As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015

Registration No. 333-

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form S-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT

UNDER

THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

ARALEZ PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED

(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Ireland	2834	Not Applicable
(State or Other Jurisdiction of	(Primary Standard Industrial	(IRS Employer
Incorporation or Organization)	Classification Code Number)	Identification No.)

56 Fitzwilliam Square

Dublin 2, Ireland

(+353 1 905-3581)

(Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number, Including Area Code, of Registrant’s Principal Executive Offices)

Adrian Adams

Chief Executive Officer

Aralez Pharmaceuticals Limited

1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 400

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27517

(919) 913-1030

(Name, Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number, Including Area Code, of Agent for Service)

Copies to:

Andrew P. Gilbert, Esq.

David C. Schwartz, Esq.

DLA Piper LLP (US)

51 John F. Kennedy Parkway

Short Hills, New Jersey 07078

(973) 520-2550

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

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether 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,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (check one):o Large accelerated filer, x Accelerated filer, o Non-accelerated filer (do not check if a smaller reporting company) or o Smaller reporting company.

CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE

Title of Each Class of
Securities to be Registered

Amount
to be
Registered(1)

Proposed
Maximum
Offering Price
Per Share(2)

Proposed
Maximum
Aggregate
Offering Price(2)

Amount of
Registration Fee(3)

Ordinary shares, $0.001 nominal value per share

6,250,000

11.67

72,937,500

8,476

(1) The ordinary shares will be offered for distribution by the Selling Shareholder to its shareholders pursuant to the prospectus contained herein. Pursuant to Rule 416 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Registration Statement also covers any additional shares that may be offered or issued in connection with any stock split, stock dividend or similar transaction.

(2) Pursuant to Rule 457(c) under the Securities Act, the offering price and registration fee are computed based on the average of the high and low prices reported for POZEN Inc.’s common stock traded on The NASDAQ Global Select Market on August 3, 2015. Aralez Pharmaceuticals plc will be the successor issuer to POZEN Inc. pursuant to the transactions described herein.

(3) The registration fee of $8,476 is being paid at the time of this filing.

Table of Contents

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

PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS, SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED AUGUST 7, 2015

Prospectus

6,250,000 Shares

ARALEZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC

Ordinary Shares

This prospectus relates to the distribution of up to 6,250,000 of our ordinary shares by the selling shareholder named in this prospectus to its shareholders as further described under the section entitled “Plan of Distribution” on page 141 of this prospectus. Our ordinary shares covered by this prospectus (the “Shares”) are to be issued by us to the selling shareholder in a private placement pursuant to a Share Subscription Agreement, dated as of June 8, 2015, as more fully described in this prospectus.

We will not receive any proceeds from the distribution of our Shares by the Selling Shareholder.

We will be the successor issuer to POZEN Inc. (“Pozen”) pursuant to the transactions described in this prospectus. Shares of Pozen are listed on The NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “POZN”. Our ordinary shares will be listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) under the symbol “ARLZ” and on the Toronto Stock Exchange (“TSX”) under the symbol “ARZ” following the closing of the merger with Tribute Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. (“Tribute”), as described in more detail in this prospectus. Shares of Pozen will be delisted from NASDAQ following the commencement of trading of our ordinary shares.

Investing in our ordinary shares involves risks. You should carefully consider the risks that we have described in “Risk Factors” relating to Pozen and Tribute beginning on page 5 and page 25 of this prospectus, respectively, and under similar headings in any amendments or supplements to this prospectus, before investing in the Shares.

Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission, nor any securities regulatory authority in Canada or Ireland, has approved or disapproved of these securities or passed on the adequacy or accuracy of this prospectus or determined that this proxy statement/prospectus is accurate or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense. This proxy statement/prospectus does not constitute an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, any securities, or a solicitation of a proxy, in any jurisdiction to or from any person to whom it is unlawful to make any such offer or solicitation in such jurisdiction. For the avoidance of doubt, the accompanying proxy statement/prospectus is not intended to be and is not a prospectus for the purposes of the Companies Act 2014 of Ireland (the ‘‘Companies Act’’), the Prospectus (Directive 2003/71/EC) Regulations 2005 of Ireland or the Prospectus Rules of Ireland, and the Central Bank of Ireland has not approved this document.

You should rely only on the information contained in this prospectus or any prospectus supplement or amendment. Neither we nor the Selling Shareholder have authorized anyone to provide you with different information. The Selling Shareholder is not making an offer of their Shares in any state where such offer is not permitted.

The date of this prospectus is 2015.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXPLANATORY NOTE		2
ABOUT THIS PROSPECTUS		2
RISK FACTORS		5
PROPOSED TRANSACTIONS		36
USE OF PROCEEDS		37
MARKET FOR COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED SHAREHOLDER MATTERS		38
SELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL DATA OF POZEN		39
SELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL DATA OF TRIBUTE		41
SELECTED UNAUDITED PRO FORMA FINANCIAL DATA		43
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS		49
BUSINESS		66
PROPERTIES		104
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS		104
MANAGEMENT		108
SELLING SHAREHOLDER		140
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION		141
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS		142
DESCRIPTION OF SHARE CAPITAL		143
CERTAIN U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS		147
IRISH TAX CONSIDERATIONS		155
LEGAL MATTERS		159
EXPERTS		159
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION		160
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS		F-1

Table of Contents

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This prospectus relates to the resale of an aggregate of 6,250,000 ordinary shares of Aralez Pharmaceuticals plc by QLT Inc. (the “Selling Shareholder”) shareholder listed herein under the Section entitled Selling Shareholder. Pursuant to the Share Subscription Agreement dated June 8, 2015 (the “Subscription Agreement”) by and among Aralez Pharmaceuticals Limited (“we”, “us”, “our”, “Aralez” or “Parent”), the Selling Shareholder, Tribute Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. (“Tribute”), POZEN Inc. (“Pozen” or the “Company”) and the following investors: Deerfield Private Design Fund III, L.P. (“Deerfield Private Design”), Deerfield International Master Fund, L.P. (“Deerfield International”), Deerfield Partners, L.P. (“Deerfield Partners”), EcoR1 Capital Fund, L.P., EcoR1 Capital Fund Qualified, L.P., Broadfin Healthcare Master Fund, LTD, JW Partners, LP, and JW Opportunities Fund, LLC (collectively, the “Purchasers”), such shares will be issued by Parent to the Selling Shareholder immediately following the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Arrangement dated as of June 8, 2015 (the “merger agreement”), by and among Tribute, Aguono Limited (which was renamed Aralez Pharmaceuticals Limited and which, prior to the effectiveness of the transaction, will re-register as a public limited company incorporated in Ireland and be renamed as Aralez Pharmaceuticals plc), Trafwell Limited (which was renamed Aralez Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited) (“Ltd2”), ARLZ US Acquisition Corp. (“US Merger Sub”), ARLZ CA Acquisition Corp. (“Can Merger Sub”) and Pozen.

ABOUT THIS PROSPECTUS

No person has been authorized to give any information or make any representation concerning us, the Selling Shareholder or the Shares to be registered hereunder (other than as contained in this prospectus) and, if any such other information or representation is given or made, you should not rely on it as having been authorized by us or the Selling Shareholder. You should not assume that the information contained in this prospectus is accurate as of any date other than the date on the front cover of this prospectus or as otherwise set forth in this prospectus.

The Selling Shareholder is offering the Shares only in jurisdictions where such issuances are permitted. The distribution of this prospectus and the sale of the Shares in certain jurisdictions may be restricted by law. Persons outside the United States who come into possession of this prospectus must inform themselves about, and observe any restrictions relating to, the distribution of this prospectus and the sale of the Shares outside the United States. This prospectus does not constitute, and may not be used in connection with, an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, the Shares by any person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make such an offer or solicitation.

Background of Aralez Pharmaceuticals plc

Upon completion of the merger, Aralez will become the successor issuer to Pozen. Pozen formed Aralez to serve as the new parent company of Pozen and Tribute following consummation of the merger and plan of arrangement. Pozen was incorporated in the State of Delaware on September 25, 1996 and is operating in a single reportable segment. Pozen has been a pharmaceutical company committed to transforming medicine that transforms lives. Since inception, the Company has focused its efforts on developing products which can provide improved efficacy, safety or patient convenience in the treatment of acute and chronic pain and pain related conditions and has developed a portfolio of integrated aspirin therapies. Historically, the Company has entered into collaboration agreements to commercialize its product candidates. The Company’s licensing revenues include upfront payments, additional payments if and when certain milestones in the product’s development or commercialization are reached, and the eventual royalty payments based on product sales.

The Company has decided to retain ownership of its lead product candidates, the proprietary, investigational, coordinated-delivery tablets combining immediate-release omeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor, or PPI, and enteric coated, or EC, aspirin in a single tablet, now known as YOSPRALA 81/40 and 325/40 (aspirin/omeprazole delayed release tablets) (“PA” or “YOSPRALA”).

On June 8, 2015, Pozen and Tribute agreed to a business combination under the terms of the merger agreement. In order to effect the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, US Merger Sub, an indirect subsidiary of Parent, will be merged with and into Pozen (the “merger”). Pozen will be the surviving corporation and, through the merger, will become an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. The merger of Pozen into US Merger Sub will be effected under Delaware law so that Pozen will be reorganized into a holding company structure. In accordance with the merger agreement, Can Merger Sub will offer to acquire, and will acquire, all of the outstanding Tribute common shares pursuant to a court approved plan of arrangement in Canada in the manner provided for by the merger agreement (the “arrangement”). The Parent Shares (as defined below) to be issued to Tribute shareholders in the arrangement are not being registered pursuant to this registration statement. Upon completion of the arrangement, Tribute will also become an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Upon completion, the merger and the arrangement do not constitute a change of control of Pozen.

As a result of the merger, each share of Pozen common stock will be converted into the right to receive from Parent one ordinary share of Parent, $0.001 nominal value per share (the “Parent Shares”) (the “merger consideration”) for each share of Pozen common stock that they own as of the record date for the special meeting of Pozen stockholders to vote on the proposals set forth in the Form S-4 (as defined below) (the “Pozen special meeting”). The Parent Shares to be issued to Pozen stockholders pursuant to the merger are not being registered pursuant to this registration statement. Pursuant to the arrangement, each outstanding

Table of Contents

Tribute common share will be exchanged for 0.1455 Parent Shares. Upon completion of the merger and arrangement, current Pozen stockholders will own approximately 66% of the outstanding Parent Shares, and current Tribute shareholders will own approximately 34% of the outstanding Parent Shares before giving effect to (i) any exercise of outstanding options and warrants or the vesting and delivery of shares underlying restricted stock units (“RSUs”) of either company and (ii) the Parent Shares to be issued to new investors pursuant to the equity and debt financings described below. It is expected that Parent Shares will be listed and traded on NASDAQ under the symbol “ARLZ” and on the “TSX” under the symbol “ARZ”. The terms and conditions of the merger and the arrangement are contained in the merger agreement. After giving effect to the transactions and the proposed Parent equity financing and debt financing, the former stockholders of Pozen as a group will hold Parent Shares constituting approximately 49% of the outstanding Parent Shares and the former shareholders of Tribute as a group will hold Parent Shares constituting approximately 28% of the outstanding Parent Shares.

On July 20, 2015, Parent filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a registration statement on Form S-4, which includes a preliminary proxy statement of Pozen and also constitutes a preliminary prospectus of Parent (the “Form S-4”), in connection with the proposed business combination between Pozen and Tribute. The Form S-4 has not yet been declared effective by the SEC.

Below is a complete corporate chart of Parent and its subsidiaries immediately following the effective time of the merger and the arrangement:

Equity Financing

On June 8, 2015, Pozen executed the Subscription Agreement by and among the Selling Shareholder, Tribute, Parent, Pozen and the Purchasers. Pursuant to the Subscription Agreement, Parent will sell to the Selling Shareholder and the Purchasers up to $75 million of the Parent Shares in a private placement at a purchase price of $7.20 per Parent Share. The Subscription Agreement provides that Parent will prepare and file two registration statements with the SEC on such form as may be required to effect a registration of the Parent Shares issued under the Subscription Agreement within 60 days of the date of the signing of the Subscription Agreement and for certain other registration rights for each of Purchaser and the Investors under the Securities Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, or any similar successor statute, and applicable state securities laws. The ordinary shares offered hereby by the Selling Shareholder will be issued pursuant to the Subscription Agreement.

Debt Financing

On June 8, 2015, Pozen also executed a Debt Facility Agreement (the “Facility Agreement”) among Pozen, the Parent (or a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent, depending on whether certain conditions of the Facility Agreement occur) (the “Borrower”), Deerfield Private Design, Deerfield International, Deerfield Partners, and the other lender parties thereto (together with Deerfield Private Design, Deerfield International, and Deerfield Partners, the “Lenders”). Pursuant to the Facility Agreement, the Borrower will borrow from the Lenders up to an aggregate principal amount of $275 million, of which (i) $75 million will be in the form of a 2.5% senior secured convertible promissory note due six years from issuance and convertible into Parent Shares at a conversion price of $9.54 per share (the “Convertible Notes”), issued and sold by Borrower to Deerfield Private Design or its registered assigns, upon the

Table of Contents

terms and conditions of the Facility Agreement, and (ii) up to an aggregate principal amount of $200 million with an interest rate of 12.5%, which will be made available for Permitted Acquisitions (as defined in the Facility Agreement), will be in the form of secured promissory notes issued and sold by the Borrower to the Lenders (the “Acquisition Notes”), evidencing the Acquisition Loans, upon the terms and conditions and subject to the limitations set forth in the Acquisition Notes, all subject to the terms and conditions of the Facility Agreement.

In connection with the Facility Agreement, on June 8, 2015, the Lenders and Parent entered into a Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”). Pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, Parent has agreed to prepare and file with the SEC a Registration Statement on Form S-3, or other such form as required to effect a registration of the Parent Shares issued or issuable upon conversion of or pursuant to the Convertible Notes (the “Registerable Securities”), covering the resale of the Registerable Securities and such indeterminate number of additional ordinary shares as may become issuable upon conversion of or otherwise pursuant to the Convertible Notes to prevent dilution resulting from certain corporate actions. Such Registration Statement must be filed within 45 calendar days following the date of issuance of the Convertible Notes. In the event the SEC does not permit all of the Registerable Securities to be included in the Registration Statement or if the Registerable Securities are not otherwise included in a Registration Statement filed under the Registration Rights Agreement, the Parent has agreed to file an additional Registration Statement by no later than the Additional Filing Deadline (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement) covering the resale of all Registerable Securities not already covered by an existing and effective Registration Statement for an offering to be made on a continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The Registration Rights Agreement also provides for piggy-back registration, subject to the terms and conditions of the Registration Rights Agreement.

Table of Contents

RISK FACTORS

Investing in our ordinary shares involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following risk factors and all other information contained in this prospectus, in addition to the other information contained in this prospectus. You should also read and consider the risks associated with the business of Tribute and the risks associated with the business of Pozen, because these risks will also affect Aralez. The risks associated with the business of Tribute can be found in Tribute’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, and Tribute’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015, under the heading “Risk Factors”. The risks associated with the business of Pozen can be found in Pozen’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, and Pozen’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015, under the heading “Risk Factors.” See the section entitled “Where You Can Find More Information” beginning on page 160 of this prospectus.

Risk Factors Related to the Pozen Business

We have incurred losses since inception and we may continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. Product revenue for products which we license out is dependent upon the commercialization efforts of our partners, including the sales and marketing efforts of AstraZeneca AB (“AstraZeneca”) and Horizon Pharma Inc. (“Horizon”) relating to VIMOVO®.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. As of March 31, 2015, our accumulated deficit was approximately $96.9 million. Our ability to receive product revenue from the sale of products is dependent on a number of factors, principally the development, regulatory approval and successful commercialization of our product candidates. We expect that the amount of our operating losses will fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter principally as a result of increases and decreases in our development efforts and the timing and amount of payments that we may receive from others. We expect to continue to incur significant operating losses associated with our research and development efforts and do not know the amount or timing of product revenue we will receive as a result of sales of VIMOVO by AstraZeneca and Horizon or our other product candidates, including PA. If our licensed products do not perform well in the marketplace our royalty revenue will impacted and our business could be materially harmed.

Our primary current source of revenue is the royalty payments that we may receive pursuant to our collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca. We have received all regulatory milestone payments under our collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca. On May 3, 2013, AstraZeneca informed us that, after a strategic business review, it had decided to cease promotion and sampling of VIMOVO by the end of the third quarter of 2013 in certain countries, including the U.S. and all countries in Europe, other than Spain and Portugal, which have pre-existing contractual relationships with third parties. We understand that AstraZeneca will instead now focus on those countries where the product has shown growth and which AstraZeneca believes have the greatest potential for future growth. On November 18, 2013, AstraZeneca and Horizon entered into certain agreements in connection with AstraZeneca’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States to Horizon. As a result, royalty revenues for sales of VIMOVO in the United States will be received from Horizon. On July 28, 2014, Horizon announced that it had been verbally notified by CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, Inc. that VIMOVO would no longer be on their formularies and will be placed on their exclusion lists effective January 1, 2015. Horizon estimates that approximately 20-30% of VIMOVO prescriptions could be impacted by these decisions.

We depend heavily on the success of our product candidates, which may never be approved for commercial use. If we are unable to develop, gain approval of or commercialize those product candidates, we will never receive revenues from the sale of our product candidates.

We anticipate that for the foreseeable future our ability to achieve profitability will be dependent on the successful commercialization of VIMOVO and, if approved, sales of our PA product candidates. If we fail to gain timely approval to commercialize our products from the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) and other foreign regulatory bodies, we will be unable to generate the revenue we will need to build our business. These approvals may not be granted on a timely basis, if at all, and even if and when they are granted, they may not cover all of the indications for which we seek approval. For example, absent the availability of such a lower dose formulation in the market if PA32540 is approved, the FDA indicated that it may limit the indication for PA32540 to use in post coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) with a treatment duration not to exceed one year. On April 25, 2014, we received a Complete Response Letter (the “CRL”) from the FDA because of deficiencies noted during an inspection of a supplier of an active ingredient used in the manufacture of the PA products, which has delayed approval of our NDA. On December 17, 2014, we received a second CRL from the FDA advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude approval of the NDA in its current form. In this CRL, the FDA used identical wording to that of the first CRL. Satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before this application may be approved. The active ingredient supplier has informed us that they received a warning letter relating to the Form 483 inspection deficiencies and have submitted a plan of corrective actions to address the matters raised in the warning letter to FDA. There were no clinical or safety deficiencies noted with respect to either PA32540 or PA8140 and no other deficiencies were noted in the CRL. Final agreement on the draft product labeling is also pending. There can be no assurance that our PA products will be approved by the FDA and, if so approved, for the expected indication.

Table of Contents

Many factors could negatively affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. For example, in October 2008, the FDA informed us that it was conducting an internal review of the acceptability of using endoscopic gastric ulcers as a primary endpoint in clinical trials. Reduction of endoscopic gastric ulcers was the primary endpoint in our Phase 3 trials for VIMOVO and the primary endpoint in the ongoing Phase 3 trials for our PA32540 product. In late January 2009, the FDA informed us that it had completed its internal discussions and that there was no change to previous agreements that gastric ulcer incidence was an acceptable primary endpoint for our clinical programs. The FDA decided to obtain further advice on this issue and held an Advisory Board meeting on November 4, 2010 to discuss the adequacy of endoscopically documented gastric ulcers as an outcome measure to evaluate drugs intended to prevent gastrointestinal complications of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including aspirin. The Advisory Board voted in favor (8-4) that endoscopically-documented gastric/duodenal ulcers are an adequate primary efficacy endpoint for evaluating products intended to prevent non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated upper gastrointestinal (UGI) toxicity, which vote supports the clinical design of the pivotal Phase 3 trials conducted for VIMOVO and PA32540. However, there can be no assurance that FDA will continue to accept the recommendation of the Advisory Board or will not decide to reassess the acceptability of this endpoint in the future.

In addition to the inability to obtain regulatory approval, many other factors could negatively affect the success of our efforts to develop and commercialize our product candidates, including those discussed in the risk factors that follow as well as negative, inconclusive or otherwise unfavorable results from any studies or clinical trials, such as those that we obtained with respect to MT 500, which led to our decision to discontinue development of that product candidate in 2002.

Changes in regulatory approval policy or statutory or regulatory requirements, or in the regulatory environment, during the development period of any of our product candidates may result in delays in the approval, or rejection, of the application for approval of one or more of our product candidates. If we fail to obtain approval, or are delayed in obtaining approval, of our product candidates, our ability to generate revenue will be severely impaired.

The process of drug development and regulatory approval for product candidates takes many years, during which time the FDA’s interpretations of the standards against which drugs are judged for approval may evolve or change. The FDA can also change its approval policies based upon changes in laws and regulations. In addition, the FDA can decide, based on its then current approval policies, any changes in those policies and its broad discretion in the approval process, to weigh the benefits and the risks of every drug candidate. As a result of any of the foregoing, the FDA may decide that the data we submit in support of an application for approval of a drug candidate are insufficient for approval. For example, in October 2008, the FDA has informed us that it was conducting an internal review of the acceptability of using endoscopic gastric ulcers as a primary endpoint in clinical trials. Reduction of endoscopic gastric ulcers was the primary endpoint in our Phase 3 trials for VIMOVO (formerly referred to as PN 400) and the primary endpoint in our on-going Phase 3 trials for PA32540. In late January 2009, the FDA informed us that it had completed its internal discussions and that there was no change to previous agreements that gastric ulcer incidence was an acceptable primary endpoint for our clinical programs. The FDA decided to obtain further advice on this issue and held an Advisory Board meeting on November 4, 2010 to discuss the adequacy of endoscopically documented gastric ulcers as an outcome measure to evaluate drugs intended to prevent gastrointestinal complications of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including aspirin. The Advisory Board voted in favor (8-4) that endoscopically-documented gastric/duodenal ulcers are an adequate primary efficacy endpoint for evaluating products intended to prevent NSAID-associated UGI toxicity, which vote supports the clinical design of the pivotal Phase 3 trials conducted for VIMOVO and PA32540. However, there can be no assurance that FDA will accept the recommendation of the Advisory Board or will not decide to reassess the acceptability of this endpoint in the future.

Changes in policy or interpretation may not be the subject of published guidelines and may therefore be difficult to evaluate. For example, in February 2012, the FDA requested we demonstrate the bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg, with respect to acetylsalicylic acid in an additional Phase 1 study. EC products such as PA32540 and EC aspirin 325 mg have highly variable pharmacokinetics. Based on our analyses, we believed that the results demonstrated bioequivalence, but the FDA did not agree. However, the FDA did agree that the results from this Phase 1 study, together with additional information that was submitted by us in the NDA for the product, constitutes sufficient data to support the establishment of a clinical and pharmacological bridge between the product and EC aspirin 325 mg. There can be no assurance that our PA products will be approved by the FDA and, if so approved, for the expected indications.

As another example, the FDA has not recently published guidelines for the approval of new migraine therapies, and we have had to rely on periodic guidance from the FDA obtained (in conversations) informally and in other meetings, the content of which may be subject to significant modification over the period of a drug’s development program. There is also the risk that we and the FDA may interpret such guidance differently. The FDA made several changes to the omeprazole label that relate, in part, to the agency’s concern regarding certain reported adverse events in patients taking long term PPI such as omeprazole. For example, with VIMOVO, in dosage and administration, the label states to use the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals. There is a risk that further omeprazole safety issue may arise in the future that could impact FDA’s benefit/risk assessment of the dose or duration of PPI in subjects requiring long-term PPI use.

Table of Contents

Further, additional information about the potential risks of marketed drugs may affect the regulatory approval environment, or the FDA’s approval policies, for new product candidates. For example, in February 2005 an advisory committee convened by the FDA met to address the potential cardiovascular risks of COX-2 selective NSAIDs and related drugs in response to disclosures made about possible adverse effects from the use of some of these drugs. On April 7, 2005, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory, or the Advisory, based, in part, upon the recommendations of the advisory committee. The Advisory stated that it would require that manufacturers of all prescription products containing NSAIDs provide warnings regarding the potential for adverse cardiovascular events as well as life-threatening gastrointestinal events associated with the use of NSAIDs. Moreover, subsequent to the FDA advisory committee meeting in February 2005, the FDA has indicated that long-term studies evaluating cardiovascular risk will be required for approval of new NSAID products that may be used on an intermittent or chronic basis. Long-term cardiovascular safety studies were not required at for FDA approval of our VIMOVO. However, we cannot guarantee that such studies will not be required in the future if new information about naproxen safety concerns becomes available. We will continue to evaluate and review with the FDA its expectations and recommendations regarding the efficacy and safety requirements and study design necessary to support approval of NDAs for product candidates we may develop that contain NSAIDs.

If we, or our current or future collaborators, do not obtain and maintain required regulatory approvals for one or more of our product candidates, we will be unable to commercialize those product candidates. Further, if we are delayed in obtaining or unable to obtain, any required approvals, or our contract manufacturers are unable to manufacture and supply product for sale, our collaborators may terminate, or be entitled to terminate, their agreements with us or reduce or eliminate their payments to us under these agreements or we may be required to pay termination payments under these agreements.

Our product candidates under development are subject to extensive domestic and foreign regulation. In the U.S., an NDA or supplement must be filed with respect to each indication for which marketing approval of a product is sought. Each NDA, in turn, requires the successful completion of preclinical, toxicology, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies, as well as clinical trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the product for that particular indication. We may not receive regulatory approval of any of the NDAs that we file with the FDA or of any approval applications we may seek in the future outside the U.S.

The FDA regulates, among other things, the development, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, record keeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertisement, promotion, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products in the U.S. In order to market our products abroad, we must comply with extensive regulation by foreign governments. If we are unable to obtain and maintain FDA and foreign government approvals for our product candidates, we, alone or through our collaborators, will not be permitted to sell them. Failure to obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing that product candidate. Except for Treximet®, which was approved for commercial sale in the U.S. on April 15, 2008, and VIMOVO, which was approved for commercial sale in the U.S. on April 30, 2010 and has been approved in a number of additional countries in the rest of the world, none of our other product candidates are approved for sale in the U.S. or any foreign market and they may never be approved. For example, we received two approvable letters relating to our NDA for Treximet which communicated the FDA’s concerns that delayed marketing approval. An approvable letter, now called a CRL, is an official notification from the FDA that contains conditions that must be satisfied prior to obtaining final U.S. marketing approval. In June 2006, we received the first approvable letter in which the FDA requested additional safety information on Treximet, and in August 2007, we received a second approvable letter in which the FDA requested that we address their concern about the potential implications from one preclinical in vitro chromosomal aberration study in which a signal for genotoxicity was seen for the combination of naproxen sodium and sumatriptan. We have also previously received not-approvable letters from the FDA relating to our NDAs for MT 100 and MT 300. On April 25, 2014, we received a CRL advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude the approval of the NDA for our PA32540 and PA8140 product candidates. Specifically, an inspection of the manufacturing facility of an active ingredient supplier of ours concluded with certain inspection deficiencies. On December 17, 2014, we received a second CRL from the FDA advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude approval of the NDA in its current form. The active ingredient supplier has informed us that they received a warning letter relating to the Form 483 inspection deficiencies and have submitted a plan of corrective actions to address the matters raised in the warning letter to FDA. Satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before this application may be approved.

Further, our current or future collaboration agreements may terminate, or require us to make certain payments to our collaborators, or our collaborators may have the right to terminate their agreements with us or reduce or eliminate their payments to us under these agreements, based on our inability to obtain, or delays in obtaining, regulatory approval for our product candidates or our contract manufacturers’ inability to manufacture our products or to supply the sufficient quantities of our products to meet market demand. For example, under our PN collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca had the right to terminate the agreement if certain delays occurred or specified development and regulatory objectives were not met. For example, this termination right could have been triggered by AstraZeneca if the FDA had determined that endoscopic gastric ulcers were no longer an acceptable endpoint and we had been required to conduct additional trials which would have delayed NDA approval for VIMOVO. Both AstraZeneca, Horizon and Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. have the right to terminate their respective agreements with us upon a 90 day notice for any reason. Further, if we or our contract manufacturers do not maintain required regulatory approvals, or our contract manufacturers are unable to manufacture our product or to supply sufficient quantities of our products to meet market demand, we may not be able to commercialize our products.

Table of Contents

Approval of a product candidate may be conditioned upon certain limitations and restrictions as to the drug’s use, such as a possible warning that the FDA may require in the PA32540 label regarding the concomitant use of PA32540 and Plavix®, or upon the conduct of further studies, and is subject to continuous review. The FDA has indicated that, absent the availability of such a lower dose formulation in the market if PA32540 is approved, that it may limit the indication for PA32540 to use in CABG with a treatment duration not to exceed one year. We believe that the FDA is concerned that without a formulation containing a lower dose of aspirin, physicians will not have a full range of dosing options available to prescribe in accordance with current cardiovascular treatment guidelines, which recommend doses of 81 mgs or 162 mgs of aspirin for most indications and we followed the FDA’s suggestion to seek approval for a lower dose formulation of the product containing 81 mg of EC aspirin as part of our NDA for PA32540. However, there can be no assurance that the FDA will approve a lower dose formulation of the product or will allow a broader indication for PA32540. There can be no assurance that our PA products will be approved by the FDA and, if so approved, for the expected indications. The FDA may also require us to conduct additional post-approval studies. These post-approval studies may include carcinogenicity studies in animals or further human clinical trials. The later discovery of previously unknown problems with the product, manufacturer or manufacturing facility may result in criminal prosecution, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, or total or partial suspension of production, as well as other regulatory action against our product candidates or us. If approvals are withdrawn for a product, or if a product is seized or recalled, we would be unable to sell that product and therefore would not receive any revenues from that product.

We and our contract manufacturers are required to comply with the applicable FDA current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, regulations, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance, as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation. Further, manufacturing facilities must be approved by the FDA before they can be used to manufacture our product candidates, and are subject to additional FDA inspection. On April 25, 2014, we announced that we had received a CRL from the FDA with respect to the NDA for our PA32540 and PA8140 product candidates. In the CRL, the FDA noted that, during an inspection of the manufacturing facility of an active ingredient supplier, inspection deficiencies were found. Satisfactory resolution of deficiencies noted by the field investigator is required before the NDA may be approved. On May 9, 2014, our active ingredient supplier submitted a response to the FDA addressing the inspection deficiencies and subsequently submitted an update to its initial response. On December 17, 2014, we received a second CRL from the FDA advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude approval of the NDA in its current form. In this CRL, the FDA used identical wording to that of the first CRL. The active ingredient supplier has informed us that they received a warning letter relating to the Form 483 inspection deficiencies and have submitted a plan of corrective actions to address the matters raised in the warning letter to FDA. Satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before this application may be approved. There were no clinical or safety deficiencies noted with respect to either PA32540 or PA8140 and no other deficiencies were noted in the CRL.

Manufacturing facilities may also be subject to state regulations. We, or our third-party manufacturers, may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or other FDA regulatory requirements, or applicable state regulations, or may not be able to successfully manufacture our products which could result in a delay or an inability to manufacture the products. If we or our partners wish or need to identify an alternative manufacturer, delays in obtaining FDA approval of the alternative manufacturing facility could cause an interruption in the supply of our products.

Labeling and promotional activities are subject to scrutiny by the FDA and state regulatory agencies and, in some circumstances, the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC. FDA enforcement policy prohibits the marketing of unapproved products as well as the marketing of approved products for unapproved, or off-label, uses. These regulations and the FDA’s interpretation of them may limit our or our partners’ ability to market products for which we gain approval. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in federal and state regulatory enforcement action. Further, we may not obtain the labeling claims we or our partners believe are necessary or desirable for the promotion of our product candidate. As part of the CRLs received in connection with our PA32540 and PA8140 products, FDA indicated that the final agreement on draft product labeling remains pending.

If third parties challenge the validity of the patents or proprietary rights of our marketed products or assert that we have infringed their patents or proprietary rights, we may become involved in intellectual property disputes and litigation that would be costly and time consuming and could negatively impact the commercialization of our products that we develop or acquire. We have received a Paragraph IV Notice Letters notifying us of the filing of ANDAs with the FDA for approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO. We previously received Paragraph IV Letters notifying us of the filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA for approval to market a generic version of Treximet and those cases have been concluded. We filed patent infringement lawsuits in response to these ANDAs that has led and will continue to lead to costly and time consuming patent litigation.

The intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies, including us, are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. Our success in developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products may depend, in part,

Table of Contents

on our ability to operate without infringing on the intellectual property rights of others and to prevent others from infringing on our intellectual property rights. There has been substantial litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry. For example, third parties seeking to market generic versions of branded pharmaceutical products often file ANDAs with the FDA, containing a certification stating that the ANDA applicant believes that the patents protecting the branded pharmaceutical product are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed. Such certifications are commonly referred to as paragraph IV certifications.

We, AstraZeneca and Horizon are also engaged in Paragraph IV litigation with several generic pharmaceutical companies with respect to patents listed in the Orange Book with respect to VIMOVO currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and in an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Dr. Reddy’s with respect to the ‘285 patent and in two IPRs brought by the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (CFAD). We and AstraZeneca are also engaged in a proceeding in Canada with Mylan Canada which is seeking approval of its generic version of VIMOVO in Canada prior to the expiration of our Canadian patent.

Litigation can be time consuming and costly and we cannot predict with certainty the outcome. If we are unsuccessful in any of the above-described proceedings and the FDA approves a generic version of one of our marketed products, such an outcome would have a material adverse effect on sales of such product, our business and our results of operations.

Our reliance on collaborations with third parties to develop and commercialize our products is subject to inherent risks and may result in delays in product development and lost or reduced revenues, restricting our ability to commercialize our products and adversely affecting our profitability.

With respect to the products we have licensed, we depend upon collaborations with third parties to develop these product candidates and we depend substantially upon third parties to commercialize these products. As a result, our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval of, manufacture and commercialize our existing and possibly future product candidates depends upon our ability to maintain existing, and enter into and maintain new, contractual and collaborative arrangements with others. We also engage, and may in the future to continue to engage, contract manufacturers and clinical trial investigators.

In addition, the identification of new compounds or product candidates for development has led us in the past, and may continue to require us, to enter into license or other collaborative agreements with others, including pharmaceutical companies and research institutions. Such collaborative agreements for the acquisition of new compounds or product candidates would typically require us to pay license fees, make milestone payments and/or pay royalties. Furthermore, these agreements may result in our revenues being lower than if we developed our product candidates ourselves and in our loss of control over the development of our product candidates.

Contractors or collaborators may have the right to terminate their agreements with us after a specified notice period for any reason or upon a default by us or reduce their payments to us under those agreements on limited or no notice and for no reason or reasons outside of our control. For example, we had a collaboration agreement with Desitin Arzneimittel GmbH, or Desitin, for the development and commercialization of MT 400 for the 27 countries of the European Union, as well as Switzerland and Norway, but on February 27, 2013, we received written notice from Desitin that it was terminating the license agreement due to reimbursement uncertainty for MT 400 in Germany, a major market for Desitin in the territory. We can also mutually agree with our collaborators to terminate the agreements. For example, on November 29, 2014, we executed a termination agreement with sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC (“Sanofi U.S.” or “Sanofi”) terminating the license agreement for PA. As of the termination date, all licenses granted to Sanofi U.S. were terminated and all rights to the products licensed to Sanofi U.S. under the agreement reverted to us. In December 2014, we received a mutual termination letter from Cilag GmbH International (“Cilag”), a division of Johnson & Johnson, terminating our then-current License Agreement with Cilag, for the exclusive development and commercialization of MT 400 in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

Collaborators may also decide not to continue marketing our products in certain countries of the territory or to assign their rights under our agreement to third parties. For example, we had a collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) for the development and commercialization of certain triptan combinations using our MT 400 technology, including Treximet, in the U.S. and GSK entered into an agreement to divest of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell the licensed products in the U.S. to Pernix . In addition, on May 3, 2013, AstraZeneca informed us that, after a strategic business review, it had decided to cease promotion and sampling of VIMOVO by the end of the third quarter of 2013 in certain countries, including the U.S. and all countries in Europe, other than Spain and Portugal, which have pre-existing contractual relationships with third parties. We understood that AstraZeneca would instead focus on those countries where the product has shown growth and which AstraZeneca believed had the greatest potential for future growth. On November 18, 2013, AstraZeneca and Horizon entered into certain agreements in connection with AstraZeneca’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States to Horizon.

Contractors or collaborators may have the right to reduce their payments to us under those agreements. For example, Pernix, and AstraZeneca and Horizon have the right to reduce the royalties on net sales of products payable to us under their respective agreements if generic competitors enter the market and attain a pre-determined share of the market for products marketed under the agreements, or if they must pay a royalty to one or more third parties for rights it licenses from those third parties to commercialize

Table of Contents

products marketed under the agreements. AstraZeneca was also entitled to terminate its agreement with us if certain delays occur or specified development or regulatory objectives were not met. This termination could have been triggered by AstraZeneca if in January 2009, the FDA had determined that endoscopic gastric ulcers were no longer an acceptable endpoint and we had been required to conduct additional trials which would have delayed NDA approval for VIMOVO.

If our current or future licensees exercise termination rights they may have, or if these license agreements terminate because of delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, or for other reasons, and we are not able to establish replacement or additional research and development collaborations or licensing arrangements, we may not be able to develop and/or commercialize our product candidates. Moreover, any future collaborations or license arrangements we may enter into may not be on terms favorable to us. A further risk we face with our collaborations is that business combinations and changes in the collaborator or their business strategy may adversely affect their willingness or ability to complete their obligations to us.

Our current or any future collaborations or license arrangements ultimately may not be successful. Our agreements with collaborators typically allow them discretion in electing whether to pursue various regulatory, commercialization and other activities or with respect to the timing of the development, such as our agreement with GSK, which was assigned to Pernix, under which GSK determined, among other things, the exact formulation and composition of the product candidates using our MT 400 technology for use in the Treximet clinical trials. Similarly, under our agreement with AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca had the right to manufacture clinical trial material itself or through a third party.

If any collaborator were to breach its agreement with us or otherwise fail to conduct collaborative activities in a timely or successful manner, the pre-clinical or clinical development or commercialization of the affected product candidate or research program would be delayed or terminated. Any delay or termination of clinical development or commercialization, such as the delay in FDA approval we experienced as a result of approvable letters we received from the FDA in June 2006 and August 2007 related to our Treximet NDA, or a delay in FDA approval of VIMOVO which could have occurred if the FDA determined in January 2009 that endoscopic gastric ulcers were no longer an acceptable primary endpoint in clinical trials and we were required to conduct additional clinical trials for the product, would delay or possibly eliminate our potential product revenues. Further, our collaborators may be able to exercise control, under certain circumstances, over our ability to protect our patent rights under patents covered by the applicable collaboration agreement. For example, under our collaboration agreements with GSK, now assigned to Pernix, Horizon and AstraZeneca, GSK, Horizon and AstraZeneca each has the first right to enforce our patents under their respective agreements and would have exclusive control over such enforcement litigation. GSK elected not to exercise its first right to prosecute infringement suits against third parties that submitted ANDAs to the FDA for approval to market a generic version of Treximet tablets and we filed suit against these companies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The cases have been concluded. On the other hand, AstraZeneca has elected to its first right to prosecute infringement suits against Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Anchen, Watson and Mylan, each of which submitted an ANDA to the FDA for approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO. We and AstraZeneca filed suit against Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Actavis and Mylan in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. As part of Horizon’s purchase of all of AstraZeneca’s rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States, Horizon has assumed AstraZeneca’s right to lead the above-described Paragraph IV litigation and IPR proceedings relating to VIMIVO.

Other risks associated with our collaborative and contractual arrangements with others include the following:

· we may not have day-to-day control over the activities of our contractors or collaborators;

· our collaborators may fail to defend or enforce patents they own on compounds or technologies that are incorporated into the products we develop with them;

· third parties may not fulfill their regulatory or other obligations;

· we may not realize the contemplated or expected benefits from collaborative or other arrangements; and

· disagreements may arise regarding a breach of the arrangement, the interpretation of the agreement, ownership of proprietary rights, clinical results or regulatory approvals.

These factors could lead to delays in the development of our product candidates and/or the commercialization of our products or reduction in the milestone payments we receive from our collaborators, or could result in our not being able to commercialize our products. Further, disagreements with our contractors or collaborators could require or result in litigation or arbitration, which would be time-consuming and expensive. Our ultimate success may depend upon the success and performance on the part of these third parties. If we fail to maintain these relationships or establish new relationships as required, development of our product candidates and/or the commercialization of our products will be delayed or may never be realized.

Table of Contents

A collaborator may withdraw support or cease to perform work on our product candidates if the collaborator determines to develop its own competing product candidate or other product candidates instead.

We have entered into collaboration and license agreements, and may continue to enter into such agreements, with companies that may have products or may develop new product candidates that compete or may compete with our product candidates or which have greater commercial potential. If one of our collaborators should decide that the product or a product candidate that the collaborator is developing would be more profitable for the collaborator than our product candidate covered by the collaboration or license agreement, the collaborator may withdraw support for our product candidate or may cease to perform under our agreement. On May 3, 2013, AstraZeneca informed us that, after a strategic business review, it had decided to cease promotion and sampling of VIMOVO by the end of the third quarter of 2013 in certain countries, including the U.S. and all countries in Europe, other than Spain and Portugal, which have pre-existing contractual relationships with third parties. We understood that AstraZeneca would instead focus on those countries where the product had shown growth and which AstraZeneca believed had the greatest potential for future growth. On November 18, 2013, AstraZeneca and Horizon entered into certain agreements in connection with AstraZeneca’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States to Horizon. In addition, GSK divested of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell MT 400 products, including Treximet, in the U.S. to Pernix on August 20, 2014.

In the event of a termination of the collaborator’s agreement upon such cessation of performance, we may need to negotiate an agreement with another collaborator in order to continue the development and commercialization efforts for the product candidate. If we were unsuccessful in negotiating another agreement, we might have to cease development activities of the particular product candidate. For example, our development and commercialization agreements with Horizon and AstraZeneca are subject to this risk. Under the terms of our agreement with AstraZeneca and Horizon, either party has the right to terminate the agreement by notice in writing to the other party upon or after any material breach of the agreement by the other party, if the other party has not cured the breach within 90 days after written notice to cure has been given, with certain exceptions. The parties also can terminate the agreement for cause under certain defined conditions. In addition, AstraZeneca can terminate the agreement, at any time, at will, for any reason or no reason, in its entirety or with respect to countries outside the U.S., upon 90 days’ notice. If terminated at will, AstraZeneca will owe us a specified termination payment or, if termination occurs after the product is launched, AstraZeneca may, at its option, under and subject to the satisfaction of conditions specified in the agreement, elect to transfer the product and all rights to us. However, under the circumstance above, or similar circumstance, we may need to enter into a new development and commercialization agreement and may need to start the development process all over again. If we were able to negotiate a new development and commercialization agreement to develop our technology, which is not certain, or if we decide to commercialize the products previously partnered by ourselves, we would face delays and redundant expenses in that development.

We need to maintain current agreements and enter into additional agreements with third parties that possess sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, or establish internally the capability to perform these functions, in order to successfully market and sell our future drug products.

We have no sales or distribution personnel or capabilities at the present time. If we are unable to maintain current collaborations or enter into additional collaborations with established pharmaceutical or pharmaceutical services companies to provide those capabilities as required, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products. To the extent that we enter into marketing and sales agreements with third parties, such as our agreement with Horizon to sell VIMOVO in the United States and AstraZeneca to sell VIMOVO outside the United States, our revenues, if any, will be affected by the sales and marketing efforts of those third parties. If our licensed products do not perform well in the marketplace our royalty revenue will impacted and our business could be materially harmed. For example, on July 28, 2014, Horizon announced that it had been verbally notified by CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, Inc. that VIMOVO would no longer be on their formularies and will be placed on their exclusion lists effective January 1, 2015. We have been notified that Horizon estimates that approximately 20-30% of VIMOVO prescriptions could be impacted by these decisions.

We refined our strategy and decided to retain control of our PA product candidates for cardiovascular indications through the clinical development and pre-commercialization stage. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products. In light of the warning letter sent to our active ingredient supplier and of the time requirements necessary to complete an assessment of its strategic options, and to properly prepare the market for the launch of our YOSPRALA product candidates, we believe the products will be available for commercialization in 2016. Our business and operations model is evolving. On June 1, 2015, our board of directors (the “Board”) appointed Adrian Adams, our new Chief Executive Officer and Andrew I. Koven, our new President and Chief Business Officer, each of whom has experience creating, leading and expanding pharmaceutical companies with marketing and sales capabilities. If the proposed business combination with Tribute is approved by our stockholders and Tribute’s shareholders and such transaction and concurrent equity and debt financings are closed, we will become a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on cardiovascular and pain therapies with a diversified portfolio of marketed products and developmental stage product candidates primarily in the United States and Canada.

Table of Contents

We need to conduct preclinical, toxicology, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity and other safety studies, and clinical trials for our product candidates. Any negative or unanticipated results, unforeseen costs or delays in the conduct of these studies or trials, or the need to conduct additional studies or trials or to seek to persuade the FDA to evaluate the results of a study or trial in a different manner, could cause us to discontinue development of a product candidate or reduce, delay or eliminate our receipt of potential revenues for one or more of our product candidates and adversely affect our ability to achieve profitability.

Generally, we must demonstrate the efficacy and safety of our product candidates before approval to market can be obtained from the FDA or the regulatory authorities in other countries. Our existing and future product candidates are and will be in various stages of clinical development. Depending upon the type of product candidate and the stage of the development process of a product candidate, we will need to complete preclinical, toxicology, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity and other safety studies, as well as clinical trials, on these product candidates before we submit marketing applications in the United States and abroad. These studies and trials can be very costly and time-consuming. For example, long-term cardiovascular safety studies, such as those the FDA has indicated will be required for approval of certain product candidates containing NSAIDs, typically take approximately three years. In addition, we rely on third parties to perform significant aspects of our studies and clinical trials, introducing additional sources of risk into our development programs.

It should be noted that the results of any of our preclinical and clinical trial testing are not necessarily predictive of results we will obtain in subsequent or more extensive clinical trials or testing. This may occur for many reasons, including, among others, differences in study design, including inclusion/exclusion criteria, the variability of patient characteristics, including patient symptoms at the time of study treatment, the larger scale testing of patients in later trials, or differences in formulation or doses of the product candidate used in later trials. For example, our results from the first of our two Phase 3 pivotal clinical trials of Treximet differed from the results of our second Phase 3 clinical trial and from the Phase 2 proof-of-concept trial of MT 400 that we conducted prior to entering into our collaboration with GSK. Whereas in the Phase 2 trial statistical significance was reached at two hours over placebo in the relief of all associated symptoms of migraine (nausea, photophobia and phonophobia), in the first Phase 3 study Treximet failed to achieve statistical significance at two hours compared to placebo in the relief of nausea. In the second Phase 3 pivotal clinical trial, Treximet demonstrated superiority over the individual components measured by sustained pain-free response (p<0.001 vs. naproxen; p=0.009 vs. sumatriptan) and met all other regulatory endpoints versus placebo.

The successful completion of any of our clinical trials depends upon many factors, including the rate of enrollment of patients. If we are unable to recruit sufficient clinical patients during the appropriate period, we may need to delay our clinical trials and incur significant additional costs. We also rely on the compliance of our clinical trial investigators with FDA regulatory requirements and noncompliance can result in disqualification of a clinical trial investigator and data that are unusable. In addition, the FDA or Institutional Review Boards may require us to conduct additional trials or delay, restrict or discontinue our clinical trials on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Further, even though we may have completed all clinical trials for a product candidate that were planned for submission in support of an application, we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials, studies or investigations or to submit additional data to support our marketing applications. For example, in February, 2012, the FDA requested an additional Phase 1 study to assess the bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg with respect to ASA. EC products such as PA32540 and EC aspirin 325 mg have highly variable pharmacokinetics, making bioequivalence difficult to demonstrate using traditional methods and standards. The FDA made a preliminary review of the study results and the Company’s summary analyses and, based on its preliminary assessment of the information available to it at the time, the FDA did not agree that bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg was demonstrated.

In addition, we and/or our marketing or development partners may determine that pre-approval marketing support studies should be conducted. Unanticipated adverse outcomes of such studies, including recognition of certain risks to human subjects, could a have material impact on the approval of filed or planned market applications or could result in limits placed on the marketing of the product. We may also determine from time to time that it would be necessary to seek to provide justification to the FDA or other regulatory agency that would result in evaluation of the results of a study or clinical trial in a manner that differs from the way the regulatory agency initially or customarily evaluated the results, as was the case with the Phase 1 study to assess the bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg described in the preceding paragraph. In addition, we may have unexpected results in our preclinical or clinical trials or other studies that require us to reconsider the need for certain studies or trials or cause us to discontinue development of a product candidate. For example, in reviewing our NDA for Treximet, the FDA expressed concern about the potential implications from one preclinical in-vitro chromosomal aberration study, one of four standard genotoxicity assays, in which a possible genotoxicity signal was seen for the combination of naproxen sodium and sumatriptan. Further, additional information about potential drug-drug interactions may restrict the patient population for our products, thus limiting the potential market and our potential revenue. For example, recent scientific publications contain conflicting data regarding a possible interaction between clopidogrel (Plavix), a widely prescribed anti-platelet agent, and proton pump inhibitor products, and its impact on cardiovascular outcomes. If the clinical relevance of the possible interaction is unresolved by the time PA32540 and PA8140 enters the marketplace, even if the interaction is later proven definitively to have no clinical impact on cardiovascular outcomes, the market potential of the product may be reduced.

