clinical development and gaining regulatory approval. Success in early phases of pre-clinical and clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. A failure of one or more of our clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, the clinical trial process that could delay or prevent our ability to receive regulatory approval or commercialize our initial or any subsequent product candidates. Therefore, our business currently depends entirely on the successful development, regulatory approval, and commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for our initial product candidate, we may not be able to commercialize it successfully and the revenue that we generate from its sales, if any, may be limited.

If approved for marketing, the commercial success of our initial product candidate will depend upon the product’s acceptance by the medical community, including physicians, patients, and health care payors. The degree of market acceptance for our initial product candidate will depend on a number of factors, including (i) demonstration of clinical safety and efficacy; (ii) relative convenience, dosing burden, and ease of administration; (iii) the prevalence and severity of any adverse effects; (iv) the willingness of physicians to prescribe our initial product candidate and the target patient population to try new therapies; (v) efficacy of our initial product candidate compared to competing products; (vi) the introduction of any new products that may in the future become available, targeting indications for which our initial product candidate may be approved; (vii) new procedures or therapies that may reduce the incidences of any of the indications in which our initial product candidate may show utility; (viii) pricing and cost-effectiveness; (ix) the inclusion or omission of our initial product candidate in applicable guidelines; (x) the effectiveness of our own or any future collaborators’ sales and marketing strategies; (xi) limitations or warnings contained in approved labeling from regulatory authorities; (xii) our ability to obtain and maintain sufficient third-party coverage or reimbursement from government health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, and other third-party payors or to receive the necessary pricing approvals from government bodies regulating the pricing and usage of therapeutics; and (xiii) the willingness of patients to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of third-party coverage or reimbursement or government pricing approvals.

If our initial product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, health care payors, and patients, our biotechnology business may not generate sufficient revenue to cover costs. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our initial product candidate may require significant resources and may never be successful.

In addition, even if we obtain regulatory approvals, the timing or scope of any approvals may prohibit or reduce our ability to commercialize our initial product candidate successfully. For example, if the approval process takes too long, we may miss market opportunities and give other companies the ability to develop competing products or establish market dominance. Any regulatory approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that renders our product candidate not commercially viable. For example, regulatory authorities may approve our product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our product candidate, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve any of our product candidates with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that indication. Further, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may place conditions on approvals or require risk management plans or a REMS to assure the safe use of the drug. Moreover, product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following the initial marketing of the product. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial success of our product candidate.

Even if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidate, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidate could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and withdrawal from the market and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our product candidate.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidate for an indication, the FDA or foreign equivalent may still impose significant restrictions on its indicated uses or marketing or the conditions of approval, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly and time-consuming post-approval studies, including Phase IV clinical trials, and post-market surveillance to monitor safety and efficacy. Our product candidate will also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements governing the manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, safety surveillance, advertising, promotion, recordkeeping and reporting of adverse events, and other post-market information. These requirements include registration with the FDA, as well as continued compliance with current good clinical practices regulations for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with current cGMPs, requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents.

The FDA has the authority to require a REMS as part of an NDA or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug, such as limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria or requiring patient testing, monitoring and/or enrollment in a registry.

With respect to sales and marketing activities related to our product candidate, advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules in addition to other applicable federal, state and local laws in the United States and similar legal requirements in other countries. In the United States, the distribution of product samples to physicians must comply with the requirements of the United States Prescription Drug Marketing Act. Application holders must obtain FDA approval for product and manufacturing changes, depending on the nature of the change. We may also be subject, directly or indirectly through our customers and partners, to various fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the United States Anti-Kickback Statute, United States False Claims Act, and similar state laws, which impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing, and scientific/educational grant programs. If we participate in the United States Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the Federal Supply Schedule of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, or other government drug programs, we will be subject to complex laws and regulations regarding reporting and payment obligations. All of these activities are also potentially subject to United States federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. Similar requirements exist in many of these areas in other countries.

