UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10‑K

Commission File Number 001‑33389

VIVUS, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 934‑5200

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

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

None

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S‑T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S‑K (§229.405) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10‑K or any amendment to this Form 10‑K. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non‑accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b‑2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

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

The aggregate market value of the common equity held by non‑affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2016, totaled approximately $116,562,897 based on the closing stock price as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

As of February 28, 2017, there were 105,583,530 shares of the Registrant’s common stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

VIVUS, INC.

FISCAL 2016 FORM 10‑K

INDEX

FORWARD‑LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Form 10-K contains “forward looking” statements that involve risks and uncertainties. These statements typically may be identified by the use of forward-looking words or phrases such as “may,” “believe,” “expect,” “forecast,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “predict,” “should,” “planned,” “likely,” “opportunity,” “estimated,” and “potential,” the negative use of these words or other similar words. All forward-looking statements included in this document are based on our current expectations, and we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a “safe harbor” for such forward-looking statements. In order to comply with the terms of the safe harbor, we note that a variety of factors could cause actual results and experiences to differ materially from the anticipated results or other expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements. The risks and uncertainties that may affect the operations, performance, development, and results of our business include but are not limited to:

When we refer to “we,” “our,” “us,” the “Company” or “VIVUS” in this document, we mean the current Delaware corporation, or VIVUS, Inc., and its California predecessor, as well as all of our consolidated subsidiaries.

PART I

Item 1.  Business

Overview

VIVUS is a biopharmaceutical company developing and commercializing innovative, next-generation therapies to address unmet medical needs in human health, with two approved therapies and one product candidate in active clinical development. Qsymia® (phentermine and topiramate extended release) is approved by FDA for chronic weight management and STENDRA® (avanafil) is approved by FDA for erectile dysfunction, or ED, and by the European Commission, or EC, under the trade name, SPEDRA, for the treatment of ED in the EU. Tacrolimus is in active clinical development for the treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension, or PAH.

Commercial Products

Qsymia

Qsymia was approved by FDA in July 2012, as an adjunct to a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity for chronic weight management in adult patients with an initial body mass index, or BMI, of 30 or greater, or obese patients, or who have a BMI of 27 or greater, or overweight patients, in the presence of at least one weight related comorbidity, such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus or high cholesterol, or dyslipidemia. Qsymia incorporates a proprietary formulation combining low doses of active ingredients from two previously approved drugs, phentermine and topiramate. Although the exact mechanism of action is unknown, Qsymia is believed to suppress appetite and increase satiety, or the feeling of being full, the two main mechanisms that impact eating behavior.

We commercialize Qsymia in the U.S. primarily through a sales force supported by an internal commercial team, who promote Qsymia to physicians. We are focused on maintaining a commercial presence with important Qsymia prescribers, and we have capacity to cover physicians that begin prescribing branded anti-obesity products. We are constantly monitoring prescribing activity in the market, and we have seen new prescriptions being written by health care professionals, or HCPs, with respect to whom we have not previously dedicated field sales resources.  The current alignment addresses this new prescriber group, and we believe we have been successful in initiating and maintaining dialog with these HCPs.

Our marketing efforts have focused on rolling out unique programs to encourage targeted prescribers to gain more experience with Qsymia with their obese patient population. We continue to invest in digital media in order to amplify our messaging to information-seeking consumers. The digital messaging encourages those consumers most likely to take action to speak with their physicians about obesity treatment options. We believe our enhanced web-based strategies deliver clear and compelling communications to potential patients. In June 2016, we announced an upgraded simplified patient savings plan to further drive Qsymia brand preference at the point of prescription and encourage long-term use of the brand.

STENDRA/SPEDRA

STENDRA is an oral phosphodiesterase type 5, or PDE5, inhibitor that we have licensed from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, or MTPC. STENDRA was approved by FDA in April 2012 for the treatment of ED in the United States. In June 2013, the EC adopted a decision granting marketing authorization for SPEDRA, the approved trade name for avanafil in the EU, for the treatment of ED in the EU. In July 2013, we entered into an agreement with the Menarini Group, through its subsidiary Berlin Chemie AG, or Menarini, under which Menarini received an exclusive license to commercialize and promote SPEDRA for the treatment of ED in over 40 European countries, including the EU, Australia and New Zealand. Menarini commenced its commercialization launch of the product in the EU in early 2014. As of the date of this filing, SPEDRA is commercially available in 30 countries within the territory granted to Menarini pursuant to its license and commercialization agreement, in addition to certain territories in Asia licensed directly from MTPC.

On September 30, 2016, we entered into a license and commercialization agreement, or the Metuchen License Agreement, and a commercial supply agreement, or the Metuchen Supply Agreement, with Metuchen Pharmaceuticals LLC, or Metuchen. Under the terms of the Metuchen License Agreement, Metuchen received an exclusive license to develop, commercialize and promote STENDRA in the United States, Canada, South America and India, or the Metuchen Territory, effective October 1, 2016. These agreements with Metuchen replaced the license and supply agreements that we entered into with Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Auxilium, in October 2013, whereby Auxilium received an exclusive license to commercialize and promote STENDRA in the United States and Canada and we would supply Auxilium with STENDRA for commercialization. Auxilium terminated the supply agreement effective June 30, 2016 and the license agreement effective September 30, 2016.