Table of Contents

Once submitted, an NDA requires FDA approval before the product described in the application can be distributed or commercialized. Even if we determine that data from our clinical trials, toxicology, genotoxicity carcinogenicity and other safety studies are positive, we cannot assure you that the FDA, after completing its analysis, will not determine that the trials or studies should have been conducted or analyzed differently, and thus reach a different conclusion from that reached by us, or request that further trials, studies or analyses be conducted. For example, the FDA requested additional safety information on Treximet in the approvable letter we received in June 2006 relating to our NDA for Treximet, which required conduct of additional studies, and in August 2007, we received a second approvable letter in which the FDA raised an additional concern about the potential implications from one preclinical in vitro chromosomal aberration study, one of four standard genotoxicity assays, in which a genotoxicity signal was seen for the combination of naproxen sodium and sumatriptan.

The FDA may also require data in certain subpopulations, such as pediatric use, or, if such studies were not previously completed, may require long-term carcinogenicity studies, prior to NDA approval, unless we can obtain a waiver of such a requirement. We face similar regulatory hurdles in other countries to those that we face in the U.S.

Our costs associated with our human clinical trials vary based on a number of factors, including:

·	the order and timing of clinical indications pursued;

·	the extent of development and financial support from collaborative parties, if any;

·	the need to conduct additional clinical trials or studies;

·	the number of patients required for enrollment;

·	the difficulty of obtaining sufficient patient populations and clinicians;

·	the difficulty of obtaining clinical supplies of our product candidates; and

·	governmental and regulatory delays.

We currently depend and will in the future depend on third parties to manufacture our product candidates. If these manufacturers fail to meet our requirements or any regulatory requirements, the product development and commercialization of our product candidates will be delayed.

We do not have, and have no plans to develop, the internal capability to manufacture either clinical trial or commercial quantities of products that we may develop or have under development. We rely upon third-party manufacturers and our partners to supply us with our product candidates. We also need supply contracts to sell our products commercially. On December 19, 2011, we entered into a Supply Agreement and a related Capital Agreement with Patheon Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Patheon”) pursuant to which Patheon has agreed to manufacture, and we have agreed to purchase, a specified percentage of the Company’s requirements of PA32540 for sale in the United States. The Supply Agreement and Capital Agreement were amended on July 10, 2013 to, among other things, expressly incorporate the Company’s PA8140 product candidate into the Supply Agreement and to replace the schedule of the Capital Agreement which lists dedicated and non-dedicated capital equipment and facility modifications to be funded in whole or in part by the Company, with a new updated schedule reflecting the parties’ current assumptions regarding the need for and timing of capital equipment expenditures. We also rely on third parties to supply the active ingredients and other ingredients used in the manufacture of our products. Failure of such ingredient suppliers to comply with regulatory requirements can impact our ability to obtain approval of our products or our ability to supply the market with our products after approval. For example, On April 25, 2014, we announced that we had received a CRL from the FDA with respect to the NDA for our PA32540 and PA8140 products. In the CRL, the FDA noted that, during an inspection of the manufacturing facility of an active ingredient supplier, inspection deficiencies were found. Satisfactory resolution of deficiencies noted by the field investigator is required before the NDA may be approved. On May 9, 2014, our active ingredient supplier submitted a response to the FDA addressing the inspection deficiencies and subsequently submitted an update to its initial response. On December 17, 2014, we received a second CRL from the FDA advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude approval of the NDA in its current form. In this CRL, the FDA used identical wording to that of the first CRL. Satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before this application may be approved. The active ingredient supplier has informed us that they received a warning letter relating to the Form 483 inspection deficiencies and have submitted a plan of corrective actions to address the matters raised in the warning letter to FDA. There were no clinical or safety deficiencies noted with respect to either PA32540 or PA8140 and no other deficiencies were noted in the CRL.

There is no guarantee that manufacturers that enter into commercial supply contracts with us will be financially viable entities going forward, or will not otherwise breach or terminate their agreements with us. If we do not have the necessary commercial supply contracts, or if Patheon is, or any of our future contract manufacturers are unable to satisfy our requirements or meet any regulatory requirements, and we are required to find alternative sources of supply, there may be additional costs and delays in product

Table of Contents

development and commercialization of our product candidates or we may be required to comply with additional regulatory requirements.

If our competitors develop and commercialize products faster than we do or if their products are superior to ours, our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated.

Our product candidates will have to compete with existing and any newly developed drugs in our therapeutic areas for any newly developed product candidates for the treatment of other diseases. There are also likely to be numerous competitors developing new products to treat other diseases and conditions for which we may seek to develop products in the future, which could render our products and product candidates or technologies obsolete or non-competitive. For example, our primary competitors will likely include large pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, universities and public and private research institutions. The competition for VIMOVO and any other PN products that may be developed and receive regulatory approval will come from the oral NSAID market, or more specifically the traditional non-selective NSAIDs (such as naproxen and diclofenac), traditional NSAID/gastroprotective agent combination products or combination product packages (such as Arthrotec® and Prevacid® NapraPAC™), combinations of NSAIDs and PPIs taken as separate pills and the only remaining COX-2 inhibitor, Celebrex®. The competition for our PA product candidates for which we have conducted studies for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events will come from aspirin itself as well as other products used for secondary prevention. AstraZeneca, with whom we collaborated in the development of VIMOVO, has publicly announced that it has obtained regulatory approval for a combination product containing aspirin and esomeprazole in Europe and has also filed a NDA with the FDA for such product, and for which the FDA issued a CRL declining approval. AstraZeneca has stated that it is evaluating the CRL and will continue discussions with the FDA to determine next steps. This product has entered the European market and, if it enters the U.S. market, will compete with our PA cardiovascular product candidates.

Based upon their drug product and pipeline portfolios and the overall competitiveness of our industry, we believe that we face, and will continue to face, intense competition from other companies for securing collaborations with pharmaceutical companies, establishing relationships with academic and research institutions, and acquiring licenses to proprietary technology. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative parties, may also succeed with technologies or products that are more effective than any of our current or future technologies or products. Many of our actual or potential competitors, either alone or together with collaborative parties, have substantially greater financial resources, and almost all of our competitors have larger numbers of scientific and administrative personnel than we do.

Many of these competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative parties, also have significantly greater resources to or experience in:

·	developing product candidates;

·	undertaking preclinical testing and human clinical trials;

·	obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of product candidates; and

·	manufacturing and marketing products.

Accordingly, our actual or potential competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, receiving FDA or other regulatory approval or commercializing products where we cannot or before we do. Any delays we encounter in obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates, such as we experienced as a result of the approvable letters we received from the FDA in June 2006 and August 2007 relating to the NDA for Treximet, as a result of the not-approvable letters we received from the FDA on MT 100 and MT 300, and as a result of the CRLs we received from the FDA relating to the NDA for PA32540 and PA8140 on April 25, 2014 and December 16, 2014, increase this risk. Our competitors may also develop products or technologies that are superior to those that we are developing, and render our product candidates or technologies obsolete or non-competitive. If we cannot successfully compete with new or existing products, our marketing and sales will suffer and we may not ever receive any revenues from sales of products or may not receive sufficient revenues to achieve profitability.

If we are unable to protect our patents or proprietary rights, or if we are unable to operate our business without infringing the patents and proprietary rights of others, we may be unable to develop our product candidates or compete effectively.

The pharmaceutical industry places considerable importance on obtaining patent and trade secret protection for new technologies, products and processes. Our success will depend, in part, on our ability, and the ability of our licensors, to obtain and to keep protection for our products and technologies under the patent laws of the United States and other countries, so that we can stop others from using our inventions. Our success also will depend on our ability to prevent others from using our trade secrets. In addition, we must operate in a way that does not infringe, or violate, the patent, trade secret and other intellectual property rights of other parties.

We cannot know how much protection, if any, our patents will provide or whether our patent applications will issue as patents. The breadth of claims that will be allowed in patent applications cannot be predicted and neither the validity nor

Table of Contents

enforceability of claims in issued patents can be assured. If, for any reason, we are unable to obtain and enforce valid claims covering our products and technology, we may be unable to prevent competitors from using the same or similar technology or to prevent competitors from marketing identical products. For example, if we are unsuccessful in protecting our patents in the litigation against Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Actavis, and Mylan or other companies who may file ANDAs for VIMOVO, such companies could market a generic version of the product prior to the expiration of our and AstraZeneca’s patents.

In addition, due to the extensive time needed to develop, test and obtain regulatory approval for our products, any patents that protect our product candidates may expire early during commercialization. This may reduce or eliminate any market advantages that such patents may give us.

In certain territories outside the U.S., our issued patents may be subject to opposition by competitors within a certain time after the patent is issued. Such opposition proceedings and related appeals may not be resolved for several years, and may result in the partial or total revocation of the issued patent. For example, in October 2005 oppositions were filed against our issued European patent for MT 400 by Merck & Co., Inc. and Almirall Prodesfarma asserting that the European patent should not have been granted. As a result of these oppositions and subsequent proceedings, the European Patent Office found that claims relating to combinations of sumatriptan and naproxen for the treatment of migraine were valid. However, broader claims relating to certain other 5-HT 1B/1D agonists and long-acting NSAIDs were held to be insufficiently supported by the presently available technical evidence. In addition, in April 2011, oppositions were also filed against our issued European patent for VIMOVO and our PA products by Chatfield Laboratories and Strawman Limited asserting that the European patent should not have been granted. Strawman Limited subsequently withdrew from the opposition. Following oral proceedings, the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office found that claims relating to the combination of PPIs and NSAIDs are valid. Chatfield Laboratories did not appeal this decision.

We may need to submit our issued patents for amendment or reissue if we determine that any claims within our patents should not have been issued. While such a submission may be based on our view that only specified claims should not have been granted to us, there can be no assurance that a patent examiner will not determine that additional claims should not have been granted to us. Such was the case with one of our patents covering MT 100, which we submitted for reissue after determining that certain specified claims that are not central to our protection of MT 100 should not have been issued. In April 2006, we received an office action on the reissue application and, consistent with our decision not to devote further resources to the development of this product in the U.S., the reissue application was abandoned in January 2007.

We may need to license rights to third party patents and intellectual property to continue the development and marketing of our product candidates. If we are unable to acquire such rights on acceptable terms, our development activities may be blocked and we may be unable to bring our product candidates to market.

We may enter into litigation to defend ourselves against claims of infringement, assert claims that a third party is infringing one or more of our patents, protect our trade secrets or know-how, or determine the scope and validity of others’ patent or proprietary rights. For example, we filed patent infringement lawsuits against Par, Alphapharm, Teva, Dr. Reddy’s and Sun in the federal court in the Eastern District of Texas in connection with their respective ANDA submissions to the FDA containing Paragraph IV certifications for approval to market sumatriptan 85 mg/naproxen sodium 500 mg tablets, a generic version of Treximet tablets, before the expiration of our patents. Further, we and AstraZeneca filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Actavis and Mylan in the federal court in the District of New Jersey in connection with their respective ANDA submissions to the FDA containing a Paragraph IV certification for approval to market (a generic version of VIMOVO tablets, before the expiration of our and AstraZeneca’s patents. Dr. Reddy’s and CFAD have also challenged the validity of certain patents covering VIMOVO in IPR proceedings before the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). We and AstraZeneca are also engaged in a proceeding in Canada with Mylan ULC which is seeking approval of its generic version of VIMOVO in Canada prior to the expiration of our Canadian patent. With respect to some of our product candidates, under certain circumstances, our development or commercialization collaborators have the first right to enforce our patents and would have exclusive control over such enforcement litigation. For example, under our collaboration agreements with GSK and AstraZeneca, GSK and AstraZeneca each has the first right to enforce our patents under their respective agreements. GSK advised us that it elected not to exercise its first right to bring an infringement suit against Par, Alphapharm, Teva, and Dr. Reddy’s, and Sun each of which submitted ANDAs to the FDA for approval to market a generic version of Treximet tablets, while AstraZeneca has exercised its first right to bring an infringement suit against Dr. Reddy’s Lupin, Actavis and Mylan, each of which submitted an ANDA to the FDA for approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO tablets and AstraZeneca Canada has exercised its first right to defend the proceeding in Canada against Mylan ULC. As part of Horizon’s purchase of all of AstraZeneca’s rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States, Horizon has assumed AstraZeneca’s right to lead the above-described Paragraph IV litigation relating to VIMIVO. Horizon is also leading the defense in the IPRs brought by Dr. Reddy’s and CFAD.

If we are found to infringe the patent rights of others, then we may be forced to pay damages in an amount that might irreparably harm our business and/or be prevented from continuing our product development and marketing activities. Additionally, if we or our development or commercialization collaborator seek to enforce our patents and are unsuccessful, we may be subject to claims for bringing a failed enforcement action, including claims alleging various forms of antitrust violations (both state and federal)

Table of Contents

and unfair competition. If we are found to be liable for such claims, then we may be forced to pay damages in an amount that might irreparably harm our business and/or be prevented from continuing our product development and commercialization activities. Even if we are successful in defending any such claims of infringement or in asserting claims against third parties, such litigation is expensive, may have a material effect on our operations, and may distract management from our business operations. Regardless of its eventual outcome, any lawsuit that we enter into may consume time and resources that would impair our ability to develop and market our product candidates.

We have entered into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, advisors and collaborators. However, these parties may not honor these agreements and, as a result, we may not be able to protect our rights to unpatented trade secrets and know-how. Others may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets and know-how. Also, many of our scientific and management personnel were previously employed by competing companies. As a result, such companies may allege trade secret violations and similar claims against us.

Our products may not be accepted by the market.

The commercial success of our product candidates depends upon the acceptance of these products in the marketplace. Even if a product displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in clinical trials, market acceptance of a product will not be known until after it is launched and a product may not generate the revenues that we anticipate. The degree of market acceptance will depend upon a number of factors, including:

·	the acceptance by physicians and third-party payors of VIMOVO and YOSPRALA, if and when approved, as an alternative to other therapies;

·	the receipt and timing of regulatory approvals;

·	the availability of third-party reimbursement;

·	the indications for which the product is approved;

·	the rate of adoption by healthcare providers;

·	the rate of product acceptance by target patient populations;

·	the price of the product relative to alternative therapies;

·	the availability of alternative therapies;

·	the extent and effectiveness of marketing efforts by our collaborators, and third-party distributors and agents;

·	the existence of adverse publicity regarding our products or similar products; and

·	the extent and severity of side effects as compared to alternative therapies.

If we or our commercialization partners do not receive adequate third-party reimbursements for our future products, our revenues and profitability will be reduced.

Our ability to commercialize our product candidates successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which reimbursement for the costs of such products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, such as Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S., private health insurers and other organizations. Significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of a newly approved healthcare product. Adequate third-party coverage may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product research and development. If adequate coverage and reimbursement levels are not provided by government and third-party payors for use of our products, our products may fail to achieve market acceptance. For example, on July 28, 2014, Horizon announced that it had been verbally notified by CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, Inc. that VIMOVO would no longer be on their formularies and will be placed on their exclusion lists effective January 1, 2015. Horizon estimates that approximately 20-30% of VIMOVO prescriptions could be impacted by these decisions.

Our future revenues, profitability and access to capital will be affected by the continuing efforts of governmental and private third-party payors to contain or reduce the costs of healthcare through various means. We expect that a number of federal, state and foreign proposals will seek to control the cost of drugs through governmental regulation. We are unsure of the form that any healthcare reform legislation may take or what actions federal, state, foreign and private payors may take in response to any proposed reforms. Therefore, we cannot predict the effect of any implemented reform on our business.

Legislative or regulatory reform of the healthcare system may affect our ability to sell our products profitably.

In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, which includes a number of health care reform provisions and requires most U.S. citizens to have health insurance. PPACA increased the minimum Medicaid drug rebates for pharmaceutical companies, expands the 340B drug discount program, and makes changes to affect the Medicare Part D coverage gap, or “donut hole.” The law also revises the definition of “average manufacturer price” for reporting purposes which could increase the

Table of Contents

amount of the Company’s Medicaid drug rebates to states. The law also imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. Substantial new provisions affecting compliance also have been added, which may require modification of business practices with health care practitioners.

The reforms imposed by the law will significantly impact the pharmaceutical industry; however, the full effects of PPACA cannot be known until these provisions are fully implemented and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other federal and state agencies issue applicable regulations or guidance. Moreover, in the coming years, additional changes could be made to governmental healthcare programs that could significantly impact the success of our products, and we could be adversely affected by current and future health care reforms.

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

The testing and marketing of pharmaceutical products entail an inherent risk of product liability. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling our future products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against such claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit the commercialization of our products. We have product liability insurance that covers our commercialized product and human clinical trials in an amount equal to up to $10 million annual aggregate limit with a $0.1 million deductible per claim. The amount of insurance that we currently hold may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that may occur. However, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive, and no assurance can be given that we will be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. We will explore, on an on-going basis, expanding our insurance coverage related to the sale of our future marketed products when we obtain marketing approval for such products and commercial sales of such products begin. However, we may not be able to obtain commercially reasonable product liability insurance for any products approved for marketing. If a plaintiff brings a successful product liability claim against us in excess of our insurance coverage, if any, we may incur substantial liabilities and our business may be harmed or fail.

We may need additional funding and may not have access to capital. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we may need to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development or commercialization efforts.

In the future, we may need to raise additional funds to execute our evolving business strategy. We have incurred losses from operations since inception and we may continue to incur additional operating losses. Our actual capital requirements will depend upon numerous factors, including:

·	the progress of our research and development programs;

·	the progress of preclinical studies, clinical and other testing or the need conduct additional trials, studies or other testing;

·	the time and cost involved in obtaining any regulatory approvals;

·	the costs of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing any patent claims and other intellectual property rights;

·	the effect of competing technological and market developments;

·	the timing of our receipt, if any, of milestone payments and royalties under collaborative agreements;

·	the effect of changes and developments in, or termination of, our collaborative, license and other relationships;

·	the terms and timing of any additional collaborative, license and other arrangements that we may establish; and

·	our ability to commercialize or arrange for the commercialization of our product candidates.

Our operating expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2015 totaled $4.2 million, including non-cash compensation expense of $0.5 million related to stock options and other stock-based awards. For fiscal years 2012 through 2014, our average annual operating expenses (including average non-cash deferred compensation of $2.9 million) were $24.6 million. As of March 31, 2015, we had an aggregate of $43.9 million in cash and cash equivalents. We expect that our operating expenses for 2015 and 2016 will exceed the net level of our operating expenses in 2014. We believe that we will have sufficient cash reserves and cash flow to maintain our planned level of business activities, through 2015. However, our anticipated cash flow includes continued receipt of royalty revenue from Horizon and AstraZeneca’s sale of VIMOVO but does not include any additional milestone or royalty payments. In addition, our expenses might increase during that period beyond currently expected levels if we decide to, or any regulatory agency requires us to, conduct additional clinical trials, studies or investigations for any of our product candidates, including in connection with the agency’s consideration, or reconsideration, of our regulatory filings for our product candidates. We are planning to commercialize our PA product candidates in the United States without a commercial partner and our expenses will increase relative to prior years as we move from a development company which licenses its product candidates to other companies towards a fully integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company. If our projected revenues decrease, we may need to raise additional capital.

If our projected expenses increase for our product candidates currently in development, if we expand our studies for additional indications for our PA product candidates or new product candidates, of if we commercialize our product candidates ourselves then, as a result of these or other factors, we may need to raise additional capital.

Table of Contents

If the proposed business combination with Tribute is not consummated and such transaction and concurrent equity and debt financings do not close, we will need to raise capital to commercialize YOSPRALA and to implement our plan to become a fully integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company. We may be unable to raise additional equity funds when we desire to do so due to unfavorable market conditions in our industry or generally, or due to other unforeseen developments in our business. Further, we may not be able to find sufficient debt or equity funding, if at all, on acceptable terms. If we cannot, we may need to delay, reduce or eliminate research and development programs and therefore may not be able to execute our business strategy. Further, to the extent that we obtain additional funding through collaboration and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary for us to give up valuable rights to our development programs or technologies or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us.

The sale by us of additional equity securities or the expectation that we will sell additional equity securities may have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

We depend on key personnel and may not be able to retain these employees or recruit additional qualified personnel, which would harm our research and development and commercialization efforts.

We are highly dependent on the efforts of our key management and scientific personnel, especially Adrian Adams, our Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew I. Koven, our President and Chief Business Officer. If we should lose the services of Mr. Adams or Mr. Koven, or are unable to replace the services of our other key personnel who may leave the Company, or if we fail to recruit other key scientific and commercial personnel, we may be unable to achieve our business objectives. There is intense competition for qualified scientific and commercial personnel. We may not be able to continue to attract and retain the qualified personnel necessary for developing our business. Furthermore, our future success may also depend in part on the continued service of our other key management personnel and our ability to recruit and retain additional personnel, as required by our business.

New and changing corporate governance and public disclosure requirements add uncertainty to our compliance policies and increase our costs of compliance.

Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to accounting, corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other SEC regulations, and the NASDAQ Global Market rules, are creating uncertainty for companies like ours. These laws, regulations and standards may lack specificity and are subject to varying interpretations. Their application in practice may evolve over time, as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs of compliance as a result of ongoing revisions to such corporate governance standards.

In particular, our efforts to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the related regulations regarding our required assessment of our internal controls over financial reporting and our external auditors’ audit of that assessment requires the commitment of significant financial and managerial resources. We consistently assess the adequacy of our internal controls over financial reporting, remediate any control deficiencies that may be identified, and validate through testing that our controls are functioning as documented. While we do not anticipate any material weaknesses, the inability of management to assess our internal controls over financial reporting as effective could result in adverse consequences to us, including, but not limited to, a loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which could cause the market price of our stock to decline. The existence of this or one or more other material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting could result in errors in our financial statements, and substantial costs and resources may be required to rectify any internal control deficiencies. Although we continually review and evaluate internal control systems to allow management to report on the sufficiency of our internal controls, we cannot assure you that we will not discover weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. Any such weakness or failure to remediate any existing material weakness could materially adversely affect our ability to comply with applicable financial reporting requirements and the requirements of our various agreements.

We are committed to maintaining high standards of corporate governance and public disclosure, and our efforts to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards in this regard have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. In addition, the laws, regulations and standards regarding corporate governance may make it more difficult for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance. Further, our board members, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer could face an increased risk of personal liability in connection with their performance of duties. As a result, we may face difficulties attracting and retaining qualified board members and executive officers, which could harm our business. If we fail to comply with new or changed laws, regulations or standards of corporate governance, our business and reputation may be harmed.

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Commercialization of our Product Candidates

We continue to evaluate the commercial opportunities for our current product candidates in connection with our development of a worldwide commercialization strategy. We expect to commercialize YOSPRALA ourselves in the United States and may pursue commercial opportunities for our future products ourselves. If we are unable to develop sales and marketing capabilities on our own, or through partner acquisition, we will not be able to fully exploit the commercial potential of our future products and the costs of pursuing such a strategy may have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

We continue to evaluate the commercial opportunities for our product candidates in connection with our development of a worldwide commercialization strategy. We decided to retain ownership of our PA product candidates through the clinical development and pre-commercialization stage and our former chief commercial officer developed the commercialization strategy for these products and conducted all the required pre-commercialization activities in the United States. On November 29, 2014, we executed a termination agreement with Sanofi U.S. terminating the license agreement for PA. As of the termination date, all licenses granted to Sanofi U.S. were terminated and all rights to the products licensed to Sanofi U.S. under the agreement reverted to us. The termination agreement further provides for the transfer of specified commercial know-how developed by Sanofi U.S. relating to the PA products to us and allows us, and any future collaborators, to use this know-how to commercialize the products. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products. Our business and operations model is evolving. On June 1, 2015, our Board appointed Adrian Adams, as our new Chief Executive Officer and Andrew I. Koven, as our new President and Chief Business Officer, each of whom has experience creating, leading and expanding pharmaceutical companies with marketing and sales capabilities. If the proposed business combination with Tribute is approved by our stockholders and Tribute’s shareholders and such transaction and concurrent equity and debt financings are closed, we will become a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on cardiovascular and pain therapies with a diversified portfolio of marketed products and developmental stage product candidates in the United States and Canada. We plan to make significant expenditures to secure commercial resources to sell YOSPRALA and the Tribute products and to expand our marketing capabilities to support our anticipated growth. Any failure or extended delay in the expansion of our sales and marketing capabilities or inability to effectively operate in the marketplace alone or together with our partners could adversely impact our business. There can be no assurance that our sales and marketing efforts will generate significant revenues and costs of pursuing such a strategy may have a material adverse impact on our results of operations. Events or factors that may inhibit or hinder our commercialization efforts include:

·	developing our own commercial team or playing a role in the commercialization with a partner will be expensive and time-consuming and could result in high cash burn or reduced profitability;

·	failure to acquire sufficient or suitable personnel to establish, oversee, or implement our commercialization strategy;

·	failure to recruit, train, oversee and retain adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel;

·	failure to develop a commercial strategy ourselves or together with partners that can effectively reach and persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe our products;

·	our or our partners’ inability to secure reimbursement at a reasonable price;

·	unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating or acquiring and sustaining an independent commercial organization;

·	incurrence of costs in advance of anticipated revenues and subsequent failure to generate sufficient revenue to offset additional costs; and

·	our ability to fund our commercialization efforts alone or together with our partners on terms acceptable to us, if at all.

As we pursue commercialization of YOSPRALA and other opportunities for our future products ourselves, failure to comply with the laws governing the marketing and sale of such products may result in regulatory agencies taking action against us and/or our partners, which could significantly harm our business.

We retained ownership of our PA product candidates through the clinical development and pre-commercialization stage and our chief commercial officer developed the commercialization strategy for these products and conducted pre-commercialization activities in the United States. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products. Our business model is continuing to evolve. Our Board has appointed a new Chief Executive and a new President and Chief Business Officer who have experience creating and leading pharmaceutical companies with marketing and sales capabilities. Our business and operations model is evolving. On June 1, 2015, our Board appointed Adrian Adams as our new Chief Executive Officer and Andrew I. Koven as our new President and Chief Business Officer, each of whom has experience creating, leading and expanding pharmaceutical companies with marketing and sales capabilities. If the proposed business combination with Tribute is approved by our stockholders and Tribute’s shareholders and such transaction and concurrent equity and debt financings are closed, we will become a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on cardiovascular and pain therapies with a diversified portfolio of marketed products and developmental stage product candidates in the United States and Canada. As we pursue commercialization of YOSPRALA and other product candidates we will be subject to a large body of legal and regulatory requirements. In particular, there

Table of Contents

are many federal, state and local laws that we will need to comply with if we become engaged in the marketing, promoting, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical products. The FDA extensively regulates, among other things, promotions and advertising of prescription drugs. In addition, the marketing and sale of prescription drugs must comply with the Federal fraud and abuse laws, which are enforced by the Office of the Inspector General of the Division, or OIG, of the Department of Health and Human Services. These laws make it illegal for anyone to give or receive anything of value in exchange for a referral for a product or service that is paid for, in whole or in part, by any federal health program. The federal government can pursue fines and penalties under the Federal False Claims Act which makes it illegal to file, or induce or assist another person in filing, a fraudulent claim for payment to any governmental agency. Because, as part of our and/or our partners commercialization efforts, we or our partners may provide physicians with samples we will be required to comply with the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which governs the distribution of prescription drug samples to healthcare practitioners. Among other things, the PDMA prohibits the sale, purchase or trade of prescription drug samples. It also sets out record keeping and other requirements for distributing samples to licensed healthcare providers.

In addition, we will need to comply with the body of laws comprised of the Medicaid Rebate Program, the Veterans’ Health Care Act of 1992 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. This body of law governs product pricing for government reimbursement and sets forth detailed formulas for how we must calculate and report the pricing of our products so as to ensure that the federally funded programs will get the best price. Moreover, many states have enacted laws dealing with fraud and abuse, false claims, the distribution of prescription drug samples and gifts and the calculation of best price. These laws typically mirror the federal laws but in some cases, the state laws are more stringent than the federal laws and often differ from state to state, making compliance more difficult. We expect more states to enact similar laws, thus increasing the number and complexity of requirements with which we would need to comply.

Compliance with this body of laws is complicated, time consuming and expensive. We cannot assure you that we will be in compliance with all potentially applicable laws and regulations. Even minor, inadvertent irregularities can potentially give rise to claims that the law has been violated. Failure to comply with all potentially applicable laws and regulations could lead to penalties such as the imposition of significant fines, debarment from participating in drug development and marketing and the exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs. The imposition of one or more of these penalties could adversely affect our revenues and our ability to conduct our business as planned.

In addition, the Federal False Claims Act allows any person to bring suit alleging the false or fraudulent submission of claims for payment under federal programs and other violations of the statute and to share in any amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. Such suits, known as qui tam actions, have increased significantly in recent years and have increased the risk that companies like us may have to defend a false claim action. We could also become subject to similar false claims litigation under state statutes. If we are unsuccessful in defending any such action, such action may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Proposed Transactions

The merger agreement is subject to conditions and could be terminated in accordance with its terms and the transactions contemplated thereby may not be completed.

The merger agreement contains a number of conditions that must be satisfied or waived to complete the transactions contemplated thereby. Those conditions include, among others: receipt of the Pozen stockholder approval, receipt of Tribute shareholder approval, court approval of the transactions under the arrangement, expiration or termination of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (the “HSR Act”), if applicable, absence of any law or order preventing or prohibiting completion of the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement and no governmental authority instituting any proceeding seeking to enjoin or prohibit the completion of the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement, effectiveness of the registration statement of which the Form S-4, is a part, approval of the Parent Shares to be issued in the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement for listing on NASDAQ and the TSX, the continued accuracy of the representations and warranties of both parties, subject to specified materiality standards, and the performance in all material respects by both parties of their covenants and agreements. If the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement are not completed by January 31, 2016, either Pozen or Tribute may choose not to proceed with the transactions and terminate the merger agreement. No assurance can be given that all of the conditions to the closing of the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement will be satisfied or, if they are, as to the timing of such satisfaction. In addition, Pozen or Tribute may elect to terminate the merger agreement in certain other circumstances, including, but not limited to, a tax termination event, and the parties can mutually decide to terminate the merger agreement at any time prior to the completion of the transaction, before or after the Pozen stockholder approval or Tribute shareholder approval.

Table of Contents

Obtaining required approvals necessary to satisfy the conditions to the completion of the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement may delay or prevent completion of such transactions.

The transactions contemplated under the merger agreement are subject to closing conditions, which include the expiration or termination of the waiting period under the HSR Act, if applicable, obtaining of the adoption of the merger agreement by affirmative vote or content of Pozen stockholders holding a majority of the Pozen common stock outstanding and entitled to vote (the “Pozen stockholder approval”) as well as obtaining the affirmative vote of at least 662/3 % of the votes cast on the arrangement resolution by Tribute shareholders present in person or represented by proxy at the Tribute meeting of shareholders (the “Tribute shareholder approval”).

Under the HSR Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by the FTC, Pozen and Tribute may be required to submit notifications and certain documents and information to the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (the “Antitrust Division”), and to observe a statutory waiting period, before completing the transactions. If notifications and submissions are required from Pozen and Tribute under the HSR Act, following those submissions the FTC or the Antitrust Division may open an investigation, issue a request for additional information and documentary materials, extend the statutory waiting period, or seek to prevent, delay, or otherwise restrain the completion of the transactions under the antitrust laws. No assurances can be given that the FTC or the Antitrust Division will not seek to take one or more of these steps. Similarly, no assurances can be given that the Pozen stockholders or Tribute shareholders will approve the transactions or that the other conditions to closing of the transactions will be satisfied. In the event Pozen’s stockholders approve the merger, but Tribute’s shareholders do not approve the arrangement, or if Pozen’s stockholders do not vote to approve the issuance by Parent of Parent Shares pursuant to the Subscription Agreement and the Facility Agreement, the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement will not close.

Under the Competition Act (Canada) (the “Competition Act”), Pozen and Tribute may be required to submit notifications and certain documents and information to the Canadian Competition Bureau, and to observe a statutory waiting period, before completing the transactions. If notifications and submissions are required from Pozen and Tribute under the Competition Act, following those submissions the Canadian Competition Bureau (the “Competition Bureau”) may open an investigation, issue a request for additional information and documentary materials, extend the statutory waiting period, or seek to prevent, delay, or otherwise restrain the completion of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement under applicable laws. No assurances can be given that the Competition Bureau will not seek to take one or more of these steps.

Certain changes in the U.S. federal tax laws on or before the closing date of the merger agreement could jeopardize the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.

Pozen and/or Tribute are permitted to terminate the merger agreement if, prior to the closing date of the merger agreement, there is (i) a change in U.S. federal tax law (whether or not such change in law is yet effective) or any official interpretations thereof as set forth in published guidance by the U.S. Treasury Department or the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) (other than IRS news releases) (whether or not such change in official interpretation is yet effective) or (ii) a bill that would implement such a change that has been passed by the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate and for which the time period for the President of the United States to sign or veto such bill has not yet elapsed, in any such case, that, as a result of consummating the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, in the opinion of nationally recognized U.S. tax counsel, would have a material adverse effect, including causing Parent to be treated as a United States domestic corporation for United States federal income tax purposes, as further specified in the merger agreement.

Aralez’s status as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal tax purposes could be affected by IRS action or a change in U.S. tax law.

Although Parent will be incorporated in Ireland, the IRS may assert that Parent should be treated as a U.S. corporation (and, therefore, a U.S. tax resident) for U.S. federal income tax purposes pursuant to Section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). A corporation generally is considered a tax resident in the jurisdiction of its organization or incorporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Because Parent is an Irish incorporated entity, generally it would be classified as a foreign corporation (and, therefore, a non-U.S. tax resident) under these rules. Section 7874 of the Code provides an exception pursuant to which a foreign incorporated entity may, in certain circumstances, be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Under Section 7874 of the Code, Parent would be treated as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes if the former stockholders of Pozen own (within the meaning of Section 7874 of the Code) less than 80% (by both vote and value) of Parent Shares by reason of holding shares in Pozen (the “ownership test”). The Pozen stockholders are expected to own less than 80% (by both vote and value) of the Parent Shares after the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement by reason of their ownership of shares of Pozen common stock. As a result, under current law, Parent is expected to be treated as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, there can be no assurance that the IRS will agree with the position that the ownership test is satisfied. There is limited guidance regarding the application of Section 7874 of the Code, including with respect to the provisions regarding the application of the ownership test. Pozen’s obligation to complete the transactions is conditional upon its receipt of the Section 7874 opinion from DLA Piper LLP (US), counsel to the registrant (“DLA Piper”), dated as of the closing date of the merger agreement and subject to certain qualifications and limitations set forth therein, to the effect that Section 7874 of the Code existing regulations promulgated thereunder, and official interpretation thereof as set forth in published guidance should not apply in such a manner so as to cause Parent to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes from and after the closing date. However, an opinion of tax counsel is not binding on the IRS or a court. Therefore, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not take a position contrary to DLA Piper’s Section 7874 opinion or that a court will not agree with the IRS in the event of litigation.

Table of Contents

Failure to complete the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement could negatively impact the stock price and the future business and financial results of Pozen.

If the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement are not completed, the ongoing business of Pozen may be materially and adversely affected and, without realizing any of the benefits of having completed the transactions, Pozen will be subject to a number of risks, including the following:

· Pozen will be required to pay certain costs relating to the transactions, including legal, accounting, investment banking, filing, and other fees and mailing, financial printing and other expenses, whether or not the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement are completed, and Pozen may be required to pay Tribute a termination fee of up to $3.5 million in the event the merger agreement is terminated under certain conditions;

· the current price of Pozen common stock may reflect a market assumption that the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement will occur, meaning that a failure to complete the transactions could result in a material decline in the price of Pozen common stock;

· Pozen may experience negative reactions from its customers, regulators and employees;

· the merger agreement places certain restrictions on the conduct of Pozen’s business prior to completion of the transactions contemplated thereunder. Such restrictions, the non-compliance of which is subject to the consent of Tribute, may prevent Pozen from making certain acquisitions or taking certain other specified actions during the pendency of the transactions; and

· matters relating to the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement (including integration planning) have required and will continue to require substantial commitments of time and resources by Pozen management, which could otherwise have been devoted to day-to-day operations and other opportunities that may have been beneficial to Pozen as an independent company. In addition to the above risks, Pozen may be required to pay to Tribute a termination fee, which may materially adversely affect Pozen’s financial results.

In addition to the above risks, Pozen may be required to pay to Tribute a termination fee, which may materially adversely affect Pozen’s financial results. If the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement are not completed, these risks may materialize and may materially and adversely affect Pozen’s business, financial results and share price.

Pozen stockholders will have a reduced ownership and voting interest after the merger and will exercise less influence over management.

Pozen stockholders currently have the right to vote in the election of the Board and on other matters affecting Pozen. Upon the completion of the merger, each Pozen stockholder that receives Parent Shares will become a shareholder of Parent, with a percentage ownership of Parent that is smaller than such stockholder’s percentage ownership of Pozen. As of the date of the proxy statement/prospectus on Form S-4, as filed on July 20, 2015 by Parent, the former stockholders of Pozen as a group will receive Parent Shares in the merger constituting approximately 66% of the outstanding Parent Shares immediately after the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement. After giving effect to the transactions and the proposed Parent equity financing and debt financing, the former stockholders of Pozen as a group will hold Parent Shares constituting approximately 49% of the outstanding Parent Shares and the former Tribute shareholders as a group will hold Parent Shares constituting approximately 28% of the Parent Shares. Because of this, Pozen stockholders will have less influence on the management and policies of Parent than they now have on the management and policies of Pozen. The relative ownership of Parent Shares by current Pozen stockholders and current Tribute shareholders referred to above is on an economic basis, and does not represent the analysis under Section 7874 of the Code, discussed throughout the Form S-4, as to whether, following the merger, former stockholders of Pozen will own less than 80% (by both vote and value) of Parent Shares.

Pozen and Tribute may fail to realize all of the anticipated benefits of the transactions or those benefits may take longer to realize than expected. The combined company may also encounter significant difficulties in integrating the two businesses.

The ability of Parent to realize the anticipated benefits of the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement will depend, to a large extent, on the combined company’s ability to integrate the businesses of Pozen and Tribute. The combination of two independent businesses is a complex, costly and time-consuming process. As a result, Parent will be required to devote significant management attention and resources to integrating their business practices and operations. The integration process may disrupt the businesses and, if implemented ineffectively, would restrict the realization of the full expected benefits. The failure to meet the challenges involved in integrating the two businesses and to realize the anticipated benefits of the transaction could cause an interruption of, or a loss of momentum in, the activities of the combined company and could adversely affect the results of operations of the combined company.

In addition, the overall integration of the businesses may result in material unanticipated problems, expenses, liabilities, competitive responses, loss of customer relationships and diversion of management’s attention. The difficulties of combining the operations of the companies include, among others:

Table of Contents

· diversion of management’s attention to integration matters;

· difficulties in achieving anticipated cost savings, synergies, business opportunities and growth prospects from the combination of the businesses of Pozen and Tribute;

· difficulties in the integration of operations and systems;

· conforming standards, controls, procedures and accounting and other policies, business cultures and compensation structures between the two companies;

· difficulties in the assimilation of employees;

· difficulties in managing the expanded operations of a significantly larger and more complex company;

· challenges in keeping existing customers and obtaining new customers;

· potential unknown liabilities or larger liabilities than projected, adverse consequences and unforeseen increased expenses associated with the merger; and

· coordinating a geographically dispersed organization.

Many of these factors will be outside the control of Pozen, Tribute or Parent, and any one of them could result in increased costs, decreases in the amount of expected revenues and diversion of management’s time and energy, which could materially impact the business, financial condition and results of operations of the combined company. In addition, even if the operations of the businesses of Pozen and Tribute are integrated successfully, the full benefits of the transactions may not be realized, including the synergies, cost savings or sales or growth opportunities that are expected. These benefits may not be achieved within the anticipated time frame, or at all. Additional unanticipated costs may be incurred in the integration of the businesses of Pozen and Tribute. All of these factors could cause dilution to the earnings per share of the combined company, decrease or delay the expected accretive effect of the transactions and negatively impact the price of Parent Shares following the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement. As a result, we cannot assure you that the combination of Pozen and Tribute will result in the realization of the full benefits anticipated from the transactions.

The benefits described in the Form S-4, are also subject to a variety of other factors, many of which are beyond Pozen’s and Tribute’s ability to control, such as changes in the rate of economic growth in jurisdictions in which the combined company will do business, the financial performance of the combined business in various jurisdictions, currency exchange rate fluctuations, and significant changes in trade, monetary or fiscal policies, including changes in interest rates, and tax law of the jurisdictions in which the combined company will do business. The impact of these factors, individually and in the aggregate, is difficult to predict, in part because the occurrence of the events or circumstances described in such factors may be interrelated, and the impact to the combined company of the occurrence of any one of these events or circumstances could be compounded or, alternatively, reduced, offset, or more than offset, by the occurrence of one or more of the other events or circumstances described in such factors.

The transactions contemplated under the merger agreement may not be accretive and may cause dilution to Parent’s earnings per share, which may negatively affect the market price of Parent Shares following the transactions.

Although Parent currently anticipates that the transactions contemplated under the merger agreement will be accretive to earnings per share from and after the transactions, this expectation is based on preliminary estimates which may change materially. Parent expects to issue approximately 67.26 million Parent Shares in connection with the completion of the transactions. The issuance of these new Parent Shares could have the effect of depressing the market price of Parent Shares. In addition, Parent could also encounter additional transaction-related costs or other factors such as the failure to realize all of the benefits anticipated in the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. All of these factors could cause dilution to Parent’s earnings per share or decrease or delay the expected accretive effect of the transactions and cause a decrease in the market price of Parent Shares following the transactions.

Transfers of Shares, other than by means of the transfer of book-entry interests in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or by means of the transfer of book entry interests in Clearing and Depositary Services Inc. (“CDS”) may be subject to Irish stamp duty.

It is anticipated that, for the majority of transfers of Shares, there will not be any Irish stamp duty. Transfers of Shares effected by means of the transfer of book-entry interests in DTC or CDS should not be subject to Irish stamp duty. However, if you hold your Shares directly rather than beneficially through DTC or CDS, any transfer of your Shares could be subject to Irish stamp duty (currently at the rate of 1% of the higher of the price paid or the market value of the shares acquired). A shareholder who directly holds shares may transfer those shares into his or her own broker account to be held through DTC or CDS (or vice versa) without giving rise to Irish stamp duty, provided that there is no change in the beneficial ownership of the shares as a result of the transfer and the transfer is not in contemplation of a sale of the shares by a beneficial owner to a third party.

Payment of Irish stamp duty is generally a legal obligation of the transferee. The potential for stamp duty could adversely affect the price of your shares. See the section entitled “Irish Tax Considerations—Stamp Duty” beginning on page 155 of this registration statement.

Dividends paid in respect of the Shares may be subject to Irish dividend withholding tax.

In certain limited circumstances, dividend withholding tax (currently at a rate of 20%) may arise in respect of dividends paid on Shares. A number of exemptions from dividend withholding tax exist, such that shareholders resident in European Union member states (other than Ireland) or other countries with which Ireland has signed a double tax treaty, which would include the U.S. or Canada, should generally be entitled to exemptions from dividend withholding tax provided that the appropriate documentation is in place. See “Irish Tax Considerations—Withholding Tax on Dividends” beginning on page 156 of this registration statement and, in particular, please note the requirement to complete certain dividend withholding tax forms in order to qualify for many of the exemptions.

It is expected that shareholders resident in the U.S. who hold their shares through DTC may not be subject to dividend withholding tax if the addresses of the beneficial owners of such shares in the records of the brokers holding such shares are recorded as being in the U.S. (and such brokers have further transmitted the relevant information to a qualifying intermediary appointed by us).

Factors That May Affect Aralez’s Shareholders

The Pozen and Tribute stock prices have been volatile, which may result in significant losses to Aralez’s shareholders.

There has been significant volatility in the market prices of biotechnology companies’ securities. Various factors and events may have a significant impact on the market price of Aralez’s shareholders. These factors include:

·	fluctuations in our operating results and revenues generated by our marketed products;

·	announcements of technological innovations, acquisitions or licensing of therapeutic products or product candidates by us or our competitors;

·	published reports by securities analysts;

·	positive or negative progress with our clinical trials or with regulatory approvals of our product candidates;

·	commercial success of VIMOVO and our other product candidates in the marketplace once approved;

Table of Contents

·	governmental regulation, including reimbursement policies;

·	developments in patent or other proprietary rights;

·	developments in our relationships with collaborative partners;

·	announcements by our collaborative partners regarding our products or product candidates;

·	developments in new or pending litigation;

·	public concern as to the safety and efficacy of our products; and

·	general market conditions.

The trading price of our common stock has been, and could continue to be, subject to wide fluctuations in response to these factors, including the sale or attempted sale of a large amount of our common stock into the market. From October 16, 2000, when our common stock began trading on The NASDAQ National Market (now known as The NASDAQ Global Market), through August 3, 2015, the high and low sales prices of our common stock ranged from $2.15 to $21.88. Broad market fluctuations may also adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market by us or our largest stockholders could depress our stock price.

We have not sold shares of common stock in a public offering since our initial public offering in October 2000. Accordingly, we have a relatively small number of shares that are traded in the market. Prior to the merger and contemplated financings, approximately 9% of our outstanding shares are beneficially held by John Plachetka, our former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. Additionally, we believe, based upon our review of public filings by certain stockholders and other publicly available information, an aggregate of approximately 25% of Pozen’s outstanding shares are held by three other stockholders, with one stockholder beneficially owning greater than 10% of our outstanding shares. Following the merger and the equity and debt financing, Deerfield Private Design and its affiliates will own approximately % of Aralez. Any sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, including sales or distributions of shares by our large stockholders, or the perception that such sales or distributions might occur, could harm the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. For example, our executive officers may sell shares pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 trading plans. Further, stockholders’ ownership will be diluted if we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, and will be the case if the merger with Tribute is approved by our shareholders and the proposed equity and debt financing closes.

Anti-takeover provisions in Parent’s memorandum and articles of association and under Irish law could prevent or delay transactions that our stockholders may favor and may prevent shareholders from changing the direction of Parent’s business or management.

Provisions of Parent’s memorandum and articles of association may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that Parent’s shareholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which shareholders might otherwise receive a premium for your shares, and may also frustrate or prevent any attempt by shareholders to change the direction or management of Parent. For example, these provisions:

· authorize the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock without any need for action by shareholders;

· provide for a classified board of directors with staggered three-year terms;

· require supermajority stockholder approval to effect various amendments to our memorandum and articles of association;

· prohibit shareholder action by written consent; and

· establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to the board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted on by shareholders at shareholder meetings.

Table of Contents

Any transaction in which a third party seeks to acquire 30% or more of the voting rights of Aralez and other acquisitions of Aralez securities will be governed by the Irish Takeover Panel Act 1997 (the “Takeover Panel Act”) and the Irish Takeover Rules 2007, as amended (“Irish Takeover Rules”) which will be regulated by the Irish Takeover Panel (the “Panel”). The “General Principles” of the Irish Takeover Rules and certain important aspects of the Irish Takeover Rules are described more fully in the section entitled “Description of Share Capital” on page 143.

The rights of our shareholders may differ from the rights typically offered to shareholders of a U.S. corporation and these differences may make our ordinary shares less attractive to investors.

We are incorporated under Irish law and, therefore, certain of the rights of holders of our shares are governed by Irish law, including the provisions of the Irish Companies Acts, and by our articles of association. These rights differ in certain respects from the rights of shareholders in typical U.S. corporations and these differences may make our ordinary shares less attractive to investors. The principal differences include the following:

· under Irish law, dividends may only be declared if we have, on an individual entity basis, profits available for distribution, within the meaning of the Irish Companies Acts;

· under Irish law, each shareholder generally has preemptive rights to subscribe on a proportionate basis to any issuance of shares. Under U.S. law, shareholders generally do not have preemptive rights unless specifically granted in the certificate of incorporation or otherwise Pre-emption rights may be disapplied under Irish law for renewable five year periods by Irish companies by way of a provision in their articles of association or special resolution of their shareholders, which is an option we expect to avail ourselves of prior to the consummation of this offering;

· under Irish law, certain matters require the approval of holders of 75% of the votes cast at a general meeting of our shareholders, including amendments to our articles of association. This may make it more difficult for us to complete certain types of corporate transactions deemed advisable by our Board. Under U.S. law, generally only majority shareholder approval is required to amend the certificate of incorporation or to approve other significant transactions;

· under Irish law, a bidder seeking to acquire us would need, on a tender offer, to receive shareholder acceptance in respect of 80% of our outstanding shares. If this 80% threshold is not achieved in the offer, under Irish law, the bidder cannot complete a “second step merger” to obtain 100% control of us. Accordingly, tender of 80% of our outstanding shares will likely be a condition in a tender offer to acquire us, not 50% as is more common in tender offers for corporations organized under U.S. law; and

· under Irish law, shareholders may be required to disclose information regarding their equity interests upon our request, and the failure to provide the required information could result in the loss or restriction of rights attaching to the shares, including prohibitions on the transfer of the shares, as well as restrictions on voting, dividends and other payments. Comparable provisions generally do not exist under U.S. law.

Parent does not expect to pay dividends for the foreseeable future, and you must rely on increases in the trading price of the Parent Shares for returns on your investment.

Parent has never paid cash dividends on Parent Shares and does not expect to pay dividends in the immediate future. Parent anticipates that it will retain all earnings, if any, to support its operations. Any future determination as to the payment of dividends will, subject to Irish legal requirements, be at the sole discretion of Parent’s board of directors and will depend on Parent’s financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements and other factors Parent’s board of directors deems relevant. Holders of Parent Shares must rely on increases in the trading price of their shares for returns on their investment in the foreseeable future. In addition, the Facility Agreement prohibits Parent from making any cash dividend or distributing any of its assets, including its intangibles, to any of its shareholders in such capacity or its affiliates, subject to certain exceptions. The Facility Agreement also includes restrictions on Parent from incurring liens and undertaking indebtedness, subject to certain exceptions, which limitations may further impact the ability of Parent to pay any future dividends.