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

If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with one of our product candidates, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or we or our manufacturers fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, we may be subject to the following administrative or judicial sanctions: (i) restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, withdrawal of the product from the market, or voluntary or mandatory product recalls; (ii) issuance of warning letters or untitled letters; (iii) clinical holds; (iv) injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties or monetary fines; (v) suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approval; (vi) suspension of any ongoing clinical trials; (vii) refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals; (viii) suspension or imposition of restrictions on operations, including costly new manufacturing

requirements; or (ix) product seizure or detention or refusal to permit the import or export of product. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue. Adverse regulatory action, whether pre- or post-approval, can also potentially lead to product liability claims and increase our product liability exposure.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our initial product candidate in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our initial product candidate in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our initial or subsequent product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction; but, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing, and promotion of that product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our initial or subsequent product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval for our initial product candidate, restrict, or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell our initial product candidate. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We do not know whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance, or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our initial product candidate, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Any termination or suspension of, or delays in the commencement or completion of, any necessary studies of any of our product candidate for any indications could result in increased costs to us, delay or limit our ability to generate revenue and adversely affect our commercial prospects.

The commencement and completion of clinical studies can be delayed for a number of reasons, including delays related to: (i) the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority failing to grant permission to proceed and placing the clinical study on hold; (ii) subjects for clinical testing failing to enroll or remain enrolled in our trials at the rate we expect; (iii) a facility manufacturing our initial or subsequent product candidates being ordered by the FDA or other government or regulatory authorities to shut down, temporarily or permanently, due to violations of cGMP requirements or other applicable requirements, or cross-contaminations of the product candidates in the manufacturing process; (iv) any changes to our manufacturing process that may be necessary or desired; (v) subjects choosing an alternative treatment for the indications for which we are developing our initial or subsequent product candidates, or participating in competing clinical studies; (vi) subjects experiencing severe or unexpected drug-related adverse effects; (vii) reports from clinical testing on similar technologies and products raising safety and/or efficacy concerns; (viii) third-party clinical investigators losing their licenses or permits necessary to perform our clinical trials, not performing our clinical trials on our anticipated schedule, or employing methods consistent with the clinical trial protocol, cGMP requirements, or other third parties not performing data collection and analysis in a timely or accurate manner; (ix) inspections of clinical study sites by the FDA, comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or IRBs finding regulatory violations that require us to undertake corrective action, result in suspension or termination of one or more sites or the imposition of a clinical hold on the entire study, or that prohibit us from using some or all of the data in support of our marketing applications; (x) third-party contractors becoming debarred or suspended or otherwise penalized by the FDA or other government or regulatory authorities for violations of regulatory requirements, in which case we may need to find a substitute contractor, and we may not be able to use some or any of the data produced by such contractors in support of our marketing applications; (xi) one or more IRBs refusing to approve, suspending, or terminating the study at an investigational site, precluding enrollment of additional subjects, or withdrawing its

approval of the trial; (xii) reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations, or CROs, and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites; (xiii) deviations of the clinical sites from trial protocols or dropping out of a trial; (xiv) adding new clinical trial sites; (xv) the inability of the CRO to execute any clinical trials for any reason; and (xvi) government or regulatory delays or “clinical holds” requiring suspension or termination of a trial.

Product development costs for our initial and any subsequent product candidates will increase if we have delays in testing or approval or if we need to perform more or larger clinical studies than planned. Additionally, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur and we may need to amend study protocols to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our study protocols to the FDA, comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing, or successful completion of that study. If we experience delays in completion of, or if we, the FDA or other regulatory authorities, the IRB, or other reviewing entities, or any of our clinical study sites suspend or terminate any of our clinical studies of any of our product candidates, their commercial prospects may be materially harmed and our ability to generate product revenues will be delayed. Any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow our development and approval process, and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, and prospects significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, termination or suspension of, or a delay in the commencement or completion of, clinical studies may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of one of more of our product candidates. In addition, if one or more clinical studies are delayed, our competitors may be able to bring competing products to market before we do, and the commercial viability of our affected product candidates could be significantly reduced.

Third-party coverage and reimbursement and health care cost containment initiatives and treatment guidelines may constrain our future revenues.