Parent will seek Irish High Court approval of the creation of distributable reserves. Parent expects this will be forthcoming, but cannot guarantee this.

Under Irish law, dividends may only be paid and share repurchases and redemptions must generally be funded only out of distributable reserves, which Parent will not have immediately following the closing. The creation of distributable reserves of Parent involves a reduction in Parent’s Parent Share premium account, which requires the approval of the Irish High Court and, in connection with seeking such court approval, the approval of Pozen and Tribute stockholders is being sought. Parent is not aware of any reason why the Irish High Court would not approve the creation of distributable reserves in this manner; however, the issuance of the required order is a matter for the discretion of the Irish High Court. There will also be no guarantee that the approvals by Pozen and Tribute stockholders will be obtained. In the event that distributable reserves of Parent are not created, no distributions by way of dividends, share repurchases or otherwise will be permitted under Irish law until such time as the group has created sufficient distributable reserves from its business activities.

Risk Factors Related to the Tribute Business

If Tribute loses its license from any licensors, Tribute may be unable to continue a substantial part of its business.

Tribute has licensed certain assets, including certain intellectual property, marketing authorizations and related data, and medical commercial and technical information, used in a substantial part of Tribute’s business. Such license agreement, may be terminated by the licensor if Tribute is in breach of its obligations under, or fails to perform any terms of, the agreement and fails to cure that breach. If such license agreements is terminated, then Tribute may lose its rights to utilize the intellectual property and other assets covered by that agreement to manufacture, market, promote, distribute and sell the licensed products, which may prevent Tribute from continuing a substantial part of its business and may result in a material and serious adverse effect on Tribute’s financial condition, results of operations and any prospects for growth.

Tribute’s failure to successfully discover, acquire, license or develop and market additional product candidates or approved products would impair Tribute’s ability to grow.

As part of Tribute’s growth strategy, it intends to acquire, license or develop and market additional products and product candidates. Tribute is pursuing various therapeutic opportunities through its pipeline. The product candidates to which Tribute allocates its resources may not end up being successful. In addition, because Tribute’s internal research capabilities are limited, it may depend upon pharmaceutical and biotechnology and other researchers to sell or license products or technology to it. The success of this strategy depends partly upon Tribute’s ability to identify, select, discover, license and/or acquire promising pharmaceutical product candidates and products for Canada and elsewhere. Failure of this strategy would impair Tribute’s ability to grow.

The process of proposing, negotiating and implementing a license or acquisition of a product candidate or approved product is lengthy and complex. Other companies, including some with substantially greater financial, marketing and sales resources, may compete with Tribute for the license or acquisition of product candidates and approved products. Tribute may devote resources to potential acquisitions or in-licensing opportunities that are never completed, or Tribute may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of such efforts. Tribute may not be able to acquire the rights to additional product candidates on terms that Tribute finds acceptable, or at all.

Table of Contents

In addition, future acquisitions may entail numerous operational and financial risks, including:

· exposure to unknown liabilities;

· disruption of Tribute’s business and diversion of management’s time and attention to develop acquired products or technologies;

· incurrence of substantial debt, dilutive issuances of securities or depletion of cash to pay for acquisitions;

· higher than expected acquisition and integration costs;

· difficulty in combining the operations and personnel of any acquired businesses with Tribute’s operations and personnel;

· increased amortization expenses;

· impairment of relationships with key suppliers or customers of any acquired businesses due to changes in management and ownership; and

· inability to motivate key employees of any acquired businesses.

Further, any product candidate that Tribute acquires may require additional development efforts prior to commercial sale, including extensive clinical testing and approval by applicable regulatory authorities. All product candidates are prone to risks of failure typical of pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that a product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by applicable regulatory authorities.

Tribute may not be able to compete with treatments now being developed and marketed, or which may be developed and marketed in the future by other companies.

Tribute’s products and licensed products will compete with existing and new therapies and treatments and numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, hospitals, research organizations, individual scientists and nonprofit organizations are engaged in the development of alternatives to Tribute’s technologies and products. Some of these companies have greater research and development capabilities, experience, manufacturing, marketing, financial and managerial resources than does Tribute. Collaborations or mergers between large pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies with competing drugs and technologies could enhance Tribute’s competitors’ financial, marketing and other resources. Developments by other drug companies could make Tribute’s products or technologies uncompetitive or obsolete. Accordingly, Tribute’s competitors may succeed in developing competing drugs or technologies, obtaining regulatory approval for products or gaining market acceptance more rapidly than Tribute can.

If government programs and insurance companies do not agree to pay for or reimburse patients for Tribute’s pharmaceutical products and licensed products, Tribute’s success will be impacted.

Sales of Tribute’s products and licensed products will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement by third-party payers such as government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Third-party payers often challenge the price and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services. Governmental approval of health care products does not guarantee that these third-party payers will pay, or pay in full, for the products. Legislation and regulations affecting the pricing of pharmaceuticals may change before Tribute’s products or licensed products are approved for marketing and any such changes could further limit reimbursement. The availability and amount of such reimbursement could adversely affect Tribute’s results of operations and financial condition.

Tribute and its partners are subject to extensive Canadian, U.S. and foreign government regulation, including the requirement of approval before products may be manufactured or marketed.

Tribute, its present and future collaboration partners, and the drug product candidates developed by, or licensed to, Tribute or in collaboration with partners are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in Canada, the U.S. and other countries. Failure to comply with applicable requirements could result in, among other things, any of the following actions: warning letters, fines and other civil penalties, unanticipated expenditures, delays in approving or refusal to approve a product candidate, product recall or seizure, interruption of manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions and criminal prosecution.

The product candidates of Tribute and its partners cannot be marketed in Canada, the U.S. or any other jurisdiction without regulatory approval from a regulatory authority such as Health Canada or the FDA (“Regulatory Authority”). Obtaining regulatory approval from a Regulatory Authority requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources, and may be subject to both expected and unforeseen delays, including, without limitation, citizen’s petitions or other filings with the Regulatory Authority, and there can be no assurance that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all, or that delays will be resolved favorably or in a timely manner by any Regulatory Authority. If Tribute’s or its partners’ product candidates are not approved in a timely fashion, or are not approved at all, Tribute’s business and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Table of Contents

In addition, both before and after regulatory approval, Tribute, its collaboration partners and its product candidates are subject to numerous requirements by Regulatory Authorities covering, among other things, testing, manufacturing, quality control, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution and export. These requirements may change and additional government regulations may be promulgated that could affect Tribute, its collaboration partners or its product candidates. Tribute cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in Canada, the U.S. or abroad.

Such laws and regulations could hinder or prevent Tribute from successfully developing and commercializing Bezalip® SR (bezafibrate) for the United States market pursuant to its exclusive license, or any other product candidates. Tribute could fail to successfully obtain the required approvals for its two currently unmarketed products, including bilastine, which is pending registration from Health Canada and MycoVaTM, which has not been filed with Health Canada. There can be no assurance that neither Tribute nor any of its partners will be required to incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations in the future or that such laws or regulations will not have a material adverse effect upon Tribute’s business.

Even if regulatory approvals are obtained for Tribute’s products and licensed products, such products will be subject to ongoing regulatory review. If Tribute or a partner fails to comply with continuing Canadian, U.S. and foreign regulations, the approvals to market Tribute’s products and licensed products could be lost and Tribute’s business would be materially adversely affected.

Following any initial Health Canada, FDA or foreign regulatory approval of any drugs Tribute or a partner may develop, such drugs, will continue to be subject to regulatory review, including the review of adverse drug experiences, safety reports and clinical results that are reported after such drugs are made available to patients. This would include results from any post marketing tests or vigilance required as a condition of approval. The manufacturer and manufacturing facilities used to make any drug candidates will also be subject to periodic review and inspection by regulatory authorities, including Health Canada and/or the FDA. The discovery of any new or previously unknown problems with the product, manufacturer or facility may result in restrictions on the drug or manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the drug from the market. Marketing, advertising and labeling also will be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. The failure to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements may result in fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approval, product recalls and seizures, operating restrictions and other adverse consequences.

Materials necessary to manufacture Tribute’s products and licensed products may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which may result in reduced revenues due to product shortages.

Tribute relies on third-party manufacturers to manufacture its products and licensed products. Most of Tribute’s third-party suppliers purchase, on its behalf, the materials necessary to produce the finished, final product for sale including the active pharmaceutical ingredients (“APIs”) and other such materials necessary to produce finished, saleable products for the commercial distribution of Tribute’s products and licensed products. In the event that suppliers of a product, ingredient or any materials Tribute needs to manufacture or package its products or licensed products are not available or not for sale at the time Tribute needs such ingredient or material in order to meet Tribute’s required delivery schedule or on commercially reasonable terms, then Tribute could be at risk of a product shortage or stock-out. Tribute relies on its suppliers in many cases to ensure the adequate supply of ingredients, APIs and packaging material and for the timely delivery of orders placed by Tribute. Should Tribute experience a shortage in supply of a product, licensed product, or API, any material sales of such product or licensed product could be harmed or reduced and Tribute’s ability to generate revenues from such product or licensed product may be impaired.

Tribute’s product candidates, products and licensed products may not gain acceptance or continued acceptance among physicians, patients and the medical community, thereby limiting Tribute’s potential to generate revenues.

The degree of market acceptance or continued market acceptance of Tribute’s product candidates (if approved for commercial sale by a Regulatory Authority), products or licensed products by physicians, healthcare professionals and third-party payers, and Tribute’s profitability and growth, will depend on a number of factors, including:

·	demonstration of efficacy;

·	changes in the practice guidelines and the standard of care for the targeted indication;

·	relative convenience and ease of administration;

·	the prevalence and severity of any adverse side effects;

·	budget impact of adoption of Tribute’s product or licensed product on relevant drug formularies and the availability, cost and potential advantages of alternative treatments, including less expensive generic drugs;

·	pricing and cost effectiveness, which may be subject to regulatory control;

·	effectiveness of Tribute’s or any of its partners’ sales and marketing strategies;

·	the final product labeling or product insert required by Regulatory Authorities; and

·	the availability of adequate third-party insurance coverage or reimbursement.

Table of Contents

If any product candidate or product that Tribute acquires, licenses or develops does not provide a treatment regimen that is as beneficial as, or is perceived as being as beneficial as, the current standard of care or otherwise does not provide patient benefit, that product candidate (if approved for commercial sale by a Regulatory Authority), product or licensed product likely will not achieve market acceptance or continued market acceptance. Tribute’s ability to effectively promote and sell any approved products will also depend on pricing and cost-effectiveness, including Tribute’s ability to produce a product at a competitive price and Tribute’s ability to obtain sufficient third-party coverage or reimbursement. If any product candidate, product or licensed product is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, or continued acceptance, by physicians, patients and third-party payers, Tribute’s ability to generate revenues from that product or licensed product would be substantially reduced. In addition, Tribute’s efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payers on the benefits of Tribute’s product candidates, products or licensed products may require significant resources, may be constrained by Regulatory Authority rules and policies on product promotion and may never be successful.

Guidelines and recommendations published by various organizations can impact the use of Tribute’s products and licensed products.

Government agencies promulgate regulations and guidelines directly applicable to Tribute and to its products and licensed products. In addition, professional societies, practice management groups, private health and science foundations and organizations involved in various diseases from time to time may also publish guidelines or recommendations to the health care and patient communities. Recommendations of government agencies or these other groups or organizations may relate to such matters as usage, dosage, route of administration and use of concomitant therapies. Recommendations or guidelines suggesting the reduced use of Tribute’s products or licensed products or the use of competitive or alternative products that are followed by patients and health care providers could result in decreased use of Tribute’s products and licensed products.

Tribute has limited manufacturing experience or resources, and Tribute must incur significant costs to develop this expertise or rely on third parties to manufacture Tribute’s products and licensed products.

Tribute relies on several contract manufacturers for Tribute’s supply of products and licensed products. There are risks inherent in pharmaceutical manufacturing that could affect the ability of Tribute’s contract manufacturers to meet Tribute’s delivery time requirements or provide adequate amounts of material to meet Tribute’s needs. Included in these risks are synthesis and purification failures and contamination during the manufacturing process, which could result in unusable product and cause delays in Tribute’s development process, as well as additional expense to Tribute. To fulfill Tribute’s requirements, if any, Tribute may also need to secure alternative suppliers for Tribute’s products or licensed products. In addition to the manufacture of certain of Tribute’s products and licensed products, Tribute may have additional manufacturing requirements related to the technology required for any of Tribute’s products or licensed products. In some cases, the delivery technology Tribute utilizes is highly specialized or proprietary, and for technical and legal reasons, Tribute may have access to only one or a limited number of potential manufacturers for such delivery technology. Failure by these manufacturers to properly formulate Tribute’s products or licensed products for delivery could also result in unusable product and cause delays in Tribute’s discovery and development process, as well as additional expense to Tribute.

The manufacturing process for any products based on Tribute’s technologies that Tribute or its partners may develop is subject to regulatory approvals from Regulatory Authorities and compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, and together with Tribute’s partners Tribute needs to contract with manufacturers who can meet all applicable regulatory guidelines and requirements. In addition, if Tribute receives the necessary regulatory approval for any product candidate, it also expects to rely on third parties, including its commercial partners, to produce materials required for commercial supply. Tribute may experience difficulty in obtaining adequate manufacturing capacity for its needs. If Tribute is unable to obtain or maintain contract manufacturing for its product candidates, products or licensed products, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, Tribute may not be able to successfully develop and commercialize its products or licensed products.

To the extent that Tribute enters into manufacturing arrangements with third parties, Tribute will depend on these third parties to perform its obligations in a timely manner and consistent with regulatory requirements, including those related to quality control and quality assurance. The failure of a third-party manufacturer to perform its obligations as expected could adversely affect Tribute’s business in a number of ways, including:

·	Tribute may not be able to initiate or continue pre-clinical and clinical trials of products or licensed products that are under development;

·	Tribute may be delayed in submitting regulatory applications, or receiving regulatory approvals, for Tribute’s product candidates;

·	Tribute may lose the cooperation of Tribute’s partners;

·	Tribute’s products or licensed products could be the subject of inspections by Regulatory Authorities;

·	Tribute may be required to cease distribution or recall some or all batches of Tribute’s products or licensed products; and

Table of Contents

·	Tribute potentially may be unable to meet commercial demands for Tribute’s products or licensed products.

If a third-party manufacturer with whom Tribute contracts fails to perform its obligations, Tribute may be forced to manufacture the materials itself, for which Tribute may not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with a different third-party manufacturer, which Tribute may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all or within acceptable timelines. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture Tribute’s product or licensed product may be unique to the original manufacturer and Tribute may have difficulty transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or Tribute may be unable to transfer such skills. In addition, if Tribute is required to change manufacturers for any reason, Tribute will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect Tribute’s ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget. Furthermore, a manufacturer may possess technology related to the manufacture of Tribute’s product candidate that such manufacturer owns independently. This would increase Tribute’s reliance on such manufacturer or require Tribute to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to have another third party manufacture Tribute’s products or licensed products.

Tribute’s products and licensed products may become obsolete.

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly changing markets, technology, emerging industry standards and frequent introduction of new products. The introduction of new products embodying new technologies, including new manufacturing processes and the emergence of new industry standards may render Tribute’s products and licensed products obsolete, less competitive or less marketable. The process of developing Tribute’s products and licensed products is extremely complex and requires significant continuing development efforts and third party commitments. Tribute’s failure to develop new products and the obsolescence of existing products could adversely affect Tribute’s business.

Tribute may be unable to anticipate changes in Tribute’s potential customer requirements that could make Tribute’s existing products and licensed products obsolete. Tribute’s success will depend, in part, on its ability to continue to enhance Tribute’s existing products, develop new products that address the increasing sophistication and varied needs of the market, and respond to technological advances and emerging industry standards and practices on a timely and cost-effective basis. The development of Tribute’s products and licensed products entails significant technical and business risks. Tribute may not be successful in adapting to evolving customer or medical requirements or preferences or emerging industry standards.

Tribute faces competition in its markets from a number of large and small companies, some of which have greater financial, research and development, production and other resources than Tribute has.

Tribute’s products and licensed products face competition from products which may be used as an alternative or substitute therefor. In addition, Tribute competes with several large companies in the healthcare industry. To the extent these companies, or new entrants into the market, offer comparable products at lower or similar prices, Tribute’s business could be adversely affected. Tribute’s competitors can be expected to continue to improve the design and performance of their products and to introduce new products with competitive performance characteristics. There can be no assurance that Tribute will have sufficient resources to maintain Tribute’s current competitive position.

Tribute uses certain intellectual property that it licenses from third parties. If Tribute does not comply with those licenses, Tribute could lose its rights under them.

Tribute relies, in part, on licenses to use certain intellectual property that is important to Tribute’s business, and Tribute does not own the patents or other intellectual property that underlies those licenses. Tribute’s rights to use the products and technologies claimed in the licensed patents are subject to Tribute abiding by the terms of those licenses and the licensors not terminating them. Tribute believes it is currently in material compliance with all requirements of those licenses. In certain cases, Tribute does not control the filing, prosecution or maintenance of the patent rights to which Tribute holds licenses and may rely upon Tribute’s licensors to prosecute infringement of those rights. The scope of Tribute’s rights under its licenses may be subject to dispute by its licensors or third parties.

It is difficult and costly to protect Tribute’s proprietary rights, and Tribute may not be able to ensure their protection.

Tribute’s commercial success depends in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection of its products and licensed products, and the methods used to manufacture them, as well as successfully defending Tribute’s patents and licensed patents against third-party challenges. Tribute will only be able to protect its products from unauthorized making, using, selling, offer to sell or importation by third parties to the extent that Tribute or its licensors have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities.

Table of Contents

As of the date of this prospectus, Tribute has five issued United States patents, two Canadian patents and a patent in each of Australia, China, the European Community and Japan. Additionally, as of the date of this prospectus Tribute has two pending foreign patent applications covering high dose patents. Some of Tribute’s patents, however, will expire as early as May 15, 2017.

The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology patents has emerged to date in Canada and the United States. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology patent situation outside of Canada and the United States is even more uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in Canada and the United States and other countries may diminish the value of Tribute’s intellectual property. Accordingly, Tribute cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in Tribute’s patents and licensed patents or in third-party patents.

Issued patents and patents issuing from pending applications may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. Moreover, the United States Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, enacted in September 2011, brought significant changes to the U.S. patent system, which include a change to a “first to file” system from a “first to invent” system and changes to the procedures for challenging issued patents and disputing patent applications during the examination process, among other things. The effects of these changes on Tribute’s patent portfolio and business have yet to be determined, as the final substantive provisions of the America Invents Act took effect on March 16, 2013. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) only recently finalized the rules relating to these changes and the courts have yet to address the new provisions. These changes could increase the costs and uncertainties surrounding the prosecution of Tribute’s patent applications and the enforcement or defense of its patent rights. Additional uncertainty may result from legal precedent handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and United States Supreme Court as they determine legal issues concerning the scope and construction of patent claims and inconsistent interpretation of patent laws by the lower courts. Accordingly, Tribute cannot ensure that any of its pending patent applications will result in issued patents, or even if issued, predict the breadth of the claims upheld in its and other companies’ patents. Given that the degree of future protection for Tribute’s proprietary rights is uncertain, Tribute cannot ensure that it was the first to invent the inventions covered by its pending patent applications, it was the first to file patent applications for these inventions, the patents it has obtained are valid and enforceable, and any proprietary products or technologies it develops will be patentable.

In addition, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy or otherwise obtain and use Tribute’s products or technology. Monitoring unauthorized use of Tribute’s intellectual property is difficult, and Tribute cannot be certain that the steps it has taken will prevent unauthorized use of its products or technologies, particularly in certain foreign countries where the local laws may not protect Tribute’s proprietary rights as fully as in the United States. Moreover, third parties could use or practice Tribute’s products or technologies in territories where Tribute does not have patent protection. Such third parties may then try to import into the United States or other territories products, or information leading to potentially competing products, made using Tribute’s products or technologies in countries where Tribute does not have patent protection for those products or technologies. If competitors are able to use Tribute’s products or technologies, Tribute’s ability to compete effectively could be harmed. Moreover, others may independently develop and obtain patents for products or technologies that are similar to or superior to Tribute’s products or technologies. If that happens, Tribute may need to license these products or technologies, and it may not be able to obtain licenses on reasonable terms, if at all, which could harm Tribute’s business.

The degree of future protection for Tribute’s proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect Tribute’s rights or permit it to gain or keep its competitive advantage. For example:

·	others may be able to make compounds that are competitive with Tribute’s product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of Tribute’s patents;

·	Tribute might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by Tribute’s pending patent applications;

·	Tribute might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions;

·	others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of Tribute’s technologies;

·	it is possible that Tribute’s pending patent applications will not result in issued patents;

·	Tribute may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable; or

·	the patents of others may have an adverse effect on Tribute’s business.

Tribute also may rely on trade secrets to protect its technology, especially where Tribute does not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. While Tribute uses reasonable efforts to protect its trade secrets, Tribute’s employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific collaborators and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose Tribute’s information to competitors. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using Tribute’s trade secrets, is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside of Canada and the United States are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets. Moreover, Tribute’s competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.

Table of Contents

Tribute may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to enforcing its patent and other intellectual property rights, including its licensed intellectual property rights, and Tribute may be unable to protect Tribute’s rights to, or to use, its technology or products.

If Tribute chooses to litigate against someone else from using the inventions claimed in Tribute’s patents or licensed patents, that individual or company has the right to ask the court to rule that these patents or licensed patents are invalid and/or should not be enforced against that third party. Proving patent infringement may be difficult, especially where it is possible to manufacture a product by multiple processes. Although Tribute believes that it has conducted its patent prosecution in accordance with the duty of candor and in good faith, the outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. These lawsuits are expensive and would consume time and other resources even if Tribute were successful in stopping the infringement of these patents. In addition, there is a risk that the court will decide that Tribute’s patents or licensed patents are not valid and that Tribute does not have the right to stop the other party from using the inventions. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, Tribute would not be able to exclude others from practicing the inventions claimed therein. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on Tribute’s business. There is also the risk that, even if the validity of Tribute’s patents or licensed patents is upheld, the court will refuse to stop the other party on the ground that such other party’s activities do not infringe Tribute’s rights to these patents. Even if Tribute’s patent rights are found to be valid and enforceable, patent claims that survive litigation may not cover commercially valuable products or prevent competitors from importing or marketing products similar to Tribute’s products or licensed products, or using manufacturing processes or manufacturing components similar to those used to produce Tribute’s products or licensed products.

Although Tribute believes that it, or its licensors, as applicable, has or have obtained assignments of patent rights from all inventors, if an inventor did not adequately assign their patent rights to Tribute, or Tribute’s licensors, as applicable, a third party could obtain a license to the patent from such inventor. This could preclude Tribute from enforcing its patent or licensed patent against such third party.

Because some patent applications in Canada and the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, patent applications in Canada and the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until eighteen months after filing, and publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, Tribute cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology or products covered by its issued or licensed patents or its pending applications or that Tribute (or its licensor(s), as applicable) was the first to invent the technology or products. Tribute’s competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering technology or products similar to Tribute’s. Some of Tribute’s competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than Tribute can because they have substantially greater resources. Any such patent application may have priority over Tribute’s patent applications and could further require it to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies or products. If another party has filed a United States patent application on inventions similar to Tribute’s, Tribute may have to participate in an interference proceeding declared by the USPTO, to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of Tribute’s United States patent position with respect to such inventions.

Litigation or other proceedings or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement could require Tribute to spend significant time and money and could prevent Tribute from commercializing its products or technologies or impact Tribute’s stock price.

Tribute’s commercial success also depends in part on not infringing patents and proprietary rights of third parties, and not breaching any licenses or other agreements that it has entered into with regard to its technologies, products and business. Tribute cannot ensure that patents have not been issued to third parties that could block Tribute’s or its partners’ ability to obtain patents or to operate as Tribute would like. There may be patents in some countries that, if valid, may block Tribute’s ability to make, use or sell its products or licensed products in those countries, or import its products or licensed products into those countries, if Tribute is unsuccessful in circumventing or acquiring the rights to these patents. There also may be claims in patent applications filed in some countries that, if granted and valid, also may block Tribute’s ability to commercialize products or processes in these countries if Tribute is unable to circumvent or license them.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by frequent and extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Many companies have employed intellectual property litigation as a way to gain a competitive advantage. Tribute’s involvement in litigation, interferences, opposition proceedings or other intellectual property proceedings inside and outside of the United States, to defend its intellectual property rights, and licensed intellectual property rights, or as a result of alleged infringement of the rights of others, may divert management time from focusing on business operations and could cause Tribute to spend significant amounts of money. Some of Tribute’s competitors may have significantly greater resources and, therefore, they are likely to be better able to sustain the cost of complex patent or intellectual property litigation than could Tribute. The uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on Tribute’s ability to raise the funds necessary to continue its business or to enter into additional collaborations with others. Furthermore, any potential intellectual property litigation also could force Tribute or its partners to do one or more of the following:

Table of Contents

·	stop selling, incorporating or using products that use the intellectual property at issue;

·	obtain from the third party asserting its intellectual property rights a license to sell or use the relevant technology or product, which license may not be available on reasonable terms, if at all; or

·	redesign those products or processes that use any allegedly infringing technology, or relocate the operations relating to the allegedly infringing technology to another jurisdiction, which may result in significant cost or delay to Tribute, or which could be technically infeasible.

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

Tribute may not be able to enforce its intellectual property rights throughout the world.

The laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States and Canada. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection. This could make it difficult for Tribute to stop the infringement of its patents and licensed patents or misappropriation of its other intellectual property rights. Proceedings to enforce Tribute’s patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert Tribute’s efforts and attention from other aspects of its business. Accordingly, Tribute’s efforts to protect its intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate.

If Tribute’s products or technologies are stolen, misappropriated or reverse engineered, others could use Tribute’s products or licensed products to produce competing products or technologies.

Third parties, including Tribute’s partners, contract manufacturers, contractors and others involved in Tribute’s business often have access to Tribute’s products, licensed products, and technologies. If Tribute’s products, licensed products or technologies were stolen, misappropriated or reverse engineered, they could be used by other parties that may be able to reproduce Tribute’s products, licensed products, or technologies for their own commercial gain. If this were to occur, it would be difficult for Tribute to challenge this type of use, especially in countries with limited intellectual property protection.

If product liability lawsuits are successfully brought against Tribute, Tribute may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of certain products.

Tribute faces an inherent risk of product liability lawsuits related to Tribute’s products and licensed products. Currently, Tribute is not aware of any anticipated product liability claims with respect to Tribute’s products or licensed products. In the future, an individual may bring a liability claim against Tribute if one of its products or licensed products causes, or merely appears to have caused, an injury. If Tribute cannot successfully defend itself against the product liability claim, it may incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

·	decreased demand for Tribute’s products or licensed products;

·	injury to Tribute’s reputation;

·	withdrawal of clinical trial participants;

·	costs of related litigation;

·	initiation of investigations by regulators;

·	substantial monetary awards to patients or other claimants;

·	distraction of management’s attention from Tribute’s primary business;

·	product recalls;

·	loss of revenue; and

·	the inability to commercialize Tribute’s product candidates, products or licensed products.

Table of Contents

Tribute’s current insurance coverage may prove insufficient to cover any liability claims brought against Tribute. In addition, because of the increasing costs of insurance coverage, Tribute may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy liabilities that may arise.

Obtaining and maintaining Tribute’s patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submissions, fee payments and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies on Tribute and certain parties from which Tribute licenses products, and Tribute’s patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of Tribute’s trade secrets and other proprietary information and may not adequately protect Tribute’s intellectual property, which could limit Tribute’s ability to compete.

Because Tribute operates in the highly confidential environment, it relies in part on trade secret protection in order to protect Tribute’s proprietary trade secrets and unpatented know-how. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect, and Tribute cannot be certain that others will not develop the same or similar technologies on their own. Tribute has taken steps, including entering into confidentiality agreements with Tribute’s employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors, to protect Tribute’s trade secrets and unpatented know-how. These agreements generally require that the other party keep confidential and not disclose to third parties all confidential information developed by the party or made known to the party by Tribute during the course of the party’s relationship with Tribute. Tribute also typically obtains agreements from these parties which provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to Tribute will be Tribute’s exclusive property. However, these agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to Tribute. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally obtained and is using Tribute’s trade secrets or know-how is difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside Canada and the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets or know-how. The failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect Tribute’s competitive position.

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

As is common in the pharmaceutical industry, Tribute employs individuals who were previously employed at other pharmaceutical companies, including Tribute’s competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against Tribute are currently pending, Tribute may be subject to claims that these employees or Tribute has inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if Tribute is successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This prospectus and the documents incorporated in this prospectus by reference contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the transactions, the financing of the transactions, Pozen and Tribute’s expected future performance (including, but not limited to, any projections or prospective financial information, expected results of operations and financial guidance), and the our future financial condition, operating results, strategy and plans. Statements including words such as “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “estimates,” “plan,” “will,” “may,” “look forward,” “intend,” “guidance,” “future” or similar expressions are forward-looking statements. Because these statements reflect Pozen and Tribute’s current views, expectations and beliefs concerning future events, these forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Although Pozen and Tribute believe that these forward-looking statements and information are based upon reasonable assumptions and expectations, readers should not place undue reliance on them, or any other forward-looking statements or information in prospectus. Investors should note that many factors, as more fully described in the documents filed by Tribute with the SEC, including under the heading “Risk Factors” in Tribute’s Form 10-K, 10-Q and Form 8-K filings, as applicable, as well as the securities regulators in Canada on the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval and as otherwise enumerated herein or therein, and by Pozen with the SEC, including under the heading “Risk Factors” in Pozen’s Form 10-K, 10-Q and Form 8-K filings, as applicable, and as otherwise enumerated herein or therein, could affect future financial results and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements contained in this communication. Important factors that, individually or in the aggregate, could cause actual results to differ materially from expected and historical results include, but are not limited to:

· the failure to receive the required Pozen stockholder approval, the Tribute shareholder approval and the approval of applicable government and regulatory authorities (and the terms of those approvals, including, but not limited to, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) with respect to the arrangement);

· the risk that a condition to closing the transactions may not be satisfied or waived;

· the ultimate outcome and results of integrating the operations of Pozen and Tribute, the ultimate outcome of our operating strategy and the ultimate ability to realize synergies and the magnitude of such synergies;

· the effects of the business combination of Pozen and Tribute, including the combined company’s future financial condition, operating results, strategy and plans;

· our ability to achieve significant upside potential for shareholders by obtaining approval of product candidates, including YOSPRALA, and by accelerating the growth of the products of the combined company;

· our ability to acquire new products or companies on terms acceptable to us;

· our ability to sustain and grow revenues and cash flow from operations in its markets and to maintain and grow its customer base, the need for innovation and the related capital expenditures and the unpredictable economic conditions in the United States, Canada, Ireland and other markets;

· the impact of competition from other market participants;

· the development and commercialization of new products, including YOSPRALA;

· the effects of governmental regulation on our business or potential business combination transactions;

· changes in tax laws or interpretations that could increase our consolidated tax liabilities, including, if the transaction is consummated, changes in tax laws that would result in us being treated as a domestic corporation for United States federal tax purposes;

· the availability and access, in general, of funds to meet our debt obligations prior to or when they become due and to fund its operations and necessary capital expenditures, either through (i) cash on hand, (ii) free cash flow or (iii) access to the capital or credit markets; and

· our ability to comply with all covenants under existing credit facilities, any violation of which, if not cured in a timely manner, could trigger a default of its other obligations under cross-default provisions.

Table of Contents

Other unknown or unpredictable factors could also have material adverse effects on our future results, performance or achievements. All forward-looking statements attributable to us, to Pozen or Tribute or any person acting on either of their behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. We, Pozen and Tribute do not assume any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as may be required under applicable securities law.

Table of Contents

PROPOSED TRANSACTIONS

On June 8, 2015, Pozen and Tribute agreed to a business combination under the terms of the merger agreement. In order to effect the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, US Merger Sub, an indirect subsidiary of Parent, will be merged with and into Pozen. Pozen will be the surviving corporation and, through the merger, will become an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. The merger of Pozen into US Merger Sub will be effected under Delaware law so that Pozen will be reorganized into a holding company structure. In accordance with the merger agreement, Can Merger Sub will offer to acquire, and will acquire, all of the outstanding Tribute common shares pursuant to a court approved plan of arrangement in Canada in the manner provided for by the merger agreement. The Parent Shares to be issued to Tribute shareholders in the arrangement are not being registered pursuant to this registration statement. The Parent Shares to be issued to Pozen stockholders in the merger are not being registered pursuant to this registration statement. Upon completion of the arrangement, Tribute will also become an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Upon completion, the merger and the arrangement do not constitute a change of control of Pozen.

As of August 3, 2015, Pozen had approximately 32,734,343 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. As a result of the merger, each share of Pozen common stock will be converted into the right to receive from Parent one Parent Share for each share of Pozen common stock that they own as of the record date for the Pozen special meeting. Pursuant to the arrangement, each outstanding Tribute common share will be exchanged for 0.1455 Parent Shares. Upon completion of the merger and arrangement, current Pozen stockholders will own approximately 66% of the outstanding Parent Shares, and current Tribute shareholders will own approximately 34% of the outstanding Parent Shares before giving effect to (i) any exercise of outstanding options and warrants or the vesting and delivery of shares underlying RSUs of either company and (ii) the Parent Shares to be issued to new investors pursuant to the equity and debt financings described below. It is expected that Parent Shares will be listed and traded on NASDAQ under the symbol “ARLZ” and on the “TSX” under the symbol “ARZ”. The terms and conditions of the merger and the arrangement are contained in the merger agreement. After giving effect to the transactions and the proposed Parent equity financing and debt financing, the former stockholders of Pozen as a group will hold Parent Shares constituting approximately 49% of the outstanding Parent Shares and the former shareholders of Tribute as a group will hold Parent Shares constituting approximately 28% of the outstanding Parent Shares.

On July 20, 2015, Parent filed with the SEC the Form S-4 in connection with the proposed business combination between Pozen and Tribute. The Form S-4 has not yet been declared effective by the SEC.

Table of Contents

USE OF PROCEEDS

We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of any Shares by the Selling Shareholder.

The Selling Shareholder will receive all of the net proceeds from the sale of any Shares offered by it under this prospectus. The Selling Shareholder will pay any underwriting discounts and commissions and expenses incurred by the Selling Shareholder for brokerage, accounting, tax, legal services or any other expenses incurred by the Selling Shareholder in disposing of these shares. We will bear all other costs, fees and expenses incurred in effecting the registration of the Shares covered by this prospectus.

Table of Contents

MARKET FOR COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED SHAREHOLDER MATTERS

Pozen’s common stock is currently listed on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “POZN”. Pozen’s common stock began trading on NASDAQ on October 16, 2000. The following table sets forth the quarterly range of high and low reported sale prices of Pozen’s common stock as reported on NASDAQ:

	High		Low
2013
First quarter	$	6.49	$	5.11
Second quarter	$	5.56	$	4.50
Third quarter	$	5.99	$	4.92
Fourth quarter	$	9.90	$	5.35
2014
First quarter	$	8.99	$	7.37
Second quarter	$	9.73	$	7.56
Third quarter	$	9.59	$	5.96
Fourth quarter	$	9.71	$	7.07
2015
First quarter	$	8.16	$	6.56
Second quarter	$	12.69	$	6.38
Third quarter (through August 3, 2015)	$	12.37	$	9.85

Approximate Number of Equity Security Holders

The closing sale price on NASDAQ for Pozen’s common stock on August 3, 2015 was $11.62 per share. As of August 3, 2015, Pozen had approximately 72 registered holders of record of its shares of common stock. Because shares of Pozen’s common stock are held by depositaries, brokers and other nominees, the number of beneficial holders of its shares is larger than the number of stockholders.

Trading Information Following Consumation of the Proposed Transactions

As of August 3, 2015, Pozen had approximately 32,734,343 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. As a result of the merger, each share of Pozen common stock will be converted into the right to receive from Parent one Parent Share for each share of Pozen common stock that they own as of the record date for the Pozen special meeting. Pursuant to the arrangement, each outstanding Tribute common share will be exchanged for 0.1455 Parent Shares. Upon completion of the merger and arrangement, current Pozen stockholders will own approximately 66% of the outstanding Parent Shares, and current Tribute shareholders will own approximately 34% of the outstanding Parent Shares before giving effect to (i) any exercise of outstanding options and warrants or the vesting and delivery of shares underlying RSUs of either company and (ii) the Parent Shares to be issued to new investors pursuant to the equity and debt financings described below. After giving effect to the transactions and the proposed Parent equity financing and debt financing, the former stockholders of Pozen as a group will hold Parent Shares constituting approximately 49% of the outstanding Parent Shares and the former shareholders of Tribute as a group will hold Parent Shares constituting approximately 28% of the outstanding Parent Shares.

Table of Contents

SELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL DATA OF POZEN

The following tables present selected historical financial data for Pozen as of and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010 and as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014. The statement of operations data for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2014 and the balance sheet data as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 have been obtained from Pozen's audited financial statements contained in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, which appears elsewhere in this prospectus. The statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 and the balance sheet data as of December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 have been obtained from Pozen's audited financial statements for such years, which have not been incorporated into this document by reference. The financial data as of March 31, 2015 and for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 have been obtained from Pozen's unaudited condensed financial statements included in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2015.

The information set forth below is not necessarily indicative of future results and should be read together with the other information contained in Pozen's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 and Pozen's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2015, including "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and the financial statements and related notes therein. See the section entitled "Where You Can Find More Information" beginning on page 160 of this prospectus.

Table of Contents

	For the Year Ended December 31,												For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2010		2011		2012			2013			2014		2014		2015
	(in thousands, except per share data)
Statement of Operations Data:
Revenue:
Sale of royalty rights, net of costs	$	—	$	71,870	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—	$	—
Licensing revenue	68,417		15,081		5,349			10,322			32,394		7,549		4,404
Development revenue	132		—		—			—			—		—		—
Total revenue	68,549		86,951		5,349			10,322			32,394		7,548		4,404
Operating expenses:
Sales, general and administrative	23,755		21,752		19,024			17,161			10,078		2,823		3,262
Research and development	22,651		23,020		11,867			9,945			5,740		1,828		983
Total operating expenses	46,406		44,772		30,891			27,106			15,818		4,651		4,245
Interest and other income	929		161		259			76			3,099		7		(186		)
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	23,072	$	42,340	$	(25,283	)	$	(16,708	)	$	19,675	$	2,905	$	(27	)
Basic net income (loss) per common share	$	0.77	$	1.41	$	(0.84	)	$	(0.55	)	$	0.63	$	0.09	$	0.00
Shares used in computing basic net income (loss) per common share	29,880		29,925		30,092			30,450			31,360		30,744		32,259
Diluted net income per common share	$	0.76	$	1.40	$	(0.84	)	$	(0.55	)	$	0.60	0.09		0.00
Shares used in computing diluted net income per common share	30,246		30,296		30,092			30,450			32,811		32,489		32,259

	December 31,															As of and for the Three Months Ended
	2010			2011			2012			2013			2014			March 31, 2015
	(in thousands)
Balance Sheet Data:
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments	$	64,091		$	119,620		$	87,314		$	32,828		$	40,582		$	43,905
Total assets	69,698			121,553			89,597			35,334			50,454			48,847
Total liabilities	9,070			16,055			5,519			17,546			3,713			1,543
Accumulated deficit	(116,927		)	(74,588		)	(99,871		)	(116,579		)	(96,904		)	(96,932		)
Total stockholders’ equity	60,628			105,498			84,077			17,789			46,741			47,304

Table of Contents

SELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL DATA OF TRIBUTE

The following tables present selected historical financial data for Tribute as of and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010 and as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014. The statement of operations data for each of the five years in the period ended December 31, 2014 and the balance sheet data as of December 31 have been obtained from Tribute's audited financial statements for such years and, with respect to the periods ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, from its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, which appear elsewhere in this prospectus. The financial data as of March 31, 2015 and for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 have been obtained from Tribute's unaudited condensed financial statements included in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2015.

The information set forth below is not necessarily indicative of future results and should be read together with the other information contained in Tribute's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 and Tribute's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2015, including the "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and the consolidated financial statements and related notes therein. See the section entitled "Where You Can Find More Information" beginning on page 160 of this prospectus.

Table of Contents

	For the Year Ended December 31,															Three Months Ended March 31,
	2010			2011			2012			2013			2014			2014			2015
Statement of Operation Data:
Revenue
Licensed domestic product net sales	$	—		$	572,272		$	8,322,945		$	8,598,385		$	9,106,038		$	2,276,383		$	2,521,080
Other domestic product sales	1,879,554			1,977,167			2,494,359			3,366,374			6,127,968			734,779			2,601,622
International product sales	835,381			1,306,215			1,525,479			1,277,678			1,619,372			463,978			469,595
Royalty and licensing revenues	2,022,383			14,227			—			197,924			18,414			18,414			—
Total Revenue	4,737,318			3,869,881			12,342,783			13,440,361			16,871,792			3,493,554			5,592,297
Cost of Sales
Licensor sales and distribution fees	—			484,480			5,916,845			5,844,494			5,902,034			1,413,043			1,452,064
Cost of products sold	947,069			932,755			1,220,716			1,541,662			1,787,584			345,864			575,246
Write down of inventories	195,488			26,117			36,345			56,935			53,099			—			—
Total Cost of Sales	1,142,557			1,443,352			7,173,906			7,443,091			7,742,717			1,758,907			2,027,310
Gross Profit	3,594,761			2,426,529			5,168,877			5,997,270			9,129,075			1,734,647			3,564,987
Expenses
Selling, general and administrative	2,488,278			3,034,740			8,870,609			9,489,579			10,149,854			3,222,661			3,325,922
Amortization of assets	49,720			77,951			718,981			1,245,846			1,511,021			290,352			621,623
Total Operating Expenses	2,537,998			3,112,691			9,589,590			10,735,425			11,660,875			3,513,013			3,947,545
Loss from Operations	1,056,763			(686,162		)	(4,420,713		)	(4,738,155		)	(2,531,800		)	(1,778,366		)	(382,558		)
Non Operating Income (expenses)
Gain on derivative instrument	—			—			—			—			(167,511		)	200,000			—
Retirement payout	(401,000		)	—			—			—			—			—			—
Change in warrant liability	(10,048		)	214,280			247,486			(399,217		)	283,305			(1,411,774		)	(2,695,600		)
Cost of extending warrant	—			—			(135,157		)	—			—			—			—
Change in fair value of contigent consideration	—			(57,996		)	79,724			—			—			—			—
Research and Development	(115,471		)	(49,977		)	(21,402		)	—			—			—			—
Loss on disposal of equipment	(15,308		)	(259,636		)	—			—			—			—			—
Acquisition and restructuring	—			(671,112		)	—			—			—			—			—
Loss on disposal of intangible asset	—			—			—			(161,200		)	—			—			—
Loss on extinguishment of debt	—			—			—			(620,835		)	—			—			—
Unrealized foreign currency exchange on debt	—			—			—			(340,553		)	(1,641,238		)	—			(1,433,456		)
Accretion expense	—			(6,888		)	(140,154		)	(103,775		)	(167,555		)	(31,118		)	(73,999		)
Interest income	10,772			18,910			13,940			3,559			59,586			372			125
Interest expense	—			—			(253,143		)	(527,079		)	(1,441,729		)	(267,292		)	(595,975		)
Net Loss for the period	525,708			(1,498,581		)	(4,629,419		)	(6,887,255		)	(5,606,942		)	(3,288,178		)	(5,181,463		)
Deferred income tax recovery	—			976,800			1,209,300			314,900			—			—			—
Current income tax recovery	—			—			71,153			—			—			—			—
Unrealized gain(loss) on derivative instrument, net of tax	—			—			—			(38,156		)	—			(103,488		)	43,400
Net loss and comprehensive loss for the period	$	525,708		$	(521,781	)	$	(3,348,966	)	$	(6,610,511	)	$	(5,606,942	)	$	(3,391,666	)	$	(5,138,063	)
Basic net income (loss) per common share	$	0.02		$	(0.02	)	$	(0.09	)	$	(0.13	)	$	(0.08	)	$	(0.06	)	$	(0.05	)
Shares used in computing basic net income (loss) per common share	23,767,369			25,706,000			39,167,419			49,169,414			71,940,005			51,420,127			96,685,405
Diluted net income (loss) per common share	$	0.02		$	(0.02	)	$	(0.09	)	$	(0.13	)	$	(0.08	)	$	(0.06	)	$	(0.05	)
Shares used in computing diluted net income per common share	23,767,369			25,706,000			39,167,419			49,169,414			71,940,005			51,420,127			96,685,405

	For the Year Ended December 31,															Three Months Ended March 31,
	2010			2011			2012			2013			2014			2014			2015
Balance Sheet Data
Cash and Cash equivalents	$	4,352,285		$	2,227,973		$	2,283,868		$	2,813,472		$	3,505,791		$	3,073,341		$	5,550,766
Total Assets	7,280,594			19,208,435			20,828,532			20,034,541			53,079,740			20,765,355			55,823,501
Total Liabilities	1,132,123			5,835,574			9,094,408			12,134,428			22,739,009			15,889,808			26,432,955
Accumulated deficit	(3,852,809		)	(4,374,590		)	(7,723,556		)	(14,295,911		)	(19,902,853		)	(17,584,089		)	(25,084,316		)
Total stockholders’ equity	6,148,471			13,372,861			11,734,124			7,900,113			30,340,731			4,875,547			29,390,546

Table of Contents

SELECTED UNAUDITED PRO FORMA FINANCIAL DATA

The following selected unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial data (the "selected pro forma data") gives effect to the business combination of Pozen and Tribute and the other transactions described in the section entitled "Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Financial Information" beginning on page F-90 of this prospectus, as well as the acquisition of Medical Futures Inc. (“MFI”) by Tribute (the “MFI Acquisition”), which closed on June 16, 2015. The transactions have been reflected in the unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial statements as being accounted for under the acquisition method in accordance with ASC 805, Business Combination, with Pozen treated as the accounting acquirer; and the MFI Acquisition has been reflected in the unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial statements in accordance with ASC 805 with Tribute treated as the accounting acquirer. The selected unaudited pro forma condensed combined balance sheet data as of March 31, 2015 give effect to the merger as if it had occurred on March 31, 2015. The selected unaudited pro forma condensed combined statement of operations data for the year ended December 31, 2014 and for the three months ended March 31, 2015 give effect to the merger as if it had occurred on January 1, 2014.

The selected pro forma data have been derived from, and should be read in conjunction with, the more detailed unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial information (the "pro forma financial statements") of the combined company appearing elsewhere in this prospectus and the accompanying notes to the pro forma financial statements. In addition, the pro forma financial statements were based on, and should be read in conjunction with, the historical financial statements and related notes of Pozen and the historical consolidated financial statements of Tribute and MFI for the applicable periods which appear elsewhere in this prospectus. See the sections entitled "Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Financial Information" and "Where You Can Find More Information" beginning on pages F-90 and 160, respectively, of this prospectus for additional information. The selected pro forma data have been presented for informational purposes only and are not necessarily indicative of what the combined company's financial position or results of operations actually would have been had the acquisition been completed as of the dates indicated. In addition, the selected pro forma data do not purport to project the future financial position or operating results of the combined company. Also, as explained in more detail in the accompanying notes to the pro forma financial statements, the preliminary fair values of assets acquired and liabilities assumed reflected in the selected pro forma data are subject to adjustment and may vary significantly from the fair values that will be recorded upon completion of the merger.

Table of Contents

	Year ended December 31, 2014 (Pro Forma Parent Combined ($USD))			Three months ended March 31, 2015 (Pro Forma Parent Combined ($USD))
Revenues
Royalty and licensing revenue	$	32,410,910		$	4,404,463
Licensed domestic product net sales	8,247,339			2,036,276
Other domestic product sales	14,498,312			3,866,861
International product sales	1,466,665			379,292
Total Revenues	56,623,226			10,686,892
Cost of Sales
Licensor sales and distribution fees	5,345,472			1,172,832
Cost of products sold	5,999,640			1,263,072
Write down of inventories	48,092			—
Total cost of sales	11,393,204			2,435,904
Gross Profit	45,230,022			8,250,988
Operating expenses
Sales, general, and administrative	23,754,893			7,054,227
Research and development	5,739,848			983,511
Amortization	9,434,864			2,356,357
Total operating expenses	38,929,605			10,394,094
Non-operating income (expense)
Change in warrant liability	256,589			(2,177,236		)
Interest expense	(362,280		)	—
Interest income	97,067			101
Other non-operating income	1,346,154			(1,338,431		)
Total other income (expense)	1,337,531			(3,515,566		)
Income before taxes	7,637,947			(5,658,672		)
Income tax expense (benefit)	(862,582		)	(205,757		)
Net Income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	8,500,530		$	(5,452,915	)
Basic net income (loss) per share	$	0.17		$	(0.10	)
Shares used in computing basic net income (loss) per share	51,139,659			52,039,362
Diluted net income (loss) per share	$	0.17		$	(0.10	)
Shares used in computing diluted net income (loss) per share	52,571,262			52,039,362

Selected Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Balance Sheet

	As of March 31, 2015 (Unaudited Pro Forma Combined)
Total assets	$	301,319,270
Total liabilities	$	63,393,637
Total shareholders’ equity	$	237,925,632

Table of Contents

COMPARATIVE PER SHARE DATA

The following tables set forth certain historical, pro forma and pro forma equivalent per share financial information for Tribute common shares and shares of Pozen common stock. The unaudited pro forma and pro forma equivalent per share financial information gives effect to the combination of Pozen and Tribute (along with the MFI Acquisition) as if the transactions had occurred on March 31, 2015.

Presented below are Tribute’s and Pozen’s historical per share data for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and the year ended December 31, 2014 and unaudited condensed combined pro forma per share data for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and the year ended December 31, 2014. The historical book value per share is computed by dividing total stockholders’ equity (deficit) by the number of shares of common stock outstanding at the end of the period. The pro forma earnings per Tribute common share is computed by dividing the pro forma net income by the pro forma weighted average number of shares outstanding. The pro forma book value per share of the combined company is computed by dividing total pro forma stockholders’ equity by the pro forma number of shares of common stock outstanding at the end of the period. The Pozen unaudited pro forma equivalent data is calculated by multiplying the combined unaudited pro forma data amounts by the merger consideration ratio of per share of Pozen common stock. The pro forma information described below includes certain adjustments and assumptions regarding the combined company after giving effect to the transactions.

The following information should be read in conjunction with (i) the audited financial statements of Tribute, which are included elsewhere in this prospectus, (ii) the audited financial statements of Pozen which are included elsewhere in this prospectus and (iii) the financial information contained in the sections entitled “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Financial Information,” “Selected Historical Financial Data of Pozen,” and “Selected Historical Financial Data of Tribute” beginning on pages [·], [·] and [·], respectively, of this prospectus. The unaudited pro forma information below is presented for informational purposes only and is not necessarily indicative of the operating results or financial position that would have occurred if the transactions had been completed as of the periods presented, nor is it necessarily indicative of the future operating results or financial position of the combined company. In addition, the unaudited pro forma information does not purport to indicate balance sheet data or results of operations data as of any future date or for any future period. Tribute

Table of Contents

has not declared or paid any cash dividends on Tribute common shares, and Pozen has not declared or paid any regular dividends on shares of Pozen common stock.

	As of and for the three months ended March 31, 2015			As of and for the year ended December 31, 2014
Combined Unaudited Pro Forma Data
Net loss per Pozen share
Diluted	$	(0.10	)	$	0.17
Basic	$	(0.10	)	$	0.17
Book value per Pozen share	$	4.57		—

	As of and for the three months ended March 31, 2015			As of and for the year ended December 31, 2014
Tribute Unaudited Pro Forma Data
Net loss per Tribute share
Diluted	$	(0.02	)	$	0.02
Basic	$	(0.02	)	$	0.02
Book value per Tribute share	$	0.67		—

Table of Contents

COMPARATIVE PER SHARE MARKET PRICE DATA AND DIVIDEND INFORMATION

It is expected that Parent Shares will be listed and traded on NASDAQ under the symbol “ARLZ” and on the TSX under the symbol “ARZ”. Pozen common stock is currently listed and traded on NASDAQ under the symbol “POZN”. Tribute common shares are currently listed on TSXV under the symbol “TRX” and on the OTCQX under the symbol “TBUFF”. The following table sets forth, for the calendar quarters indicated, the high and low sales prices of Pozen common stock and Tribute common shares, each as reported on NASDAQ, the OTCQX and the TSXV, respectively. On June 30, 2015, there were 113,719,683 Tribute common shares outstanding and 32,708,898 shares of Pozen common stock outstanding. On , 2015, the record date for the Pozen special meeting, there were shares of Pozen common stock outstanding. Tribute has not declared or paid any cash dividends on Tribute common shares, and, except for the December 30, 2013 $1.75 per share special cash distribution (representing a surplus of corporate cash and accounted for as a return of capital to stockholders) Pozen has not declared or paid any regular dividends on shares of Pozen common stock.

	Pozen(1)				Tribute(1)(2)				Tribute(3)(4)(5)
	High		Low		High		Low		High		Low
For the quarterly period ended:
2012
First Quarter	$	6.15	$	3.96	$	0.70	$	0.35	$	—	$	—
Second Quarter	$	8.12	$	5.53	$	0.66	$	0.40	$	—	$	—
Third Quarter	$	6.95	$	5.71	$	0.52	$	0.25	$	—	$	—
Fourth Quarter	$	6.80	$	4.81	$	0.48	$	0.31	$	—	$	—
2013
First Quarter	$	6.49	$	5.02	$	0.43	$	0.32	$	—	$	—
Second Quarter	$	5.56	$	4.26	$	0.45	$	0.34	$	—	$	—
Third Quarter	$	5.99	$	4.92	$	0.75	$	0.35	$	—	$	—
Fourth Quarter	$	9.90	$	5.35	$	0.50	$	0.34	$	—	$	—
2014
First Quarter	$	8.99	$	7.37	$	0.63	$	0.32	$	—	$	—
Second Quarter	$	9.73	$	7.56	$	1.10	$	0.44	$	0.98	$	0.60
Third Quarter	$	9.59	$	5.96	$	0.78	$	0.43	$	0.85	$	0.47
Fourth Quarter	$	9.71	$	7.07	$	0.59	$	0.41	$	0.67	$	0.45
2015
First Quarter	$	8.16	$	6.56	$	0.81	$	0.43	$	1.02	$	0.51
Second Quarter	$	12.69	$	6.38	$	1.86	$	0.65	$	2.33	$	0.82

(1) Currency denoted in U.S. dollars.

(2) Per share price reported on the OTCQX, trading under the symbol “TBUFF”.

(3) Tribute began trading on the TSXV effective May 27, 2014.

(4) Per share price reported on the TSXV, trading under the symbol “TRX”.

(5) Currency denoted in Canadian dollars.

Table of Contents

The following table represents the closing prices of Pozen common stock and Tribute common shares on (i) June 5, 2015, the last trading day before the public announcement of the merger agreement, (ii) June 8, 2015, the trading day on which Pozen and Tribute announced the merger, and (iii) July 15, 2015, the last practicable trading day prior to the mailing of the Form S-4.

Date	Pozen Closing Price		Tribute Closing Price on OTCQX(1)		Tribute Closing Price on TSXV(2)
June 5, 2015	$	7.55	$	1.05	$	1.30
June 8, 2015	$	8.98	$	1.17	$	1.50
July 15, 2015	$	10.96	$	1.51	$	1.98

(1) Price in U.S. dollars.

(2) Price in Canadian dollars.

Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

You should read the following discussion and analysis of Pozen’s financial condition and results of Pozen’s operations in conjunction with Pozen’s consolidated financial statements and the notes to those statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. This discussion contains forward-looking statements reflecting Pozen’s current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties. Pozen’s actual results and the timing of events may differ materially from those contained in these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, including those discussed in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this prospectus.

Statements in the following discussion may include forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. See “Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” for additional discussion of these factors and risks.

Except as otherwise noted, all references in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis to “we”, “us”, “our”, or the “Company” refer to Pozen.

Overview

We are a pharmaceutical company focused on transforming medicines that can transform lives. Historically, we have operated a business model that has focused on the following:

· developing innovative products that address unmet medical needs in the marketplace;

· obtaining patents for those innovative ideas which we believe have value in the marketplace;

· utilizing a small group of talented employees to develop those ideas by working with strategic outsource partners;

· developing a regulatory pathway with the appropriate agency; and

· determining how best to commercialize our products.

The success of our business is highly dependent on the marketplace value of our ideas and the related patents we obtain, our ability to obtain approval to sell the developed products from the required regulatory agencies, and our ability to successfully commercialize our products. Under our earlier business model, we hired experts with strong project management skills in the specific disciplines we believed were important to maintain within our company. We contracted with and manage strong outsource partners as we complete the necessary development work, permitting us to avoid incurring the cost of buying or building laboratories, manufacturing facilities or clinical research operation sites. This allowed us to control our annual expenses, but to utilize “best in class” resources as required. We decided to retain ownership of our PA product candidates for cardiovascular indications which contain a combination of a proton pump inhibitor and EC aspirin in a single tablet, through the clinical development and pre-commercialization stage and our former chief commercial officer was responsible for developing the commercialization strategy for these products and conducting all the required pre-commercialization activities.

On September 3, 2013 we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Sanofi U.S., for the commercialization of PA8140 and PA32540, now known as YOSPRALA. Under the terms of the agreement, Sanofi U.S. had exclusive rights to commercialize all PA combinations that contain 325 mg or less of EC aspirin in the United States.

On April 25, 2014, we received a CRL from the FDA advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude the approval of the NDA in its then-current form. Specifically, an inspection of the manufacturing facility of an active ingredient supplier of ours concluded with certain inspection deficiencies. Satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before the NDA may be approved. There were no clinical or safety deficiencies noted with respect to either PA8140 or PA32540 and no other deficiencies were noted in CRL. On June 30, 2014, we resubmitted the NDA for PA32540 and PA8140 to the FDA and the FDA notified us that the new action fee date is December 30, 2014. On May 9, 2014, our active ingredient supplier submitted a response to the FDA addressing the inspection deficiencies and subsequently submitted an update to its initial response. On November 29, 2014, we executed a termination agreement with Sanofi U.S. terminating the license agreement for PA. As of the termination date, all licenses granted to Sanofi U.S. were terminated and all rights to the products licensed to Sanofi U.S. under the agreement reverted to us. The termination agreement further provides for the transfer of specified commercial know-how developed by Sanofi U.S. relating to the PA products to us and allows us, and any future collaborators, to use this know-how to commercialize the products. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products.

On December 17, 2014, we received a second CRL from the FDA advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude approval of the NDA in its current form. In this CRL, the FDA used identical wording to that of the first CRL. Satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before this application may be approved. There were no clinical or safety deficiencies noted with respect to either PA32540 or PA8140 and no other deficiencies were noted in the CRL. Final agreement on the draft product labeling is also pending.

Table of Contents

FDA regulations allowed us to request a Type A meeting with the FDA to discuss the next steps required to gain approval of our NDA. The FDA granted the Type A meeting, which was held in late January 2015. At the meeting, representatives from the FDA’s Office of Compliance stated that the active ingredient supplier’s responses to the 483 inspectional observations submitted in May 2014 were still under review and the Office of Compliance would be communicating with the supplier in the coming weeks. The active ingredient supplier has informed Pozen that they received a warning letter relating to the Form 483 inspection deficiencies. They have submitted a plan of corrective actions to address the matters raised in the warning letter to FDA. We have had continuing discussions with FDA about these issues and the impact on our NDA and with our active ingredient supplier regarding the corrective actions it is taking to address the inspectional observations at its facility. We are also working toward securing and seeking FDA’s approval for an alternative back up supplier.

In light of the warning letter sent to our active ingredient supplier and of the time requirements necessary to complete an assessment of its strategic options, and to properly prepare the market for the launch of our YOSPRALA product candidates, we believe the products will be available for commercialization in 2016.

Our commercialization strategy for PA outside the United States was to secure relationships with one or more strong commercial partners with relevant expertise to commercialize our future products globally. With respect to future products we may develop, we had decided that we will no longer commit substantial resources to further drug development without a partner who agrees to pay the full cost of that development. Consistent with this model, we reduced our research and development staff and other costs and expenses as our PA development program activities wind down.

Our business and operations model is evolving. On June 1, 2015, our Board appointed a new Chief Executive Officer and a new President and Chief Business Officer, each of whom has experience creating, leading and expanding pharmaceutical companies with marketing and sales capabilities. If the proposed business combination with Tribute is approved by our stockholders and Tribute’s shareholders and such transaction and concurrent equity and debt financings are closed, we will become a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on cardiovascular and pain therapies with a diversified portfolio of marketed products and developmental stage product candidates in the United States and Canada.

Proposed Business Combination with Tribute.

On June 8, 2015, we entered into the merger agreement among Tribute, Parent, Ltd2, US Merger Sub, and Can Merger Sub.

The merger agreement provides for, among other things, a business combination whereby we will merge with US Merger Sub. As a result of the merger, the separate corporate existence of US Merger Sub will cease and we will continue as the surviving corporation. On the date of the closing of the merger, we will become an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. In accordance with the merger agreement, Can Merger Sub will offer to and acquire, and will acquire, all of the outstanding shares of Tribute in the manner provided for by the merger agreement. Following completion of the Arrangement, Tribute will also become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. The boards of directors of each party, including Tribute, Parent, US Merger Sub, Can Merger Sub and us have unanimously approved the merger agreement, determined that the merger and arrangement, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the merger agreement, is in the best interests of its respective companies and stockholders, and have declared the advisability of the merger and arrangement and the execution of the merger agreement.

Upon consummation of the merger and arrangement, each outstanding share of our common stock will be converted into the right to receive from Parent one Parent Share, $0.001 nominal value per share, and each outstanding share of Tribute common stock will be converted into the right to receive from Parent or Can Merger Sub 0.1455 Parent Shares. Upon completion of the merger and arrangement, our stockholders will own approximately 66% of the outstanding Parent Shares, and current Tribute shareholders will own approximately 34% of the outstanding Parent Shares before giving effect to (i) any exercise of outstanding options and warrants or the vesting and delivery of shares underlying restricted stock units of either company and (ii) the ordinary shares of Parent to be issued to new investors pursuant to the Subscription Agreement and the ordinary shares of Parent issuable upon conversion of the Convertible Notes to be issued pursuant to the Facility Agreement. After giving effect to the transactions and the proposed Parent equity financing and debt financing, the former stockholders of Pozen as a group will hold Parent Shares constituting approximately 49% of the outstanding Parent Shares and the former shareholders of Tribute as a group will hold Parent Shares constituting approximately 28% of the outstanding Parent Shares.

The completion of the merger and arrangement is subject to the approval of our stockholders and the shareholders of Tribute. In addition, the merger and the arrangement are subject to other customary closing conditions, including, among others, (i) the expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, and the obtaining of approval under Canada’s Competition Act (to the extent required under applicable law), (ii) the declaration by the SEC of the effectiveness of the Form S-4 registering the Parent Shares to be issued in connection with the merger, (iii) the approval of the listing on

Table of Contents

NASDAQ and the TSX of the Parent Shares to be issued in connection with the merger and arrangement, and (iv) the conditions to closing the equity and debt financings described below having been met or waived.

On June 8, 2015, we also executed the Facility Agreement among the Borrower and the Lenders. Pursuant to the Facility Agreement, the Borrower will borrow from the Lenders up to an aggregate principal amount of $275 million, of which (i) $75 million of Convertible Notes, issued and sold by Borrower to Deerfield Private Design or its registered assigns, upon the terms and conditions of the Facility Agreement, and (ii) up to an aggregate principal amount of $200 million, which will be made available for “Permitted Acquisitions (a) deferred in the Facility Agreement),” of Acquisition Notes, evidencing the Acquisition Loans, upon the terms and conditions and subject to the limitations set forth in the Acquisition Notes, all subject to the terms and conditions of the Facility Agreement.

On June 8, 2015, we also executed the Subscription Agreement by and among Purchaser, Tribute, Parent, us and the Investors. Pursuant to the Subscription Agreement, Parent will sell to Purchaser and the Investors up to $75 million of the Parent Shares in a private placement at a purchase price of $7.20 per Parent Share. The Subscription Agreement provides that the Company will prepare and file two registration statements with the SEC on such form as may be required to effect a registration of the Parent Shares issued under the Subscription Agreement within 60 days of the date of the signing of the Subscription Agreement and for certain other registration rights for each of Purchaser and the Investors under the Securities Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, or any similar successor statute, and applicable state securities laws.

A description of the merger agreement, the Facility Agreement and the Subscription Agreement, as well as other agreements related to the merger and financing transactions is set forth in a Form 8-K we filed with the SEC on June 8, 2015 and copies of these agreements are attached as exhibits to such Form 8-K. The foregoing description of these agreements does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the agreements.

Treximet

We have previously developed Treximet® in collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline, or GSK. Treximet is the brand name for the product combining sumatriptan 85 mg, formulated with RT Technology™ and naproxen sodium 500 mg in a single tablet designed for the acute treatment of migraine. On April 15, 2008, the FDA approved Treximet for the acute treatment of migraine attacks with or without aura in adults. Upon receipt of FDA approval, GSK notified us of its intention to launch the product and Treximet was available in pharmacies in May 2008.

On November 23, 2011, we entered into a purchase and sale agreement, or the Purchase Agreement, with CPPIB Credit Investments Inc., or CII, pursuant to which we sold, and CII purchased, our right to receive future royalty payments arising from U.S. sales of MT 400, including Treximet. Under the Purchase Agreement, we received $75 million and will receive a 20% interest in any royalties received by CII relating to the period commencing on April 1, 2018.

On May 13, 2014, we, or GSK, CII and Pernix entered into certain agreements in connection with GSK’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell Treximet in the U.S. to Pernix. Upon the closing of the divestiture on August 20, 2014, GSK assigned the Product Development and Commercialization Agreement executed as of June 11, 2003 between us and GSK, the Treximet Agreement, to Pernix. Immediately following the closing of the divestiture, Amendment No. 1 to the Treximet Agreement, or Amendment No.1, between us and Pernix became effective. Amendment No. 1, among other things, amends the royalty provisions of the Agreement to provide for a guaranteed quarterly minimum royalty payable to CII of $4 million for the calendar quarters commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on March 31, 2018 and requires that Pernix continue certain of GSK’s ongoing development activities and to undertake certain new activities, for which we will provide reasonable assistance. Amendment No. 1 also eliminates restrictions in the Agreement on our right to develop and commercialize certain dosage forms of sumatriptan/naproxen combinations outside of the United States and permits Pozen to seek approval for these combinations on the basis of the approved NDA for Treximet. Pernix also issued us a warrant to purchase 500,000 shares of Pernix common stock at an exercise price equal to $4.28, the closing price of Pernix common stock as listed on the NASDAQ Global Market on May 13, 2014. In the first quarter of 2015, the Company sold the warrant for $2,479,000. Lastly, we, GSK, Pernix and CII executed a letter agreement whereby we expressly consented to the assignment by GSK and the assumption by Pernix of the Treximet Agreement. On July 30, the parties entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Treximet Agreement which will permit Pernix’s Irish affiliate to which Pernix will assigns its rights to further assign the Agreement without our prior written consent as collateral security for the benefit of the lenders which financed the acquisition. Amendment No. 2 became effective upon the closing of the divestiture, which occurred on August 20, 2014.

Table of Contents

VIMOVO®

We have developed VIMOVO with AstraZeneca. VIMOVO (formerly referred to as PN 400) is the brand name for a proprietary fixed dose combination of the PPI esomeprazole magnesium with the NSAID naproxen in a single tablet. On April 30, 2010, the FDA approved VIMOVO for the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis, or OA, rheumatoid arthritis, or RA, and ankylosing spondylitis, or AS, and to decrease the risk of developing gastric ulcers in patients at risk of developing NSAID-associated gastric ulcers.

In August 2006, we entered into an exclusive global collaboration and license agreement with AstraZeneca to co-develop and commercialize VIMOVO, which agreement was amended in September 2007 and October 2008. We began the Phase 3 program in September 2007. As part of the program, we conducted two Phase 3 pivotal trials of VIMOVO in patients who are at risk for developing NSAID-associated gastric ulcers, the primary endpoint for which was the reduction in endoscopic gastric ulcers.

The NDA for VIMOVO was submitted on June 30, 2009 and was accepted for filing by FDA in August 2009. Pozen received a $10.0 million milestone payment from AstraZeneca in September 2009 for the achievement of such milestone. Earlier, in May 2010, we had received a $20.0 million milestone payment when we received FDA approval of VIMOVO. In October 2009, AstraZeneca submitted a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, for VIMOVO in the European Union, or EU, via the Decentralized Procedure, or DCP, and has filed for approval in a number of other countries which are not covered by the DCP. On October 11, 2010, we announced with AstraZeneca that VIMOVO had received positive agreement for approval in 23 countries across the EU following all 22 “Concerned Member States” agreeing with the assessment of the Netherlands Health Authority (MEB), acting as the “Reference Member State” for the DCP. We received a $25.0 million milestone payment when pricing and reimbursement for VIMOVO was granted in the United Kingdom.

On November 18, 2013, AstraZeneca and Horizon entered into certain agreements in connection with AstraZeneca’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States to Horizon. As required by the terms of our agreement with AstraZeneca, we gave our consent to AstraZeneca’s divestiture of such rights to Horizon because we believed that Horizon’s expertise in commercializing products for pain and inflammatory disease, including a similar combination product containing a NSAID and a gastroprotective agent, make it an excellent partner to maximize the potential of VIMOVO in the United States. We were also able to negotiate a guaranteed annual minimum royalty in the United States in the amount of $5 million in calendar year 2014, and a guaranteed annual minimum royalty amount of $7.5 million each calendar year thereafter, provided that the patents owned by us which cover VIMOVO are in effect and no generic forms of VIMOVO are in the marketplace.

On July 28, 2014, Horizon announced that it had been verbally notified by CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, Inc. that VIMOVO would no longer be on their formularies and will be placed on their exclusion lists effective January 1, 2015. We saw a decline in VIMOVO prescriptions in the first quarter of 2015 of approximately 20% versus the fourth quarter of 2014 and our quarterly royalty declined to $3.2 million, well ahead of our minimum quarterly royalty of $1.875 million.

We, AstraZeneca and Horizon are also engaged in Paragraph IV litigation with several generic pharmaceutical companies with respect to patents listed in the Orange Book with respect to VIMOVO currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and in an IPR brought by Dr. Reddy’s with respect to the ‘285 patent and in two IPRs brought by CFAD. We and AstraZeneca are also engaged in a proceeding in Canada with Mylan ULC which is seeking approval of its generic version of VIMOVO in Canada prior to the expiration of our Canadian patent.

Our Principal Product Candidates

Our PA product candidates, containing a PPI and aspirin, have completed clinical development testing in the United States. Our PA product candidates, now known as YOSPRALA, are excluded from our agreement with AstraZeneca. We met with the FDA to discuss the overall development program requirements for PA32540 for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease in patients at risk for gastric ulcers. An investigational new drug application, or IND, was filed in the fourth quarter of 2007. We completed a study which demonstrated that the (SA) component of PA32540 was bioequivalent to the reference drug, EC aspirin. We filed a Special Protocol Assessment, or SPA, with the FDA for the design of the Phase 3 studies for the product, the primary endpoint for which is the reduction in the cumulative incidence of endoscopic gastric ulcers.

Table of Contents

Based upon the FDA’s earlier confirmation that endoscopic gastric ulcers were an acceptable primary endpoint, in October 2009, we began two pivotal Phase 3 and one long-term safety study for PA32540 for the cardiovascular indication. The primary endpoint of the pivotal studies, which included approximately 500 subjects per study, was a significant reduction in the cumulative incidence of gastric ulcers following administration of PA32540 vs. 325 mg EC aspirin over the six-month treatment period. The primary endpoint was met in both studies. Additionally, the studies met their key secondary endpoints, including a reduction in gastroduodenal ulceration as well as a reduction in discontinuation due to upper gastrointestinal adverse events in subjects taking PA32540 compared to 325 mg enteric-coated aspirin.

In February 2012, the FDA requested an additional Phase 1 study to assess the bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg with respect to acetylsalicylic acid, or ASA. After the Company completed the requested bioequivalence study, the FDA made a preliminary review of the study results and the Company’s summary analyses and, based on its preliminary assessment of the information available to it at the time, the FDA did not agree that bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg was demonstrated. The Company then submitted to the FDA additional information and analyses from the requested bioequivalence study, as well as other relevant pharmacokinetic, clinical pharmacology, and in vitro dissolution data as a Briefing Document in support of a request for a Type A meeting with the FDA. At the Type A meeting held in August 2012, the FDA confirmed that, although it believes bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg, was not strictly established in our bioequivalence study according to the predetermined criteria, the results from this study, together with additional information that was submitted by the Company in the NDA, constitutes sufficient data to support the establishment of a clinical and pharmacological bridge between the product and EC aspirin 325 mg. The FDA indicated that it would make a final determination during the NDA review. The FDA also indicated that a similar strategy to bridge to the reference listed drug, inclusive of a new, single pharmacokinetic study, could be utilized for a low dose version of PA32540 (currently PA8140). The Company conducted this study with the low dose version against the EC aspirin 81mg. Based on the predetermined criteria acceptable to the FDA, the study demonstrated that PA8140 is bioequivalent to EC aspirin 81mg using criteria for highly variable drugs and had comparable bioavailability.

During a pre-submission meeting with respect to its NDA for PA32540 in April 2012, the FDA suggested that the Company also seek approval for a lower dose formulation of the product containing 81 mg of enteric coated aspirin as part of its NDA for PA32540. Absent the availability of such a lower dose formulation in the market if PA32540 is approved, the FDA indicated that it may limit the indication for PA32540 to use in CABG with treatment duration not to exceed one year. During the Type A meeting held in August 2012, the FDA confirmed its preference to have both PA32540 and a lower dose version available in the market so that physicians can have both a low and high dose option available, and agreed that, if both dosage strengths were included in the NDA and subsequently approved, the indications for both will be consistent with the full range of indications described in the current aspirin monograph.

We had generated some clinical pharmacology data and chemical, manufacturing and controls (CMC) data for a product which contains 81 mg of enteric coated aspirin and 40 mg of omeprazole in a single tablet known as PA8140. The Company filed this existing data, together with additional CMC data to be generated and evidence from the scientific literature relating to the ulcerogenic risk of 81 mg of aspirin with the FDA. At this time, we do not intend to conduct Phase 3 clinical trials for PA8140. The data package submitted for PA8140 was similar to that used to gain approval for a lower dosage form of VIMOVO containing 375 mg of naproxen. We have no assurance such data will be sufficient for the FDA to approve PA8140 or to allow a broader indication for PA32540. The FDA will make a final determination with respect to the approvability of and indications for PA32540 and PA8140.

On June 30, 2014, we resubmitted the NDA for PA32540 and PA8140 to the FDA and the FDA notified us that the new action fee date is December 30, 2014. On May 9, 2014, our active ingredient supplier submitted a response to the FDA addressing the inspection deficiencies and subsequently submitted an update to its initial response. On December 17, 2014, we received a second CRL from the FDA advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude approval of the NDA in its current form. In this CRL, the FDA used identical wording to that of the first CRL. Satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is

Table of Contents

required before this application may be approved. There were no clinical or safety deficiencies noted with respect to either PA32540 or PA8140 and no other deficiencies were noted in the CRL. Final agreement on the draft product labeling is also pending. We continue to assist the FDA compliance division with their review. FDA regulations allowed us to request a Type A meeting with the FDA to discuss the next steps required to gain approval of our NDA. The FDA granted the Type A meeting which was held in late January 2015. At the meeting, representatives from the FDA’s Office of Compliance stated that the active ingredient supplier’s responses to the 483 inspectional observations submitted in May 2014 were still under review and the Office of Compliance would be communicating with the supplier in the coming weeks. The active ingredient supplier has informed Pozen that they received a warning letter relating to the Form 483 inspection deficiencies. They have submitted a plan of corrective actions to address the matters raised in the warning letter to FDA. We have had continuing discussions with FDA about these issues and the impact on our NDA and with our active ingredient supplier regarding the corrective actions it is taking to address the inspectional observations at its facility.

To assess whether a similar interaction occurs between clopidogrel and PA32540, which contains immediate release omeprazole, we completed two Phase 1 drug-drug interaction studies to evaluate the ex-vivo platelet aggregation effects of PA32540 plus clopidogrel. In the first study, we evaluated ex-vivo platelet aggregation of PA32540 plus clopidogrel when dosed at the same time or dosed 10 hours apart compared to aspirin 325 mg plus clopidogrel dosed together. When PA32540 and clopidogrel were dosed together, data from the study showed a mean 36.7% platelet inhibition compared to a mean 44.0% platelet inhibition when aspirin and clopidogrel were dosed together suggesting a drug-drug interaction based on the study’s pre-specified primary analysis. When PA32540 and clopidogrel were dosed 10 hours apart, data from the study indicate no ex-vivo drug-drug interaction based on the study’s pre-specified primary analysis. In the second Phase 1 study, we evaluated ex-vivo platelet aggregation of PA32540 plus clopidogrel dosed 10 hour apart compared to a current standard of care of Plavix + Prilosec 40 mg + EC ASA 81 mg dosed together. Subjects on PA32450 demonstrated significantly greater inhibition of platelet aggregation than subjects on standard of care. The clinical relevance of these ex vivo platelet data on cardiovascular events is not known. No further Phase 1 studies on the clopidogrel-PPI interaction are planned. FDA assessment of available data on the drug-drug interaction may result in the inclusion of a warning, similar to that in the current Prilosec label, against the concomitant use of PA32540 and Plavix.

We are also continuing to evaluate how best to commercialize the PA product candidates and programs. We are evaluating the regulatory requirements to obtain an indication for PA for the secondary prevention of colorectal neoplasia. In January 2010, we received input from the FDA with respect to the development requirements for a possible indication in colorectal neoplasia. Further discussions are being considered. We are also evaluating the possibility of developing another dosage strength of PA containing 650 mg of EC aspirin and 20 mg of omeprazole (PA65020) for the treatment of osteoarthritis and similar conditions and we met with the FDA in December 2010 to obtain input with respect to the regulatory requirements to obtain such an indication. The FDA advised us that we will need to demonstrate a reduction in gastric ulcers compared to aspirin alone in a replicate Phase 3 program similar to that we performed for VIMOVO, in addition to a study to establish efficacy of the product in the treatment of OA.

We met with a European country that served as the Reference Member State for approval of VIMOVO in Europe to obtain guidance on a clinical development program for approval of PA65020 in the Europe. We were advised that Phase 3 endoscopic trials demonstrating a reduction in gastric ulcers would not be required in addition to an osteoarthritis efficacy study since omeprazole’s actions on gastric ulcers has been well characterized. Instead, Phase 1 studies assessing pharmacokinetics and gastric acid suppression could be used to support the benefit of omeprazole as a component of PA65020.

We have also received Scientific Advice from the MEB in the Netherlands, which has agreed to be the Reference Member State in a decentralized filing procedure, regarding the development program required for the approval in the EU of PA tablets, including a lower dosage form containing 100 mg of aspirin and 40 mg of omeprazole (PA10040) for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The MEB agreed that a full Phase 3 clinical development program for PA10040, to demonstrate the reduction of endoscopic gastric ulcers vs. EC aspirin, would not be necessary. Instead, a Phase 1 pharmacodynamic study comparing gastric pH control for PA10040 vs. EC omeprazole 20 mg, along with a study to demonstrate bioequivalence of PA10040 to a currently marketed EC aspirin product using ASA as the analyte would be sufficient. Study PA10040-101 demonstrated that PA10040 had comparable bioavailability and is bioequivalent to an EU reference listed EC aspirin 100 mg. Study PA10040-102 demonstrated that PA10040 provides gastric pH greater than 4 control for a percent time over 24 hours of 47%. Furthermore, compared to Losec 20 mg (EC omeprazole 20 mg), PA10040 produced a similar level of 24-hour pH control ((p=0.02).

A pre-submission follow up meeting with the MEB was held in July 2014. We proposed seeking approval of PA10040 only since the ASA component in that dosage form matches the clinical practice for use of ASA in the EU. Approval of PA10040 would be based on specific studies conducted with the product, as well as data from the entire PA program conducted in the United States. Based on discussions at the meeting, the MEB agreed that the MAA filing can proceed without any further clinical studies and that the Netherlands would be the lead country for the decentralized review process. The MEB also requested that a complete risk-benefit

Table of Contents

analysis of PA10040 for the intended cardiovascular patient population and proposed indication should be included as part of the MAA submission.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and have not yet generated significant revenue from product sales. As of March 31, 2015, our accumulated deficit was approximately $96.9 million. We record revenue under the following categories: royalty revenues and licensing revenues. Our licensing revenues include upfront payments upon contract signing, additional payments if and when certain milestones in the product’s development or commercialization are reached, while the royalty payments are based on product sales. Our historical operating losses have resulted principally from our research and development activities, including clinical trial activities for our product candidates and sales, general and administrative expenses. Research and development expenses include salaries and benefits for personnel involved in our research and development activities and direct development costs, which include costs relating to the formulation and manufacturing of our product candidates, costs relating to preclinical studies, including toxicology studies, and clinical trials, and costs relating to compliance with regulatory requirements applicable to the development of our product candidates. Since inception, our research and development expenses have represented approximately 62% of our total operating expenses. For the three months ended March 31, 2015, our research and development expenses represented approximately 23% of our total operating expenses.

Operating losses may be incurred over the next several years as we complete the development and seek regulatory approval for our product candidates, develop other product candidates, conduct pre-commercialization activities, and acquire and/or develop product portfolios in other therapeutic areas. Our results may vary depending on many factors, including:

· The progress of our PA product candidates and our other product candidates in the clinical and regulatory process;

· The ability of Horizon and AstraZeneca to successfully commercialize VIMOVO in the United States and outside the United States, respectively, and our ability to successfully commercialize our PA product candidates;

· The establishment of potential new collaborations and progress and/or maintenance of our existing collaborations for the development and commercialization of any of our product candidates;

· Our ability to successfully defend our regulatory market exclusivity and patent rights against generic challenges and to succeed in obtaining extensions of such exclusivity for which we may be eligible;

· Our ability to commercialize our products either ourselves or with commercial partners in a highly regulated and extremely competitive marketplace;

· The possible acquisition and/or in-licensing, and development of our therapeutic product candidates; and

· The ability of us to integrate our business with that of Tribute if the merger is consummated.

We have entered into collaborations and may continue to enter into additional collaborations with established pharmaceutical or pharmaceutical services companies to commercialize and manufacture our product candidates once approved. We decided to retain control of our PA product candidates for cardiovascular indications through the clinical development and pre-commercialization stage. To that end, our chief commercial officer evaluated the commercial opportunities for these product candidates and developed a worldwide commercial strategy, which enabled us to conduct pre-commercialization activities prior to licensing these products to commercial partners. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products. In light of the warning letter sent to our active ingredient supplier and of the time requirements necessary to complete an assessment of its strategic options, and to properly prepare the market for the launch of our YOSPRALA product candidates, we believe the products will be available for commercialization in 2016.

Our business and operations model is evolving. On June 1, 2015, our Board appointed a new Chief Executive Officer, Adrian Adams and a new President and Chief Business Officer, Andrew Koven, each of whom has experience creating, leading and expanding pharmaceutical companies with marketing and sales capabilities. If the proposed business combination with Tribute is approved by our stockholders and Tribute’s shareholders and concurrent equity and debt financings are closed, we will become a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on cardiovascular and pain therapies with a diversified portfolio of marketed products and developmental stage product candidates in the United States and Canada.

Our ability to generate revenue in the near term is dependent upon our ability, alone or with collaborators, to achieve the milestones set forth in our collaboration agreements, to enter into additional collaboration agreements, to successfully develop product candidates, to obtain regulatory approvals and to successfully manufacture and commercialize our future products. These milestones are earned when we have satisfied the criteria set out in our revenue recognition footnote accompanying the financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on March 11, 2015 which appear elsewhere in this prospectus. These payments generate large non-recurring revenue that will cause large fluctuations in quarterly and annual profit and loss.

Table of Contents

Our principal executive office is located at 1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 400, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27517, and our telephone number is (919) 913-1030. Our website address is www.POZEN.com. The information on our website is not incorporated into this prospectus and should not be considered to be a part of this prospectus. We have included our website address as an inactive textual reference only.

Status and Expenses Related to Our Approved Products and Product Candidates

There follows a brief discussion of the status of the development of our approved products and our product candidates, as well as the costs relating to our development activities. Our direct research and development expenses were $0.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and $1.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2014. Our research and development expenses that are not direct development costs consist of personnel and other research and development departmental costs and are not allocated by product candidate. We generally do not maintain records that allocate our employees’ time by the projects on which they work and, therefore, are unable to identify costs related to the time that employees spend on research and development by product candidate. Total compensation and benefit costs for our personnel involved in research and development were $0.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and $0.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2014. Total compensation included $0.1 million and $0.1 million charge for non-cash compensation for stock option expense for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and March 31, 2014, respectively. Other research and development department costs were $0.1 million for the six months ended March 31, 2015 and less than $0.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2014.

Treximet/MT400

On April 15, 2008, the FDA approved Treximet for the acute treatment of migraine attacks with or without aura in adults. GSK notified us of its intention to launch the product and Treximet was available in pharmacies in May 2008. As part of our NDA program for Treximet, we conducted five Phase 1 trials, two Phase 3 pivotal trials, and one 12-month open label safety trial using a formulation of Treximet developed by GSK. The Phase 3 pivotal trials, including the endpoints required to evaluate Treximet, were designed to demonstrate superiority to placebo for relief of pain and the associated symptoms of migraine (nausea, photophobia and phonophobia) at two hours. Additionally, the program was designed to demonstrate that each component makes a contribution to the efficacy of Treximet (the “combination drug rule” that the FDA requires of all combination products). The efficacy endpoint for the combination was sustained pain free, which is defined as improvement from moderate or severe pain to no pain at two hours and remaining at no pain through twenty four hours without the use of rescue medicine. Further, GSK has conducted market support studies for Treximet, including evaluations in a pediatric population. As required by the terms of our agreement with GSK, we transferred ownership of the NDA and other regulatory filings for Treximet to GSK on May 14, 2008, and GSK took responsibility for all ongoing regulatory obligations for the product, including post marketing clinical trial requirements.

Since inception we have incurred total direct development costs of $26.5 million associated with the development of our MT 400 and Treximet programs. Our direct development costs do not include the cost of research and development personnel or any allocation of our overhead expenses.

Lastly, we, GSK, Pernix and CII executed a letter agreement whereby we expressly consented to the assignment by GSK and the assumption by Pernix of the Treximet Agreement. On July 30, the parties entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Treximet Agreement which will permit Pernix’s Irish affiliate to which Pernix will assign its rights to further assign the Agreement without our prior written consent as collateral security for the benefit of the lenders which financed the acquisition. Amendment No. 2 became effective upon closing of the divestiture, which occurred on August 20, 2014.

Table of Contents

PN/VIMOVO Program

Under our PN program, we completed formulation development and clinical studies for several combinations of a PPI and a NSAID in a single tablet intended to provide effective management of pain and inflammation associated with chronic conditions such as osteoarthritis, and intended to have fewer gastrointestinal complications compared to a NSAID taken alone in patients at risk for developing NSAID associated gastric ulcers. We entered into an exclusive,worldwide (except for Japan) collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca on August 1, 2006 and which was amended in September 2007 and October 2008 relating to the development and commercialization of our PN products. Our agreement with AstraZeneca covered the development and commercialization of proprietary fixed dose combinations of the PPI esomeprazole magnesium with the NSAID naproxen in a single tablet. The initial product developed under the agreement, VIMOVO (formerly PN 400), was approved by the FDA on April 30, 2010 for the relief of the signs and symptoms of OA, RA and AS and to decrease the risk of developing gastric ulcers in patients at risk of developing NSAID-associated gastric ulcers.

The NDA for VIMOVO was submitted on June 30, 2009 and was accepted for filing in August 2009. We received a $10.0 million milestone payment from AstraZeneca in September 2009 for the achievement of such milestone. On April 30, 2010, VIMOVO was approved by FDA for the relief of the signs and symptoms of OA, RA and AS and to decrease the risk of developing gastric ulcers in patients at risk of developing NSAID-associated gastric ulcers. We received a $20.0 million milestone payment from AstraZeneca in May 2010 in connection with such approval. As required by the terms of our agreement with AstraZeneca, we transferred ownership of the NDA and other regulatory filings for VIMOVO to AstraZeneca on June 1, 2010, and AstraZeneca now has responsibility for all ongoing regulatory obligations for the product in the U.S., including post marketing clinical trial requirements, in addition to responsibility for all regulatory obligations outside the U.S.

Under our agreement with AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca had responsibility for the development program for PN products outside the U.S., including interactions with regulatory agencies. In October 2009, AstraZeneca submitted a MAA for VIMOVO in the EU via the DCP and has filed for approval in a number of other countries which are not covered by the DCP. On October 11, 2010, we announced with AstraZeneca that VIMOVO had received positive agreement for approval in 39 countries across the EU following all 22 Concerned Member States agreeing with the assessment of the Netherlands Health Authority, acting as the Reference Member State for the DCP. We received a $25.0 million milestone payment when pricing and reimbursement for VIMOVO was granted in the United Kingdom. Other Member States are now pursuing pricing and reimbursement and national approvals. Earlier, in May 2010, we had received a $20.0 million milestone payment when we received FDA approval of VIMOVO. As of the end of December 31, 2013, VIMOVO has been filed for regulatory approval in 81 countries and approved in 71 countries.

On May 3, 2013, AstraZeneca informed us that, after a strategic business review, it had decided to cease promotion and sampling of VIMOVO by the end of the third quarter of 2013 in certain countries, including the U.S. and all countries in Europe, other than Spain and Portugal, which have pre-existing contractual relationships with third parties. We understand that AstraZeneca will instead now focus on those countries where the product has shown growth and which AstraZeneca believes have the greatest potential for future growth. We continue to assess the financial impact this decision will have on our royalty revenue. On November 18, 2013, AstraZeneca and Horizon entered into certain agreements in connection with AstraZeneca’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States to Horizon. As required by the terms of our agreement with AstraZeneca, we gave our consent to AstraZeneca’s divestiture of such rights to Horizon because we believed that Horizon’s expertise in commercializing products for pain and inflammatory disease, including a similar combination product containing a NSAID and a gastroprotective agent, make it an excellent partner to maximize the potential of VIMOVO in the United States. We were also able to negotiate a guaranteed annual minimum royalty in the United States in the amount of $5.0 million in calendar year 2014, and a guaranteed annual minimum royalty amount of $7.5 million each calendar year thereafter, provided that the patents owned by us which cover VIMOVO are in effect and no generic forms of VIMOVO are in the marketplace. On July 28, 2014, Horizon announced that it had been verbally notified by CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, Inc. that VIMOVO would no longer be on their formularies and will be placed on their exclusion lists effective January 1, 2015. We saw a decline in VIMOVO prescriptions in Q1 2015 of approximately 20% versus the fourth quarter of 2014 and our quarterly royalty declined to $3.2 million, well ahead of our minimum quarterly royalty of $1.875 million.

Since inception we have incurred total direct development cost of $96.2 million associated with the development of our PN program of which $57.1 million was funded by development revenue from AstraZeneca. Our direct development costs do not include the cost of research and development personnel or any allocation of our overhead expense.

PA Program

Table of Contents

Our PA product candidates, PA32540 and PA8140, have completed clinical development testing in the United States. Based upon the FDA’s earlier confirmation that endoscopic gastric ulcers were an acceptable primary endpoint, in October 2009, we began two pivotal Phase 3 and one long-term safety study for PA32540 for the cardiovascular indication. The primary endpoint was met in both studies. Additionally, the studies met their key secondary endpoints, including a reduction in gastroduodenal ulceration as well as a reduction in discontinuation due to upper gastrointestinal adverse events in subjects taking PA32540 compared to 325 mg EC aspirin.

In February 2012, the FDA requested an additional Phase 1 study to assess the bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg with respect to ASA. After the Company completed the requested bioequivalence study, the FDA has made a preliminary review of the study results and the Company’s summary analyses and, based on its preliminary assessment of the information available to it at the time, the FDA did not agree that bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg was demonstrated. We then submitted to the FDA additional information and analyses from the requested bioequivalence study, as well as other relevant pharmacokinetic, clinical pharmacology, and in vitro dissolution data as a Briefing Document in support of a request for a Type A meeting with the FDA. At the Type A meeting held in August 2012, the FDA confirmed that, although it believes bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg, was not strictly established in our bioequivalence study according to the predetermined criteria, the results from this study, together with additional information that will be submitted by us in the NDA, constitutes sufficient data to support the establishment of a clinical and pharmacological bridge between the product and EC aspirin 325 mg. The FDA indicated that it would make a final determination during the NDA review. FDA also indicated that a similar strategy to bridge to the reference listed drug, inclusive of a new, single pharmacokinetic study, could be utilized for a low dose version of PA32540 (PA8140). We have conducted this study with the low dose version against the EC aspirin 81 mg. Based on the predetermined criteria acceptable to the FDA, the study demonstrated that PA8140 is bioequivalent to EC aspirin using criteria for highly variable drugs and had comparable bioavailability.

During a pre-submission meeting with respect to its NDA for PA32540 in April 2012, the FDA suggested that the Company also seek approval for a lower dose formulation of the product containing 81 mg of EC aspirin as part of its NDA for PA32540. We intended to seek an indication for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients at risk for gastric ulcers. During the Type A meeting held in August 2012, the FDA has confirmed its preference to have both PA32540 and a lower dose version available in the market so that physicians can have both a low and high dose option available, and agreed that, if both dosage strengths were included in the NDA and subsequently approved, the indications for both will be consistent with the full range of indications described in the current aspirin monograph.

We had generated some clinical pharmacology data and chemical, manufacturing and controls, or CMC, data for a product which contains 81 mg of EC aspirin and 40 mg of omeprazole in a single tablet known as PA8140. We filed this existing data, together with additional CMC data to be generated and evidence from the scientific literature relating to the ulcerogenic risk of 81 mg of aspirin with the FDA. At this time, the Company does not intend to conduct Phase 3 clinical trials for PA8140. The data package submitted for PA8140 was similar to that used to gain approval for a lower dosage form of VIMOVO containing 375 mg of naproxen. We have no assurance such data will be sufficient for the FDA to approve PA8140 or to allow a broader indication for PA32540. The FDA will make a final determination with respect to the approvability of and indications for PA32540 and PA8140.

Table of Contents

on the draft product labeling is also pending. We continue to assist the FDA compliance division with their review. FDA regulations allow us to request a Type A meeting with the FDA to discuss the next steps required to gain approval of our NDA. The FDA granted the Type A meeting, which was held in late January 2015. At the meeting, representatives from the FDA’s Office of Compliance stated that the active ingredient supplier’s responses to the 483 inspectional observations submitted in May 2014 were still under review, but that the review had been placed on a fast track and the Office of Compliance would be communicating with the supplier in the coming weeks. The active ingredient supplier has informed Pozen that they received a warning letter relating to the Form 483 inspection deficiencies. They have submitted a plan of corrective actions to address the matters raised in the warning letter to FDA. We have had continuing discussions with FDA about these issues and the impact on our NDA and with our active ingredient supplier regarding the corrective actions it is taking to address the inspectional observations at its facility. We are also working toward securing and seeking FDA’s approval for an alternative back up supplier.

We recently met with a European country that served as the reference member state for approval of VIMOVO in Europe to obtain guidance on a clinical development program for approval of PA65020 in the Europe. We were advised that Phase 3 endoscopic trials demonstrating a reduction in gastric ulcers would not be required in addition to an osteoarthritis efficacy study since omeprazole’s actions on gastric ulcers has been well characterized. Instead, Phase 1 studies assessing pharmacokinetics and gastric acid suppression could be used to support the benefit of omeprazole as a component of PA65020.

We cannot reasonably estimate or know the amount or timing of the costs necessary to continue development and/or complete the development of any PA product candidates we may seek to develop or when, if and to what extent we will receive cash inflows from any PA products. The additional costs that may be incurred include expenses relating to clinical trials and other research and development activities and activities necessary to obtain regulatory approvals. We decided to retain control of our PA product candidates for cardiovascular indications through the clinical development and pre-commercialization stage. On September 3, 2013 we entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement with Sanofi U.S. to commercialize our PA product candidates containing an immediate release proton pump inhibitor and 325 mg or less of delayed release or EC aspirin in the United States. Even though the License and Collaboration Agreement was terminated on November 29, 2014, we believe we were able to negotiate more favorable terms with Sanofi U.S. for rights to commercialize the products in the United States than we had licensed the product candidates at an earlier stage in development and will be able to achieve more favorable terms with other partners outside the United States if we are successful in licensing PA products in other territories in the future. Our business and operations model is evolving. On June 1, 2015, our Board appointed a new Chief Executive Officer and a new President and Chief Business Officer, each of whom has experience creating, leading and expanding pharmaceutical companies with marketing and sales capabilities. If the proposed

Table of Contents

business combination with Tribute is approved by our stockholders and Tribute’s shareholders and such transaction and concurrent equity and debt financings are closed, we will become a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on cardiovascular and pain therapies with a diversified portfolio of marketed products and developmental stage product candidates in the United States and Canada.

We have incurred direct development costs associated with the development of our PA program of $0.5 million during the three months ended March 31, 2015. From inception through March 31, 2015, we incurred total direct development cost of $75.1 million associated with the development of our PA program. Our direct development costs do not include the cost of research and development personnel or any allocation of our overhead expenses.

Collaborative Arrangements

We have entered into and may continue to enter into collaborations with established pharmaceutical or pharmaceutical services companies to develop, commercialize and/or manufacture our product candidates. Our existing collaborations are described below.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)

In June 2003, we signed an agreement with GSK for the development and commercialization of proprietary combinations of a triptan (5-HT1B/1D agonist) and a long-acting NSAID. The combinations covered by the agreement are among the combinations of MT 400. Under the terms of the agreement, GSK has exclusive rights in the U.S. to commercialize all combinations which combine GSK’s triptans, including Imitrex® (sumatriptan succinate) or Amerge® (naratriptan hydrochloride), with a long-acting NSAID. We were responsible for development of the first combination product, while GSK provided formulation development and manufacturing. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we received $25.0 million in initial payments from GSK following termination of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino notification program and the issuance of a specified patent. In May 2004, we received a $15.0 million milestone payment as a result of our commencement of Phase 3 clinical trial activities. In October 2005, we received a $20.0 million milestone payment upon the FDA’s acceptance for review of the NDA for Treximet, the trade name for the product. On April 26, 2008, we received, from GSK, $20.0 million in milestone payments which were associated with the approval of, and GSK’s intent to commercialize, Treximet. In addition, Pernix, as assignee of GSK will pay two sales performance milestones totaling $80.0 million if certain sales thresholds are achieved. Up to an additional $10.0 million per product is payable upon achievement of milestones relating to other products. GSK will pay royalties on all net sales of marketed products until at least the expiration of the last to expire issued applicable patent (October 2, 2025) based upon the scheduled expiration of currently issued patents. GSK may reduce, but not eliminate, the royalty payable to us if generic competitors attain a pre-determined share of the market for the combination product, or if GSK owes a royalty to one or more third parties for rights it licenses from such third parties to commercialize the product. The agreement terminates on the date of expiration of all royalty obligations unless earlier terminated by either party for a material breach or by GSK at any time upon 90 days’ written notice to us for any reason or no reason. GSK has the right, but not the obligation, to bring, at its own expense, an action for infringement of certain patents by third parties. If GSK does not bring any such action within a certain time frame, we have the right, at our own expense, to bring the appropriate action. With regard to certain other patent infringements, we have the sole right to bring an action against the infringing third party. Each party generally has the duty to indemnify the other for damages arising from breaches of each party’s representations, warranties and obligations under the agreement, as well as for gross negligence or intentional misconduct. We also have a duty to indemnify GSK for damages arising from our development and manufacture of MT 400 prior to the effective date of the agreement, and each party must indemnify the other for damages arising from the development and manufacture of any combination product after the effective date.