Our ability to market our initial product candidate successfully will depend in part on the level of reimbursement that government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers, and other organizations provide for the cost of our initial product candidate and related treatments. Countries in which our initial product candidate is sold through reimbursement schemes under national health insurance programs frequently require that manufacturers and sellers of pharmaceutical products obtain governmental approval of initial prices and any subsequent price increases. In certain countries, including the United States, government-funded and private medical care plans can exert significant indirect pressure on prices. We may not be able to sell our initial product candidate profitably if adequate prices are not approved or coverage and reimbursement is unavailable or limited in scope. Increasingly, third-party payors attempt to contain health care costs in ways that are likely to impact the development of our product including: (i) failing to approve or challenging the prices charged for health care products; (ii) introducing reimportation schemes from lower priced jurisdictions; (iii) limiting both coverage and the amount of reimbursement for new therapeutic products; (iv) denying or limiting coverage for products that are approved by the regulatory agencies but are considered to be experimental or investigational by third-party payors; and (v) refusing to provide coverage when an approved product is used in a way that has not received regulatory marketing approval.

It is difficult and costly to protect our intellectual property rights, and we cannot ensure the protection of these rights.

Our success depends on successfully blocking others from developing and commercializing similar products. As a repurposed drug, our API has previously been approved for other indications, none of which currently represent a threat to our product, and therefore cannot be protected. We will rely on our method of use and oral formulation patents to protect our product, which may also put our product at risk from companies developing oral formulations using the same API for other indications. Even though our patents provide protection for specific uses, we will not be able to prevent other companies from developing the same API for other uses. If a similar dose, formulation and route of administration is developed for another indication by a different company, we cannot guarantee that the product they market for the other indication will not be prescribed off-label by doctors or filled by pharmacists for use in indications our patents cover and that if less expensive, would not negatively affect our sales, if our product is ultimately approved by the FDA

The degree of future protection afforded by the patent rights licensed to us is uncertain, because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights, permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage, or provide us with any competitive advantage at all. We cannot be certain that any patent application owned by a third

party will not have priority over patent applications in which we hold license rights or that we will not be involved in interference, opposition or invalidity proceedings before United States or foreign patent offices.

Additionally, if the Licensors were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our initial product candidate, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include alleged failures to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for unenforceability assertions include allegations that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) or made a misleading statement during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include regarding-examination, post-grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, e.g., opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment of the Licensors’ patents in such a way that they no longer cover our initial product candidate or competitive products. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which the Licensors and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on any of our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

In the future, we may rely on know-how and trade secrets to protect technology, especially in cases in which we believe patent protection is not appropriate or obtainable. However, know-how and trade secrets are difficult to protect. While we intend to require employees, academic collaborators, consultants, and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements, we may not be able adequately to protect our trade secrets or other proprietary or licensed information. Typically, research collaborators and scientific advisors have rights to publish data and information in which we may have rights. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets than patents. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent or better knowledge, methods, and know-how.

If we fail to obtain or maintain patent protection or trade secret protection for our product candidates or our technologies, third parties could use our proprietary information, which could impair our ability to compete in the market and adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and attain profitability.

It is difficult and costly to block others from developing similar products for other indications, and we cannot ensure that these products will not be less expensive and thus be prescribed off-label by physicians for use in our indications.

Our success depends on successfully blocking others from developing and commercializing similar products. As a repurposed drug, our API has previously been approved for other indications, none of which currently represents a threat to our initial product candidate, and therefore cannot be protected. We will rely on our method of use and oral formulation patents to protect our initial product candidate, which may also put our initial product candidate at risk from companies developing oral formulations using the same API for other indications. Even though our patents provide protection for specific uses, we will not be able to prevent other companies from developing the same API for other uses. If a similar dose, formulation, and route of administration is developed for another indication by a different company, we cannot guarantee that the product they market for the other indication will not be prescribed off-label by doctors or filled by pharmacists for use in indications our patents cover and that if less expensive, would not negatively affect our sales, if our initial product candidate is ultimately approved by the FDA.

Our initial product candidate may infringe the intellectual property rights of others, which could increase our costs and delay or prevent our development and commercialization efforts.

Our success depends in part on avoiding infringement of the proprietary technologies of others. The pharmaceutical industry has been characterized by frequent litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. Identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our proprietary technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases, and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. Additionally, because patent applications are maintained in secrecy until the

application is published, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of our initial product candidate or any subsequent product candidate. There may be certain issued patents and patent applications claiming subject matter that we may be required to license in order to research, develop, or commercialize any of our product candidates, and we do not know if such patents and patent applications would be available to license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Any claims of patent infringement asserted by third parties would be time-consuming and may: (i) result in costly litigation; (ii) divert the time and attention of our technical personnel and management; (iii) prevent us from commercializing a product candidate until the asserted patent expires or is held finally invalid or not infringed in a court of law; (iv) require us to cease or modify our use of the technology and/or develop non-infringing technology; or (v) require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements.

Third parties may hold proprietary rights that could prevent our initial product candidate from being marketed. Any patent-related legal action against us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to any of our product candidates or our processes could subject us to potential liability for damages and require us to obtain a license to continue to manufacture or market our initial product candidate or any subsequent product candidates. We cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions or that any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, we cannot be sure that we could redesign our initial product candidate or any subsequent product candidates or processes to avoid infringement, if necessary. Accordingly, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or the failure to obtain necessary licenses, could prevent us from developing and commercializing our initial product candidate or a subsequent product candidate, which could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We expect that there are other companies, including major pharmaceutical companies, working in the areas competitive to our initial product candidate that either have resulted, or may result, in the filing of patent applications that may be deemed related to our activities. If we were to challenge the validity of these or any issued United States patent in court, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every issued United States patent. This means that, in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent’s claims. If we were to challenge the validity of these or any issued United States patent in an administrative trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the PTO, we would have to prove that the claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. There is no assurance that a jury and/or court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, or enforceability. Even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Our revenues, earnings and cash flows will fluctuate based on changes in commodity prices.

Our recycling operations process for sale certain recyclable materials, including steel, aluminum, and copper, all of which are subject to significant market price fluctuations. The majority of recyclables we process for sale are steel and non-ferrous metals. Fluctuations in market prices or demand for such commodity items, particularly from China and Turkey, can affect our future operating income and cash flows negatively. As we have increased the size of our recycling operations, we have also increased our exposure to commodity price fluctuations.

In the past we also earned a significant amount of revenue from the sale of carbon credits. The creation of carbon offsets involves a consultant's establishment of a project that includes the successful destruction of the Company's ozone-depleting refrigerants. The project process involves a significant degree of regulatory compliance and only a limited number of facilities are approved to destroy ozone-depleting refrigerants. While we no longer sell carbon credits, we currently sell our ozone-depleting refrigerants to consultants that manage the creation of carbon offsets. If we are unable to find businesses that purchase ozone-depleting refrigerants for the creation of carbon offsets or if carbon credit programs are significantly altered or discontinued, the market for these refrigerants could be reduced or eliminated. If we do not have a market for these refrigerants or if a governmental authority requires their destruction, the costs of our operations would increase, resulting in a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

We purchase our replacement appliances from third-party manufacturers, who we believe manufacture those appliances in China and Mexico, and, as a result, international trade conditions could adversely affect us.

We purchase our replacement appliances from third-party manufacturers, whom we believe manufacture certain types of those appliances in China and Mexico or purchase materials or parts from China and Mexico for use in manufacturing. As a result, tariffs, political or financial instability, labor strikes, natural disasters, public health crises (such as the coronavirus), or other events resulting in the disruption of trade or transportation from China or Mexico or the imposition of additional regulations relating to foreign trade could cause significant delays or interruptions in

the supply of our merchandise or increase our costs, either of which could have an adverse effect on our business. If we were unable to adequately replace the merchandise we currently source with merchandise produced elsewhere, our business could be adversely affected.

The United States has recently imposed tariffs on various imports from China, including some of our replacement appliances. Since the imposition of these tariffs, third-party manufacturers have increased the price of the appliances we purchase from them and retain the right to implement further increases. These tariffs remain largely unmitigated and the Company cannot predict if and when the tariffs will be reduced or eliminated. The ongoing impact of these tariffs will depend on future trade discussions between the United States and China or the Company’s ability to avoid or offset these costs should the tariffs remain in place. The Company may not be able to pass such increased costs on to its customers, and the Company may not be able to secure sources of certain products and materials that are not subject to tariffs on a timely basis or at all. Such developments could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.