On November 23, 2011, we entered into the Purchase Agreement, with CII, pursuant to which we sold, and CII purchased, our right to receive future royalty payments arising from U.S. sales of MT 400, including Treximet.

Table of Contents

to the Treximet Agreement which will permit Pernix’s Irish affiliate to which Pernix assigned its rights to further assign the Agreement without our prior written consent as collateral security for the benefit of the lenders which financed the acquisition. Amendment No. 2 became effective upon the closing of the divestiture on August 20, 2014.

AstraZeneca AB (AstraZeneca)/ Horizon Pharma Inc.

In August 2006, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement dated as of August 1, 2006 and effective September 7, 2006 with AstraZeneca, a Swedish corporation, regarding the development and commercialization of proprietary fixed dose combinations of the PPI esomeprazole magnesium with the NSAID naproxen, in a single tablet for the management of pain and inflammation associated with conditions such as OA and RA in patients who are at risk for developing NSAID associated gastric ulcers, as amended, the “Original Agreement”. Under the terms of the Original Agreement, we granted to AstraZeneca an exclusive, fee-bearing license, in all countries of the world except Japan, under our patents and know-how relating to combinations of gastroprotective agents and NSAIDs (other than aspirin and its derivatives). Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront license fee of $40.0 million from AstraZeneca following termination of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino notification program.

We retained responsibility for the development and filing of the NDA for the product in the U.S. AstraZeneca is responsible for all development activities outside the U.S., as well as for all manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution activities worldwide. We agreed to bear all expenses related to certain specified U.S. development activities. All other development expenses, including all manufacturing-related expenses, will be paid by AstraZeneca. The agreement established joint committees with representation of both us and AstraZeneca to manage the development and commercialization of the product. The committees operate by consensus, but if consensus cannot be reached, we generally will have the deciding vote with respect to development activities required for marketing approval of the product in the U.S. and AstraZeneca generally will have the deciding vote with respect to any other matters.

In September 2007, we agreed with AstraZeneca to amend the Original Agreement effective as of September 6, 2007. Under the terms of the amendment, AstraZeneca has agreed to pay us up to $345.0 million, in the aggregate, in milestone payments upon the achievement of certain development, regulatory and sales events. In September 2007 we received a $10.0 million payment upon execution of the amendment and a $20.0 million payment in recognition of the achievement of the primary endpoints for the PN400-104 study, a study which compared acid suppression of different doses of VIMOVO (formerly PN 400), and achievement of the interim results of the PN200-301 study, a six month comparative trial of PN 200 as compared to EC naproxen in patients requiring chronic NSAID therapy, meeting mutually agreed success criteria. In May 2010, we received a $20.0 million payment for the NDA approval of VIMOVO. We also received an additional $25.0 million milestone in December 2010 when VIMOVO received approval (including pricing and reimbursement approval) in a major ex-U.S. market and up to $260.0 million will be paid as sales performance milestones if certain aggregate sales thresholds are achieved.

The amendment also revised the royalty rates we were to have received under the Original Agreement. Prior to the effective date of the amendment, under the terms of the Original Agreement, we were to receive a royalty based on annual net sales by AstraZeneca, its affiliates or sublicensees during the royalty term. The royalty rate varied based on the level of annual net sales of products made by AstraZeneca, its affiliates and sublicensees, ranging from the mid-single digits to the mid-teens. Under the amendment, we receive a flat, low double digit royalty rate during the royalty term on annual net sales of products made by AstraZeneca, its affiliates and sublicensees, in the U.S. and royalties ranging from the mid-single digits to the high-teens on annual net sales of products made by AstraZeneca, its affiliates and sublicensees outside of the U.S. The amendment also revised the rate of reduction to the royalty rate based upon loss of market share due to generic competition inside and outside of the U.S. to account for the new royalty structure. Our right to receive royalties from AstraZeneca for the sale of such products under the collaboration and license agreement, as amended, expires on a country-by-country basis upon the later of (a) expiration of the last-to-expire of certain patent rights relating to such products in that country, and (b) ten years after the first commercial sale of such products in such country.

We further amended the Original Agreement effective October 1, 2008 to shorten the timing of AstraZeneca’s reimbursement obligation for certain development expenses incurred by us under the agreement and to update the description of the target product profile studies (as defined in the agreement) for VIMOVO.

On March 31, 2015 we have receivables of $4.4 million related to VIMOVO royalty revenue, $3.2 million related to U.S. sales and $1.2 million related to ROW sales. The agreement, unless earlier terminated, will expire upon the payment of all applicable royalties for the products commercialized under the agreement. Either party has the right to terminate the agreement by notice in writing to the other party upon or after any material breach of the agreement by the other party, if the other party has not cured the breach within 90 days after written notice to cure has been given, with certain exceptions. The parties also can terminate the agreement for cause under certain defined conditions. In addition, AstraZeneca can terminate the agreement, at any time, at will, for any reason or no reason, in its entirety or with respect to countries outside the U.S., upon 90 days’ notice. If terminated at will, AstraZeneca will owe us a specified termination payment or, if termination occurs after the product is launched, AstraZeneca may, at

Table of Contents

its option, under and subject to the satisfaction of conditions specified in the agreement, elect to transfer the product and all rights to us.

On September 16, 2013, we and AstraZeneca entered into another amendment to the Original Agreement which made clarifications to certain intellectual property provisions of the Original Agreement to clarify that AstraZeneca’s rights under those provisions do not extend to products which contain ASA. On September 16, 2013, we and AstraZeneca also executed a letter agreement whereby we agreed that in the event that AstraZeneca divested its rights and obligations to market VIMOVO in the United States to a third party, AstraZeneca would be relieved of its obligations under the Original Agreement with respect to the United States as of the effective date of such divestiture, including its obligation under the Original Agreement to guarantee the performance of such assignee and/or sublicensee.

On November 18, 2013, AstraZeneca and Horizon entered into certain agreements in connection with AstraZeneca’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States to Horizon. In connection with this divestiture, on November 18, 2013 we and AstraZeneca entered into an Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement for the United States, the “U.S. Agreement,” and an Amended and Restated License and Collaboration Agreement for Outside the United States, the “ROW Agreement,” which agreements collectively amend and restate the Original Agreement. AstraZeneca has assigned the U.S. Agreement to Horizon in connection with the divestiture with our consent.

We and Horizon also entered into Amendment No. 1 to the U.S. Agreement which, among other things, amends the royalty provisions of the U.S. Agreement to provide for a guaranteed annual minimum royalty amount of $5 million in calendar year 2014, and a guaranteed annual minimum royalty amount of $7.5 million each calendar year thereafter, provided that the patents owned by us which cover VIMOVO are in effect and no generic forms of VIMOVO are in the marketplace. Amendment No. 1 also provides that Horizon has assumed AstraZeneca’s right to lead the on-going Paragraph IV litigation relating to VIMIVO currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and will assume all patent-related defense costs relating to such litigation, including reimbursement up to specified amounts of the cost of any counsel retained by us, amends certain time periods for Horizon’s delivery of quarterly sales reports to Pozen, and provides for quarterly update calls between the parties to discuss VIMOVO’s performance and Horizon’s commercialization efforts.

Further, we, AstraZeneca and Horizon executed a letter agreement whereby Pozen expressly consented to the assignment by AstraZeneca and the assumption by Horizon of the U.S. Agreement. In addition, the letter agreement establishes a process for AstraZeneca and Horizon to determine if sales milestones set forth in the Original Agreement are achieved on a global basis and other clarifications and modifications required as a result of incorporating the provisions of the Original Agreement into the U.S. Agreement and the ROW Agreement or as otherwise agreed by the parties.

We, AstraZeneca and Horizon are also engaged in Paragraph IV litigation with several generic pharmaceutical companies with respect to patents listed in the Orange Book with respect to VIMOVO currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and in an IPR brought by Dr. Reddy’s with respect to the ‘285 patent and two IPRs brought by CFAD. We and AstraZeneca are also engaged in a proceeding in Canada with Mylan ULC which is seeking approval of its generic version of VIMOVO in Canada prior to the expiration of our Canadian patent.

sanof-aventis U.S. LLC (Sanofi U.S.)

On September 3, 2013, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Sanofi U.S. with respect to the commercialization of our PA products in the United States. On November 29, 2014, we executed a termination agreement with Sanofi U.S. terminating the license agreement for PA. As of the termination date, all licenses granted to Sanofi U.S. were terminated and all rights to the products licensed to Sanofi U.S. under the agreement reverted to us. The termination agreement further provides for the transfer of specified commercial know-how developed by Sanofi U.S. relating to the PA products to us and allows us, and any future collaborators, to use this know-how to commercialize the products. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products in the United States. In light of the warning letter sent to our active ingredient supplier and of the time requirements necessary to complete an assessment of its strategic options, and to properly prepare the market for the launch of our YOSPRALA product candidates, we believe the products will be available for commercialization in 2016.

Table of Contents

Patheon Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Patheon)

On December 19, 2011, we entered into a Manufacturing Services Agreement, or the Supply Agreement, and a related Capital Expenditure and Equipment Agreement, or the Capital Agreement, relating to the manufacture of PA32450. Under the terms of the Supply Agreement, Patheon has agreed to manufacture, and we have agreed to purchase, a specified percentage of the Company’s requirements of the PA32540 for sale in the United States. The term of the Supply Agreement extends until December 31st of the fourth year after we notify Patheon to begin manufacturing services under the Supply Agreement, or the Initial Term, and will automatically renew thereafter for periods of two years, unless terminated by either party upon eighteen months’ written notice prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or 12 months’ written notice prior to the expiration of any renewal term. In addition to usual and customary termination rights which allow each party to terminate the Supply Agreement for material, uncured breaches by the other party, we can terminate the Supply Agreement upon 30 days’ prior written notice if a governmental or regulatory authority takes any action or raises any objection that prevents us from importing, exporting, purchasing or selling PA32540 or if it is determined that the formulation or sale of PA32540 infringes any patent rights or other intellectual property rights of a third party. We can also terminate the Supply Agreement upon 24 months’ prior written notice if we license, sell, assign or otherwise transfer any rights to commercialize PA32540 to a third party. The Supply Agreement contains general and customary commercial supply terms and conditions, as well as establishing pricing for bulk product and different configurations of packaged product, which pricing will be adjusted annually as set forth in the Supply Agreement. Under the terms of the Capital Agreement, we will be responsible for the cost of purchasing certain equipment specific to the manufacture of PA32540, the cost of which, based on current volume projections, is expected to be less than $150,000. If additional equipment and facility modifications are required to meet our volume demands for PA32540, we may be required to contribute to the cost of such additional equipment and facility modifications, up to a maximum of approximately $2.5 million in the aggregate.

The Supply Agreement and Capital Agreement were amended on July 10, 2013. The First Amendment to the Manufacturing and Services Agreement (the “Amendment to the Supply Agreement”) expressly incorporates the Company’s PA8140 product candidate into the Supply Agreement. The Amendment to the Supply Agreement also clarifies that the manufacturing services contemplated by the Supply Agreement include the manufacture of validation batches, but the placing of an order for such validation batches will not trigger the Commencement Date of the Initial Term (each as defined in the Supply Agreement), updates pricing for the Company’s PA32540 product candidate and a incorporates a new pricing schedule for PA8140, as well as other conforming changes to the Supply Agreement. The First Amendment to the Capital Expenditure and Equipment Agreement (the “Amendment to the Capital Agreement”), replaces the existing Schedule A of the Capital Agreement, which lists dedicated and non-dedicated capital equipment and facility modifications to be funded in whole or in part by the Company, with a new updated schedule which reflects the parties’ current assumptions regarding the need for and timing of capital equipment expenditures based upon Patheon’s current and anticipated production capacity and current volume projections for the PA32540 and PA8140. Under the terms of the Capital Agreement, the Company was previously required to contribute to the cost of such additional capital equipment and facility modifications, up to a maximum of approximately $2.5 million in the aggregate. Pursuant to the terms of the Amendment to the Capital Agreement, the parties have agreed to reduce the amount of such maximum expenditure to approximately $1.2 million dollars in light of the revised capacity and volume assumptions.

Results of Operations

Three months ended March 31, 2015 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2014

Net (loss) income per share: Net loss attributable to common stockholders for the three months ended March 31, 2015 was $(27,358), or $0.00 per share, on a diluted basis, as compared to net income of $2.9 million, or $0.09 per share, on a diluted basis, for the three months ended March 31, 2014. The net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2015 included a $0.5 million, or $0.01 per share charge for non-cash stock-based compensation expense as compared to $0.8 million, or $0.02 per share for the same period of 2014.

Revenue: We recognized total revenue of $4.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015 as compared to total revenue of $7.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2014. The decrease in revenue was primarily due to a decrease of $3.0 million in amortization of PA licensing revenue from receipt of $15.0 million upfront fee for the PA agreement with Sanofi U.S. Licensing revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2015 consisted of $4.4 million of royalty revenue compared to $4.5 million of royalty revenue and $3.0 million of other licensing revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2014. Our licensing and collaboration agreements have terms that include upfront payments upon contract signing and additional payments if and when certain milestones in the product development or related milestones are achieved. All upfront payments have been recognized as of December 31, 2014. Substantive milestone payments are recognized as revenue upon completion of the contractual events.

Research and development: Research and development expenses decreased by $0.8 million to $1.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015, as compared to the same period of 2014. The decrease was due primarily to a decrease in direct development costs for our PA program and in departmental costs, as compared to the same period of 2014. Direct development costs for the PA program decreased by $0.6 million to $0.5 million, primarily due to the completion of the clinical trial activities and other

Table of Contents

product development activities during the three months ended March 31, 2015. Other direct departmental costs and departmental expenses decreased by $0.2 million primarily due to decreased personnel costs, as compared to the same period of 2014. We have included in our research and development total expenses the departmental personnel costs associated with our research and development activities and direct costs associated with pharmaceutical development, clinical trials, toxicology activities and regulatory matters.

Sales, general and administrative: Sales, general and administrative expenses increased by $0.4 million to $3.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015, as compared to the same period of 2014. The increase reflects patent defense litigation expense, as well as increases in ongoing business development and public company expenses, as compared to the same period of 2014. Sales, general and administrative expenses consisted primarily of the costs of administrative personnel, facility infrastructure, business development expenses, and public company activities.

Other income (loss): Interest and bond amortization income was $7,400 for the three months ended March 31, 2014 and a loss of $0.2 million related to the sale of the Pernix warrant for the three months ended March 31, 2015.

Income Taxes

We estimate an annual effective tax rate of 0% for the year ended December 31, 2015, and our effective tax rate was 0% for the three month period ended March 31, 2015. However, the actual effective rate may vary depending upon actual licensing fees and milestone payments received, specifically the pre-tax book income for the year, and other factors. Income taxes have been accounted for using the liability method in accordance with FASB ASC 740. Since our inception, we have incurred substantial cumulative losses and may incur substantial and recurring losses in future periods. The utilization of these loss carryforwards to reduce future income taxes will depend on the Company’s ability to generate sufficient taxable income prior to the expiration of the loss carryforwards. In addition, the maximum annual use of net operating loss and research credit carryforwards is limited in certain situations where changes occur in stock ownership.

We currently file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, and the state of North Carolina. We are no longer subject to federal or North Carolina income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 2010. However, the loss carryforwards generated prior to 2010 may still be subject to change, if we subsequently begin utilizing these losses in a year that is open under statute and subject to federal or North Carolina income tax examinations by tax authorities.

At March 31, 2015, we had no unrecognized tax benefits that would reduce the Company’s effective tax rate if recognized. We recognize any interest and penalties accrued related to unrecognized tax benefits as income tax expense. During the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, there were no such interest and penalties.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At March 31, 2015, cash, cash equivalents and investments in warrants totaled $43.9 million, an increase of $0.6 million compared to December 31, 2014. The $0.6 million increase in cash and investments resulted from the receipt of $5.6 million in VIMOVO royalty payments and $2.5 million from the sale of the Pernix warrant. This is offset by payments of $4.8 million in operating expenses and decrease in investments of $2.7 million for the sale of the Pernix warrant. Our cash is invested in money market funds that invest primarily in commercial paper and certificates of deposit guaranteed by banks.

Pozen received $5.6 million in operating cash during the three months ended March 31, 2015 pursuant to the terms of our collaboration agreements with AstraZeneca, Sanofi U.S. and Horizon. In addition, our balance sheet included a $4.4 million accounts receivable for royalties under the AstraZeneca and Horizon agreements.

Based upon the indirect method of presenting cash flow, cash provided by operating activities totaled $0.7 million and cash used in operating activities totaled $6.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and March 31, 2014, respectively. Net cash provided by investing activities totaled $2.5 million during the three months ended March 31, 2015 and there were no investing activities during the three months ended March 31, 2014. Net cash provided by financing activities during the three months ended March 31, 2015 totaled $0.1 million and $0.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2014. Cash required for our operating activities during 2015, as compared to our 2014 requirements, is projected to decrease as a result of decreased development activities but may increase if we elect to undertake increased pre-commercialization activities. During the three months ended March 31, 2015 and March 31, 2014 we recorded non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $0.5 million and $0.8 million, respectively, associated with the grant of stock options and restricted stock units.

As of March 31, 2015, we had $43.9 million in cash and cash equivalents. Our anticipated cash

Table of Contents

flow includes continued receipt of royalty revenue from Horizon and AstraZeneca’s sale of VIMOVO. In addition, our expenses might increase during that period beyond currently expected levels if we decide to, or any regulatory agency requires us to, conduct additional clinical trials, studies or investigations for any of our product candidates, including in connection with the agency’s consideration, or reconsideration, of our regulatory filings for our product candidates. Our decision to make a cash distribution in December 2013, resulted from the determination that we had surplus corporate cash, based on the decision not to undertake future development programs without a partner.

As part of our ongoing assessment of our business and liquidity needs, we regularly assess available funding options and will consider available funding opportunities as they arise. We consider our current royalty stream as cash assets that could be monetized to accelerate the expected cash flow. We also could sell shares of common stock in the future to fund additional development or pre-commercialization activities and increase our working capital. Any additional equity financing may be dilutive to stockholders, and debt financing, if available, may involve restrictive covenants.

Our business and operations model is evolving. On June 1, 2015, our Board appointed Adrian Adams as our new Chief Executive Officer and Andrew I. Koven as our new President and Chief Business Officer, each of whom has experience creating, leading and expanding pharmaceutical companies with marketing and sales capabilities. If the proposed business combination with Tribute is approved by our stockholders and Tribute’s shareholders and such transaction and concurrent equity and debt financings are closed, we will become a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on cardiovascular and pain therapies with a diversified portfolio of marketed products and developmental stage product candidates in the United States and Canada.

Our forecast of the period of time through which we expect that our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations is a forward-looking statement that involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary as a result of a number of factors. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

· the number and progress of our clinical trials and other trials and studies;

· our success, or any delays, in obtaining, regulatory approval of our product candidates and success in, and manner of, commercializing our products;

· the success of our existing collaborations and our ability to establish additional collaborations;

· the extent to which we acquire or invest in businesses, technologies or products;

· costs incurred to enforce and defend our patent claims and other intellectual rights;

· costs incurred in the defense of our VIMOVO patent against generic companies that have filed ANDAs with the FDA to market the product prior to the expiration of our and AstraZeneca’s patents: and

· our ability to consummate the combination with Tribute and the proposed equity and debt financings.

Table of Contents

BUSINESS

Overview of Pozen

Except as otherwise noted, all references in the section “Business-Overview of Pozen” to “we”, “us”, “our”, or the “Company” refer to Pozen.

We are a pharmaceutical company focused on transforming medicines that can transform lives. Historically, we have operated a business model that has focused on the following:

· developing innovative products that address unmet medical needs in the marketplace;

· obtaining patents for those innovative ideas which we believe have value in the marketplace;

· utilizing a small group of talented employees to develop those ideas by working with strategic outsource partners;

· developing a regulatory pathway with the appropriate agency; and

· determining how best to commercialize our products.

We decided to retain ownership of our proprietary, investigational, coordinated-delivery tablets combining immediate-release omeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor, or PPI, and EC aspirin in a single tablet, now known as YOSPRALA, including PA8140 and PA32540 through the clinical development and pre-commercialization stage and our chief commercial officer was responsible for developing the commercialization strategy for these products and conducting all the required pre-commercialization activities. On September 3, 2013, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC, or Sanofi U.S., for the commercialization YOSPRALA. On November 29, 2014, we executed a termination agreement with Sanofi U.S. terminating the license agreement for PA. As of the termination date, all licenses granted to Sanofi U.S. were terminated and all rights to the products licensed to Sanofi U.S. under the agreement reverted to us. The termination agreement further provides for the transfer of specified commercial know-how developed by Sanofi U.S. relating to the PA products to us and allows us, and any future collaborators, to use this know-how to commercialize the products. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products. In light of the warning letter sent to our active ingredient supplier and of the time requirements necessary to complete an assessment of its strategic options, and to properly prepare the market for the launch of our YOSPRALA product candidates, we believe the products will be available for commercialization in 2016.

Overview of Our Lead Product Candidate, YOSPRALA

Table of Contents

further provides for the transfer of specified commercial know-how developed by Sanofi U.S. relating to the PA products to us and allows us, and any future collaborators, to use this know-how to commercialize the products. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products.

Treximet

On November 23, 2011, we entered into a purchase and sale agreement, or the Purchase Agreement, with CPPIB Credit Investments Inc. or CII, pursuant to which we sold, and CII purchased, our right to receive future royalty payments arising from U.S. sales of MT 400, including Treximet. Under the Purchase Agreement, we received $75 million and will receive a twenty percent (20%) interest in any royalties received by CII relating to the period commencing on April 1, 2018.

On May 13, 2014, we, Glaxo Group Limited, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, or GSK, CII and Pernix entered into certain agreements in connection with GSK’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell Treximet® in the U.S. to Pernix. Upon the closing of the divestiture on August 20, 2014, GSK assigned the Product Development and Commercialization Agreement executed as of June 11, 2003 between us and GSK, the Treximet Agreement, to Pernix. Immediately following the closing of the divestiture, Amendment No. 1 to the Treximet Agreement, or Amendment No.1, between us and Pernix became effective. Amendment No. 1, among other things, amends the royalty provisions of the Agreement to provide for a guaranteed quarterly minimum royalty payable to CII of $4 million for the calendar quarters commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on March 31, 2018 and requires that Pernix continue certain of GSK’s ongoing development activities and to undertake certain new activities, for which we will provide reasonable assistance. Amendment No. 1 also eliminates restrictions in the Agreement on our right to develop and commercialize certain dosage forms of sumatriptan/naproxen combinations outside of the United States and permits POZEN to seek approval for these combinations on the basis of the approved NDA for Treximet. Pernix has also issued us a warrant to purchase 500,000 shares of Pernix common stock at an exercise price equal to $4.28, the closing price of Pernix common stock as listed on the NASDAQ Global Market on May 13, 2014. The common stock underlying the warrants will be registered by Pernix with the SEC and the warrant is exercisable from August 20, 2014, the closing date of the Divestiture, until February 28, 2018. Because the warrant has not been registered by Pernix with the SEC, the Company cannot sell or transfer the warrant in reliance upon Rule 144 until after November 13, 2014 when the Company meets certain holding requirements. The warrant is valued using the Black-Scholes valuation model. Under the terms of the warrant, the Company may elect to receive the number of shares equal to the value of the Pernix shares less $4.28 divided by the fair market value of one share. At December 31, 2014 this would have been 272,098 shares

Table of Contents

valued at $2.6 million. Lastly, we, GSK, Pernix and CII executed a letter agreement whereby we expressly consented to the assignment by GSK and the assumption by Pernix of the Treximet Agreement. On July 30, the parties entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Treximet Agreement which will permit Pernix’s Irish affiliate to which Pernix will assigns its rights to further assign the Agreement without our prior written consent as collateral security for the benefit of the lenders which financed the acquisition. Amendment No. 2 became effective upon the closing of the divestiture on August 20, 2014.

VIMOVO

We have developed VIMOVO with AstraZeneca. VIMOVO (formerly referred to as PN 400) is the brand name for a proprietary fixed dose combination of the PPI esomeprazole magnesium with the NSAID naproxen in a single tablet. On April 30, 2010, the FDA approved VIMOVO for the relief of the signs and symptoms of OA RA and AS, and to decrease the risk of developing gastric ulcers in patients at risk of developing NSAID-associated gastric ulcers.

The NDA for VIMOVO was submitted on June 30, 2009 and was accepted for filing by FDA in August 2009. POZEN received a $10.0 million milestone payment from AstraZeneca in September 2009 for the achievement of such milestone. Earlier, in May 2010, we had received a $20.0 million milestone payment when we received FDA approval of VIMOVO. In October 2009, AstraZeneca submitted a MAA for VIMOVO in the EU via the DCP and has filed for approval in a number of other countries which are not covered by the DCP. On October 11, 2010, we announced with AstraZeneca that VIMOVO had received positive agreement for approval in 23 countries across the EU following all 22 Concerned Member States agreeing with the assessment of the MEB, acting as the Reference Member State for the DCP. We received a $25.0 million milestone payment when pricing and reimbursement for VIMOVO was granted in the United Kingdom.

On November 18, 2013, AstraZeneca and Horizon Pharma Inc., or “Horizon,” entered into certain agreements in connection with AstraZeneca’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States to Horizon. As required by the terms of our agreement with AstraZeneca, we gave our consent to AstraZeneca’s divestiture of such rights to Horizon because we believed that Horizon’s expertise in commercializing products for pain and inflammatory disease, including a similar combination product containing a NSAID and a gastroprotective agent, make it an excellent partner to maximize the potential of VIMOVO in the United States. We were also able to negotiate a guaranteed annual minimum royalty in the United States in the amount of $5 million in calendar year 2014, and a guaranteed annual minimum royalty amount of $7.5 million each calendar year thereafter, provided that the patents owned by us which cover VIMOVO are in effect and no generic forms of VIMOVO are in the marketplace.

On July 28, 2014, Horizon announced that it had been verbally notified by CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, Inc. that VIMOVO would no longer be on their formularies and will be placed on their exclusion lists effective January 1, 2015. We have been informed that Horizon estimates that approximately 20-30% of VIMOVO prescriptions could be impacted by these decisions. While Horizon believes it has a strategy to mitigate the effect on VIMOVO sales, POZEN’s royalty revenue from Net Sales of VIMOVO beginning in 2015 may be negatively affected, although we will continue to receive a guaranteed annual minimum royalty of $7.5 million as described above.

Our Principal Product Candidates

Our PA product candidates, containing a PPI and aspirin, have completed clinical development testing in the United States. Our PA product candidates, now known as YOSPRALA), are

Table of Contents

excluded from our agreement with AstraZeneca. We met with the FDA to discuss the overall development program requirements for PA32540 for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease in patients at risk for gastric ulcers. An investigational new drug application, or IND, was filed in the fourth quarter of 2007. We completed a study which demonstrated that the (SA) component of PA32540 was bioequivalent to the reference drug, EC aspirin. We filed a SPA with the FDA for the design of the Phase 3 studies for the product, the primary endpoint for which is the reduction in the cumulative incidence of endoscopic gastric ulcers.

In February 2012, the FDA requested an additional Phase 1 study to assess the bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg with respect to ASA. After the Company completed the requested bioequivalence study, the FDA made a preliminary review of the study results and the Company’s summary analyses and, based on its preliminary assessment of the information available to it at the time, the FDA did not agree that bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg was demonstrated. The Company then submitted to the FDA additional information and analyses from the requested bioequivalence study, as well as other relevant pharmacokinetic, clinical pharmacology, and in vitro dissolution data as a Briefing Document in support of a request for a Type A meeting with the FDA. At the Type A meeting held in August 2012, the FDA confirmed that, although it believes bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg, was not strictly established in our bioequivalence study according to the predetermined criteria, the results from this study, together with additional information that will be submitted by the Company in the NDA, constitutes sufficient data to support the establishment of a clinical and pharmacological bridge between the product and EC aspirin 325 mg. The FDA indicated that it would make a final determination during the NDA review. The FDA also indicated that a similar strategy to bridge to the reference listed drug, inclusive of a new, single pharmacokinetic study, could be utilized for a low dose version of PA32540 (currently PA8140). The Company conducted this study with the low dose version against the EC aspirin 81mg. Based on the predetermined criteria acceptable to the FDA, the study demonstrated that PA8140 is bioequivalent to EC aspirin 81mg using criteria for highly variable drugs and had comparable bioavailability.

During a pre-submission meeting with respect to its NDA for PA32540 in April 2012, the FDA suggested that the Company also seek approval for a lower dose formulation of the product containing 81 mg of EC aspirin as part of its NDA for PA32540. Absent the availability of such a lower dose formulation in the market if PA32540 is approved, the FDA indicated that it may limit the indication for PA32540 to use in CABG with treatment duration not to exceed one year. During the Type A meeting held in August 2012, the FDA confirmed its preference to have both PA32540 and a lower dose version available in the market so that physicians can have both a low and high dose option available, and agreed that, if both dosage strengths were included in the NDA and subsequently approved, the indications for both will be consistent with the full range of indications described in the current aspirin monograph.

We had generated some clinical pharmacology data and CMC data for a product which contains 81 mg of EC aspirin and 40 mg of omeprazole in a single tablet known as PA8140. The Company filed this existing data, together with additional CMC data to be generated and evidence from the scientific literature relating to the ulcerogenic risk of 81 mg of aspirin with the FDA. At this time, we do not intend to conduct Phase 3 clinical trials for PA8140. The data package submitted for PA8140 was similar to that used to gain approval for a lower dosage form of VIMOVO containing 375 mg of naproxen. We have no assurance such data will be sufficient for the FDA to approve PA8140 or to allow a broader indication for PA32540. The FDA will make a final determination with respect to the approvability of and indications for PA32540 and PA8140.

Table of Contents

safety deficiencies noted with respect to either PA8140 or PA32540 and no other deficiencies were noted in CRL. On June 30, 2014, we resubmitted the NDA for PA32540 and PA8140 to the FDA and the FDA notified us that the new action fee date is December 30, 2014. On May 9, 2014, our active ingredient supplier submitted a response to the FDA addressing the inspection deficiencies and subsequently submitted an update to its initial response. On December 17, 2014, we received a second CRL from the FDA advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude approval of the NDA in its current form. In this CRL, the FDA used identical wording to that of the first CRL. Satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before this application may be approved. There were no clinical or safety deficiencies noted with respect to either PA32540 and PA8140 and no other deficiencies were noted in the CRL. Final agreement on the draft product labeling is also pending. We continue to assist the FDA compliance division with their review. FDA regulations allow us to request a Type A meeting with the FDA to discuss the next steps required to gain approval of our NDA. The FDA granted the Type A meeting which was held in late January 2015. At the meeting, representatives from the FDA’s Office of Compliance stated that the active ingredient supplier’s responses to the 483 inspectional observations submitted in May 2014 were still under review and the Office of Compliance would be communicating with the supplier in the coming weeks. The active ingredient supplier has informed POZEN that they received a warning letter relating to the Form 483 inspection deficiencies. They are evaluating what additional corrective actions may be required to address the matters raised in the warning letter. We will continue to provide assistance to our active ingredient supplier in taking corrective actions to address the inspectional observations at its facility.

We are also continuing to evaluate how best to commercialize the PA product candidates and programs. We are evaluating the regulatory requirements to obtain an indication for PA for the secondary prevention of colorectal neoplasia. In January 2010, we received input from the FDA with respect to the development requirements for a possible indication in colorectal neoplasia. Further discussions are being considered. We are also evaluating the possibility of developing another dosage strength of PA containing 650 mg of EC aspirin and 20 mg of omeprazole (PA65020) for the treatment of OA and similar conditions and we met with the FDA in December 2010 to obtain input with respect to the regulatory requirements to obtain such an indication. The FDA advised us that we will need to demonstrate a reduction in gastric ulcers compared to aspirin alone in a replicate Phase 3 program similar to that we performed for VIMOVO, in addition to a study to establish efficacy of the product in the treatment of OA.

We met with a European country that served as the reference member state for approval of VIMOVO in Europe to obtain guidance on a clinical development program for approval of PA65020 in the Europe. We were advised that Phase 3 endoscopic trials demonstrating a reduction in gastric ulcers would not be required in addition to an OA efficacy study since omeprazole’s actions on gastric ulcers has been well characterized. Instead, Phase 1 studies assessing pharmacokinetics and gastric acid suppression could be used to support the benefit of omeprazole as a component of PA65020.

We have also received Scientific Advice from the Medicines Evaluation Board, or MEB in the Netherlands, which has agreed to be the Reference Member State in a decentralized filing procedure, regarding the development program required for the approval in the EU of PA tablets, including a lower dosage form containing 100 mg of aspirin and 40 mg of omeprazole (PA10040) for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The MEB agreed that a full Phase 3 clinical development program for PA10040, to demonstrate the reduction of endoscopic gastric ulcers vs. EC aspirin, would not be necessary. Instead, a Phase 1 pharmacodynamic study comparing gastric pH control for PA10040 vs.EC omeprazole 20 mg, along with a study to demonstrate bioequivalence of PA10040 to a currently marketed EC aspirin product using ASA as the analyte would be sufficient. Study PA10040-101 demonstrated that PA10040 had comparable bioavailability and is bioequivalent to an EU reference listed EC aspirin 100 mg. Study PA10040-102 demonstrated that PA10040 provides gastric pH greater than 4 control for a percent time over 24 hours of 47%. Furthermore, compared to Losec 20 mg (EC omeprazole 20 mg), PA10040 produced a similar level of 24-hour pH control (p=0.02).

Table of Contents

based on specific studies conducted with the product, as well as data from the entire PA program conducted in the United States. Based on discussions at the meeting, the MEB agreed that the MAA filing can proceed without any further clinical studies and that the Netherlands would be the lead country for the decentralized review process. The MEB also requested that a complete risk-benefit analysis of PA10040 for the intended cardiovascular patient population and proposed indication should be included as part of the MAA submission.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and have not yet generated significant revenue from product sales. As of December 31, 2014, our accumulated deficit was approximately $96.9 million. We record revenue under the following categories: royalty revenues and licensing revenues. Our licensing revenues include upfront payments upon contract signing, additional payments if and when certain milestones in the product’s development or commercialization are reached, while the royalty payments are based on product sales. Our historical operating losses have resulted principally from our research and development activities, including clinical trial activities for our product candidates and sales, general and administrative expenses. Research and development expenses include salaries and benefits for personnel involved in our research and development activities and direct development costs, which include costs relating to the formulation and manufacturing of our product candidates, costs relating to preclinical studies, including toxicology studies, and clinical trials, and costs relating to compliance with regulatory requirements applicable to the development of our product candidates. Since inception, our research and development expenses have represented approximately 64% of our total operating expenses. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, our research and development expenses represented approximately 36% of our total operating expenses.

· The progress of our PA product candidates and our other product candidates in the clinical and regulatory process;

· The establishment of new collaborations and progress and/or maintenance of our existing collaborations for the development and commercialization of any of our product candidates;

· Our ability to commercialize our products with commercial partners in a highly regulated and extremely competitive marketplace; and

· The possible acquisition and/or in-licensing, and development of our therapeutic product candidates.

We do not currently have internal commercialization or manufacturing capabilities. We have entered into collaborations and may continue to enter into additional collaborations with established pharmaceutical or pharmaceutical services companies to commercialize and manufacture our product candidates once approved. We decided to retain control of our PA product candidates for cardiovascular indications through the clinical development and pre-commercialization stage. To that end, our chief commercial officer evaluated the commercial opportunities for these product candidates and developed a worldwide commercial strategy, which enabled us to conduct pre-commercialization activities prior to licensing these products to commercial partners. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products. In light of the warning letter sent to our active ingredient supplier and of the time requirements necessary to complete an assessment of its strategic options, and to properly prepare the market for the launch of our YOSPRALA product candidates, we believe the products will be available for commercialization in 2016.

Our ability to generate revenue in the near term is dependent upon our ability, alone or with collaborators, to achieve the milestones set forth in our collaboration agreements, to enter into additional collaboration agreements, to successfully develop product candidates, to obtain regulatory approvals and to successfully manufacture and commercialize our future products. These milestones are earned when we have satisfied the criteria set out in our revenue recognition footnote accompanying the financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on March 6, 2014, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, filed with the SEC on September 22, 2014. These payments generate large non-recurring revenue that will cause large fluctuations in quarterly and annual profit and loss.

Table of Contents

Arthritis Market Overview

Arthritis means joint inflammation and the term is used to describe the pain, stiffness and/or swelling in the joints of the body where one or more bones are joined by tendons and muscles. An arthritic joint is one that may have varying degrees of inflammation and possibly destruction of the joint cartilage, which normally provides a smooth surface enabling adjacent bones to move and glide on each other during normal motion.

The most common type of arthritis is called OA and is more common with advancing age. OA is one of the most frequent causes of physical disability among adults. It is estimated that by 2030, 20% of Americans who are over the age of 65 years, or approximately 70 million people, will be at risk for OA. People with OA usually have joint pain and limited movement. Unlike some other forms of arthritis, OA affects only the joints. This condition is also sometimes called degenerative joint disease. OA primarily affects the joint cartilage. Healthy cartilage allows bones to glide over one another and absorbs energy from the shock of physical movement. However, with OA, the surface layer of cartilage breaks down and wears away. This allows the bony surface under the cartilage to rub together, causing, pain, swelling, and loss of motion of the joint. Over time, affected joints may lose their normal shape. Also, bone spurs, small growths called osteophytes, may grow on the edges of the joint. Thus bits of bone or cartilage can break off and float inside the joint space, causing more pain and possible damage.

The second most common form of arthritis, RA, may affect not only the joints, but organs of the body as well. RA is recognized as a systemic disease that involves responses of the immune system that play a role in the inflammation that affects joints and other organs. RA may begin at a younger age than does OA. Often patients with RA will require medications not only to treat the pain of arthritis, but drugs which modulate the immune system to control inflammation in other parts of the body.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, both over-the-counter (“OTC”) and prescription, are commonly taken to manage the pain of backache, OA, RA, headache and other painful conditions. In 2012, approximately 100 million prescriptions were dispensed for oral anti-arthritis NSAIDs for the management of pain. Prescription sales of oral anti-arthritis NSAIDs in the U.S. in 2011 were approximately $3.0 billion. In spite of their widespread use and apparent safety, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Statistical Brief released in December 2008, in 2006, there were approximately 16,300 deaths and 500,000 hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal, or GI, bleeding costing approximately $2 billion. The most common underlying conditions of GI bleeding were gastric, duodenal, peptic, or gastroduodenal ulcers or perforations, conditions frequently associated with NSAID use. We are responding to this unmet medical need to provide a “safer NSAID” through development of our PN product candidates for the treatment of conditions such as OA in patients who are at risk for developing NSAID-associated gastric ulcers.

PN Program

Under our PN program, we completed formulation development and clinical studies for several combinations of a PPI and a NSAID in a single tablet intended to provide effective management of pain and inflammation associated with chronic conditions such as OA, and intended to have fewer gastrointestinal complications compared to a NSAID taken alone in patients at risk for developing NSAID associated gastric ulcers. We entered into an exclusive ,worldwide (except for Japan) collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca on August 1, 2006 and which was amended in September 2007 and October 2008 relating to the development and commercialization of our PN products. Our agreement with AstraZeneca covered the development and commercialization of proprietary fixed dose combinations of the PPI esomeprazole magnesium with the NSAID naproxen in a single tablet. The initial product developed under the agreement, VIMOVO (formerly PN 400), was approved by the FDA on April 30, 2010 for the relief of the signs and symptoms of OA, RA and AS and to decrease the risk of developing gastric ulcers in patients at risk of developing NSAID-associated gastric ulcers.

Table of Contents

granted in the United Kingdom. Other Member States are now pursuing pricing and reimbursement and national approvals. Earlier, in May 2010, we had received a $20.0 million milestone payment when we received FDA approval of VIMOVO. As of the end of December 31, 2013, VIMOVO has been filed for regulatory approval in 81 countries and approved in 71 countries.

On May 3, 2013, AstraZeneca informed us that, after a strategic business review, it had decided to cease promotion and sampling of VIMOVO by the end of the third quarter of 2013 in certain countries, including the U.S. and all countries in Europe, other than Spain and Portugal, which have pre-existing contractual relationships with third parties. We understand that AstraZeneca will instead now focus on those countries where the product has shown growth and which AstraZeneca believes have the greatest potential for future growth. We continue to assess the financial impact this decision will have on our royalty revenue. On November 18, 2013, AstraZeneca and Horizon entered into certain agreements in connection with AstraZeneca’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States to Horizon. As required by the terms of our agreement with AstraZeneca, we gave our consent to AstraZeneca’s divestiture of such rights to Horizon because we believed that Horizon’s expertise in commercializing products for pain and inflammatory disease, including a similar combination product containing a NSAID and a gastroprotective agent, make it an excellent partner to maximize the potential of VIMOVO in the United States. We were also able to negotiate a guaranteed annual minimum royalty in the United States in the amount of $5.0 million in calendar year 2014, and a guaranteed annual minimum royalty amount of $7.5 million each calendar year thereafter, provided that the patents owned by us which cover VIMOVO are in effect and no generic forms of VIMOVO are in the marketplace. On July 28, 2014, Horizon announced that it had been verbally notified by CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, Inc. that VIMOVO would no longer be on their formularies and will be placed on their exclusion lists effective January 1, 2015. We have been informed that Horizon estimates that approximately 20-30% of VIMOVO prescriptions could be impacted by these decisions. While Horizon believes it has a strategy to mitigate the effect on VIMOVO sales, POZEN’s royalty revenue from Net Sales of VIMOVO beginning in 2015 may be negatively affected, although we will continue to receive a guaranteed annual minimum royalty of $7.5 million as described above.

Cardiovascular Market Overview

Cardiovascular disease, or CVD, is a broad term used to describe a range of common diseases that affect the heart or blood vessels. Many common conditions fall under the definition of CVD, including coronary artery disease, heart attack, heart failure, high blood pressure and stroke. In fact, the term “cardiovascular disease” is often used interchangeably with heart disease because both terms refer to diseases of the heart of arteries. Despite recent advances in medical research, cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke is still the leading killer of men and women in the United States. It is also the most costly cause of death in men and women in the United States, according to the American Heart Association, or AHA.

An estimated 80 million American adults, or one in three, have one or more types of CVD, and 24 million have been identified as secondary prevention patients (post-event patients who have suffered one or more cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events). It is estimated that CVD causes one in every three deaths in the United States. Approximately every 25 seconds, someone in the United States suffers a coronary event with one related to death each minute.

Coronary artery disease is caused by atherosclerosis and often develops into angina pectoris and myocardial infarction (MI). The condition caused about 375,000 deaths in 2011 and remains the leading single cause of death in America today. Roughly 15.4 million have a history of MI and/or angina.

This year, approximately 620,000 American will have a new coronary attack, and approximately 295,000 will have a recurrent attack. It is estimated that an additional 150,000 silent myocardial incidents occur each year. Each year, approximately 795,000 people experience a new or recurrent stroke. Approximately 610,000 of these are first heart attacks, and 185,000 are recurrent attacks. On average, every 40 seconds, someone in the United States has a stroke. Direct and indirect costs related to the condition are projected to exceed $163 billion annually.

Aspirin therapy has become the standard of care for reducing an individual’s risk of a second heart attack or stroke. Studies have found that a daily aspirin regimen for people who have experienced a previous heart attack reduces the risk of a second heart attack by about one-third. Aspirin has been incorporated into the American Heart Association’s clinical guidelines for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. In accordance with these guidelines, approximately 24 million Americans should be taking aspirin for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events.

Although the CVD benefits of aspirin are well established, the use of aspirin is associated with the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, or, UGIB. The use of aspirin is associated with a 2- to 4- fold increased risk of UGIB. In addition, aspirin use for CVD is an important cause of gastrointestinal bleeding-related death. The use of the proton pump inhibitors, or PPIs, such as

Table of Contents

omeprazole can significantly reduce the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The American College of Cardiology with the AHA issued a Clinical Expert Consensus in 2008 recommending PPIs as preferred agents for the therapy and prophylaxis of aspirin-associated gastrointestinal injury.

PA Program

As part of our PA program, we are developing a PPI and aspirin in a single tablet. Similar to the PN program, our PA product candidate is intended to induce fewer gastrointestinal complications compared to an aspirin taken alone in patients at risk for developing aspirin associated gastric ulcers. Our PA product candidates are covered under the same patent as PN, but we have retained all rights to this program through the clinical development and pre-commercialization stage. On September 3, 2013 we entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement with Sanofi U.S. to commercialize our PA product candidates containing an immediate release proton pump inhibitor and 325 mg or less of delayed release or EC aspirin in the United States. On November 29, 2014, we executed a termination agreement with Sanofi U.S. terminating the license agreement for PA. As of the termination date, all licenses granted to Sanofi U.S. were terminated and all rights to the products licensed to Sanofi U.S. under the agreement reverted to us. The termination agreement further provides for the transfer of specified commercial know-how developed by Sanofi U.S. relating to the PA products to us and allows us, and any future collaborators, to use this know-how to commercialize the products. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products. In light of the warning letter sent to our active ingredient supplier and of the time requirements necessary to complete an assessment of its strategic options, and to properly prepare the market for the launch of our YOSPRALA product candidates, we believe the products will be available for commercialization in 2016.

In February 2012, the FDA requested an additional Phase 1 study to assess the bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg with respect to ASA. After the Company completed the requested bioequivalence study, the FDA has made a preliminary review of the study results and the Company’s summary analyses and, based on its preliminary assessment of the information available to it at the time, the FDA did not agree that bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg was demonstrated. We then submitted to the FDA additional information and analyses from the requested bioequivalence study, as well as other relevant pharmacokinetic, clinical pharmacology, and in vitro dissolution data as a briefing document in support of a request for a Type A meeting with the FDA. At the Type A meeting held in August 2012, the FDA confirmed that, although it believes bioequivalence of PA32540 to EC aspirin 325 mg, was not strictly established in our bioequivalence study according to the predetermined criteria, the results from this study, together with additional information that will be submitted by us in the NDA, constitutes sufficient data to support the establishment of a clinical and pharmacological bridge between the product and EC aspirin 325 mg. The FDA indicated that it would make a final determination during the NDA review. FDA also indicated that a similar strategy to bridge to the reference listed drug, inclusive of a new, single pharmacokinetic study, could be utilized for a low dose version of PA32540 (PA8140). We have conducted this study with the low dose version against the EC aspirin 81 mg. Based on the predetermined criteria acceptable to the FDA, the study demonstrated that PA8140 is bioequivalent to EC aspirin using criteria for highly variable drugs and had comparable bioavailability.

During a pre-submission meeting with respect to its NDA for PA32540 in April 2012, the FDA suggested that the Company also seek approval for a lower dose formulation of the product containing 81 mg of EC aspirin as part of its NDA for PA32540. We intended to seek an indication for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients at risk for gastric ulcers. During the Type A meeting held in August 2012, the FDA has confirmed its preference to have both PA32540 and a lower dose version available in the market so that physicians can have both a low and high dose option available, and agreed that, if both dosage strengths were included in the NDA and subsequently approved, the indications for both will be consistent with the full range of indications described in the current aspirin monograph.

We had generated some clinical pharmacology data and, CMC data for a product which contains 81 mg of EC aspirin and 40 mg of omeprazole in a single tablet known as PA8140. We filed this existing data, together with additional CMC data to be generated and evidence from the scientific literature relating to the ulcerogenic risk of 81 mg of aspirin with the FDA. At this time, the Company does not intend to conduct Phase 3 clinical trials for PA8140. The data package submitted for PA8140 was similar to that used to gain approval for a lower dosage form of VIMOVO containing 375 mg of naproxen. We have no assurance such data will be sufficient for the FDA to approve PA8140 or to allow a broader indication for PA32540. The FDA will make a final determination with respect to the approvability of and indications for PA32540 and PA8140.

Table of Contents

Generation of additional data with respect to PA8140 and incorporation of data into the NDA for PA32540 delayed submission of the NDA from the original planned submission date in the third quarter of 2012. The NDA was filed for both products in March 2013 and in May 2013 the FDA accepted the NDA for review. The FDA assigned a user fee date of January 24, 2014. As part of our continuing discussions with the FDA concerning the NDA for PA32540 and PA8140 tablets, we decided to conduct an additional comparative Phase 1 pharmacokinetic study to determine the pharmacokinetic profile of the omeprazole component of PA8140 tablets and compare it to that of PA32540 tablets. We submitted study information and data to the FDA as it became available during the conduct of the study and FDA agreed to review such information and data from the study when submitted. The final study report for the study was submitted to the FDA in accordance with our agreed timeline. FDA has informed us that the Company’s user fee date was April 25, 2014. On April 25, 2014, we received a CRL from the FDA advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude the approval of the NDA in its current form. Specifically, an inspection of the manufacturing facility of an active ingredient supplier of ours concluded with certain inspection deficiencies. Satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before the NDA may be approved. There were no clinical or safety deficiencies noted with respect to either PA8140 or PA32540 and no other deficiencies were noted in CRL. On June 30, 2014, we resubmitted the NDA for PA32540 and PA8140 to the FDA and the FDA notified us that the new action fee date was December 30, 2014. On May 9, 2014, our active ingredient supplier submitted a response to the FDA addressing the inspection deficiencies and subsequently submitted an update to its initial response. On December 17, 2014, we received a second CRL from the FDA advising that the review of our NDA is completed and questions remain that preclude approval of the NDA in its current form. In this CRL, the FDA used identical wording to that of the first CRL. Satisfactory resolution of these deficiencies is required before this application may be approved. There were no clinical or safety deficiencies noted with respect to either PA32540 and PA8140 and no other deficiencies were noted in the CRL. Final agreement on the draft product labeling is also pending. FDA regulations allow us to request a Type A meeting with the FDA to discuss the next steps required to gain approval of our NDA. The FDA granted the Type A meeting, which was held in late January 2015. At the meeting, representatives from the FDA’s Office of Compliance stated that the active ingredient supplier’s responses to the 483 inspectional observations submitted in May 2014 were still under review, but that the review had been placed on a fast track and the Office of Compliance would be communicating with the supplier in the coming weeks. The active ingredient supplier has informed POZEN that they received a warning letter relating to the Form 483 inspection deficiencies. They are evaluating what additional corrective actions may be required to address the matters raised in the warning letter. We will continue to provide assistance to our active ingredient supplier in taking corrective actions to address the inspectional observations at its facility.

We are also continuing to evaluate how best to commercialize the PA product candidates and programs. We are evaluating the regulatory requirements to obtain an indication for PA for the secondary prevention of colorectal neoplasia. In January 2010, we received input from the FDA with respect to the development requirements for a possible indication in colorectal neoplasia. Further discussions are being considered. We are also evaluating the possibility of developing another dosage strength of PA containing 650 mg of EC aspirin and 20 mg of omeprazole (PA65020) for the treatment of OA and similar conditions and we met with the FDA in December 2010 to obtain input with respect to the regulatory requirements to obtain such an indication. The FDA advised us that we will need to demonstrate a reduction in gastric ulcers compared to aspirin alone in a replicate Phase 3 program similar to that we performed for VIMOVO, in addition to a study to establish efficacy of the product in the treatment of OA.

We also met with a European country that served as the reference member state for approval of VIMOVO in Europe to obtain guidance on a clinical development program for approval of PA65020 in the Europe. We were advised that Phase 3 endoscopic trials demonstrating a reduction in gastric ulcers would not be required in addition to an OA efficacy study since omeprazole’s actions on gastric ulcers has been well characterized. Instead, Phase 1 studies assessing pharmacokinetics and gastric acid suppression could be used to support the benefit of omeprazole as a component of PA65020.

We have also received scientific advice from the MEB in the Netherlands, which has agreed to be the Reference Member State in a decentralized filing procedure, regarding the development program required for the approval in the EU of PA tablets, including a lower dosage form containing 100 mg of aspirin and 40 mg of omeprazole (PA10040) for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The MEB agreed that a full Phase 3 clinical development program for PA10040, to demonstrate the reduction of endoscopic gastric ulcers vs. EC aspirin, would not be necessary. Instead, a Phase 1 pharmacodynamic study comparing gastric pH control for PA10040 vs. EC omeprazole 20 mg, along with a study to demonstrate bioequivalence of PA10040 to a currently marketed EC aspirin product using ASA as the analyte would be sufficient. Study PA10040-101 demonstrated that PA10040 had comparable bioavailability and is bioequivalent to an EU reference listed EC aspirin 100 mg. Study PA10040-102 demonstrated that PA10040 provides gastric pH greater than 4 control for a percent time over 24 hours of 47%. Furthermore, compared to Losec 20 mg (EC omeprazole 20 mg), PA10040 produced a similar level of 24-hour pH control ((p=0.02).

Table of Contents

Netherlands would be the lead country for the decentralized review process. The MEB also requested that a complete risk-benefit analysis of PA10040 for the intended cardiovascular patient population and proposed indication should be included as part of the MAA submission.

We cannot reasonably estimate or know the amount or timing of the costs necessary to continue development and/or complete the development of any PA product candidates we may seek to develop or when, if and to what extent we will receive cash inflows from any PA products. The additional costs that may be incurred include expenses relating to clinical trials and other research and development activities and activities necessary to obtain regulatory approvals. We have refined our strategy and decided to retain control of our PA product candidates for cardiovascular indications through the clinical development and pre-commercialization stage and then seek strong commercial partners to maximize the potential of these product candidates. On September 3, 2013 we entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement with Sanofi U.S. to commercialize our PA product candidates containing an immediate release proton pump inhibitor and 325 mg or less of delayed release or EC aspirin in the United States. Even though the License and Collaboration Agreement was terminated on November 29, 2014, we believe we were able to negotiate more favorable terms with Sanofi U.S. for rights to commercialize the products in the United States than we had licensed the product candidates at an earlier stage in development and will be able to achieve more favorable terms with other partners outside the United States if we are successful in licensing PA products in other territories in the future.

We have incurred direct development costs associated with the development of our PA program of $3.2 million during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Since inception we incurred total direct development cost of $74.7 million associated with the development of our PA program. Our direct development costs do not include the cost of research and development personnel or any allocation of our overhead expenses.

Migraine Market Overview

Migraine is characterized by recurring attacks of throbbing headache pain, often associated with visual, auditory or gastrointestinal disturbances. Attacks range from mild to severe and can last from 4 hours to 72 hours. In the most severe attacks, migraine sufferers are unable to pursue basic daily activities. According to the American Council for Headache Education, migraines afflict 25 million to 30 million people in the U.S. alone. As many as 6% of all men and up to 18% of all women experience a migraine headache at some time in their life. While the precise mechanism of migraine is unknown, researchers believe migraine attacks are caused by acute inflammation surrounding selected blood vessels in the head. The average migraine sufferer experiences the first attack during the early teen years, and the attacks generally continue throughout adulthood.

Not all migraine attacks are of the same severity. Consequently, a variety of oral, injectable, and intranasal therapies are used to treat different types of migraine attacks. Many patients use a personal, individually developed, step-care approach to treat their attacks. Attacks are often treated initially with simple OTC analgesics, particularly if the patient is unable to determine if the attack is a migraine or some other type of headache. If OTC remedies are unsuccessful, patients often turn to more potent prescription drugs, including narcotics, analgesic/narcotic drug combinations and triptans.

Triptans are the family of drugs most commonly prescribed for the treatment of migraine attacks. Triptans have demonstrated the ability to treat migraines by constricting blood vessels in the brain. Although triptans can be effective in treating migraine symptoms, they are often associated with significant side effects and other disadvantages that include:

· the occurrence of cardiovascular related events, including chest pain/discomfort, throat discomfort and warm/cold sensations;

· the potential for other serious cardiovascular events, including death;

· difficulty in producing sustained benefits with a single dose in a majority of patients;

· the occurrence of nausea and dizziness during treatment; and

· the need for cardiovascular evaluations from physicians before initially prescribing triptans to patients with cardiovascular disease risk factors.

Despite these shortcomings, according to IMS Health’s IMS National Sales Perspective™, or IMS, in 2011 total triptan sales in the U.S. were approximately $1.7 billion. Sumatriptan is the leading triptan product. There are currently three types of sumatriptan formulations commercially available: oral, intranasal and injectable. An oral triptan is often the physician’s first choice as a prescription treatment for migraine pain. Intranasal triptans are often prescribed for patients requiring faster relief than oral drugs can provide or who cannot take oral medications. For the most severe attacks, patients sometimes use an injectable form of a triptan.

MT 400/Treximet

Table of Contents

formulation of Treximet developed by GSK. The Phase 3 pivotal trials, including the endpoints required to evaluate Treximet, were designed to demonstrate superiority to placebo for relief of pain and the associated symptoms of migraine (nausea, photophobia and phonophobia) at two hours. Additionally, the program was designed to demonstrate that each component makes a contribution to the efficacy of Treximet (the “combination drug rule” that the FDA requires of all combination products). The efficacy endpoint for the combination was sustained pain free, which is defined as improvement from moderate or severe pain to no pain at two hours and remaining at no pain through twenty four hours without the use of rescue medicine. Further, GSK has conducted market support studies for Treximet, including evaluations in a pediatric population. As required by the terms of our agreement with GSK, we transferred ownership of the NDA and other regulatory filings for Treximet to GSK on May 14, 2008, and GSK took responsibility for all ongoing regulatory obligations for the product, including post marketing clinical trial requirements.

On November 23, 2011, we entered into the Purchase Agreement with CII, pursuant to which we sold, and CII purchased, our right to receive future royalty payments arising from U.S. sales of MT 400, including Treximet.

On March 21, 2011, we entered into a license agreement with Cilag, a division of Johnson & Johnson, for the exclusive development and commercialization of MT 400 in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. On December 22, 2014, we entered into a mutual termination letter with Cilag. In accordance with the terms of the termination letter the agreement terminated on January 21, 2015. There was no dispute between the parties regarding the license agreement. At our request, for a period of two years after termination, Cilag has agreed to negotiate in good faith commercially reasonable terms of a supply agreement whereby Cilag would supply us or our licensees, with MT400 for a period equal to the shorter of (i) two (2) years; or (ii) until we establish an alternative supplier. We recognized approximately $257,300 in licensing revenue in the fourth quarter of as a result of this termination.

On May 13, 2014, we, GSK, CII and Pernix, entered into certain agreements in connection with GSK’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell Treximet in the U.S. to Pernix. Upon the closing of the divestiture on August 20, 2014, GSK assigned the Treximet Agreement to Pernix. Immediately following the closing of the divestiture, Amendment No. 1 between us and Pernix became effective. Amendment No. 1, among other things, amends the royalty provisions of the Agreement to provide for a guaranteed quarterly minimum royalty of $4 million for the calendar quarters commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on March 31, 2018 and requires that Pernix continue certain of GSK’s ongoing development activities and to undertake certain new activities, for which we will provide reasonable assistance. Amendment No. 1 also eliminates restrictions in the Agreement on our right to develop and commercialize certain dosage forms of sumatriptan/naproxen combinations outside of the United States and permits POZEN to seek approval for these combinations on the basis of the approved NDA for Treximet. Pernix has also granted us a warrant to purchase 500,000 shares of Pernix common stock at an exercise price of $4.28, the closing price of Pernix common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global Market on May 13, 2014. The common stock underlying the warrants will be registered by Pernix with the SEC and will be exercisable from August 20, 2014, the closing date of the divestiture until February 28, 2018. Lastly, we, GSK, Pernix and CII executed a letter agreement whereby we expressly consented to the assignment by GSK and the assumption by Pernix of the Treximet Agreement. On July 30, the parties entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Treximet Agreement which will permit Pernix’s Irish affiliate to which Pernix will assign its rights to further assign the Agreement without our prior written consent as collateral security for the benefit of the lenders which financed the acquisition. Amendment No. 2 became effective upon closing of the divestiture on August 20, 2014.

Collaborative Arrangements

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)

Table of Contents

million milestone payment upon the FDA’s acceptance for review of the NDA for Treximet, the trade name for the product. On April 26, 2008, we received, from GSK, $20.0 million in milestone payments which were associated with the approval of, and GSK’s intent to commercialize, Treximet. In addition, GSK will pay us two sales performance milestones totaling $80.0 million if certain sales thresholds are achieved. Up to an additional $10.0 million per product is payable upon achievement of milestones relating to other products. GSK will pay us royalties on all net sales of marketed products until at least the expiration of the last to expire issued applicable patent (October 2, 2025) based upon the scheduled expiration of currently issued patents. GSK may reduce, but not eliminate, the royalty payable to us if generic competitors attain a pre-determined share of the market for the combination product, or if GSK owes a royalty to one or more third parties for rights it licenses from such third parties to commercialize the product. The agreement terminates on the date of expiration of all royalty obligations unless earlier terminated by either party for a material breach or by GSK at any time upon 90 days’ written notice to us for any reason or no reason. Among the contract breaches that would entitle us to terminate the agreement is GSK’s determination not to further develop or to launch the combination product under certain circumstances. GSK has the right, but not the obligation, to bring, at its own expense, an action for infringement of certain patents by third parties. If GSK does not bring any such action within a certain time frame, we have the right, at our own expense, to bring the appropriate action. With regard to certain other patent infringements, we have the sole right to bring an action against the infringing third party. Each party generally has the duty to indemnify the other for damages arising from breaches of each party’s representations, warranties and obligations under the agreement, as well as for gross negligence or intentional misconduct. We also have a duty to indemnify GSK for damages arising from our development and manufacture of MT 400 prior to the effective date of the agreement, and each party must indemnify the other for damages arising from the development and manufacture of any combination product after the effective date.

On May 13, 2014, we, GSK, CII and Pernix, entered into certain agreements in connection with GSK’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell Treximet in the U.S. to Pernix. Upon the closing of the divestiture on August 20, 2014, GSK assigned the Treximet Agreement to Pernix. Immediately following the closing of the divestiture, Amendment No. 1 between us and Pernix became effective. Amendment No. 1, among other things, amends the royalty provisions of the Agreement to provide for a guaranteed quarterly minimum royalty of $4 million for the calendar quarters commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on March 31, 2018 and requires that Pernix continue certain of GSK’s ongoing development activities and to undertake certain new activities, for which we will provide reasonable assistance. Amendment No. 1 also eliminates restrictions in the Agreement on our right to develop and commercialize certain dosage forms of sumatriptan/naproxen combinations outside of the United States and permits Pozen to seek approval for these combinations on the basis of the approved NDA for Treximet. Pernix has also granted us a warrant to purchase 500,000 shares of Pernix common stock at an exercise price equal to$4.28 per share, the closing price of Pernix common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global Market on May 13, 2014. The common stock underlying the warrants have been registered by Pernix with the SEC and was exercisable from the August 20, 2014, the closing date of the divestiture until February 28, 2018. If the Divestiture had not been consummated, the warrants would have been null and void. Because the warrant has not been registered by Pernix with the SEC, the Company cannot sell or transfer the warrant in reliance upon Rule 144 until after November 13, 2014 when the Company meets certain holding requirements. Lastly, we, GSK, Pernix and CII executed a letter agreement whereby we expressly consented to the assignment by GSK and the assumption by Pernix of the Treximet Agreement. On July 30, the parties entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Treximet Agreement which will permit Pernix’s Irish affiliate to which Pernix assigned its rights to further assign the Agreement without our prior written consent as collateral security for the benefit of the lenders which financed the acquisition. Amendment No. 2 became effective upon the closing of the divestiture on August 20, 2014.

AstraZeneca AB (AstraZeneca)/Horizon Pharma Inc. (Horizon)

In August 2006, we entered into the Original Agreement. Under the terms of the Original Agreement, we granted to AstraZeneca an exclusive, fee-bearing license, in all countries of the world except Japan, under our patents and know-how relating to combinations of gastroprotective agents and NSAIDs (other than aspirin and its derivatives). Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront license fee of $40.0 million from AstraZeneca following termination of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino notification program.

Table of Contents

us and AstraZeneca to manage the development and commercialization of the product. The committees operate by consensus, but if consensus cannot be reached, we generally will have the deciding vote with respect to development activities required for marketing approval of the product in the U.S. and AstraZeneca generally will have the deciding vote with respect to any other matters.

On December 31, 2014 we have receivables of $5.6 million related to VIMOVO royalty revenue, $4.3 million related to U.S. sales and $1.3 million related to ROW sales. The agreement, unless earlier terminated, will expire upon the payment of all applicable royalties for the products commercialized under the agreement. Either party has the right to terminate the agreement by notice in writing to the other party upon or after any material breach of the agreement by the other party, if the other party has not cured the breach within 90 days after written notice to cure has been given, with certain exceptions. The parties also can terminate the agreement for cause under certain defined conditions. In addition, AstraZeneca can terminate the agreement, at any time, at will, for any reason or no reason, in its entirety or with respect to countries outside the U.S., upon 90 days’ notice. If terminated at will, AstraZeneca will owe us a specified termination payment or, if termination occurs after the product is launched, AstraZeneca may, at its option, under and subject to the satisfaction of conditions specified in the agreement, elect to transfer the product and all rights to us.

On September 16, 2013, we and AstraZeneca entered into another amendment to the Original Agreement which made clarifications to certain intellectual property provisions of the Original Agreement to clarify that AstraZeneca’s rights under those provisions do not extend to products which contain acetyl salicylic acid. On September 16, 2013, we and AstraZeneca also executed a letter agreement whereby we agreed that in the event that AstraZeneca divested its rights and obligations to market VIMOVO in the United States to a third party, AstraZeneca would be relieved of its obligations under the Original Agreement with respect to the United States as of the effective date of such divestiture, including its obligation under the Original Agreement to guarantee the performance of such assignee and/or sublicensee.

On November 18, 2013, AstraZeneca and Horizon entered into certain agreements in connection with AstraZeneca’s divestiture of all of its rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States to Horizon. In connection with this divestiture, on November 18, 2013 we and AstraZeneca entered into an Amended and Restated Collaboration and

Table of Contents

License Agreement for the United States, the “U.S. Agreement” and an Amended and Restated License and Collaboration Agreement for Outside the United States, the “ROW Agreement” which agreements collectively amend and restate the Original Agreement. AstraZeneca has assigned the U.S. Agreement to Horizon in connection with the Divestiture with our consent.

We and Horizon also entered into Amendment No. 1 to the U.S. Agreement which, among other things, amends the royalty provisions of the U.S. Agreement to provide for a guaranteed annual minimum royalty amount of $5 million in calendar year 2014, and a guaranteed annual minimum royalty amount of $7.5 million each calendar year thereafter, provided that the patents owned by us which cover VIMOVO are in effect and no generic forms of VIMOVO are in the marketplace. Amendment No. 1 also provides that Horizon has assumed AstraZeneca’s right to lead the on-going Paragraph IV litigation relating to VIMIVO currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and will assume all patent-related defense costs relating to such litigation, including reimbursement up to specified amounts of the cost of any counsel retained by us, amends certain time periods for Horizon’s delivery of quarterly sales reports to POZEN, and provides for quarterly update calls between the parties to discuss VIMOVO’s performance and Horizon’s commercialization efforts.

Further, the Company, AstraZeneca and Horizon executed a letter agreement whereby POZEN expressly consented to the assignment by AstraZeneca and the assumption by Horizon of the U.S. Agreement. In addition, the letter agreement establishes a process for AstraZeneca and Horizon to determine if sales milestones set forth in the Original Agreement are achieved on a global basis and other clarifications and modifications required as a result of incorporating the provisions of the Original Agreement into the U.S. Agreement and the ROW Agreement or as otherwise agreed by the parties.

On June 13, 2011, we and AstraZeneca received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Lupin informing us that Lupin had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the ‘907 patent, which is assigned to the POZEN and the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, the ‘466 patent and, each of which are assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire at various times between 2014 and 2023. Lupin’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable. AstraZeneca has advised us that it has elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement suit against Lupin and, accordingly, we and AstraZeneca filed suit against Lupin on July 25, 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On November 19, 2014, an amended complaint was filed in which the 504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent, all assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates, were not asserted against Lupin. The case is currently consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes with the first filed Dr. Reddy’s case.

On September 19, 2011, we and AstraZeneca received Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Anchen informing us that Anchen had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the ‘907 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent. The patents are among those listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire at various times between 2018 and 2023. Anchen’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe those patents or that those patents are invalid or unenforceable. AstraZeneca has advised us that it has elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement suit against Anchen and, accordingly, we and AstraZeneca filed suit against Anchen on October 28, 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On October 4, 2013, Anchen filed an amendment to its ANDA seeking to change its Paragraph IV certification to a Paragraph III. It is unclear when or if the FDA will enter Anchen’s amendment. On October 25, 2013, Anchen filed a Motion to Dismiss the case against it, based on its proposed re-certification. On November 18, 2013, we and AstraZeneca filed an Opposition to Anchen’s Motion to Dismiss. On June 11, 2014, the court granted Anchen’s Motion and dismissed the case against them.

On November 20, 2012 we and AstraZeneca received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Dr. Reddy’s, informing us that Dr. Reddy’s had filed a second ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the ‘907 patent, which is assigned to the POZEN and the 504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, the ‘466 patent and, each of which are assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire at various times between 2014 and 2023. Dr. Reddy’s second Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable. AstraZeneca has advised us that it has elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement suit against Dr. Reddy’s on its second ANDA filing and, accordingly, we and AstraZeneca filed suit against Dr. Reddy’s on January 4, 2013, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On April 15, 2013 a Stipulation of Partial Dismissal was filed which sought dismissal of all infringement claims relating to the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent (which are each assigned to AstraZeneca), as well as Dr. Reddy’s defenses and counterclaims relating to those patents. On April 18, 2013, the District Court issued the Stipulation and Order dismissing with prejudice those claims and defenses. On June 28, 2013 we and AstraZeneca filed a Motion for Summary Judgment relating to the second ANDA filing asserting that U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 is not invalid. On August 12, 2013, DRL filed an opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 28, 2014, the District Court denied the Motion. On October 11, 2013, DRL filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the product which is the subject matter of its second ANDA does not infringe the ‘907 patent. On November 4, 2013, POZEN and AstraZeneca filed a Motion for an Order Denying DRL’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(d) and an Opposition to DRL’s Motion. On May 29, 2014, the court

Table of Contents

issued an order denying DRL’s motion. This case was consolidated with the originally filed Dr. Reddy’s case and is currently consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes with the first filed Dr. Reddy’s case.

On March 29, 2013, we and AstraZeneca received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Watson, now Actavis, informing us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the ‘907 patent, which is assigned to the Company and the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘424 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent, each of which assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire at various times between 2014 and 2023. Watson’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable. AstraZeneca has advised us that it has elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement suit against Watson. On May 10, 2013, we and AstraZeneca filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Watson in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. The case is currently consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes with the first filed Dr. Reddy’s case.

On May 16, 2013, Pozen and AstraZeneca received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Mylan informing us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the ‘907 patent, which is assigned to the Company and the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘424 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent, each of which assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire at various times between 2014 and 2023. Mylan’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable. AstraZeneca has advised us that it has elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement suit against Mylan. On June 28, 2013, we and AstraZeneca filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Mylan in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. On February 13, 2015, the Court entered a joint stipulation of dismissal of counts related to certain patents, dismissing claims related to the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘424 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent, each of which assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates. The case is currently consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes with the first filed Dr. Reddy’s case.

On October 15, 2013, the United States Patent Office issued the ‘285 patent. The ‘285 patent, entitled “Pharmaceutical compositions for the coordinated delivery of NSAIDs” and assigned to Pozen, is related to the ‘907 patent. AstraZeneca has advised us that it has elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement of the ‘285 patent and, accordingly, on October 23, 2013, we, and AstraZeneca filed patent infringement lawsuits against DRL, Lupin, Watson and Mylan in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey alleging that their ANDA products infringe the ‘285 patent. On November 8, 2013, we, and AstraZeneca filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint in the actions against DRL, Lupin, Watson and Mylan or, in the alternative, to consolidate the actions involving the ‘285 patent with the existing consolidated action. DRL, Lupin, Watson and Mylan have each filed answers to the respective amended complaints, thus adding claims relating to the ‘285 patent against each of the Defendants to the consolidated case.

As part of Horizon’s purchase of all of AstraZeneca’s rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States, Horizon has assumed AstraZeneca’s right to lead the above-described Paragraph IV litigation relating to VIMIVO currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and has assumed patent-related defense costs relating to such litigation, including reimbursement up to specified amounts of the cost of any counsel retained by us. On December 12, 2013, Horizon filed Motions to Join under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 25(c) as a co-plaintiff in each of the above referenced actions and the consolidated action. On January 31, 2014 and February 2, 2014, the Court granted Horizon’s motions.

sanof-aventis U.S. LLC

On September 3, 2013, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Sanofi U.S. On November 29, 2014, we executed a termination agreement with Sanofi U.S. terminating the license agreement for PA. As of the termination date, all licenses granted to Sanofi U.S. were terminated and all rights to the products licensed to Sanofi U.S. under the agreement reverted to us. The termination agreement further provides for the transfer of specified commercial know-how developed by Sanofi U.S. relating to the PA products to us and allows us, and any future collaborators, to use this know-how to commercialize the products. We are currently evaluating all strategic options available to us now that we have full ownership of the PA products in the United States. In light of the warning letter sent to our active ingredient supplier and of the time requirements necessary to complete an assessment of its strategic options, and to properly prepare the market for the launch of our YOSPRALA product candidates, we believe the products will be available for commercialization in 2016.

In consideration for the rights granted to Sanofi U.S. under the license agreement, Sanofi U.S. paid us an upfront payment of $15 million. The upfront payment was amortized and recognized as revenue, $4 million during the year ended December 31, 2013 and the remaining $11 million during the year ended December 31, 2014.

Cilag GmbH International (Cilag)

Table of Contents

mutual termination letter with Cilag. In accordance with the terms of the termination letter the agreement terminated on January 21, 2015. There was no dispute between the parties regarding the license agreement and, at our request, for a period of two years after termination, Cilag has agreed to negotiate in good faith commercially reasonable terms of a supply agreement whereby Cilag would supply us or our licensees, with MT400 for a period equal to the shorter of (i) two (2) years; or (ii) until we establish an alternative supplier. We recognized approximately $257,300 in licensing revenue in the fourth quarter of as a result of this termination.

Patheon Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Patheon)

On December 19, 2011, we entered into the Supply Agreement and the Capital Agreement relating to the manufacture of PA32450. Under the terms of the Supply Agreement, Patheon has agreed to manufacture, and we have agreed to purchase, a specified percentage of the Company’s requirements of the PA32540 for sale in the United States. The term of the Supply Agreement extends until December 31st of the fourth year after the Initial Term, and will automatically renew thereafter for periods of two years, unless terminated by either party upon eighteen months’ written notice prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or twelve months’ written notice prior to the expiration of any renewal term. In addition to usual and customary termination rights which allow each party to terminate the Supply Agreement for material, uncured breaches by the other party, we can terminate the Agreement upon 30 days’ prior written notice if a governmental or regulatory authority takes any action or raises any objection that prevents us from importing, exporting, purchasing or selling PA32540 or if it is determined that the formulation or sale of PA32540 infringes any patent rights or other intellectual property rights of a third party. We can also terminate the Supply Agreement upon 24 months’ prior written notice if we license, sell, assign or otherwise transfer any rights to commercialize PA32540 in the Territory to a third party. The Supply Agreement contains general and customary commercial supply terms and conditions, as well as establishing pricing for bulk product and different configurations of packaged product, which pricing will be adjusted annually as set forth in the Supply Agreement. Under the terms of the Capital Agreement, we will be responsible for the cost of purchasing certain equipment specific to the manufacture of PA32540, the cost of which, based on current volume projections, is expected to be less than $150,000. If additional equipment and facility modifications are required to meet our volume demands for PA32540, we may be required to contribute to the cost of such additional equipment and facility modifications, up to a maximum of approximately $2.5 million in the aggregate.

The Supply Agreement and Capital Agreement were amended on July 10, 2013. The Amendment to the Supply Agreement expressly incorporates the Company’s PA8140 product candidate into the Supply Agreement. The Amendment to the Supply Agreement also clarifies that the manufacturing services contemplated by the Supply Agreement include the manufacture of validation batches, but the placing of an order for such validation batches will not trigger the Commencement Date of the Initial Term, updates pricing for the Company’s PA32540 product candidate and a incorporates a new pricing schedule for PA8140, as well as other conforming changes to the Supply Agreement. The Amendment to the Capital Agreement, replaces the existing Schedule A of the Capital Agreement, which lists dedicated and non-dedicated capital equipment and facility modifications to be funded in whole or in part by the Company, with a new updated schedule which reflects the parties’ current assumptions regarding the need for and timing of capital equipment expenditures based upon Patheon’s current and anticipated production capacity and current volume projections for the PA32540 and PA8140. Under the terms of the Capital Agreement, the Company was previously required to contribute to the cost of such additional capital equipment and facility modifications, up to a maximum of approximately $2.5 million in the aggregate. Pursuant to the terms of the Amendment to the Capital Agreement, the parties have agreed to reduce the amount of such maximum expenditure to approximately $1.2 million dollars in light of the revised capacity and volume assumptions.

Manufacturing

We currently have no manufacturing capability.

To date, we have entered into arrangements with third-party manufacturers for the supply of formulated and packaged clinical trial materials. We have also entered into a Supply Agreement and a related Capital Agreement with Patheon for the manufacture of PA32450 and PA8140 for sale in the United States. We believe our current supplier agreements should be sufficient to meet our commercial supply needs for PA32540 and PA8140 in the United States. Under our agreements with GSK, AstraZeneca and Horizon, it is the obligation of our partners to obtain commercial supplies of products developed under those agreements. Use of third-party manufacturers enables us to focus on our clinical development activities, minimize fixed costs and capital expenditures and gain access to advanced manufacturing process capabilities and expertise.

Table of Contents

Competition

Competition for VIMOVO

The competition for VIMOVO comes from the oral anti-arthritic market, or more specifically the traditional non-selective NSAIDs (such as naproxen and diclofenac), traditional NSAID/gastroprotective agent combination products or combination product packages (such as Arthrotec® and Prevacid® NapraPAC™) and the only remaining COX-2 inhibitor, Celebrex®. The U.S. prescription market for oral solid NSAIDs was approximately $2.9 billion in 2011, of which 62% was accounted for by Celebrex, according to IMS. This market is continuing to undergo significant change, due to the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx® by Merck & Co. in September 2004, the FDA-ordered withdrawal of Bextra® by Pfizer in April 2005 and the issuance of a Public Health Advisory by the FDA in April 2005 stating that it would require that manufacturers of all prescription products containing NSAIDs provide warnings regarding the potential for adverse cardiovascular events as well as life-threatening gastrointestinal events associated with the use of NSAIDs. Moreover, subsequent to the FDA advisory committee meeting in February 2005 that addressed the safety of NSAIDs, and, in particular, the cardiovascular risks of COX-2 selective NSAIDs, the FDA has indicated that long-term studies evaluating cardiovascular risk will be required for approval of new NSAID products that may be used on an intermittent or chronic basis. However, based on a meeting with the FDA in September 2005, we believe, although we cannot guarantee, that long-term cardiovascular safety studies may not be required at this time for FDA approval of our PN product candidates containing naproxen.

Competition for PA Products

The pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries are intensely competitive and are characterized by rapid technological progress. Certain pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies and academic and research organizations currently engage in, or have engaged in, efforts related to the discovery and development of new medicines for the treatment of migraine symptoms. Significant levels of research in chemistry and biotechnology occur in universities and other nonprofit research institutions. These entities have become increasingly active in seeking patent protection and licensing revenues for their research results. They also compete with us in recruiting skilled scientific talent.

Our ability to compete successfully will be based on our ability to create and maintain scientifically advanced technology, develop proprietary products, attract and retain scientific personnel, obtain patent or other protection for our products, obtain required regulatory approvals and manufacture and successfully market our products either alone or through outside parties. Some of our competitors have substantially greater financial, research and development, manufacturing, marketing and human resources and greater experience than we do in product discovery, development, clinical trial management, FDA regulatory review, manufacturing and marketing, which may enable them to compete more effectively than we can.

Treatment for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease typically consists of multiple prescription and over-the-counter drugs, including statins, anti-hypertensives and anti-platelet agents. Competition for PA will come from the prescription anti-platelet market as well as OTC aspirin and gastro-protective agents. An estimated 24 million Americans fall within the guidelines for chronic anti-platelet therapy as set forth by the American Heart Association. Prescription anti-platelet therapies include PLAVIX (clopidogrel) and generics, EFFIENT (prasugrel) and BRILINTA (ticagrelor). In 2011, prior to loss of market exclusivity, PLAVIX sales exceeded $9 billion worldwide. Because OTC aspirin is used to treat many conditions, including pain and inflammation, identifying the portion of sales attributable to anti-platelet therapy is difficult.

Patents and Proprietary Information

We have obtained and intend to actively seek to obtain, when appropriate, protection for our products and proprietary technology by means of U.S. and foreign patents, trademarks and contractual arrangements. In addition, we rely upon trade secrets and contractual agreements to protect certain of our proprietary technology and products.

We have issued U.S. patents and pending U.S. patent applications, as well as pending foreign patent applications or issued foreign patents, relating to our marketed products and product candidates. We also have U.S. and foreign patent applications pending relating to novel product concepts. There can be no assurance that our patent applications will issue as patents or, with respect to our issued patents, that they will provide us with significant protection. The following provides a general description of our patent portfolio and is not intended to represent an assessment of claim limitations or claim scope.

MT 400/Treximet

We have four issued U.S. patents with claims relating to methods, compositions and therapeutic packages involving the use of certain NSAIDs and 5-HT receptor agonists in treating patients with migraine. Outside of the U.S., we have issued patents in Australia, Canada, Europe, Hong Kong and Japan. The expected expiration date of the issued patents relating to MT 400 is August 14, 2017. We expect that patents issued from pending patents related to MT 400 will also expire in August 2017.

Oppositions were filed against the issued European patent in October 2005 by Merck & Co., Inc. and Almirall Prodesfarma asserting that the European patent should not have been granted. We filed a response to these oppositions and the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office called for oral proceedings. During the oral proceedings and in the written opinion subsequently

Table of Contents

provided, the European Patent Office found that claims relating to combinations of sumatriptan and naproxen for the treatment of migraine were valid. However, broader claims relating to certain other 5-HT1B/1D agonists and long-acting NSAIDs were held to be insufficiently supported by the presently available technical evidence.

We also have an issued U.S. patent with claims relating to formulations of MT 400 which, we expect to expire in October 2025. We have additional pending U.S. and foreign patent applications with claims directed to formulations of MT 400 which, if issued, we expect to expire in 2027.

PN/PA

We have issued patents in the U.S., Australia, Canada, Europe, Mexico and Eurasia, with claims directed to certain compositions containing a combination of acid inhibitors, including PPIs, and NSAIDs. The issued patents also have claims to treatment methods involving the use of such compositions. We have pending U.S. and foreign patent applications that also have claims to compositions containing acid inhibitors and NSAIDS and to various treatment methods involving such compositions. The issued U.S. patents and related U.S. patent applications are expected to expire on February 28, 2023.

Oppositions were filed against the issued European patent in April 2011 by Chatfield Pharmaceuticals and Strawman Ltd. asserting that the European patent should not have been granted. We filed for a response to these oppositions and the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office called for oral proceedings. Strawman Ltd. Subsequently withdrew from the opposition proceedings. During the proceedings in December 2012, the European Patent Office found that claims relating to combination of PPIs and NSAIDS were valid. Chatfield may appeal the decision by giving notice within 60 days of the date on which the Opposition Division issues its written decisions. The European patent will expire in May 2022, but we have obtained supplement protection certificates (SPCs) for VIMOVO which extend to October 25, 2025, and we expect to apply for SPCs for PA upon approval. We expect that patents outside of the U.S. and Europe, as well as additional patents which issue from the pending foreign patent applications, to expire on May 31, 2022.

We, together with AstraZeneca, have filed joint patent applications relating to VIMOVO. We expect any patents which issue from these applications to expire in 2029 and 2030. We have filed additional patent applications related to PA. We expect any patents which issue from these applications to expire between 2030 and 2032.

We, AstraZeneca and Horizon are engaged in Paragraph IV litigation with several generic pharmaceutical companies with respect to patents listed in the Orange Book with respect to VIMOVO currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey which is described on page 17 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on March 11, 2015.

Government Regulation

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in foreign countries impose substantial requirements on the clinical development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical product candidates. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate research and development activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record-keeping, approval and promotion of our product candidates. All of our product candidates will require regulatory approval before commercialization. In particular, therapeutic product candidates for human use are subject to rigorous preclinical and clinical testing and other requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, implemented by the FDA, as well as similar statutory and regulatory requirements of foreign countries. Obtaining these marketing approvals and subsequently complying with ongoing statutory and regulatory requirements is costly and time-consuming. Any failure by us or our collaborators, licensors or licensees to obtain, or any delay in obtaining, regulatory approvals or in complying with other regulatory requirements could adversely affect the commercialization of product candidates then being developed by us and our ability to receive product or royalty revenues.

The steps required before a new drug product candidate may be distributed commercially in the U.S. generally include:

· conducting appropriate preclinical laboratory evaluations of the product candidate’s chemistry, formulation and stability and preclinical studies in animals to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product candidate;

· submitting the results of these evaluations and tests to the FDA, along with manufacturing information and analytical data, in an IND;

· initiating clinical trials under the IND and addressing any safety or regulatory concerns of the FDA;

· obtaining approval of Institutional Review Boards, or IRBs, to introduce the drug into humans in clinical studies;

· conducting adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials that establish the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for the intended use, typically in the following three sequential, or slightly overlapping stages:

Phase 1: The product is initially introduced into human subjects or patients and tested for safety, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion;

Table of Contents

Phase 2: The product candidate is studied in patients to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to determine dosage tolerance and the optimal dosage, and to collect some efficacy data;

Phase 3: The product candidate is studied in an expanded patient population at multiple clinical study sites, to confirm efficacy and safety at the optimized dose, by measuring primary and secondary endpoints established at the outset of the study;

· submitting the results of preclinical studies, and clinical trials as well as chemistry, manufacturing and control information on the product candidate to the FDA in a NDA; and

· obtaining FDA approval of the NDA prior to any commercial sale or shipment of the product candidate.

This process can take a number of years and require substantial financial resources. Each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee, pursuant to the requirements of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, and its amendments. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. According to the FDA’s fee schedule, effective on October 1, 2013 for the fiscal year 2014, the user fee for an application requiring clinical data, such as an NDA, is $2,169,100. PDUFA also imposes an annual product fee for each marketed prescription drug ($104,060), and an annual establishment fee ($554,600) on facilities used to manufacture prescription drugs and biologics. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. However, there are no waivers for product or establishment fees.

The results of preclinical studies and initial clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of the results from large-scale clinical trials, and clinical trials may be subject to additional costs, delays or modifications due to a number of factors, including the difficulty in obtaining enough patients, clinical investigators, product candidate supply and financial support.

Even after FDA approval has been obtained, further studies, including post-marketing studies, may be required. Results of post-marketing studies may limit or expand the further marketing of the products. If we propose any modifications to a product, including changes in indication, manufacturing process, manufacturing facility or labeling, a supplement to our NDA may be required to be submitted to the FDA and approved.

The FDA may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the effect of approved product candidates that have been commercialized, and the agency has the power to prevent or limit further marketing of a product candidate based on the results of these post-marketing programs. Upon approval, a product candidate may be marketed only in those dosage forms and for those indications approved in the NDA.

The status of the NDAs we have submitted to the FDA for Treximet, VIMOVO and our PA product candidates is discussed above in “MT400/Treximet,” “PN/VIMOVO Program,” and “Status of Our Product Candidates and Exploratory Programs” — PA Program”.

In addition to obtaining FDA approval for each indication to be treated with each product candidate, each domestic product candidate manufacturing establishment must register with the FDA, list its product with the FDA, comply with the applicable cGMP regulations, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance, as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation, and permit and pass manufacturing plant inspections by the FDA. Moreover, the submission of applications for approval may require additional time to complete manufacturing stability studies. Foreign establishments manufacturing product for distribution in the U.S. also must list their product candidates with the FDA and comply with cGMP regulations. They are also subject to periodic inspection by the FDA or by local authorities under agreement with the FDA.

Any product candidates manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to extensive continuing regulation by the FDA, including record-keeping requirements and reporting of adverse experiences with the product candidate. In addition to continued compliance with standard regulatory requirements, the FDA may also require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the marketed product. Adverse experiences with the product candidate must be reported to the FDA. Product approvals may be affected and even withdrawn if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if problems concerning safety or efficacy of the product are discovered following approval.

The FFDCA also mandates that products be manufactured consistent with cGMP regulations. In complying with the cGMP regulations, manufacturers must continue to spend time, money and effort in production, record keeping, quality control, and auditing to ensure that the marketed product meets applicable specifications and other requirements. The FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to ensure compliance with cGMP regulations. Failure to comply subjects the manufacturer to possible FDA action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of the product, voluntary recall of a product or injunctive action, as well as possible civil penalties. We currently rely on, and intend to continue to rely on, third parties to manufacture our compounds and product candidates. These third parties will be required to comply with cGMP regulations.

Table of Contents

Products manufactured in the U.S. for distribution abroad will be subject to FDA regulations regarding export, as well as to the requirements of the country to which they are shipped. These latter requirements are likely to cover the conduct of clinical trials, the submission of marketing applications, and all aspects of manufacturing and marketing. Such requirements can vary significantly from country to country.

We and our contractors are also subject to various federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and policies relating to safe working conditions, laboratory and manufacturing practices, the experimental use of animals and the use of and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances used in connection with our research work. Although we believe that safety procedures employed for handling and disposing of such materials comply with current federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and policies, the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials cannot be entirely eliminated.

Before a medicinal product can be supplied in the EU, it must first be granted a marketing authorization. There are three routes by which this may be achieved: the centralized procedure whereby a single European license is granted by the European Commission permits the supply of the product in question throughout the EU or the decentralized, or DC, or mutual recognition procedures, or MRP, through which the views of one national authority (Reference Member State, or RMS) are “recognized” by other authorities (Concerned Member States) when conducting their reviews; the DC applies if the medicinal product in question has not yet received a marketing authorization in any member state at the time of the application whereas the MRP applies to a currently approved medicinal product. These latter two processes lead to individual licenses in each member state for the supply of products in that country only. The centralized route is compulsory for biotechnology products and is optional for certain so-called “high technology” products and products containing entirely new active substances. All products which are not authorized by the centralized route must be authorized by the DC or MRP unless the product is designed for use in a single country in which case a National Application can be made.

In making an application for a new medicinal product not governed compulsorily by the centralized procedure, typically use will be made of the DC although the MRP would be used if a marketing authorization were first secured in an RMS. The procedural steps for the DC and the MRP are governed by Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, and are described in the Notice to Applicants, Volume 2A Chapter 2 - Mutual Recognition (updated version - November 2005). The procedures provide for set time periods for each process (DC - 120 days; MRP — 90 days) but if consensus is not reached between all the CMS and the RMS in that time, the application is referred to arbitration through the Co-ordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralized Procedures, or CMD, with referral to the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP. If a referral is made, the procedure is suspended; marketing of the product would only be possible in the RMS in the case of an MRP. The opinion of the CMD/CHMP, which is binding, could support or reject the objections or alternatively reach a compromise position acceptable to all EU countries concerned. The arbitration procedure may require the delivery of additional data. Once granted, any MAA remains subject to pharmacovigilance and all competent authorities have the power to vary, suspend or revoke an MAA on grounds of safety.

The extent of U.S. and foreign government regulation which might result from future legislation or administrative action cannot be accurately predicted. For example, in the U.S., although the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, or FDAMA, modified and created requirements and standards under the FFDCA with the intent of facilitating product development and marketing, the FDA is still in the process of developing regulations implementing FDAMA and the more recent Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, or FDAAA. FDA has been actively implementing drug safety plans called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, or REMS, as authorized by FDAAA, as a condition of drug approval, or after initial marketing, if FDA becomes aware of new safety data about the drug. These and other legislative initiatives may impose additional regulatory requirements on us, and may impact approval of our drugs or our marketing plans. The actual effect of these and other developments on our own business is uncertain and unpredictable.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware on September 25, 1996. Our principal offices are located in the Exchange Office Building at 1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 400, Chapel Hill, NC 27517. Our telephone number is (919) 913-1030. We maintain a website at www.POZEN.com and make available free of charge through this website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, our Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. We also similarly make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. We are not including the information contained at www.POZEN.com, or at any other Internet address as part of, or incorporating it by reference into, this registration statement.

In addition, we make available on our website (i) the charters for the committees of our Board, including the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee, and (ii) our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics governing our directors, officers and employees. We intend to disclose on our website any amendments to, or

Table of Contents

waivers from, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that are required to be disclosed pursuant to the rules of the SEC and the NASDAQ Global Market.

Employees

As of August 1, 2015, Pozen had a total of 22 full-time employees. All of Pozen’s current employees are based at its headquarters in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Of Pozen’s 22 employees, 12 hold advanced degrees, including three with an M.D., Pharm.D. or Ph.D. degree.

Table of Contents

Overview of Tribute

Tribute is a Canadian specialty pharmaceutical company with a primary focus on the acquisition, licensing, development and promotion of healthcare products in Canada and the United States. Tribute targets several therapeutic areas in Canada with a particular interest in products for the treatment of neurology, pain, dermatology, endocrinology, cardiology and gastro-intestinal disorders.

Tribute markets Cambia® (diclofenac potassium for oral solution), Bezalip® SR (bezafibrate), Soriatane® (acitretin), NeoVisc® (1.0% sodium hyaluronate solution), Uracyst® (sodium chondroitin sulfate solution 2%), Fiorinal®, Fiorinal® C, Visken®, Viskazide® and Collatamp® G in the Canadian market. Additionally, NeoVisc and Uracyst are commercially available and are sold globally through various international partnerships. Tribute also has the U.S. rights to Fibricor® (fenofibric acid) and its related authorized generic. In addition, Tribute has the exclusive rights to develop and commercialize Bezalip SR in the U.S. and has the exclusive right to sell bilastine, a product licensed from Faes Farma for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria (hives), in Canada. The exclusive license is inclusive of prescription and non-prescription rights for bilastine, as well as adult and pediatric presentations in Canada. This product is subject to receiving Canadian regulatory approval. In addition to the foregoing, pursuant to Tribute’s recently completed MFI Acquisition, Tribute’s product portfolio in Canada has been further diversified through the addition of 13 marketed products including; Durela® (tramadol extended release), Proferrin® (heme-iron polypeptide), Iberogast®, Moviprep®, Normacol®, Resultz®, Pegalax®, Balanse®, Balanse® Kids, Diaflor™, Mutaflor®, Purfem®, Onypen® and one product recently approved by Health Canada but not launched (ibSium®) and two pipeline products (Octasa® and BedBugz™), both of which are pending submission to Health Canada.

Tribute markets its products in Canada through its own sales force and currently has licensing agreements for the distribution of NeoVisc® and Uracyst® in over 20 countries, and continues to expand this footprint. Tribute’s focus on business development is very comprehensive including product acquisitions, company acquisitions, in-licensing and out-licensing for immediate impact on its revenue stream, as well as product development for future growth and stability.

Tribute’s management team has a strong track record of success in senior management positions from companies such as Wyeth, Syntex/Roche, Astra-Zeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Nautilus Neurosciences and Biovail. The team has extensive operational and business development experience in the Canadian and United States markets and international business experience overseas.

Tribute was incorporated under the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) on November 14, 1994 under the name “Stellar International Inc.” On January 1, 2005 Tribute changed its name from Stellar International Inc. to Stellar Pharmaceuticals Inc. and on January 1, 2013 Tribute changed its name from Stellar Pharmaceuticals Inc. to Tribute Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. On December 1, 2011, Stellar Pharmaceuticals Inc. acquired 100% of the outstanding shares of the then privately held Tribute Pharmaceuticals Canada Ltd. and Tribute Pharma Canada Inc. In 2015, Tribute opened its international subsidiary Tribute Pharmaceuticals International Inc. in Barbados and its US subsidiary, Tribute Pharmaceuticals US Inc., in Charlotte, North Carolina. Tribute maintains two facilities in Canada including its head office located at 151 Steeles Ave. East, Milton, Ontario, Canada L9T 1Y1, Tribute’s operations facility at 544 Egerton Street, London, Ontario, Canada N5W 3Z8. Additionally, Tribute’s US office is at 2015 Ayrsley Town Blvd, Suite 202 Charlotte, NC 28273 and in Barbados at Suite 203, Building Number 8, Harbour Road, St. Michael. Tribute’s main telephone number is 905-876-1118 in Milton and (519) 434-1540 in Londonits facsimile number is (519) 434-4382 and its e-mail address is info@tributepharma.com and its website is www.tributepharma.com. We are not including the information contained at www.tributepharma.com, or at any other Internet address as part of, or incorporating it by reference into, this registration statement.

2014 Highlights

During the second year of commercial launch, Cambia® (diclofenac potassium for oral solution) achieved consistent quarter-over-quarter growth throughout 2014 as illustrated below in Table 1. Furthermore, Cambia has continued to obtain coverage on many private insurance payor open plans in Canada. Cambia® is now widely available to Canadian patients.

In 2014, Tribute continued to expand its product portfolio which, combined with increased Cambia® sales, enabled it to increase revenues over 2013. Tribute is actively seeking to add more products to its sales portfolio in Canada, which will be supported by Tribute’s well-established sales force. Tribute is also seeking further growth from its internally developed proprietary products NeoVisc and Uracyst in countries where it does not yet have distribution agreements. Tribute has also begun looking for accretive, niche product opportunities in the U.S.

For the twelve month period ended December 31, 2014, total revenues from all sources increased by 25.5% or $3,431,400 to $16,871,800 compared to $13,440,400 in 2013, with licensed domestic product net sales contributing $507,600 or an increase of 5.9% over 2013, other domestic product sales contributing $2,761,600 up 82% over 2013 and an increase in international product sales contributing $341,700 up 26.7% compared to 2013.

Table of Contents

Income from operations for the three month period ended December 31, 2014, was $582,100 compared to a loss of $1,310,900 for the same period in 2013, an improvement of 144.7% and income from operations excluding amortization of assets for the three month period ended December 31, 2014 was $1,209,500 compared to a loss of $1,033,800 for the same period in 2013, an improvement of 217.0%.

On May 13, 2014, Tribute announced the signing of an exclusive license agreement that grants Tribute the exclusive right to sell the Faes Farma SA product bilastine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria (hives) in Canada, following receipt of regulatory approval from Health Canada for such product. The exclusive license is inclusive of prescription and non-prescription rights for bilastine, as well as adult and paediatric presentations in Canada.