If we are unable to secure an adequate number of third-party collection or delivery services, or if our collection and delivery agents are unable to meet our promised pickup and delivery schedules, our net sales may decline due to a decline in customer satisfaction.

We offer appliance pickup and delivery services that are significantly outsourced to third-party providers. Our third-party services are subject to risks beyond our control. Labor or vehicle shortages may hinder our ability to contract with third-party collection and delivery agents. If appliances are not picked up on time, or at all, or products are not delivered on time, our clients and customers may cancel their orders, or we may lose business from our clients and customers in the future. As a result, our net sales and profitability may decline.

Our sales may not be an indication of our future results of operations because they fluctuate significantly.

Our current and historical sales figures have fluctuated significantly from quarter to quarter. A number of factors have historically affected, and will continue to affect, our sales results and profitability, including, (i) changes in competition, such as pricing pressure; (ii) periodic sale of ozone-depleting refrigerants used in the creation of carbon offsets; (iii) fluctuating commodity prices and available markets for our byproduct sales; (iv) changes in recycling and replacement programs with utility customers; (v) weather conditions in our markets; and (vi) timing of promotional events.

Significant shortages in diesel fuel supply or increases in diesel fuel prices will increase our operating expenses.

The price and supply of diesel fuel can fluctuate significantly based on international, political, military, and economic circumstances, as well as other factors outside our control, such as actions by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) and other oil and gas producers, regional production patterns, weather conditions, and environmental concerns. Our collection and delivery agents need diesel fuel to run a significant portion of our collection and delivery of appliance activities. Supply shortages could substantially increase our operating expenses. Additionally, if fuel prices increase, our direct operating expenses will increase and many of our vendors may raise their prices as a means to offset their rising costs. We may not be able to pass through all of our increased costs to our customers and some contracts prohibit any pass-through of the increased costs.

Our revenues from recycling contracts are subject to seasonal fluctuations and are dependent on the utilities’ advertising and promotional activities for contracts in which we do not provide advertising services.

Our business is dependent largely upon our ability to obtain new contracts and continue existing contracts for appliance recycling services and appliance replacement programs with utility companies and other sponsors of energy efficiency programs. Contracts with these entities generally have initial terms of one to three years, with renewal options and early termination clauses. However, some contracts are for programs that are non-recurring. Although we continue to respond to requests for bids for upcoming recycling and replacement services, we are still dependent on certain customers for a large portion of our revenues. The loss or material reduction of business from any of these major customers could adversely affect our revenues and profitability. While we wish to add new recycling and appliance replacement contracts in 2022 and beyond, we cannot assure you that our existing contracts will continue, that they will be sufficiently profitable, that existing customers will continue to use our services at current levels or that we will be successful in obtaining new contracts going forward.

GeoTraq has incurred significant operating losses since inception and expects the losses will continue into the future. It has been determined to suspend all operations.

GeoTraq has no operating history upon which an evaluation of its future success or failure can be made. GeoTraq has incurred significant operating losses since inception and has limited financial resources to support it until such time that it is able to generate positive cash flow from operations. GeoTraq’s ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow have been dependent upon its ability to (i) develop its technology and (ii) generate revenues from its planned business operations.

Long-term revenue projections for the Technology segment are unattainable, and, as such, we performed a qualitative assessment of the GeoTraq intangible asset, in accordance with ASC 350-30, General intangibles other than goodwill. The triggering events for this assessment were 1) its history of negative cash flows and operating losses since acquisition, 2) no foreseeable revenues during the final three years of its useful life such that would allow for full cost recovery, and, 3) no further investment in GeoTraq is imminent due to the Company's lack of resources (human and financial). The assessment further concluded that any opportunities for investment from outside the Company were minimal due to barriers to entry, and inflationary and supply-chain-related issues. Consequently, during the year ended January 1, 2022, the Company took a full write-down of the unamortized portion of the GeoTraq intangible asset of approximately $9.8 million.

Isaac Capital Group, LLC (“ICG”) owns a large percentage of our voting stock, which may allow it to control substantially all matters requiring stockholder approval.

Currently, ICG owns approximately 13.9% of our outstanding shares of common stock and an additional number of shares of our Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock that, if converted into shares of common stock, could increase ICG’s percentage ownership to 16.8%. ICG’s sole member is Jon Isaac, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Live Ventures. Jon Isaac is the son of our Chief Executive Officer Tony Isaac. Because of such ownership and the relationship, ICG may be able significantly, and possibly adversely, to affect our corporate decisions, including the election of the board of directors.

The market price of our common stock has been, and may continue to be volatile and fluctuate significantly, which could result in substantial losses for investors and subject us to securities class action litigation.

The trading price for our common stock has been, and we expect it to continue to be, volatile. The price at which our common stock trades depends upon a number of factors, including our historical and anticipated operating results, our financial situation, announcements of technological innovations or new products by us, our ability or inability to raise the additional capital we may need and the terms on which we raise it, and general market and economic conditions. Some of these factors are beyond our control. Broad market fluctuations may lower the market price of our common stock and affect the volume of trading in our stock, regardless of our financial condition, results of operations, business or prospect. Among the factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate are the risks described in this “Risk Factors” section. In addition, the stock markets, in general, The Nasdaq Capital Market and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular, may experience a loss of investor confidence. Such loss of investor confidence may result in extreme price and volume fluctuations in our common stock that are unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of our business, financial condition or results of operations. These broad market and industry factors may materially harm the market price of our common stock and expose us to securities class action litigation. Such litigation, even if unsuccessful, could be costly to defend and divert management’s attention and resources, which could further materially harm our financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be able to maintain compliance with the continued listing requirements of The Nasdaq Global Market.

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market. In order to maintain that listing, we must satisfy minimum financial and other requirements including, without limitation, a requirement that our closing bid price be at least $1.00 per share. If we fail to continue to meet all applicable continued listing requirements for The Nasdaq Global Market in the future and Nasdaq determines to delist our common stock, the delisting could adversely affect the market liquidity of our common stock, our ability to obtain financing to repay debt, and fund our operations.

Our executive offices are located in Las Vegas, Nevada in a leased facility consisting of 11,000 square feet of office space.

The information in response to this item is included in Note 15, Commitments and Contingencies, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8, of this Form 10-K.

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR OUR COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our common stock trades under the symbol “JAN” on The Nasdaq Capital Market. As of March 28, 2022, there were 31 stockholders of record, which excludes stockholders whose shares were held in nominee or street name by brokers. We have no record of the number of holders of our common stock who hold their shares in “street name” with various brokers.

We have not paid dividends on our common stock and do not presently plan to pay dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future.

Information concerning securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans is included in Part III, Item 12 of this report.

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

For a description of our significant accounting policies and an understanding of the significant factors that influenced our performance during the year ended January 1, 2022, this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” (hereafter referred to as “MD&A”) should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements, including the related notes, appearing in Part II, Item 8 of this 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022.

This Form 10-K includes statements that constitute “forward-looking statements.” These forward-looking statements are often characterized by the terms “may,” “believes,” “projects,” “intends,” “plans,” “expects,” or “anticipates,” and do not reflect historical facts. Specific forward-looking statements contained in this portion of the Form 10-K include, but are not limited to: (i) statements relating to our initial product candidate, JAN101, including statements relating to the commencement of Phase IIb clinical trials for the treatment of PAD in 2021 and the results of those trials, (ii) statements that are based on current projections and expectations about the markets in which we operate, (iii) statements relating to the prospective sale of our Recycling business, (iv) statements about current projections and expectations of general economic conditions, (v) statements about specific industry projections and expectations of economic activity, (vi) statements relating to our future operations and prospects, (vii) statements about future results and future performance, (viii) statements that the cash on hand and additional cash generated from operations, together with potential sources of cash through issuance of debt or equity, will provide the Company with sufficient liquidity for the next 12 months, and (ix) statements that the outcome of pending legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on business, financial position and results of operations, cash flow, or liquidity.

Forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties, and other factors, which may cause our actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors and risks that could affect our results, future performance, and capital requirements and cause them to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements include those identified in this Form 10-K under Item 1A “Risk Factors”, as well as other factors that we are currently unable to identify or quantify, but that may exist in the future.