On September 25, 2014 Tribute announced that it had received an additional patent from the USPTO for intellectual property that is central to one of Tribute’s lead products, Uracyst (a sterile sodium chondroitin sulfate solution, 2%, which is used in the treatment of interstitial cystitis / bladder pain syndrome (“IC/BPS”)). Tribute’s fourth Uracyst patent was issued as United States Patent No. 8,778,908 and is entitled “Cystitis Treatment with High Dose Chondroitin Sulfate.” This patent relates to the treatment of IC/BPS by instillation of a unit dose of chondroitin sulfate that is at least 350 mg or more, most preferably 400 mg, of chondroitin sulfate and 20 mL of an aqueous buffer. Unlike the earlier patents which covered how Uracyst is used, this patent covers the product itself. This patent provides market exclusivity through to 2024.

On October 2, 2014 Tribute announced that it had acquired the Canadian rights to Fiorinal, Fiorinal C, Visken and Viskazide from Novartis AG and Novartis Pharma AG (“Novartis Pharma”, collectively, with Novartis AG, “Novartis”) for $32 million which was paid in cash on closing. Combined net sales of such products during the twelve month period ended August 31, 2014, were approximately $10.8 million. Fiorinal and Fiorinal C are indicated for the relief of tension-type headache and Visken/Viskazide for the treatment of mild-moderate hypertension. Visken is also indicated for the prevention of angina pectoris.

On October 30, 2014 Tribute announced that it had received a patent approval from the European Patent Office for intellectual property central to one of Tribute’s lead products, Uracyst/Uropol® (a sterile sodium chondroitin sulfate solution, 2%), for the treatment of interstitial cystitis by instillation into the bladder of a patient. Treatments of other bladder disorders are also covered by the patent, including glycosaminoglycan (“GAG”) deficient forms of cystitis or GAG-deficiency, such as, accompanying chronic urinary tract infection, radiation-induced cystitis, chemical-induced cystitis or hemorrhagic cystitis. The European patent coverage extends to drug compositions comprising a unit dose of chondroitin sulfate in an amount of at least 400 mgs and an aqueous vehicle. This patent will run until February 18, 2024.

Q1- 2015 Highlights

IMS Health, an audited third party provider of sales data, reported a 10.8% increase in total prescriptions written for Cambia® during the three months ended March 31, 2015 compared to the three months ended December 31, 2014, or a 106.0% increase when comparing Q1 2015 and Q1 2014.

Products

Approved & Marketed Products

Cambia®

Cambia (diclofenac potassium for oral solution) was licensed from Nautilus Neurosciences, Inc. (“Nautilus”) in November 2010. Cambia® was approved by the FDA in June 2009 and is currently marketed by Depomed in the U.S. Cambia® was approved by Health Canada in March 2012 and was commercially launched to specialists in Canada in October 2012 and broadly to all primary care physicians in February 2013. The market for prescription migraine products in Canada is valued at approximately $126 million based on IMS Health data.

Cambia is a NSAID and the only prescription NSAID available and approved for the acute treatment of migraine attacks with or without aura in adults 18 years of age or older. Cambia is available as an oral solution in individual packets each designed to deliver a 50mg dose when mixed in water. Cambia is the only approved prescription NSAID available that was studied and proven to be an effective treatment for migraine according to guidelines published in September 2013 by the International Headache Society that reached statistically significant results for all four co-primary endpoints including: pain free response at two hours; nausea free; photophobia free (sensitivity to light); and phonophobia free (sensitivity to sound). In addition, Cambia provides fast migraine pain relief within 30 minutes of dosing due in part to the significant benefits of the proprietary Dynamic Buffering Technology™ (“DBT”). DBT provides for enhanced drug absorption and bioavailability. In fasting

Table of Contents

volunteers, measurable plasma levels were observed within five minutes of dosing with Cambia. Peak plasma levels were achieved at approximately 15 minutes, with a range of approximately 10 to 40 minutes. The use of some NSAIDs has been associated with an increased incidence of cardiovascular adverse events such as myocardial infarction, stroke or thrombotic events. The risk may increase with duration of use and patients should only take this medication as prescribed by a physician.

Migraine Treatment Options: There are a number of different treatment options for migraine in Canada. Acute migraine treatment options can be broken down to three main categories: (i) triptans or 5-HT1 receptor agonists (e.g. sumatriptan, rizatriptan); (ii) ergot alkaloids (e.g., ergotamine, dihydroergotamine); and (iii) NSAIDs (Cambia). Triptans may cause dizziness, nausea, weakness and chest discomfort and should not be used by patients with heart disease, uncontrolled high blood pressure, blood vessel disease or who have a history of stroke. Ergots may cause chest pain, tingling or burning sensations, nausea, vomiting, and cramps. Furthermore, ergots may reduce blood flow to the extremities (hands and feet) and may lead to tissue damage. Ergots should also not be used by anyone with heart disease, uncontrolled high blood pressure or blood vessel disease. NSAIDs such as Cambia may increase the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events such as myocardial infarction, stroke or thrombotic events, gastrointestinal adverse events such as peptic/duodenal ulceration, perforation and gastrointestinal bleeding and are contraindicated in the third trimester of pregnancy.

In September 2013 the Canadian Neurological Sciences Federations issued revised Canadian Headache Society Guidelines for Acute Drug Therapy for Migraine Headaches through the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. Cambia (diclofenac potassium for oral solution) was acknowledged as a potential first line therapy, with a fast onset of action and having a strong recommendation, high quality evidence and recommended for the acute treatment of migraine.

Migraine in Canada: The annual prescription migraine market in Canada is valued at approximately $126 million. Management estimates that four million women and one million men suffer from migraine headaches in Canada and that 60 percent of those with migraine have one or more attacks per month while 25 percent of those with migraine have at least one attack per week. One Canadian study found that those with migraine lose 6.5 days of work each year resulting from their migraine. According to a study conducted by Pryse Phillip, et al, published by the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences in 1992, they estimate that 7,000,000 working days are lost annually in Canada due to migraine and that direct and indirect cost in the workplace due to migraine is estimated at $500 million annually. It was also found that 48% of all women suffering from migraine have never consulted a physician for their headaches.

Competitive Analysis: It is estimated that half of all people suffering from migraine in Canada never seek help from a physician but rather self-treat their condition with OTC medications such as Aspirin® (Bayer), acetaminophen (Tylenol®) and OTC NSAID’s such as ibuprofen (Advil®) and naproxen sodium (Aleve®). The main prescription pharmacological agents used to treat acute migraine includes the triptan class of drugs or 5-HT1 receptor agonists as they are known and these products include sumatriptan (Imitrex®), rizatriptan (Maxalt®), zolmitriptan (Zomig®), almotriptan (Axert®), naratriptan (Amerge®), eletriptan (Relpax®) and frovatriptan (Frova®). There are also the ergot alkaloids such as ergotamine (Cafergot®) and dihydroergotamine (Migrinal®) used in some cases as are narcotics such as meperidine (Demerol) and the combination drug of aspirin, butalbital, and caffeine (Fiorinal®). In spite of a number of possible treatment options for treating migraines, many of these treatments are without a formal indication from Health Canada. Tribute considers the competitive market as the triptans class, which currently sells approximately $126 million annually in Canada.

Bezalip SR

Bezalip SR (bezafibrate) is a well-established pan-peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (pan-PPAR) activator. Bezalip SR, used to treat hyperlipidemia, has over 25 years of therapeutic use globally with a good safety profile. Bezalip SR helps lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides while raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels. It also improves insulin sensitivity and reduces blood glucose levels, which in combination with the cholesterol effects may significantly lower the incidence of cardiovascular events and development of diabetes in patients with features of metabolic syndrome. Bezalip SR is under license from Actavis Group PTC ehf and is sold exclusively in Canada by Tribute. Tribute also has the exclusive development and licensing rights to Bezalip SR in the U.S. and recently filed an investigational new drug that received clearance from the FDA in the U.S. The initial target indication being pursued in the U.S. is for severe hypertriglyceridemia. Bezalip SR is contraindicated in patients with hepatic and renal impairment, pre-existing gallbladder disease, hypersensitivity to bezafibrate, or pregnancy or lactation.

Bezalip SR is currently approved in more than 40 countries worldwide, however is currently not approved in the U.S. According to a third party the U.S. fibrate and prescription fish oil market is estimated at nearly $2.5 billion in 2014. Upon approval, should such an approval be obtained, Tribute would enjoy a five year market exclusivity period from the FDA extended to all new chemical entities.

Hyperlipidemia Treatment Options: Hyperlipidemia, or high cholesterol, is a very common chronic condition and is characterized by an excess of fatty substances called lipids, mainly cholesterol and triglycerides, in the blood. It is also called hyperlipoproteinemia because these fatty substances travel in the blood attached to proteins. This is the only way that these fatty substances can remain dissolved while in circulation. Hyperlipidemia, in general, can be divided into two subcategories:

Table of Contents

· Hypercholesterolemia, in which there is a high level of cholesterol; and

· Hypertriglyceridemia, in which there is a high level of triglycerides, the most common form of fat.

Competitive Analysis: Cholesterol-lowering drugs in Canada include: statins, niacin, bile-acid resins, fibric acid derivatives (fibrates), and cholesterol absorption inhibitors. All classes of cholesterol-lowering medicines are most effective when combined with increased exercise and a low-fat, high-fiber diet. The statin class includes some of the largest-selling prescription products in the world (Lipitor®, Zocor®, Crestor®, etc.). Statins dominate single-agent prescribing for the treatment of lipid disorders. The niacin (nicotinic acid — vitamin B3) class includes brands such as Niaspan®, which work primarily on increasing HDL cholesterol. The fibrates class of cholesterol lowering treatments is composed of three competing molecules: gemfibrozil (Lopid®), bezafibrate (Bezalip SR), and fenofibrate (Lipidil® in Canada or Tricor® in the U.S.). Clinical studies have demonstrated that bezafibrate, the active ingredient in Bezalip SR was shown to be very effective in lowering high levels of triglycerides, raising HDL cholesterol and lowering LDL cholesterol. As of the end of 2014, management estimates the annual fibrate market in Canada to be approximately $37 million.

Soriatane®

Soriatane (acitretin) is chemically known as acitretin, and is indicated for the treatment of severe psoriasis (including erythrodermic and pustular types) and other disorders of keratinization. Soriatane is a retinoid, an aromatic analog of vitamin A.

Soriatane was approved in Canada in 1994 and is the first and only oral retinoid indicated for psoriasis. Soriatane is often used when milder forms of psoriasis treatments like topical steroids, emollients and topical tar-based therapies have failed.

Soriatane should be reserved for patients unresponsive to, or intolerant of standard treatment. In addition, Soriatane should only be prescribed by physicians knowledgeable in the use of systemic retinoids. Soriatane is teratogenic (can cause birth defects) and should not be used by women who are pregnant or who are planning to become pregnant during, or within three years after stopping, treatment of Soriatane.

Psoriasis Treatment Options: There are a number of different treatment options for psoriasis. Typically, topical agents are used for mild disease, phototherapy for moderate disease and oral systemic agents and biologicals for more severe disease.

The three main traditional systemic treatments are methotrexate, cyclosporine and retinoids. Unlike Soriatane, methotrexate and cyclosporine are immunosuppressant drugs. Methotrexate may cause a decrease in the number of blood cells made by bone marrow, may cause liver damage, lung damage, damage to the lining of the mouth, stomach or intestines and may increase the risk of developing lymphoma (cancer that begins in the cells of the immune system), among other serious side effects. Methotrexate may also cause serious or life-threatening skin reactions. Cyclosporines may cause side effects that could be very serious, such as high blood pressure and kidney and liver problems. It may also reduce the body’s ability to fight infections.

Competitive Analysis: Severe psoriasis is a condition that involves more than 10% of the body area or is physically, occupationally or psychologically disabling. Soriatane will typically be used in combination with other drugs such as topical steroids, emollients or tar-based therapies. Soriatane is most effective for treating psoriasis when it is used with phototherapy. Soriatane is sometimes used with biologic agents such as etanercept (Enbrel®), adalimumab (Humira®) or infliximab (Remicade®) and may also be prescribed in rotation with cyclosporine or methotrexate. Biologic therapies such as Enbrel® Humira® and Remicade® are effective in treating severe forms of the disease, but are very expensive and sometimes not reimbursed by government or other private drug plans. Cyclosporine and methotrexate are also oral agents that are often used for severe forms of psoriasis. The market for moderate to severe psoriasis in Canada is estimated by management to be greater than $200 million for 2014.

Collatamp G

Tribute acquired the exclusive Canadian licensing rights for Collatamp G (restorable gentamicin-collagen haemostat) from Theramed Corporation in June 2012. EUSA Pharma (“EUSA”) owns the worldwide rights (except U.S.) to Collatamp G for the implant indication and licensed the product to Theramed in 2008. Collatamp G, approved by Health Canada on August 1, 2007 and launched in Canada in 2008, is a fully resorbable gentamicin-collagen haemostat, used as a surgical implant for haemostasis and local delivery of high doses of gentamicin. The market in which Collatamp G competes in Canada is estimated at $20 million based on best estimates from management.

Collatamp G is indicated for the local haemostasis of capillary, parenchymatous and seeping haemorrhages in areas with a high risk of infection and has been shown to reduce post-operative infections across a range of surgical disciplines, including a reduction of 53% in a large randomized controlled study in cardiac surgery. Based on internal data, Collatamp G is currently used in over 100 hospitals and surgical centers across Canada and is approved or used in over 50 countries throughout the world.

Table of Contents

Collatamp G contains gentamicin sulphate at a locally effective dose and has been shown to be efficacious in the treatment and prevention of post-operative acquired infection across many surgical interventions including: cardiac surgery, gastro-intestinal surgery, vascular surgery and orthopaedic surgery.

Collatamp G is a unique product within the surgical field as it is the only product in Canada that combines a hemostatic device with a locally acting antibiotic.

Competitive Analysis: There are a number of haemostatic agents on the market in Canada and gentamycin is available as an intravenous drug but Collatamp G is unique in that it combines a haemostat with the antibiotic gentamycin in a topical, collagen matrix.

NeoVisc and NeoVisc Single Dose

NeoVisc is a proprietary product developed by Tribute and is used for the temporary replacement of synovial fluid in osteoarthritic joints. It is available as a triple-dosed, 2 mL pre-filled syringe of sterile 1.0% sodium hyaluronate solution and a single dose 6 mL pre-filled syringe of sterile 1.0% sodium hyaluronate solution. NeoVisc is classified in Canada by the Therapeutic Products Directorate (“TPD”) as a “medical device” under the Medical Devices Regulations of the Food and Drugs Act (Canada). NeoVisc is administered by intra-articular injection, by injecting the product directly into the affected joint and may be administered either as a single 6 mL injection or three 2 mL injections given over a two week period. Injections are typically repeated every six to eight months thereafter and dependent on the patient’s response. The market for NeoVisc® in Canada is estimated at $25 million based on management estimates.

This type of treatment, referred to as viscosupplementation, is a well-established treatment for OA of the knee, having gained Canadian approval in 1992 and United States approval in 1997. Viscosupplementation has also been used since the mid-1980s in many European markets. Replacing or supplementing the joint fluid provides symptomatic relief from the pain of OA of the knee for up to 4 to 12 months before repeated injections are required. In late 2003, the first single dose product was launched in Canada and by 2009 there were four single dose therapies available in the Canadian market, including NeoVisc single dose. Single dose products like NeoVisc offer convenience of a single injection but the clinical effect typically is shorter in duration than the triple dose administration.

Osteoarthritis and Treatment Options: OA is the most common form of chronic arthritis worldwide and is a key cause of pain and disability in older adults. According to the Arthritis Society of Canada, OA affects about 10% of the adult population. OA of the knee, about twice as common as OA of the hip, is becoming an increasingly prevalent condition with the aging population. OA risk factors include injury, prior joint inflammation, abnormalities of joint shape, and obesity. OA is a degenerative and sometimes painful disease that is associated with long term wear on weight-bearing joints. The market for OA is expected to grow significantly in future years as the average age of the population increases.

Current OA strategies and treatment goals include:

1. patient education;

2. physical therapy;

3. OTC analgesics;

4. NSAID, such as diclofenac and COX2 inhibitors such as Celebrex;

5. intra-articular viscosupplements, such as NeoVisc;

6. intra-articular steroids — corticosteroids are also used to treat inflammation associated with OA;

7. opioids; and

8. joint replacement — surgical replacement with artificial joints.

Products such as NeoVisc provide a non-pharmacological option in obtaining symptomatic improvements by supplementing the synovial fluid in the affected joint. NeoVisc can also be used in conjunction with other treatment strategies like physical therapy, OTC medications and NSAIDs, and as a result may reduce the amount of medication required and potentially delay joint replacement.

Competitive Analysis: There are a number of competitive viscosupplements to NeoVisc in Canada for both NeoVisc and NeoVisc Single Dose, including Sanofi’s products Synvisc® and Synvisc® One. The competitive landscape in the United States and other international markets is now very similar to the Canadian market. NeoVisc is an effective, technically engineered, highly purified, high molecular weight linear format, free of any avian peptides and available in a single or triple dose presentation. Furthermore, NeoVisc is the only marketed viscosupplement manufactured and packaged in Canada and marketed by a Canadian company.

Table of Contents

Uracyst (Uropol)

Uracyst, developed by Tribute, is used in the treatment of certain forms of interstitial cystitis (“IC”) and non-common cystitis. Uracyst is a sterile 2.0% sodium chondroitin sulfate solution available in a 20 mL vial. This product is instilled by catheter directly into a patient’s bladder. Management is unaware of any reliable global market estimates of the IC market, but based on U.S. data, it has estimated that the global market is valued between $300 - $400 million. One of the difficulties in estimating the market size is the number of products used off-label as part of a multi-modal approach to the treatment of IC.

Uracyst provides symptomatic relief for patients suffering from GAG deficient cystitis such as IC and non-common cystitis (including radiation-induced cystitis and hemorrhagic cystitis) by supplementing and replenishing deficiencies in the glycosaminoglycan lining of the bladder wall. This GAG lining acts as a protective barrier between urine and the bladder wall. It protects the bladder wall against irritants and toxins (e.g., micro crystals, carcinogens and acid) in the urine and serves as an important defense mechanism against bacterial adherence. Many researchers believe that a large number of IC patients (over 70%) have “leaky” or deficient GAG layers in their bladder.

Uracyst is typically instilled weekly for six weeks, then once a month until symptoms resolve. Because these types of cystitis are typically chronic diseases of no known cause, patients will usually require re-treatment after a variable period of time when symptoms recur.

Tribute has been issued patents in the United States, Europe, China, Japan, Australia and Canada for the use of Uracyst treatments and has international patents pending. Uracyst is classified in Canada by TPD as a medical device under the Medical Devices Regulations of the Food and Drugs Act (Canada).

Interstitial Cystitis and Treatment Options: IC is a chronic inflammation of the bladder wall and is often associated with painful symptoms of the lower abdomen. Unlike common cystitis, IC is not caused by bacteria and does not respond to conventional antibiotic therapy. IC can affect people of any age, race or sex, but is more frequently diagnosed in women.

IC causes some or all of the following symptoms:

· Frequency: Day and/or night frequency of urination (up to 60 times a day in severe cases). In early or very mild cases, frequency is sometimes the only symptom;

· Urgency: Pain, pressure or spasms may also accompany the sensation of having to urinate immediately;

· Pain: Can be abdominal, urethral or vaginal. Pain is also frequently associated with sexual intercourse; and

· Other: Some patients also report experiencing symptoms such as muscle and joint pain, migraines, allergic reactions, colon and stomach problems, as well as the more common symptoms of IC described above.

At present, there is neither a cure for IC nor is there an effective treatment which works for everyone. The following treatments have been used to relieve the symptoms of IC in some people: (i) diet, (ii) bladder distention, (iii) instilled dimethyl sulfoxide (“DMSO”), heparin or hyaluronic acid, (iv) anti-inflammatory drugs, (v) antispasmodic drugs, (vi) antihistamines and (vii) muscle relaxants.

In severe cases, several types of surgery have been performed including bladder augmentation and urinary diversion. Products available for treating IC vary in their effectiveness. Most work for short periods of time and generally, are effective in about 30% to 40% of patients. Some therapies can take up to six months of active treatment before patients start to show symptomatic improvement.

Competitive Analysis: The treatment of IC is a relatively small niche market. Because of low efficacy rates and relatively expensive treatment costs for competitive products, management believes the treatment of IC remains an unsatisfied market with no dominant competitive product. Ortho McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. a competitor in the IC market has marketed Elmiron® (pentosan polysulfate sodium) in Canada since 1993. Elmiron is used as an oral GAG replenishment therapy. Side effects reported from the use of Elmiron include hair loss, diarrhea and mild to extreme gastrointestinal discomfort.

Fiorinal/Fiorinal C

Fiorinal and Fiorinal C (ASA, caffeine and butalbital tablets and capsules; ASA, caffeine, butalbital and codeine capsules) were acquired from Novartis in October 2014. Fiorinal and Fiorinal C were originally approved by Health Canada in 1970 for the relief of tension-type headache. The market for prescription tension-type headache products in Canada is estimated by management to be $30-40 million annually.

Fiorinal is a fixed dose combination drug which combines the analgesic properties of ASA, with the anxiolytic and muscle relaxant properties of butalbital, and the central nervous system stimulant properties of caffeine. Fiorinal C expands on the properties of Fiorinal with the additional analgesic effect of codeine. Fiorinal and Fiorinal C are the only prescription products indicated for relief of tension type headaches. Fiorinal and Fiorinal C are currently marketed in hard gelatin capsules

Table of Contents

containing 330mg ASA, 40mg caffeine, 50mg butalbital, and in the case of Fiorinal C, the addition or 15mg or 30mg of codeine. Codeine and butalbital are both habit-forming and potentially abusable. Consequently, the extended use of Fiorinal or Fiorinal C is not recommended. Fiorinal and Fiorinal C are associated with exacerbation of headache (medication overuse headaches) in susceptible patients. Repeated use of Fiorinal and Fiorinal C can lead to “rebound” headaches as each dose wears off. With repeated doses physical and psychological dependence can develop. In addition to dependence, butalbital-containing products can lead to tolerance, and at higher doses can produce withdrawal symptoms after discontinuation.

Tension-Type Headache in Canada: The annual prescription tension-type headache market in Canada is valued at approximately $30 to $40 million. Tension-type headaches are the most common type of headache and are caused by muscle tightening in the back of the neck or scalp. These headaches are typically triggered by emotional stress, fatigue or depression. There are two classifications of tension-type headache; episodic tension headaches, which occur randomly and less frequently; and, chronic tension headaches, which may occur daily or continually and the intensity of the pain may vary during a 24-hour cycle. Tension headaches differ from migraine headaches due to the lack of aura, photophobia, phonophobia and/or nausea.

Competitive Analysis: Tension-type headache may be treated with OTC NSAIDs like Tylenol®, Advil®, Aleve®, or Aspirin®. Prescription NSAIDs may also be used, such as Naprosyn®, Anaprox®, Toradol®, as well as prescription analgesic/opiate combinations like Percocet®, Tylenol with codeine, and Fiorinal/Fiorinal C. In spite of a number of possible treatment options for treating tension-type headaches, all of these treatments are without a formal indication from Health Canada. Tribute considers the competitive market as the prescription NSAID and prescription analgesic/opiate combination class, which has an estimated tension-type headache value of $30-40 million annually in Canada. The OTC market for tension-type headache is estimated to be exponentially larger given the large patient population, however the true value is extremely difficult to determine considering the broad range of indications OTC NSAIDs are used for.

Visken/Viskazide

Visken and Viskazide (pindolol tablets; pindolol and hydrochlorothiazide fixed dose combination tablets) were acquired from Novartis in October 2014. Visken and Viskazide were originally approved by Health Canada in 1978 and 1983, respectively. Visken is indicated for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension (high blood pressure) as well as the prophylaxis (prevention) of angina pectoris. Viskazide is indicated for the maintenance therapy of patients with hypertension who require pindolol and hydrochlorothiazide in the dosage and ratios present in Viskazide®. Both products are considered beta-blockers. According to IMS Health, an audited third party provider of sales data, the market for beta-blockers in Canada is approximately $135 million annually.

Visken (pindolol) is a beta-adrenergic-receptor-blocking agent which possesses partial agonist activity (intrinsic sympathomimetic activity - I.S.A.). Visken is usually used in combination with other drugs, particularly a thiazide diuretic. However, it may be used alone as an initial agent in those patients in whom, in the judgment of the physician, treatment should be started with a beta-blocker rather than a diuretic. The mechanism of the antihypertensive effect of Visken has not been established. Among the factors that may be involved are: a) competitive ability to antagonize catecholamine-induced tachycardia at the beta-receptor sites in the heart, thus decreasing cardiac output; b) a reduction in total peripheral resistance; c) inhibition of the vasomotor centres; and, d) inhibition of renin release by the kidneys. The mechanism of the antianginal effect of Visken has not been established. Visken may reduce the oxygen requirement of the heart at any level of effort by blocking catecholamine induced increases in the heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and the velocity and extent of myocardial contraction. However, oxygen requirements may be increased by such actions as increases in left ventricular fibre length, end diastolic pressure and the systolic ejection period. When the net effect is beneficial in patients with angina, it manifests itself during exercise or stress by delaying the onset of pain and reducing the incidence and severity of anginal attacks.

Viskazide combines the antihypertensive activity of two agents: a beta-adrenergic receptor-blocking agent (pindolol) and a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide). Hydrochlorothiazide increases excretion of sodium and chloride in approximately equivalent amounts, and may cause a simultaneous, usually minimal, loss of bicarbonate. Natriuresis is usually accompanied by some loss of potassium. The mechanism of the antihypertensive effect of thiazides may be related to the excretion and redistribution of body sodium. Hydrochlorothiazide usually does not decrease normal blood pressure. The combination of pindolol with thiazide-like diuretics has been shown to be compatible and generally more effective than either of the drugs used alone in reducing elevated blood pressure. Special caution should be exercised when administering Visken or Viskazide to patients with a history of heart failure. Patients with angina should be warned against abrupt discontinuation of Visken or Viskazide. There have been reports of severe exacerbation of angina, and of myocardial infarction or ventricular arrhythmias occurring in patients with angina pectoris, following abrupt discontinuation of beta-blocker therapy. Various skin rashes and conjunctival xerosis have been reported with beta-blockers, including Visken and Viskazide. Sinus bradycardia may occur with the use of Visken due to unopposed vagal activity remaining after blockade of Beta 1-adrenergic receptors.

Hypertension and Beta-Blockers in Canada: The annual prescription beta-blocker market in Canada is valued at approximately $135 million. According to CHEP (Canadian Hypertension Education Program) more than one in five adult Canadians has hypertension and

Table of Contents

the lifetime risk of developing hypertension is approximately 90%. CHEP also states that over 90% of Canadians with hypertension have additional cardiovascular risk factors, including an unhealthy diet, high dietary sodium intake, tobacco use, physical inactivity, abdominal obesity, dyslipidemia, and dysglycemia. Blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors can be improved by following a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, moderating alcohol consumption, reducing dietary sodium, avoiding tobacco exposure and managing high stress levels. Most people with hypertension require lifestyle changes and pharmacotherapy to achieve recommended blood pressure targets. Diuretics like hydrochlorothiazide are often required for “resistant” hypertension.

Competitive Analysis: Hypertension is typically treated with a variety of therapeutic agents including diuretics, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors). CHEP guidelines recommend initial monotherapy with one of the agents listed above. If blood pressure targets are not achieved with monotherapy, then polytherapy utilizing a combination of the agents listed above is recommended. Other products in the beta-blocker class include; propranolol (Inderal® - Pfizer/Wyeth), metoprolol (Lopressor® - Novartis), carvedilol (Coreg® - GSK), labetalol (Trandate® - Paladin Labs (ENDO International plc)), timolol (Blocadren® - Merck), bisoprolol (Monocor® - Biovail/Valeant) and the recently launched nebivolol (Bystolic® - Actavis/Forest). Tribute considers the competitive market as the beta-blocker and beta-blocker diuretic fixed dose combination class, which has an estimated value of $135 million annually in Canada.

Fibricor

Fibricor (fenofibric acid tablets) U.S. rights were acquired from a wholly owned step down subsidiary of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. in May 2015. Fibricor was originally approved by the FDA in 2009 and was subsequently launched by Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. Fibricor is indicated as adjunctive therapy to diet for treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia (TG > 500 mg/dL) and as adjunctive therapy to diet to reduce elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (Total-C), triglycerides (TG), and apolipoprotein B (Apo B), and to increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia.

Fibricor is a unique and patent protected fenofibric acid formulation that competes in the ~US$2.5 billion triglyceride lowering medication market. Fibricor contains the lowest dose of fenofibric acid or fenofibrate available in the U.S., consisting of 105mg and 35mg tablet presentations. The product is protected by four patents extending out to August 20, 2027.

The MFI Products

Durela (tramadol HCI extended release capsules) is indicated for the management of moderate to moderately severe pain in adults who require continuous treatment for several days or more. Durela is available in a unique, patent protected formulation, consisting of an immediate release tablet, encapsulated with controlled release beads, providing for a unique drug release profile and once a day dosing. MFI licensed Durela from Cipher Pharmaceuticals Inc. in September 2011 and has marketed the product in Canada since 2012.

Proferrin is a unique heme iron polypeptide formulated in a tablet. Heme is a naturally sourced form of iron derived from bovine hemoglobin and is used to prevent and treat those at risk of iron deficiency. Each Proferrin tablet contains the equivalent of 11mg of elemental iron. Proferrin has a unique mechanism of action which results in optimal iron uptake, minimal side effects and equal efficacy with or without food. MFI originally licensed Proferrin from Colorado Biolabs, Inc. in December 2006.

Resultz (50% isopropyl myristate topical solution) is indicated for the treatment of head lice infestations in individuals two years and older. Resultz is a unique, non-toxic/pesticide free, patent protected, topical solution which is available without a prescription in pharmacies across Canada. MFI assumed the Canadian license to Resultz from Piedmont Pharmaceuticals LLC in August 2012.

The Balanse portfolio consists of probiotic combinations formulated in capsules or chewable tablets, used in the daily maintenance of a healthy and normal functioning digestive system.

Iberogast was originally launched by MFI in 2006. Iberogast is distributed by MFI in Canada under an exclusive license from Steigerwald Arzneimittelwerk GmbH, which was subsequently acquired by Bayer in 2013. Iberogast has been available in Europe since 1960, and plays a leading role in the treatment of irritable stomach and irritable bowel syndrome.

Pegalax was launched by MFI in 2009 and is indicated for the relief of occasional constipation and is available as a powder for solution in 17g single use sachets. The main active ingredient in Pegalax is polyethylene glycol 3350. Polyethylene glycol 3350 is in a class of medications called osmotic laxatives.

Purfem was launched by MFI in 2010 under an exclusive license from Bifodan A/S. Purfem is a vaginal suppository ovule which contains two probiotic ingredients. Purfem is indicated for preventing and treating vaginal itching, burning, dryness, odor and discharge caused by an imbalance of the vaginal microbial flora. Purfem is a unique product which competes in the vaginal fungicide market. As a probiotic, Purfem is the only product in this category which does not contain a fungicide such as

Table of Contents

clotrimazole, miconazole, terconazole or nystatin. Purfem provides women with a unique, non-pharmacological, treatment option for bacterial vaginosis and yeast infections.

Mutaflor was launched by MFI in 2010 under an exclusive Canada and US license from Pharma Zentrale GmbH. Mutaflor is indicated for patients who need to normalize stool frequency and consistency in diarrhea and constipation. Furthermore, it is for patients who experience abdominal cramps and pain. Mutaflor has been shown to be effective in patients with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, pouchitis, collagenous colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic constipation, diverticulitis and many other related disorders through over 80 years of clinical experience. The key active ingredient in Mutaflor is the probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917, formulated into EC capsules for oral administration. Mutaflor is used as an adjunct to existing treatments for all of the above mentioned GI and lower abdominal disorders.

Diaflor was recently launched in the second quarter of 2015, was licensed from Cerbios-Pharma SA helps to reduce the duration of diarrhea in adults over the age of 18. Diaflor antagonizes enteric pathogens through biological competition, acidification of the gut environment, production of biologically active substances and modulation of the immune system to reduce the duration and severity of diarrhea, prevents the depletion of intestinal flora during antibiotic therapy and reconstitutes intestinal flora (“good bacteria”). Diaflor has a fast onset of action and significantly shortens the duration and severity of diarrhea, rapid elimination of diarrhea and related clinical disturbances and complete improvement and recovery faster in patients treated with Diaflor versus placebo.

Onypen was launched by MFI in 2011 under an exclusive license from YouMedical B.V. in the Netherlands. Onypen is a non-pharmacologic treatment for onychomycosis or nail fungal infections.

Moviprep, launched in Canada in 2011, is distributed under license from Norgine B.V. from the Netherlands. Moviprep is a gastrointestinal lavage used as a bowel cleanser prior to colonoscopy in adults over 18 years of age. The key active ingredient in Movi-Prep is Polyethylene Glycol 3350 (PEG 3350). The clinical efficacy derives from the osmotic action of PEG 3350, sodium sulphate, ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate acting in concert. Due to the sequestration of water by PEG 3350, these ingredients exert a synergistic action, increasing the final osmolality to levels greater than would be theoretically calculated from the individual components.

Normacol is distributed under license from Norgine B.V. from the Netherlands. Normacol is a natural source fibre brand for the gentle relief of occasional constipation. The product is approved as an NPN in Canada and is available over the counter. Normacol would compete with other natural source fibre brands.

Product Development Strategy

Tribute is an specialty pharmaceutical company with a primary focus on the acquisition, licensing, development and promotion of healthcare products in Canada and the United States. In addition to growing the business in Canada, Tribute is also building revenues through out-licensing its current products to international markets, the cost of such activities is borne directly by the customers.

Tribute’s future product development efforts will be focused initially on developing strategic partners to assist Tribute in gaining regulatory approval in the U.S. and other key international markets for NeoVisc and Uracyst.

Tribute obtained FDA clearance for an investigational new drug related to Bezalip SR in October 2013. The fibrate and prescription fish oil market alone is estimated at approximately $2.5 billion annually in the U.S. and Tribute will explore all possibilities to obtain a market authorization for Bezalip SR in the U.S. including, but not limited to, identifying a development and commercialization partner for Bezalip SR. In March 2014, Tribute entered into an agreement with JSB-Partners (“JSB”), a global life sciences advisor, to support Tribute in finding a co-development and commercial partner for Tribute’s Bezalip SR (bezafibrate) in the U.S.

Sales and Marketing

Tribute’s sales and marketing strategy is focused on the organic growth of existing marketed products through several key activities. First, Tribute’s sales force ensures that it targets known prescribers of its medications or medications that compete with its products. Tribute creates demand by providing customers with reliable and trustworthy information from credible sources and by coordinating and facilitating continuing health education events in targeted areas. Second, Tribute supports its products by providing physicians and other healthcare practitioners with quality patient care materials. And third, Tribute ensures that its products are easy to purchase through all major wholesalers and distributors in Canada and manages its supply chain efficiently to ensure that it can meet demand.

Tribute considers its sales force to be very experienced and well trained. All of Tribute’s representatives have experience from other pharmaceutical companies including many of the largest companies in the industry. Additionally, Tribute offers its representatives a competitive incentive plan based on the achievement of results.

Table of Contents

Manufacturing

Tribute currently outsources the manufacturing of its proprietary products to pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities operated by third party contractors. These facilities are in compliance with applicable Health Canada, TPD division medical device guidelines and cGMP regulations. Tribute believes these facilities have sufficient excess capacity at present to meet Tribute’s short and long term objectives. A significant interruption in the supply of any of Tribute’s products could impair the successful marketing of such products.

Tribute’s licensed products are manufactured by authorized, third-party, contract manufacturing organizations in various places throughout the world. Tribute’s manufacturers are all cGMP compliant and approved fabricators of pharmaceutical products according to Health Canada.

The manufacture of Tribute’s products involves the handling and use of substances that are subject to various environmental laws and regulations that impose limitations on the discharge of pollutants into the soil, air and water, and establish standards for their storage and disposal. Tribute believes that the manufacturers of its products are in material compliance with such environmental laws and regulations.

The sale and use of Tribute’s products entails risk of product liability and Tribute presently carries product liability insurance. There can be no assurance that, despite testing by Tribute, as well as testing by regulatory agencies, defects will not be found in new products after commencement of commercial shipments. The occurrence of such defects could result in the loss of, or delay in, market acceptance of Tribute’s products, which could have a material adverse effect on Tribute. Furthermore, litigation, regardless of its outcome, could result in substantial costs to Tribute, divert management’s attention and resources from Tribute’s operations, and result in negative publicity that might impair Tribute’s on-going marketing efforts.

Tribute is responsible for secondary packaging of its proprietary products at its London, Ontario facility. Tribute’s licensed products are packaged by its third party contract manufactures.

Tribute’s products are distributed in Canada by a third-party logistics provider, which provides warehousing, distribution, customer service and accounts receivable directly to Tribute.

Tribute, as a common practice for all of its products, maintains several months of inventory (including raw materials and finished goods) at any given time to mitigate against any risks of potential manufacturing disruptions. Tribute did not experience any product disruptions of any significance in 2014.

The Industry

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and is characterized by rapidly changing technology. Tribute believes that competition in its markets is based on, among other things, product safety, efficacy, convenience of dosing, reliability, availability and price. The market is dominated by a small number of highly-concentrated global competitors, many of which boast substantially greater resources than Tribute. Given the size and scope of the competition, there can be no assurance that Tribute will maintain or grow its current market position in its therapeutic areas, or that developments by others will not render Tribute’s products or technologies non-competitive or obsolete. Also, many current and potential competitors of Tribute may have greater name and brand recognition, or may enjoy more extensive customer relationships that could be leveraged to gain market share to Tribute’s detriment. Tribute is unaware of any competitors who may be able to complete the regulatory approval process more rapidly than Tribute and therefore may achieve market entry ahead of Tribute’s products.

In order to maintain and improve its position in the industry, Tribute is dedicated to enhancing its current products, developing or acquiring new products and product extensions, and implementing a comprehensive domestic and international sales and distribution marketing strategy. If Tribute is not able to compete effectively against current and future competitors, such failure may result in fewer customer orders, reduced gross margins and profitability and loss of market share, any of which would materially adversely affect Tribute.

Competition

Tribute faces product competition from companies marketing competing pharmaceutical products and medical devices in Canada and potentially on new products that could be launched in the future. The introduction of generic products of Tribute’s products as well as lower priced, similar competing products could have a profound impact on Tribute’s existing business.

See also “Item 1. Business — Products” in Tribute’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014, filed with the SEC on March 3, 2015, for a discussion of the other products that specifically compete with Tribute’s products.

Table of Contents

Competitive Strengths

Management believes that Tribute maintains a high level of competitive advantage within its chosen therapeutic areas over other Canadian companies or multi-national subsidiaries seeking to license or acquire products in Canada. These include:

· a well trained and skilled sales force and employees;

· expertise in marketing new and existing products;

· its ability to obtain regulatory approvals for new and existing products in Canada and abroad;

· expertise in business development including sourcing, evaluation, negotiation and ability to complete business transactions to acquire or license new products for Canada;

· the ability to offer cost-effective pricing while maintaining acceptable gross profit margins with many of its products;

· the implementation and development of lifecycle management strategies;

· clear and defendable patents for certain of its products; and

· the ability to obtain reasonable reimbursement and good pricing in Canada.

REGULATORY, QUALITY ASSURANCES, SAFETY AND MEDICAL INFORMATION

Tribute currently utilizes a combination of internal and outsourced resources to address all of its quality assurance, regulatory affairs, pharmacovigilance and medical information needs. Tribute’s London, Ontario facility maintains a Health Canada Drug Establishment License and is ISO 13485 approved. Tribute is compliant with all regulatory guidelines and reporting obligations as of the issuance of this report.

Canadian Regulatory Overview

The TPD is the Canadian federal authority that regulates, evaluates and monitors the safety, effectiveness, and quality of drugs, medical devices, biologics and other therapeutic products available to Canadians. The TPD is part of Health Canada. The TPD’s regulatory process for review, approval and regulatory oversight of products is similar to the regulatory process conducted by the FDA in the United States, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) in the EU, and other regulatory agencies around the world.

Prior to being given market authorization for a product, a manufacturer must present substantive scientific evidence of a product’s safety, efficacy and quality as required by the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and associated regulations. This information is submitted in the form of a New Drug Submission (“NDS”) in Canada.

The TPD performs a thorough review of the submitted information, sometimes using external consultants and advisory committees, to evaluate the potential benefits and risks of a drug. If, at the completion of the review, the conclusion is that the patient benefits outweigh the risks associated with the drug, the drug is issued a Notice of Compliance (“NOC”) and a Drug Identification Number (“DIN”), which permits the manufacturer to market the drug in Canada.

Currently, the process for the review of a drug typically takes an average of one to two years from the time that a manufacturer submits an NDS until the TPD approves a drug. The average time to approval varies but on average takes about 15 to 18 months.

All establishments engaged in the fabrication, packaging/labeling, importation, distribution, wholesale and operation of a testing laboratory relating to drugs are required to hold a Drug Establishment License unless expressly exempted under the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and associated regulations. The basis for the issuance of a Drug Establishment License is compliance with cGMP as determined by inspection. Foreign sites whose products are being imported into Canada are also required to demonstrate cGMP compliance.

Regulatory obligations and oversight continue following the initial market approval. The manufacturer must report any new information received concerning serious side effects, including the failure of a drug to produce the desired effect. The manufacturer must also notify the TPD of any new safety issues that it becomes aware of after the launch of a product.

Canadian Reimbursement Overview

After regulatory approval is received for a prescription drug, it can be sold to the public in accordance with prescription pharmaceutical regulations. Revenues are generated from prescription drug sales in Canada through one of three sources:

· Cash: Patients will pay “out of pocket” at their sole expense. It is estimated that 10% of all prescription dollars spent in Canada come from cash purchases.

· Private Insurance: Approximately 45% of prescription dollars spent in Canada are reimbursed via third-party private insurers, under plans generally provided by patients’ employers. Patients may be reimbursed a percentage of the cost of covered drugs

Table of Contents

minus deductibles or co-pays. The availability for reimbursement of drugs varies according to the type of reimbursement plan designed by the insurance company. There are a number of private insurers operating in Canada that provide employee plans to private and public sector employers.

· Government Drug Plans: Government drug plans cover the cost of nearly 45% of prescription dollars spent in Canada, and generally serve patients over the age of 65 or patients for whom the cost of medications represents a significant financial burden such as families receiving social assistance. Each provincial government pays the cost of drugs that are listed on their own provincial formulary.

After regulatory approval of a drug is granted, approval for reimbursement is typically sought from provincial governments and private insurance companies. Until provincial and private reimbursement is approved, the product is sold only via cash purchases. Decisions to list drugs for reimbursement on private and government formularies vary widely depending on the drug, indications, competitive products and price.

Hospital products or products dispensed in the hospital are treated differently in Canada. All medications taken while in a hospital are fully reimbursed by the provincial governments. If a patient leaves the hospital and is prescribed a drug to be taken at home, this prescription would be paid for either by cash, private insurance or public insurance plans.

Common Drug Review (CDR)

The CDR was implemented in 2003 to provide formulary listing recommendations for new drugs to participating publicly-funded federal, provincial and territorial drug benefit plans in Canada.

The CDR consists of:

· a systematic review of the available clinical evidence and a review of the pharmacoeconomic data for the drug; and

· a listing recommendation made by the Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee.

Based on the targeted timeframes of the CDR, a review should be completed approximately 20 to 26 weeks following receipt of a manufacturer’s submission, after which recommendations are made to participating drug plans.

At the provincial and territorial level, products are reviewed on the basis of their cost-effectiveness, comparable utility to other similar products, projected utilization and cost implications to the publicly-funded drug budget. Each submission is reviewed but there is wide variance in the formulary decisions and the time taken to make such decisions. Provinces and territories may utilize the recommendations of the CDR or perform their own analysis.

Presently, all provinces and territories except Quebec use the CDR recommendations in their assessment, but make their formulary decisions independently from the CDR. In many provinces, the formulary committee may grant “restricted or limited use approvals” for a drug as a means of regulating the size of the patient population eligible for reimbursement for the cost of the drug and by encouraging physicians to use older generation products first before prescribing newer, sometimes more costly medications.

Patent and Proprietary Protection

Tribute is able to protect its technology from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that it is covered by valid and enforceable patents or is effectively maintained as a trade secret or is protected by confidentiality agreements. Accordingly, patents or other proprietary rights are an essential element of Tribute’s business.

Tribute currently has patents issued for Uracyst that include a low dose patent in both the United States (Patent No. 6,083,933 —- issued 07/04/2000 and expiring 04/19/2019) and Canada (Patent No. 2,269,260 — issued 12/31/2002 and expiring 04/16/2019). In addition, Tribute has approved patents for its high dose product in Australia (Patent No. AU 2004212650 — issued 11/05/2009 and expiring 02/18/2024), Canada (Patent No. 2,515,512 — issued 07/10/2012 and expiring 02/18/2024), China (Patent No. ZL200480006467.1 — issued 05/26/2010 and expiring 02/18/2024), Europe (Patent No. 1,603,578 — issued 10/29/2014 and expiring 02/18/2024), the United States (Patent No. US 7,772,210 — issued 08/10/2010, Patent No. US 8,084,441 — issued 12/27/2011, Patent No. 8,334,276 — issued 12/18/2012, and Patent No. 8,778,908 — issued 07/15/2014, each expiring 02/19/2023), and Japan (Patent JP 4,778,888 — issued 07/08/2011 and expiring 02/18/2024). Jurisdictions with patents pending related to the high dose Uracyst include: India, and Israel. Uracyst is classified as a medical device in all countries in which it currently has approval.

Tribute has rights to patents on Cambia through its licensing agreement with Depomed, Inc. (previously Nautilus Neuroscience) (Patent No. 2,254,144 expiring 05/15/2017) and there is also one patent pending for Cambia in Canada.

Table of Contents

Tribute has rights to patents covering bilastine through its licensing agreement with Faes Farma SA (Patent Nos. 2,206,754 issued 01/23/2007 and expiring 06/03/2017; and 2,484,460 issued 09/29/2009 and expiring 04/19/2022).

Tribute has U.S. patents covering Fibricor (Patent No.7569612 issued on 08/04/2009 and expiring 08/20/2027; Patent No. 7741373 issued on 06/22/2010 and expiring 08/20/2027; Patent No. 7741374 issued on 06/22/2010 and expiring 08/20/2027; and Patent No. 7915247 issued on 03/29/2011 and expiring 08/20/2027).

Tribute has rights to a Canadian patent covering Durela through its licensing agreement with Cipher Pharmaceutical Inc. (Patent No. 2495463 issued on 07/14/2011 and expiring on 10/24/2022).

Tribute has rights to a Canadian patent covering Moviprep through its licensing agreement with Norgine B.V. (Patent No. 2502103 issued on 04/07/2009 and expiring on 10/24/2023).

Tribute has rights to Canadian patents covering Resultz and Bedbugz through its licensing agreement with Piedmont Pharmaceuticals LLC (Patent No. 2484183 issued on 06/14/2011 and expiring on 04/14/2023; and Patent Application No. 2497145 which if granted will expire on 08/27/2023).

While trade secret protection is an essential element of Tribute’s business and it has taken security measures to protect its proprietary information and trade secrets, Tribute cannot give assurance that its unpatented proprietary technology will afford it significant commercial protection. Tribute seeks to protect its trade secrets by entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, employees and consultants. Tribute’s employees and consultants also sign agreements requiring that they assign to Tribute their interests in intellectual property arising from their work for Tribute. All employees sign an agreement not to engage in any conflicting employment or activity during their employment with Tribute and not to disclose or misuse its confidential information. However, it is possible that these agreements may be breached or invalidated, and if so, there may not be an adequate corrective remedy available. Accordingly, Tribute cannot ensure that employees, consultants or third parties will not breach the confidentiality provisions in Tribute’s contracts, infringe or misappropriate Tribute’s trade secrets and other proprietary rights or that measures Tribute is taking to protect its proprietary rights will be adequate.

Where deemed appropriate, Tribute files patent applications for products or technologies which it owns or in respect of which it has acquired a license and, if necessary, then further developed to make such technologies marketable. Such applications may cover composition of matter, the production of active ingredients and their novel applications and may be filed globally or in select territories that Tribute may intend to commercialize its products. Licensed products often include rights to the intellectual property (“IP”) of the licensor.

Tribute retains independent patent counsel where appropriate. Management of Tribute believes that the use of outside patent specialists ensures prompt filing of patent applications, as well as the ability to access specialists in various areas of patents and patent law to ensure complete patent filings.

The patent position relating to medical devices and drug development is uncertain and involves many complex legal, scientific and factual questions. While Tribute intends to protect its valuable proprietary information and believes that certain of its information is novel and patentable, there can be no assurance that: (i) any patent application owned by, or licensed to, Tribute will issue to patent in all or any countries; (ii) proceedings will not be commenced seeking to challenge Tribute’s patent rights or that such challenges will not be successful; (iii) proceedings taken against a third party for infringement of patent rights will be successful; (iv) processes or products of Tribute will not infringe upon the patents of third parties; or (v) the scope of patents issued to, or licensed by, Tribute will successfully prevent third parties from developing similar and competitive products. The cost of litigation to uphold the validity and prevent infringement of the patents owned by, or licensed to, Tribute may be significant.

Issues may arise with respect to claims of others to rights in the patents or patent applications owned by or licensed to Tribute. As the industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that Tribute’s processes and products may give rise to claims that they infringe the patents of others. Actions could be brought against Tribute or its commercial partners claiming damages or an accounting of profits and seeking to enjoin them from clinically testing, manufacturing and marketing the affected product or process. If any such action were successful, in addition to any potential liability for damages, Tribute or its commercial partners could be required to obtain a license in order to continue to manufacture or market the affected product or use the affected process. There can be no assurance that Tribute or its commercial partners could prevail in any such action or that any license required under any such patent would be made available or, if available, would be available on acceptable terms. If no license is available, Tribute’s ability to commercialize its products may be negatively affected. There may be significant litigation in the industry regarding patents and other intellectual property rights and such litigation could consume substantial resources. If required, Tribute may seek to negotiate licenses under competitive or blocking patents, which it believes are required for it to commercialize its products.

100

Table of Contents

Although the scope of patent protection ultimately afforded by the patents and patent applications owned by or licensed to Tribute is difficult to quantify, management of Tribute believes that such patents will afford adequate protection for it to ensure exclusivity in the conduct of its business operations as described in this prospectus. Tribute also intends to rely upon trade secrets, confidential and unpatented proprietary know-how, and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain its competitive position. To protect these rights, Tribute whenever possible requires all employees and consultants to enter into confidentiality agreements with Tribute. There can be no assurance, however, that these agreements will provide meaningful protection for Tribute’s trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information in the event of any unauthorized use or disclosure. Further, in the absence of patent protection, Tribute’s business may be adversely affected by competitors who independently develop substantially equivalent or superior technology.

The existence, scope and duration of patent protection vary among Tribute’s products and among the different countries where Tribute’s products may be sold. They may also change over the course of time as patents are granted or expire, or become extended, modified or revoked.

Pricing and Reimbursement

As pressures for cost containment increase, particularly in Canada, the United States and the EU, there can be no assurance that the prices Tribute can charge for its products will be as favorable as historical pharmaceutical product prices. Reimbursement by government, private insurance organizations, and other healthcare payers has become increasingly important, as has the listing of new products on large formularies, such as those of pharmaceutical benefit providers and group buying organizations. The failure of one or more products to be included on formulary lists, or to be reimbursed by government or private insurance organizations, could have a negative impact on Tribute’s results of operation and financial condition.

Product Pricing Regulation on Certain Patented Drug Products

Patented drug products in Canada are subjected to the regulation of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (“PMPRB”). The PMPRB’s objective is to ensure that prices of patented products in Canada are not excessive. For new patented products, the price in Canada is limited to either the cost of existing drugs sold in Canada or the median of prices for the same drug sold in other specified industrial countries. For existing patented products, prices cannot increase by more than the Consumer Price Index. The PMPRB monitors compliance through a review of the average transaction price of each patented drug product as reported by Tribute over a recurring six-month reporting period.

The PMPRB does not approve prices for drug products in advance of their introduction to the market. The PMPRB provides guidelines from which companies like Tribute set their prices at the time they launch their products. All patented pharmaceutical products introduced in Canada are subject to the post-approval, post launch scrutiny of the PMPRB. Since the PMPRB does not pre-approve prices for a patented drug product in Canada, there may be risk involved in the determination of an allowable price selected for a patented drug product at the time of introduction to the market by Tribute launching such products in Canada. If the PMPRB does not agree with the pricing assumptions chosen by such company introducing a new drug product, the price chosen could be challenged by the PMPRB and, if it is determined that the price charged is excessive, the price of the product may be reduced and a fine may be levied against Tribute for any amount deemed to be in excess of the allowable price determined. Drug products that have no valid patents are not subject to review by the PMPRB.

License Agreements

On December 1, 2011, Tribute acquired 100% of the outstanding shares of Tribute Pharmaceuticals Canada Ltd. and Tribute Pharma Canada Inc. Included in this transaction were the following license agreements:

On June 30, 2008, Tribute signed a Sales, Marketing and Distribution Agreement with Actavis Group PTC ehf (“Actavis”) to perform certain sales, marketing, distribution, finance and other general management services in Canada in connection with the importation, marketing, sales and distribution of Bezalip SR and Soriatane (the “Actavis Products”). On January 1, 2010, a first amendment was signed with Actavis to grant Tribute the right and obligation to more actively market and promote the Actavis Products in Canada. On March 31, 2011, a second amendment was signed with Actavis that extended the term of the agreement, modified the terms of the agreement and increased Tribute’s responsibilities to include the day-to-day management of regulatory affairs, pharmacovigilance and medical information relating to the Actavis Products. Tribute pays Actavis a sales and distribution fee up to an annual base-line net sales forecast plus an incremental fee for incremental net sales above the base-line. Tribute agreed and fulfilled a marketing budget for the first three years of not less than $3,750,000. On May 4, 2011, Tribute signed a Product Development and Profit Share Agreement with Actavis to develop, obtain regulatory approval of and market Bezalip SR in the U.S. Tribute shall pay US$5,000,000 to Actavis within 30 days of receipt of the regulatory approval to market Bezalip SR in the U.S.

On November 9, 2010, Tribute signed a license agreement with Nautilus Neurosciences, Inc. (“Nautilus”) for the exclusive rights to develop, register, promote, manufacture, use, market, distribute and sell Cambia in Canada. On August 11, 2011, Tribute and

101

Table of Contents

Nautilus executed the first amendment to the license agreement and on September 30, 2012 executed the second amendment to the license agreement. Aggregate payments of US$1,000,000 were issued under this agreement, which included an upfront payment to Nautilus upon the execution of the agreement and an amount payable upon the first commercial sale of the product. These payments have been included in intangible assets and will be amortized over the life of the license agreement, as amended. Up to US$6,000,000 in additional one-time performance based sales milestones, based on a maximum of six different sales tiers, are payable over time, due upon achieving annual net sales ranging from US$2,500,000 to US$20,000,000 in the first year of the achievement of the applicable milestone. Royalty rates are tiered and payable at rates ranging from 22.5% to 25.0% of net sales.

Subsequent to Tribute’s acquisition of Tribute Pharmaceuticals Canada Ltd. and Tribute Pharma Canada Inc. additional license agreements, as described herein, have been executed:

On May 13, 2014, Tribute entered into an exclusive license and supply agreement with Faes Farma, S.A. (“Faes”), a Spanish pharmaceutical company, for the exclusive right to sell bilastine, a product for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria (hives) in Canada. The exclusive license is inclusive of prescription and non-prescription rights for bilastine, as well as adult and paediatric presentations in Canada. Sales of bilastine are subject to receiving regulatory approval from Health Canada. Payment for the licensing rights is based on an initial fee of €250,000 ($373,576) with the remaining milestone payments based on the achievement of specific events, including the approval of bilastine from Health Canada and net sales milestones.

On October 2, 2014, Tribute entered into an asset purchase agreement (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”) with Novartis (together with Tribute, the “Parties”) pursuant to which Tribute acquired from Novartis the Canadian rights to manufacture, market, promote, distribute and sell Fiorinal, Fiorinal C, Visken and Viskazide for the relief of pain from headache and for the treatment of cardiovascular conditions (in this paragraph defined as the “Novartis Products”), as well as certain other assets relating to the Novartis Products, including certain intellectual property, marketing authorizations and related data, medical, commercial and technical information, and the partial assignment of certain manufacturing and supply agreements and tenders with third parties (the “Acquired Assets”). Tribute also assumed certain liabilities arising out of the Acquired Assets and the Licensed Assets (as described below) after the acquisition, including product liability claims or intellectual property infringement claims by third parties relating to the sale of the Novartis Products by Tribute in Canada. In connection with the acquisition of the Acquired Assets, and pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Tribute concurrently entered into a license agreement with Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma AG and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. (the “License Agreement”, and, together with the Asset Purchase Agreement, the “Agreements”). Pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement, the Novartis entities agreed to license to Tribute certain assets relating to the Novartis Products, including certain intellectual property, marketing authorizations and related data, and medical, commercial and technical information (the “Licensed Assets”). Tribute concurrently entered into a supply agreement with Novartis Pharma AG, pursuant to which Novartis Pharma AG agreed to supply Tribute with the requirements of Novartis Products for sale for a transition period until Tribute is able to transfer the marketing authorizations to Tribute. The consideration paid for the Acquired Assets and the Licensed Assets was $32,000,000 in cash.

On May 21, 2015, Tribute Pharmaceuticals International Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tribute entered into an asset purchase agreement with Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., pursuant to which Tribute International acquired from Sun Pharma the U.S. rights to manufacture, market, promote, distribute and sell Fibricor and its related authorized generic (“AG”), as well as certain other assets relating to the Fibricor and the AG, including certain inventory, documentation, licenses, approvals, consents, franchises, authorizations, and security clearances of, to, from or with any governmental entity relating to Fibricor and the AG (that are assignable), and all intellectual property used in connection with Sun Pharma’s commercialization of Fibricor and the AG. Tribute International also agreed to assume liabilities relating to the transaction after the closing date.

Fibricor is indicated as adjunctive therapy to diet for treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia (TG > 500 mg/dL) and as adjunctive therapy to diet to reduce elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (Total-C), triglycerides (TG), and apolipoprotein B (Apo B), and to increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia.

The consideration to be paid for Fibricor and AG is US$10 million, with US$5 million paid on the closing date, US$2 million payable 180 days from the closing date, and US$3 million payable 365 days from the closing date. Tribute funded the payment due on the closing date with cash from a concurrent financing. In addition, Tribute International agreed to make certain milestone payments and royalty payments to Sun Pharma based on Tribute International’s achievement of certain net sales figures.

On June 16, 2015, Tribute entered into a share purchase agreement with the shareholders of MFI pursuant to which Tribute acquired all of the outstanding shares of MFI (the “MFI Shares”). The consideration paid for the MFI Shares was comprised of (1) Cdn$8.3 million in cash on closing, (2) Cdn$5 million through the issuance of 3,723,008 common shares of Tribute, (3) Cdn$5 million in the form of a one-year term promissory note bearing interest at 8% annually convertible in whole or in part at the holder’s option at any time during the term into 2,813,778 common shares of Tribute at a conversion rate of Cdn$1.77

102

Table of Contents

per common share (subject to adjustment in certain events), and (4) future contingent cash milestone payments totaling Cdn$6 million that will be paid upon the achievement of certain conditions, including the receipt of regulatory approval for MFI’s two pipeline products described below and certain required consents.

This acquisition diversifies Tribute’s product portfolio in Canada through the addition of 13 marketed products (Durela, Proferrin, Iberogast, Moviprep, Normacol, Resultz, Pegalax, Balanse, Balanse Kids, Balanse Diaflor, Purfem, and Onypen) and 2 pipeline products (Octasa and BedBugz, both of which are pending submission to Health Canada).

Other Laws and Regulations

Tribute’s operations are or may be subject to various federal, provincial, state and local laws, regulations and recommendations relating to the marketing of products and relationships with treating physicians, data protection, safe working conditions, laboratory and manufacturing practices, patient safety, the export of products to certain countries and the purchase, storage, movement, use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances. Although Tribute believes its safety procedures comply with the standards prescribed by federal, provincial, state and local regulations, the risk of contamination, injury or other accidental harm cannot be eliminated completely. In the event of an accident, Tribute could be held liable for any damages that result. The amount of such damages could have a materially adverse effect on Tribute’s results of operations and financial condition.

Employees

Tribute currently employs forty-nine employees including 46 full-time, one part-time and two contract employees. 33 of these employees are in sales and marketing and the remainder are in management and administration positions. Tribute may add additional staff in areas that its management may feel is necessary for the successful operation of Tribute.

Customers

During the year ended December 31, 2014, Tribute had three significant pharmaceutical wholesale customers that account for 60.1% (McKesson Pharmaceutical — 33.3%, Kohl & Frisch — 11.8% and Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. - 15.0%) of Tribute’s sales. This is normal and customary in the Canadian pharmaceutical business. These are well known and highly respected customers that have a solid track record of paying all outstanding amounts owing on time and Tribute does not anticipate that this will materially change in 2015.

103

Table of Contents

PROPERTIES

Since March 2002, our corporate facilities have been located in 17,000 square feet in the Exchange Office Building in Chapel Hill, North Carolina under a lease commencing in March 2002 and expiring in 2010. We have exercised our option to renew this lease for an additional five year and seven month term, terminating on September 30, 2015, and we have an additional option to renew the extended term for one additional three year period. We believe that the Exchange Office Building facility is adequate for our current needs and that suitable additional or alternative space will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms. On July 15, 2015, the Company signed a six-month extension to its lease, adding approximately $52,000 to its lease commitments.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On March 14, 2011, we and AstraZeneca received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Dr. Reddy’s informing us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the ‘907 patent in 2023. The ‘907 patent is assigned to POZEN and listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book. On September 19, 2011, Dr. Reddy’s amended its ANDA to include a Paragraph IV certification against the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent, which are assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates and listed in the Orange Book, with respect to VIMOVO. The patents listed in the Orange Book which are owned by AstraZeneca or its affiliates expire at various times between 2014 and 2018. AstraZeneca advised us that it elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement suit against Dr. Reddy’s. Accordingly, we and AstraZeneca filed suit against Dr. Reddy’s on April 21, 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting only the ‘907 patent against Dr. Reddy’s. An amended complaint was filed on October 28, 2011 to include the AstraZeneca patents. On December 19, 2012, the District Court conducted a pre-trial “Markman” hearing to determine claim construction. On May 1, 2012, the Court issued a Markman Order construing the claim terms disputed by the parties. On April 15, 2013 a Stipulation of Partial Dismissal was filed which sought dismissal of all infringement claims relating to the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent (each of which is assigned to AstraZeneca), as well as Dr. Reddy’s defenses and counterclaims relating to those patents. On April 18, 2013, the District Court issued a Stipulation and Order dismissing with prejudice those claims and defenses. The first Dr. Reddy’s case is considered the lead case and has been consolidated with the actions described below for the purpose of pre-trial and discovery. A scheduling order for this case, and all of the consolidated cases, was issued by the Court on June 27, 2014. Fact discovery closed in the consolidated case on November 20, 2014 and expert discovery closed on June 25, 2015. In view of the retirement of presiding Judge Pisano, on February 9, 2015, the consolidated cases were reassigned to Judge Mary L. Cooper.

On June 13, 2011, we and AstraZeneca received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Lupin informing us that Lupin had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the ‘907 patent, which is assigned to POZEN and the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, the ‘466 patent, each of which is assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire at various times between 2014 and 2023. Lupin’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable. AstraZeneca advised us that it elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement suit against Lupin and, accordingly, we and AstraZeneca filed suit against Lupin on July 25, 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On November 19, 2014, an amended complaint was filed in which the 504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent, all assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates, were not asserted against Lupin. The case is currently consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes with the first filed Dr. Reddy’s case.

104

Table of Contents

prosecute the infringement suit against Anchen and, accordingly, we and AstraZeneca filed suit against Anchen on October 28, 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On October 4, 2013, Anchen filed an amendment to its ANDA seeking to change its Paragraph IV certification to a Paragraph III. It is unclear when or if the FDA will enter Anchen’s amendment. On October 25, 2013, Anchen filed a Motion to Dismiss the case against it, based on its proposed re-certification. On November 18, 2013, we and AstraZeneca filed an Opposition to Anchen’s Motion to Dismiss. On June 11, 2014, the Court granted Anchen’s Motion and dismissed the case against them.

On November 20, 2012 we and AstraZeneca received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Dr. Reddy’s, informing us that Dr. Reddy’s had filed a second ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the ‘907 patent, which is assigned to POZEN and the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, the ‘466 patent, each of which is assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire at various times between 2014 and 2023. Dr. Reddy’s second Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable. AstraZeneca advised us that it elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement suit against Dr. Reddy’s on its second ANDA filing and, accordingly, we and AstraZeneca filed suit against Dr. Reddy’s on January 4, 2013, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On April 15, 2013 a Stipulation of Partial Dismissal was filed which sought dismissal of all infringement claims relating to the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent (which are each assigned to AstraZeneca), as well as Dr. Reddy’s defenses and counterclaims relating to those patents. On April 18, 2013, the District Court issued the Stipulation and Order dismissing with prejudice those claims and defenses. On June 28, 2013 we and AstraZeneca filed a Motion for Summary Judgment relating to the second ANDA filing asserting that U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 is not invalid. On August 12, 2013, Dr. Reddy’s filed an opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 28, 2014, the District Court denied the Motion. On October 11, 2013, Dr. Reddy’s filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the product which is the subject matter of its second ANDA does not infringe the ‘907 patent. On November 4, 2013, we and AstraZeneca filed a Motion for an Order Denying Dr. Reddy’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(d) and an Opposition to Dr. Reddy’s Motion. On May 29, 2014, the Court issued an order denying Dr. Reddy’s Motion. On July 9, 2015, Dr. Reddy’s renewed its Motion for Summary Judgment that the product which is the subject matter of its second ANDA does not infringe the ‘907 patent. This case was consolidated with the originally filed Dr. Reddy’s case and is currently consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes with the first filed Dr. Reddy’s case.

On March 29, 2013, we and AstraZeneca received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Watson Laboratories, Inc. - Florida, or Watson, now Actavis, informing us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the ‘907 patent, which is assigned to the Company and the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘424 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent, each of which is assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire at various times between 2014 and 2023. Watson’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable. AstraZeneca advised us that it elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement suit against Watson. On May 10, 2013, we and AstraZeneca filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Watson in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. The case is currently consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes with the first filed Dr. Reddy’s case.

On May 16, 2013, we and AstraZeneca received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Mylan informing us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the ‘907 patent, which is assigned to the Company and the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘424 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent, each of which is assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire at various times between 2014 and 2023. Mylan’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable. AstraZeneca advised us that it elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement suit against Mylan. On June 28, 2013, we and AstraZeneca filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Mylan in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. On February 13, 2015, the Court entered a joint stipulation of dismissal of counts related to certain patents, dismissing claims related to the ‘504 patent, the ‘085 patent, the ‘424 patent, the ‘872 patent, the ‘070 patent, and the ‘466 patent, each of which is

105

Table of Contents

assigned to AstraZeneca or its affiliates. The case is currently consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes with the first filed Dr. Reddy’s case.

On October 15, 2013, the United States Patent Office issued the ‘285 patent. The ‘285 patent, entitled “Pharmaceutical compositions for the coordinated delivery of NSAIDs” and assigned to POZEN, is related to the ‘907 patent. AstraZeneca advised us that it elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement of the ‘285 patent and, accordingly, on October 23, 2013, we, and AstraZeneca filed patent infringement lawsuits against Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Watson and Mylan in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey alleging that their ANDA products infringe the ‘285 patent. On November 8, 2013, we, and AstraZeneca filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint in the actions against Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Watson and Mylan or, in the alternative, to consolidate the actions involving the ‘285 patent with the existing consolidated action. Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Watson and Mylan have each filed answers to the respective amended complaints, thus adding claims relating to the ‘285 patent against each of the Defendants to the consolidated case.

As part of the purchase of all of AstraZeneca’s rights, title and interest to develop, commercialize and sell VIMOVO in the United States, Horizon Pharma Inc., or Horizon, has assumed AstraZeneca’s right to lead the above-described Paragraph IV litigation relating to VIMOVO currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and has assumed patent-related defense costs relating to such litigation, including reimbursement up to specified amounts of the cost of any counsel retained by us. On December 12, 2013, Horizon filed Motions to Join under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 25(c) as a co-plaintiff in each of the above referenced actions and the consolidated action. On January 31, 2014 and February 2, 2014, the Court granted Horizon’s motions.

On October 7, 2014, the United States Patent Office issued United States Patent No. 8,852,636 (the “‘636 patent”). The ‘636 patent, entitled “Pharmaceutical compositions for the coordinated delivery of NSAIDs” and assigned to POZEN, is related to the ‘907 and ‘285 patents. On October 14, 2014, the United States Patent Office issued United States Patent No. 8,858,996 (the “‘996 patent”). The ‘996 patent, entitled “Pharmaceutical compositions for the coordinated delivery of NSAIDs” and assigned to POZEN, is also related to the ‘907 and ‘285 patents. On October 21, 2014, the United States Patent Office issued United States Patent No. 8,865,190 (the “‘190 patent”) ‘190 patent”. The ‘190 patent, entitled “Pharmaceutical compositions for the coordinated delivery of NSAIDs” and assigned to POZEN, is related to the ‘907 and ‘285 patents. Horizon advised us that it elected to exercise its first right to prosecute the infringement of the ‘636, ‘996 and ‘190 patents and, accordingly, on May 13, 2015, we, and Horizon filed patent infringement lawsuits against Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Actavis and Mylan in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey alleging that their ANDA products infringe the ‘636 and ‘996 patents. On June 18, 2013, we, and Horizon filed an Amended Complaint in the actions against Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Watson and Mylan, adding the ‘190 patent to the case. The cases are in the initial phase, and no schedules have been set.

On February 24, 2015, Dr. Reddy’s filed a Petition for IPR of the ‘285 patent with the PTAB of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We and Horizon filed a Preliminary Response on July 12, 2015. The PTAB has three months in which to institute or deny the IPR proceeding. If the PTAB decides to institute the IPR proceeding, Dr. Reddy’s will have the opportunity to challenge the validity of the ‘285 patent in whole or in part before the PTAB via a patent validity trial. We and Horizon intend to defend the validity of the ‘285 patent in both the IPR and district court settings.

On May 21, 2015, the CFAD filed a Petition for IPR of the ‘907 patent with the PTAB of the USPTO. We and Horizon may file an optional Preliminary Response on September 6, 2015. Upon receipt of such a Preliminary Response, the PTAB has three months in which to institute or deny the IPR proceeding. If the PTAB decides to institute the IPR proceeding, CFAD will have the opportunity to challenge the validity of the ‘907 patent in whole or in part before the PTAB via a patent validity trial. We and Horizon intend to defend the validity of the ‘907 patent in both the IPR and district court settings.

On June 5, 2015, CFAD filed a Petition for IPR of the ’285 patent with the PTAB of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We and Horizon may file an optional Preliminary Response on September 19, 2015. Upon receipt of such a Preliminary Response, the PTAB has three months in which to institute or deny the IPR proceeding. If the PTAB decides to institute the IPR proceeding, CFAD will have the opportunity to challenge the validity of the ‘285 patent in whole or in part before the PTAB via a patent validity trial. We and Horizon intend to defend the validity of the ‘285 patent in both the IPR and district court settings.

106

Table of Contents

In Canada, on January 20, 2015, AstraZeneca Canada received a Notice of Allegation from Mylan Canada informing that Mylan Canada has filed an ANDS in Canada for approval of its naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets and alleging non-infringement of some of the claims and invalidity of the ‘098 patent. AstraZeneca Canada is the licensee pursuant to a Collaboration Agreement, and the ‘098 patent is listed in respect of AstraZeneca Canada’s VIMOVO products. A Notice of Allegation in Canada is similar to a Paragraph IV Notice Letter in the United States, and in response, we and AstraZeneca Canada commenced a proceeding in the Federal Court of Canada in relation to the ‘098 patent on March 5, 2015. The Canadian proceeding is summary in nature and expected to be completed before March 5, 2017. The current schedule as approved by the Court provides for the service of affidavit evidence of AstraZeneca Canada and POZEN by September 11, 2015 and affidavit evidence of Mylan Canada by January, 8, 2016. The parties are to complete cross-examinations on the affidavit evidence by April 29, 2016. The Written Records for the hearing are to be served by AstraZeneca and us by July 4, 2016 and by Mylan Canada by September 2, 2016. A hearing date has not yet been set; however the parties are to seek the Court’s assistance in setting a hearing date in November 2016. The proceeding will decide whether approval for Mylan Canada’s naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets will be prohibited until the expiry of the ‘098 patent because none of Mylan Canada’s allegations in respect of the ‘098 patent are justified; the proceeding will not finally decide ‘098 patent validity or infringement. The ‘098 patent expires on May 31, 2022.

On April 24, 2015, we and Horizon received a third Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Dr. Reddy’s informing us that it had amended its Paragraph IV certifications made with respect to its second ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO. Dr. Reddy’s amended certifications relate to the ‘285 patent, the ‘636 patent and the ‘996 patent which are all assigned to the Company. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire in 2022. Dr. Reddy’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable. We and Horizon are in the process of assessing the nature and merits of Dr. Reddy’s claims.

On June 1, 2015, we and Horizon received a second Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Actavis informing us that it had amended its Paragraph IV certifications made in its ANDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO. Actavis’s amended certifications relate to the ‘636, the ‘996 patents and United States Patent No. 8,945,621 (the “‘621 patent”), which are all assigned to the Company. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire in 2022 or 2031. Actavis’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable.

On July 17, 2015, we and Horizon received a second Paragraph IV Notice Letter from Lupin informing us that it had amended its Paragraph IV certifications made in its ANDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO. Lupin’s amended certifications relate to the ‘636 and ‘996 patents which are each assigned to the Company. The patents are listed with respect to VIMOVO in the Orange Book and expire in 2022 or 2031. Lupin’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter asserts that its generic product will not infringe the listed patents or that the listed patents are invalid or unenforceable. We and Horizon are in the process of assessing the nature and merits of Lupin’s claims.

As with any litigation proceeding, we cannot predict with certainty the patent infringement suit against Dr. Reddy's, Lupin, Mylan and Watson relating to a generic version of VIMOVO. We will have to incur expenses in connection with the lawsuits relating to VIMOVO, which may be substantial. In the event of an adverse outcome or outcomes, our business could be materially harmed. Moreover, responding to and defending pending litigation will result in a significant diversion of management’s attention and resources and an increase in professional fees.

107

Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT

Executive Officers and Directors

The following table sets forth names, ages and positions of the Pozen directors and executive officers as of August 1, 2015:

Name (1)	Age	Current Position

New Executive Officers:
Adrian Adams	64	Chief Executive Officer and Director
Andrew I. Koven	58	President and Chief Business Officer
Scott Charles	41	Senior Vice President, Finance
Jennifer Armstrong	45	Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Administration
Mark Glickman	50	Chief Commercial Officer
Eric L. Trachtenberg	42	Deputy General Counsel

Legacy Executive Officers:
William L. Hodges, CPA	60	Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer
John G. Fort, MD, MBA	60	Chief Medical Officer
Dennis L. McNamara	49	Senior Vice President, Chief Business Operations Officer
Gilda M. Thomas, JD	60	Senior Vice President and General Counsel

Directors:
Kenneth Lee(2)(3)	67	Director
Arthur Kirsch(2)(3)(4)	63	Director and Chairman
Seth Rudnick(2)(3)(4)	66	Director
Neal Fowler(3)(4)	53	Director

(1) Geraldine Lillis and Andrew Ryan, currently non-employee directors of Aralez, will resign upon consummation of the merger. We anticipate that, except as noted below, the new executive officers and directors shall serve in their current roles upon consummation of the merger.

(2) Member of our audit committee.

(3) Member of our compensation committee.

(4) Member of our nominating and corporate governance committee

Executive Officers

Adrian Adams has been Pozen’s Chief Executive Officer and director since June 2015. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Adams served as a consultant to Pozen from April 2, 2015 to May 31, 2015. Previously, Mr. Adams served as Chief Executive Officer and President and as a director of Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a specialty biopharmaceutical company, from December 2011 until January 2015, when it was acquired by Endo International plc. Prior to joining Auxilium, from September 2011 to November 2011, Mr. Adams served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Neurologix, Inc., a company focused on development of multiple innovative gene therapy development programs. Before Neurologix, Mr. Adams served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, from February 2010 until May 2011 when it was acquired by Merck & Co., Inc. Previously, Mr. Adams served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Sepracor Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, from March 2007 and May 2007, respectively, until February 2010 at which time Sepracor was acquired by Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. Prior to his appointment as Chief Executive Officer of Sepracor, Mr. Adams served as its Chief Operating Officer. Prior to joining Sepracor, Mr. Adams served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, from 2002 until its acquisition by Abbott Laboratories in December 2006. Mr. Adams has also held general management and senior international and national marketing positions at SmithKline Beecham, Novartis and ICI (now part of AstraZeneca). Mr. Adams has served as chairman of the board of directors of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. since February 2013 and recently served on the board of directors of Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from October 2007 to August 2012. Mr. Adams graduated from the Royal Institute of Chemistry at Salford University in the U.K. Mr. Adams serves as Chairman of the Board of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals and recently served as a director of Amylin Pharmaceuticals.

Mr. Adams has also been a director of Pozen since June 2015. Mr. Adams’ position as Chief Executive Officer of Pozen, along with his many years of service in the pharmaceutical industry in chief executive positions, enables him to provide important insights regarding the operations of Pozen and the pharmaceutical industry generally, including finance, marketing, strategic planning, and senior management personnel matters.

Andrew I. Koven has been Pozen’s President and Chief Business Officer since June 2015. Prior to joining Pozen, Mr. Koven served as Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel of Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a specialty biopharmaceutical company, from February 2012 until January 2015, when it was acquired by Endo International plc. Prior to that, from September 2011 to November 2011, Mr. Koven served as President and Chief Administrative Officer and a member of the board of directors of Neurologix, Inc., a company focused on development of multiple innovative gene therapy development programs. Before Neurologix, Mr. Koven served as Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative and Legal Officer of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a

108

Table of Contents

specialty pharmaceutical company, from July 2010 until May 2011 when it was acquired by Merck & Co., Inc. Previously, Mr. Koven served as Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Sepracor Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, from March 2007 until February 2010 when it was acquired by Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. Prior to joining Sepracor, Mr. Koven served as Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, from August 2003 until its acquisition by Abbott Laboratories in December 2006. Mr. Koven began his career in the pharmaceutical industry first as an Assistant General Counsel and then as Associate General Counsel at Warner-Lambert Company from 1993 to 2000, followed by his role as Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Lavipharm Corporation from 2000 to 2003. From 1986 to 1992 he was a corporate associate at Cahill, Gordon & Reindel in New York. From 1992 to 1993 he served as Counsel, Corporate and Investment Division, at The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U.S.

Scott Charles has been Pozen’s Senior Vice President Finance since July 2015. Mr. Charles will become Chief Financial Officer of Aralez upon consummation of the transactions. Prior to joining Pozen, Mr. Charles served as the Vice President of Finance and Treasurer at Ikaria, Inc., a critical care pharmaceutical company from April 2008 to July 2015. From April 2002 to March 2008, Mr. Charles worked at Reliant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in various finance functions, culminating with serving as the Vice President of Finance and Treasurer from April 2006 to March 2008. Prior to that, he was a Manager of Assurance and Business Advisory Services at Arthur Andersen, LLP. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from Bucknell University and is a Certified Public Accountant.

Jennifer Armstrong joined Pozen in June 2015 as Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Administration. Previously, she served as Senior Vice President of Human Resources at Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty biopharmaceutical company, from July 2009 to March 2015. Prior to that, she served at Senior Vice President of Human Resources and Corporate Communications at Genaera Corporation, a specialty biopharmaceutical company, from January 1998 to May 2009. On June 12, 2009, Genaera Corporation transferred all of its assets and liabilities to the Genaera Liquidating Trust and filed a Certificate of Dissolution with the Delaware Secretary of State pursuant to the Plan of Complete Liquidation and Dissolution adopted at a special meeting of stockholders. Ms. Armstrong holds a Masters degree in Arts Administration and a Bachelors degree in Corporate Communications, both from Drexel University.

Mark Glickman has been Chief Commercial Officer of Pozen since June 2015. Mr. Glickman previously served as Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, a specialty biopharmaceutical company, from February 2012 to February 2015. From February 2009 to February 2012, he served as Vice President in the medical device division at Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., a pharmaceutical and medical device company and a subsidiary of Otsuka America, Inc. Prior to Otsuka, Mr. Glickman served as Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Oscient Pharmaceuticals Corp., a commercial-stage pharmaceutical company, from September 2007 to September 2009. Before joining Oscient, from May 2007 to September 2007, Mr. Glickman served as Vice President of Sales at Bayer Healthcare’s Diabetes Care Division. From 2001 to 2007, he held various positions at Kos Pharmaceuticals, including Director of Marketing, Regional Sales Director and Vice President of Sales. Mr. Glickman started his pharmaceutical career at Bristol-Myers Squibb where he was responsible for the marketing of cardiovascular products, including the blockbuster Plavix. Mr. Glickman holds a Master of Business Administration degree from New York University.

Eric L. Trachtenberg joined Pozen in June 2015 as Deputy General Counsel. Mr. Trachtenberg will become General Counsel of Aralez upon consummation of the transactions. Prior to joining Pozen, Mr. Trachtenberg most recently served as Deputy General Counsel at Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty biopharmaceutical company, from May 2012 through its acquisition by Endo Pharmaceuticals in February 2015. Prior to Auxilium, he was Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Enobia Pharma, Inc., from April 2011 to April 2012, and managed all legal aspects of Enobia’s sale to Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Prior to that, Mr. Trachtenberg served as Vice President and Associate General Counsel of Sepracor Inc. and remained in that position with Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. following the acquisition of Sepracor by Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma. Mr. Trachtenberg also held a Senior Counsel position at Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. before its acquisition by Abbott. Mr. Trachtenberg began his career as an Associate at Blank Rome LLP. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Management from Tulane University and a Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration degree from Temple University.

William L. Hodges joined Pozen in August 2004 as Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Hodges began his career in the pharmaceutical industry with Burroughs Wellcome Co. in 1985. In 1991, he moved to London and worked in Group Finance for the Wellcome Foundation, Ltd. Mr. Hodges worked on mergers and acquisitions and was Regional Controller for Northern Europe and Japan. In 1993, he returned to Burroughs Wellcome in North Carolina as Director of Procurement. Mr. Hodges was Vice President, Corporate Planning and Business Support at GlaxoWellcome before being appointed acting Senior Vice President and CFO for the fifteen months leading up to the merger between GlaxoWellcome plc and SmithKline Beecham plc which was completed in December of 2000. Prior to joining Pozen, Mr. Hodges was Senior Vice President and CFO of Pergo, Inc. located in Raleigh, North Carolina. Mr. Hodges received his B.S. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is a Certified Public Accountant.

109

Table of Contents

Dennis L. McNamara has been Senior Vice President, Chief Business Operations Officer since June 2015. Previously, from January 2014 through May 2015, he was Senior Vice President and Chief Business Officer. Mr. McNamara joined Pozen in December 1998 as Vice President of Business Development. Prior to joining Pozen, Mr. McNamara held positions in business development with private and publicly-traded development stage biotechnology companies including AlphaVax, Sequana Therapeutics and Apex Bioscience, and in pharmaceutical sales with Abbott Laboratories. Before joining the pharmaceutical industry Mr. McNamara conducted receptor pharmacology research at the University of North Carolina. Mr. McNamara earned his M.B.A. from the University of Michigan and an A.B. degree from Duke University.

Gilda M. Thomas joined Pozen in January 2007 as Senior Vice President and General Counsel. Prior to joining Pozen, Ms. Thomas was Vice President, General Counsel and company secretary at EMD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany from July 2001 to December 2006. Prior to joining EMD, she spent 14 years at Burroughs Wellcome Co., which merged into Glaxo Welcome, Inc. At Glaxo Wellcome Ms. Thomas was Associate General Counsel responsible for the 13 member corporate section of the legal department. Ms. Thomas received her J.D. from Harvard Law School, a M.S. from Simmons College and a B.A. degree from Wellesley College.

John G. Fort, M.D. joined Pozen in July 2007 as Chief Medical Officer. Prior to joining Pozen, Dr. Fort was Vice President, Medical Affairs at Adolor Corporation from 2004 until 2007. Dr. Fort held positions with Pfizer Inc., including Vice President, Medical Affairs, and was Vice President, Arthritis and Pain at G.D. Searle & Co., Monsanto Corporation from September 1994 to December 2003. Prior to joining the pharmaceutical industry, he was an Associate Professor of Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University, Division of Rheumatology. Dr. Fort received his M.D. from the University of Valencia Faculty of Medicine and is board certified in internal medicine with a subspecialty certification in rheumatology.

Non-Employee Directors

Kenneth B. Lee, Jr. has been the lead independent director of Pozen since 2005. Independent consultant since June 2002 and general partner of Hatteras Venture Partners (formerly Hatteras BioCapital. LLC and BioVista Capital, LLC), the general partner of Hatteras BioCapital Fund, L.P., a venture capital fund focusing on life sciences companies, since 2003. President of A.M. Pappas & Associates, a venture capital firm, between January 2002 and June 2002. Partner of Ernst & Young LLP from 1982 through 2000. Partner of Ernst & Young Corporate Finance LLC from 2000 to 2001. Managing Director of Ernst & Young’s Health Sciences Corporate Finance Group from 2000 to 2001. Mr. Lee serves on the board of Biocryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a public company, for which he serves as chairman of the audit committee and chairman of the finance committee. He is also a director of Clinverse, Inc. and Clinipace Worldwide, two privately held companies. Previously, he served on the boards of CV Therapeutics, Inc., for which he served as lead independent director and chair of the audit committee and a member of the compensation committee, Abgenix, Inc., for which he served on the audit committee, OSI Pharmaceuticals, for which he served as a member of the audit committee, Inspire Pharmaceuticals Inc., for which he served as chairman of the board of directors, chair of the audit committee and a member of the compensation committee and finance committee, and Maxygen, Inc., for which he served as chairman of the audit committee and a member of the nominating/ governance committee and the compensation committee. Mr. Lee served as a member of the executive committee of the Board of the North Carolina Biotechnology Industry Organization and as a member of the board of Ibiliti, a nonprofit organization dedicated to building and expanding networks of resources for advanced medical technology companies.

Mr. Lee brings his extensive accounting and financial background to the Pozen Board, as well as expertise in the life sciences industry from his experience as a general partner of several venture capital funds specializing in life sciences. He has also served and is serving on the boards and audit committees of several public pharmaceutical companies similar in size to the Company, including serving as Chairman of the Board of Biocryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Mr. Lee is also a co-founder of the National Conference on Biotechnology Ventures.

Arthur S. Kirsch has been Senior Advisor, GCA Savvian, LLC (formerly Perseus Group, LLC), an investment bank, since June 2005. Mr. Kirsch is a founding member and Managing Director of Vector Securities, LLC, an investment and merchant banking firm, from 2001 to May 2005. He was a Managing Director and Head of Healthcare Research and Capital Markets of Prudential Vector Healthcare Group, a unit of Prudential Securities, Inc., a full-service brokerage firm, from 1999 to 2001. Mr. Kirsch was the Director, Equity Research of Vector Securities International, Inc., an investment banking firm, from 1995 to 1999. He currently serves as a director of PhysioSonics, Inc., a privately held company developing noninvasive neurological products.

110

Table of Contents

Mr. Kirsch has over 25 years of experience working in the equity capital markets and has extensive knowledge of the healthcare and life sciences field. Mr. Kirsch, who has spent the majority of his career in investment banking with a focus on the healthcare industry, brings both financial and industry expertise to the Board.

Seth A. Rudnick, M.D. has been venture partner and previously general partner at Canaan Partners, a venture capital firm, since 1998, from which he is now retired. Formerly, Dr. Rudnick was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of CytoTherapeutics Inc., a company developing stem cell-based therapies. He helped found and served as the Head of Research and Development for Ortho Biotech, a division of Johnson & Johnson focusing on cancer and chronic illnesses from 1991 to 1998. He currently serves on the boards of directors of the following privately held biotechnology companies: Chimerix, Inc., Meryx Pharmaceuticals, for which he serves as Chairman, Liquidia Technologies, Inc., for which he serves as Chairman, and G1 Therapeutics, for which he serves as Executive Chairman. Dr. Rudnick also serves on the Board of Square 1, a public company. Currently he is a Clinical Adjunct Professor of Medicine at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Dr. Rudnick brings deep operational experience in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries acquired through a variety of senior research and development positions in several large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies and as Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of CytoTherapeutics, Inc., Chairman of Liquidia Technologies, Inc., Executive Chairman of GI Therapeutics, and Chairman of Meryx Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Rudnick retired from Canaan Partners, a global venture capital firm with significant investments in the healthcare sector, where he served as general and now a venture partner since 1998, which has provided him with significant experience in and insight into life sciences investments.

Neal F. Fowler has been Chief Executive Officer of Liquidia Technologies, Inc., a privately held biotechnology company since 2008 and Chief Executive Officer of Envisia Technologies, a privately held biotechnology company, since 2013. Mr. Fowler was the President of Centocor, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson from 2006 to 2008. President of Ortho-McNeil Neurologics, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson from 2004 to 2006 and Franchise Vice President-CNS from 2001 to 2004. He held various positions at Eli Lilly and Company from 1988 to 2001, including Area Director, Primary Care Division, Director U.S. Cardiovascular Business Unit, Cardiovascular Product Manager, Operations Manager, Southwest Area, Manager Medical Device and Diagnostics, Associate, Marketing Plans, Endocrinology, Associate, Business Development/New Product Planning, Oncology, and Retail Sales Representative.

Mr. Fowler brings his extensive background in the pharmaceutical industry acquired through a variety of marketing and general manager positions at several large pharmaceutical companies. He is currently chief executive officer at Liquidia Technologies, Inc. and Envisia Technologies, positions which have provided him with experience in running an emerging growth company.

Our executive officers are elected by, and serve at the discretion of, our Board. There are no family relationships among any of our executive officers or directors.

Board Composition

Our Board currently consists of five members. Our certificate of incorporation provides that our Board be divided into three classes serving staggered three-year terms, as follows:

· Class I, which consists of Messrs. Fowler and Kirsch, and whose term will expire at our annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2016;

· Class II, which consists of Messrs. Lee and Adams, and whose term will expire at our annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2017; and

· Class III, which consists of Dr. Rudnick, and whose term will expire at our annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2018.

Following consummation of the transactions, our Board will be comprised of nine members, consisting of our Chief Executive Officer, five directors appointed by Pozen, two directors appointed by Tribute, and one director appointed pursuant to the terms in the merger agreement.

Director Independence

Our Board has determined that each of the members of the Board, with the exception of Mr. Adrian Adams, who serves as our Chief Executive Officer, is independent as that term is defined under the applicable independence listing standards of the NASDAQ Global Market.

111

Table of Contents

Committees of the Board

Our Board currently has three standing committees: an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee and a Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee. These committees, their principal functions and their respective memberships are described below.

Audit Committee

The current members of the Audit Committee are Mr. Kirsch, who serves as Chairman, Mr. Lee and Dr. Rudnick. Each of the members of the Audit Committee is independent as defined by the applicable NASDAQ listing standards and the SEC, rules applicable to audit committee members. Our Board has determined that each also qualifies as an audit committee financial expert as defined by the SEC.

The Audit Committee was established in accordance with section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. The Audit Committee oversees our financial reporting process and system of internal control over financial reporting, and selects and oversees the performance of, and approves in advance the services provided by, our independent auditors. The Audit Committee provides an open avenue of communication among our independent auditors, financial and senior management and the Board. The Audit Committee meets regularly with our independent auditors without management present, and from time to time with management in separate private sessions, to discuss any matters that the Audit Committee or these individuals believe should be discussed privately with the Audit Committee, including any significant issues or disagreements that may arise concerning our accounting practices or financial statements. The Audit Committee also oversees our whistleblower policy for receiving and handling complaints or concerns regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters. In addition, the Audit Committee assists the Board in its oversight role by receiving periodic reports regarding our risk and control environment.

The Audit Committee held four meetings during the year ended December 31, 2014. A copy of the Audit Committee’s charter is posted on our website at www.POZEN.com.

Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee

The current members of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee are Dr. Rudnick, who serves as Chairman, Mr. Fowler, and Mr. Kirsch. Each of the members of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee is independent as defined by the applicable NASDAQ listing standards.

The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities regarding the oversight of the composition of the Board and other corporate governance matters. Among its other duties, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee: (i) evaluates nominees and reviews the qualifications of individuals eligible to stand for election and reelection as directors and makes recommendations to the Board on this matter; (ii) oversees compliance with our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics; (iii) reviews and approves related party transactions; (iv) recommends and advises the Board on certain other corporate governance matters; and (v) oversees the Board’s performance evaluation process. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee does not have a specific policy with regard to the consideration of diversity in identifying director nominees. However, our Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee values diversity on our Board and considers the diversity of the professional experience, education and skills, as well as diversity of origin, in identifying director nominees.

The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee held three meetings during the year ended December 31, 2014. A copy of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee’s charter is posted on our website at www.POZEN.com.

Compensation Committee

The current members of the Compensation Committee are Mr. Lee, Mr. Kirsch, Dr. Rudnick and Mr. Fowler. Mr. Lee serves as Chairman of the Compensation Committee. Each of the current members of the Compensation Committee is independent as defined by the applicable NASDAQ listing standards.

Decisions regarding the compensation of our executive officers are made by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee’s principal responsibilities include reviewing POZEN’s overall compensation philosophy and the adequacy and market competitiveness of our compensation plans and programs, evaluating the Company’s compensation policies and practices to determine whether these policies and practices create incentives for a particular employee group to take actions which could put the Company at undue risk, evaluating the performance of and reviewing and approving compensation for our executive officers, evaluating and recommending director compensation, and reviewing and discussing with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in the Form S-4. The Compensation Committee also administers our equity-based and other incentive plans, including assuming responsibility for granting, or delegating as appropriate the authority for granting, and making decisions with respect to, awards under our equity compensation and other incentive plans.

112

Table of Contents

To assist in its efforts to meet the objectives and responsibilities outlined above, the Compensation Committee has retained an executive compensation consultant. During 2014, the Compensation Committee retained Radford, an Aon Hewitt Company, or Radford, a nationally known executive compensation and benefits consulting firm, to advise it on various matters related to executive and director compensation and compensation programs. Radford may also from time to time advise management, with the Compensation Committee’s consent. Radford was hired by and reports to the Compensation Committee. Pursuant to its charter, the Compensation Committee has the power to hire and fire such consultants and to engage other advisors. A human resources consultant retained by management also provides information and support to the Compensation Committee as requested.

The Compensation Committee values the input of our stockholders regarding compensation decisions. In 2013, the Compensation Committee commissioned a third party to contact institutional stockholders that collectively owned greater than 50% of the non-affiliated shares in an effort to understand any concerns they had regarding our executive compensation program. In 2014, Mr. Lee, the Chairman of the Compensation Committee, also contacted certain institutional shareholders to continue this dialogue and sent a letter to the stockholders describing certain steps taken by the Board to address stockholder concerns, a copy of which was included in the Company’s 2014 proxy statement. As a result of these efforts, and with advice from Radford, in February 2014 our Board adopted new policies relating to new stock ownership guidelines for our Chief Executive Officer and new policies relating to equity retention and incentive payment clawback applicable to all executive officers. The Committee also made the 2014 annual equity grants for certain of our executive officers more specifically performance-based by allocating a portion of the annual equity award to performance-based grants that vest on significant corporate achievements.

The Compensation Committee held 10 meetings during the year ended December 31, 2014. A copy of the Compensation Committee’s charter is posted on our website at www.POZEN.com.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

None of our executive officers serves as a member of the Board or compensation committee, or other committee serving an equivalent function, of any other entity that has one or more of its executive officers serving as a member of our Board or Compensation Committee. None of the members of our Compensation Committee has ever been our employee or one of our officers.

Code of Business Ethics and Conduct

We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to our employees (including our principal executive officer, chief financial officer and other members of our finance and administration department) and our directors. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is posted on our website at www.POZEN.com. In addition, we intend to post on our website all disclosures that are required by law or NASDAQ Stock Market listing standards concerning any amendments to, or waivers from, any provision of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.

Director Compensation

Discussed in the following paragraphs and tables is the compensation paid to the non-employee directors who serve on our Board. Directors who are also our employees do not receive any additional compensation for their service as directors of the Company.

Cash Compensation. We reimburse each non-employee director for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and Board committee meetings and otherwise in connection with service as a director. We also pay each non-employee director the following retainer fees:

· an annual retainer of $40,000;

· an annual retainer for Board committee Chairs, as follows: $12,000 for service as Chair of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee; $17,500 for service as Chair of the Compensation Committee; and $25,000 for service as Chair of the Audit Committee; and

· an annual retainer for Board committee members (other than committee Chairs), as follows: $8,000 for service on the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee; $10,000 for service on the Compensation Committee; and $12,500 for service on the Audit Committee.

All retainers are payable quarterly and pro-rated for service of less than a full quarter; retainers may be reduced if a director fails to attend at least 75% of all required Board and committee meetings. No compensation is paid to directors for attendance at individual Board or Board committee meetings.

Equity Compensation.

· Upon his or her initial election to the Board, 14,000 RSUs. This initial grant vests one-third annually over three years, subject to continued service as a director.

113

Table of Contents

· On the date of each annual meeting of stockholders, an amount of RSUs with a market value as of the grant date equal to $80,000. The RSUs vest on the earlier of the one-year anniversary of the grant or the date of the next annual stockholder meeting, subject in either case to the director’s continued service on the Board at that date.

Equity grants awarded pursuant to this director compensation program are granted under and subject to the terms and conditions of the POZEN Inc. 2010 Equity Compensation Plan (the “2010 Plan” or the “Plan”), including without limitation the terms providing for acceleration of vesting upon a change of control. All stock options are granted at an exercise price per share equal to the closing price of our common stock, as reported on NASDAQ, on the date of grant, have a ten-year term and are exercisable for a period of up to three years following the date the director’s service on the Board terminates, to the extent vested as of such date, but not beyond the expiration of the ten-year term.

The Board has adopted a non-employee director stock ownership guideline of shares equal in value to three times the annual director retainer of $40,000, to be acquired over a five year period. Directors are strongly encouraged to hold their shares of Pozen stock while they serve on the Board.

The following table further summarizes the compensation paid by us to our non-employee directors during the 2014 fiscal year. Except as noted below, all of our directors are paid at the same rate. The differences among directors in the table below are a function of additional compensation for chairing a committee and/or serving on one or more committees.

Name	Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($) (1)		Stock Awards ($) (2)		Option Awards ($)	Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($)	Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings ($)	All Other Compensation ($)	Total ($)
Neal F. Fowler	$	56,333	$	79,996	—	—	—	—	$	136,329
Arthur S. Kirsch	$	79,250	$	79,996	—	—	—	—	$	159,246
Kenneth B. Lee, Jr.	$	67,917	$	79,996	—	—	—	—	$	147,913
Martin Nicklasson, Ph.D.	$	29,375	—		—	—	—	—	$	29,375
Seth A. Rudnick, M.D.	$	69,292	$	79,996	—	—	—	—	$	149,288

Aralez Pharmaceuticals Ltd S-1