In addition, the foregoing factors may generally affect our business, results of operations and financial position. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date the statements were made. We do not undertake and specifically decline any obligation to update any forward-looking statements. Any information contained on our website www.janone.com or any other websites referenced in this Form 10-K are not part of this Form 10-K.

We are focused on finding treatments for conditions that cause severe pain and bringing to market drugs with non-addictive pain-relieving properties. In addition, through our subsidiaries ARCA Recycling, Connexx, and ARCA Canada, we are engaged in the business of recycling major household appliances in North America by providing turnkey appliance recycling and replacement services for utilities and other sponsors of energy efficiency programs. Also, through our GeoTraq Inc. subsidiary, we have been engaged in the development, design of wireless transceiver modules with technology that provides LBS directly from global Mobile IoT networks. However, Our GeoTraq subsidiary has not generated any revenue to date, including in the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022. Consequently, during the year ended January 1, 2022, the Company took a full write-down of the unamortized portion of the GeoTraq intangible asset of approximately $9.8 million (see Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements below).

•

Recycling: Our recycling segment is a turnkey appliance recycling program. We receive fees charged for recycling, replacement and additional services for utility energy efficiency programs and have established 20 Regional Processing Centers (“RPCs”) for this segment throughout the United States and Canada

Reporting Period. We report on a 52-or 53-week fiscal year. Our 2021 fiscal year ended on January 1, 2022 (“fiscal 2021”). Our 2020 fiscal year ended on January 2, 2021 (“fiscal 2020”).

Our discussion of the financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of our consolidated financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of any contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements. Management regularly reviews its estimates and assumptions, which are based on historical factors and other factors believed to be relevant under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions, estimates or conditions.

Critical accounting policies are defined as those that are reflective of significant judgments and uncertainties and potentially result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. ARCA Recycling’s critical accounting policies include intangible impairment under ASC 350, revenue recognition under ASC 606, and going concern under ASC 205.

The following table sets forth certain statement of operations items from continuing operations and as a percentage of revenue, for the periods indicated (in $000's):

The following tables set forth revenues for key product and service categories, percentages of total revenue and gross profits earned by key product and service categories and gross profit percent as compared to revenues for each key product category indicated (in $000's):

Revenue increased by approximately $6.2 million, or 18.2%, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022 as compared to the fiscal year ended January 2, 2021. Recycling and Byproducts revenue increased by approximately $3.3 million, or 18.3%, primarily due to increases in scrap revenues due to stronger commodity markets. Replacement Appliances revenue increased by approximately $2.9 million or 18.0%, primarily due to increased sales volume.

Cost of revenue increased by approximately $6.1 million, or 24.4% for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022 as compared to the fiscal year ended January 2, 2021. Recycling and Byproducts cost of revenue increased by approximately $2.4 million, or 15.1%, which generally aligns with increases in revenue. Replacement Appliances cost of revenue increased by approximately $3.7 million or 41.7%, primarily due to a change in business mix during the year ended January 1, 2022 as opposed to the prior period.

Selling, general and administrative expense decreased by approximately $2.0 million or 11.1%, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022 as compared to the fiscal year ended January 2, 2021, primarily due to decreases in legal expenses, research and development costs, advertising expenses, share-based compensation expense, and professional fees, offset by increases in travel and software expenses.

Interest expense, net, increased by approximately $269,000 or 53.4%, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022 as compared to the fiscal year ended January 2, 2021 primarily due to an increase in equipment-related borrowing.

Impairment charges of approximately $9.8 million were recorded for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022 due to the full impairment of our GeoTraq intangible. See Note 8 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of this matter.

For the year ended January 1, 2022, the Company recorded a loss on litigation settlement of approximately $2.0 million due to payments made under the terms of a settlement agreement with Gregg Sullivan. See Note 15 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of this matter.

For the year ended January 2, 2021, the Company recorded a net gain on litigation settlement of approximately $418,000, comprised of an $800,000 gain on settlement of litigation with a former service provider (discussed below), partially offset by a loss on settlement of outstanding payables of approximately $382,000. See Note 15 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of this matter.

Other income was approximately $60,000 for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022 as compared to income of approximately $15,000 the fiscal year ended January 2, 2021.

We report our business in the following segments: Biotechnology, Recycling, and Technology. We identified these segments based on a combination of business type, customers serviced, and how we divide management responsibility. Our revenues and profits are driven through our recycling centers, e-commerce, individual sales representatives, and our internet services for our recycling and technology segment. We expect revenues and profits for our biotechnology segment to be driven by the development of pharmaceuticals that treat the root cause of pain but are non-opioid painkillers. We include Corporate expenses within the Recycling segment.

Operating loss by operating segment, is defined as loss before net interest expense, other income and expense, provision for income taxes.


Nevada		41-1454591
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

325 E. Warm Springs Road, Las Vegas, Nevada		89119
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)


		Page

PART I

Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	38
Item 2.	Properties	52
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	52
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	52

PART II

Item 5.	Market for Our Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	53
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	53
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	54
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	60
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	61
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	63
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	63
Item 9B.	Other Information	64
Item 9C	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	64

PART III

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance	65
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	68
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters	70
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	71
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	73

PART IV

Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	74
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	74

Index to Exhibits		75
Signatures		79


Refrigerators		Clothes washers
Freezers		Clothes dryers
Ranges/ovens		Room air conditioners
Dishwashers		Dehumidifiers
Microwave ovens		Humidifiers


Approximate Ft2		Location
5,000		Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
18,500		Santa Fe Springs, California
5,900		Albuquerque, New Mexico
14,600		Minneapolis, Minnesota
12,000		Indianapolis, Indiana
19,800		Franklin, Massachusetts
7,500		Commerce City, Colorado
9,200		Newark, California
12,100		Cudahy, Wisconsin
23,200		Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
14,300		Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
9,600		Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
29,800		Syracuse, New York
19,224		Pennsauken, New Jersey
12,800		Sacramento, California
14,600		Norcross, Georgia
7,400		North Haven, Connecticut
11,700		Jackson, Mississippi
3,000		Baltimore, Maryland
19,200		Grand Rapids, Michigan


	Fiscal Year Ended					Fiscal Year Ended
	January 1, 2022					January 2, 2021
Statement of Operations Data:
Revenues	$	40,022		100.0	%	$	33,867		100.0	%
Cost of revenues		31,154		77.8	%		25,040		73.9	%
Gross profit		8,868		22.2	%		8,827		26.1	%
Selling, general and administrative expenses		15,857		39.6	%		17,823		52.6	%
Impairment charges		9,786		31.4	%		—		0.0	%
Operating loss		(16,775	)	(41.9	)%		(8,996	)	(26.6	)%
Gain on debt settlement		1,872		0.0	%		—		0.0	%
Interest expense, net		(773	)	(1.9	)%		(504	)	(1.5	)%
Gain (loss) on litigation settlement		(1,950	)	(22.0	)%		418		4.7	%
Gain on settlement of vendor advance payments		952		6.0	%		142		—
Other income, net		60		0.1	%		15		0.0	%
Net loss before income taxes		(16,614	)	(41.5	)%		(8,925	)	(26.4	)%
Income tax benefit (provision)		(273	)	(0.7	)%		427		1.3	%
Net loss	$	(16,887	)	(42.2	)%	$	(8,498	)	(25.1	)%


☒	Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


☐	Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐	Non-accelerated filer	☒
Smaller reporting company	☒	Emerging growth company	☐


	Fiscal Year Ended January 1, 2022												Fiscal Year Ended January 2, 2021
	Biotechnology			Recycling			Technology			Total			Biotechnology			Recycling			Technology		Total
Revenue	$	—		$	40,022		$	—		$	40,022		$	—		$	33,867		$	—	$	33,867
Cost of revenue		—			31,154			—			31,154			—			25,040			—		25,040
Gross profit		—			8,868			—			8,868			—			8,827			—		8,827
Selling, general and administrative expense		1,351			10,742			3,764			15,857			1,738			11,999			4,086		17,823
Impairment charges		—			—			9,786			9,786			—			—			—		—
Operating loss	$	(1,351	)	$	(1,874	)	$	(13,550	)	$	(16,775	)	$	(1,738	)	$	(3,172	)