In December 2013, we entered into a license and commercialization agreement with Sanofi, or the Sanofi License Agreement, under which Sanofi received an exclusive license to commercialize and promote avanafil for therapeutic use in humans in Africa, the Middle East, Turkey, and the CIS, including Russia, or the Sanofi Territory. Sanofi was responsible for obtaining regulatory approval in its territories. Effective as of December 11, 2013, we also entered into a supply agreement, or the Sanofi Supply Agreement, with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanofi, which terminated according to its terms on June 30, 2015.

We are currently in discussions with potential collaboration partners to develop, market and sell STENDRA for territories in which we do not currently have a commercial collaboration, including Mexico and Central America.

Development Programs

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension - Tacrolimus

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension, or PAH, is a chronic, life-threatening disease characterized by elevated blood pressure in the pulmonary arteries, which are the arteries between the heart and lungs, due to severe constriction of these blood vessels.  Pulmonary blood pressure is normally between 8 and 20 mmHg at rest as measured by right heart catheterization; however, in patients with PAH, the pressure in the pulmonary artery is greater than 25 mmHg at rest or 30 mmHg during physical activity.  These high pressures make it difficult for the heart to pump blood through the lungs to be oxygenated.

The prevalence of PAH varies among specific populations, but it is estimated at between 15 and 50 cases per million adults.  PAH usually develops between the ages of 20 and 60 but can occur at any age, with a mean age of diagnosis around 45 years.  Idiopathic PAH is the most common type, constituting approximately 40% of the total diagnosed PAH cases, and it occurs 2 to 4 times more frequently in females.

The current medical therapies for PAH involve endothelin receptor antagonists, or ERA, phosphodiesterase-5, or PDE5, inhibitors, prostacyclin analogues, selective IP receptor agonists, and soluble guanylate cyclase, or sGC stimulators, which aim to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life.  All currently approved products treat the symptoms of PAH, but do not address the underlying disease.  According to LifeSci Capital (Feb 2016 Analysis), the U.S. and worldwide markets for PAH pharmaceutical treatments in 2015 exceeded $2.7 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively.

On January 6, 2017, we entered into a Patent Assignment Agreement with Selten Pharma, Inc., or Selten, whereby we received exclusive, worldwide rights for the development and commercialization of BMPR2 activators for the treatment of PAH and related vascular diseases.  As part of the agreement, Selten assigned to us its license to a group of patents owned by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, or Stanford, which cover uses of tacrolimus and ascomycin to treat PAH. Tacrolimus received an Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of PAH on March 16, 2015. In 2017, we intend to focus on developing a proprietary formulation of tacrolimus to be used in a clinical development program and for commercial use.

Qsymia for Additional Indications

We are currently considering further development of Qsymia for the treatment of various diseases, including (i) obstructive sleep apnea, (ii) diabetes, (iii) nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH, (iv) nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, or NAFLD, also known as fatty liver disease, (v) hyperlipidemia, or an elevation of lipids, or fats, in the bloodstream, and

(vi) hypertension who do not respond well to antihypertensive medication. We expect no future development until we have concluded our discussions with FDA regarding a cardiovascular outcome trial, or CVOT, for Qsymia.

Additional Opportunities

We will continue to evaluate potential in-licensing opportunities to build our portfolio of product and product candidates.

VIVUS was incorporated in California in 1991 and reincorporated in Delaware in 1996. Our corporate headquarters is located at 900 E. Hamilton Avenue, Suite 550, Campbell, California 95008, and our telephone number is (650) 934‑5200.

Products and Development Programs

Our approved drugs and investigational drug candidates are summarized as follows:

Qsymia for the Treatment of Obesity

Many factors contribute to excess weight gain. These include environmental factors, genetics, health conditions, certain medications, emotional factors and other behaviors. All this contributes to more than 110 million Americans being obese or overweight with at least one weight‑related comorbidity. Excess weight increases the risk of cardiometabolic and other conditions including type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, sleep apnea, stroke and osteoarthritis. According to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, losing just 10% of body weight may help obese patients reduce the risk of developing other weight‑related medical conditions, while making a meaningful difference in health and well‑being.

Qsymia for the treatment of obesity was approved as an adjunct to a reduced‑calorie diet and increased physical activity for chronic weight management in adult patients with an initial BMI of 30 or greater, or obese patients, or with a BMI of 27 or greater, or overweight patients, in the presence of at least one weight‑related comorbidity, such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus or high cholesterol, or dyslipidemia. Qsymia incorporates low doses of active

ingredients from two previously approved drugs, phentermine and topiramate. Although the exact mechanism of action is unknown, Qsymia is believed to target appetite and satiety, or the feeling of being full, the two main mechanisms that impact eating behavior.

Qsymia was approved with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, with a goal of informing prescribers and patients of reproductive potential regarding an increased risk of orofacial clefts in infants exposed to Qsymia during the first trimester of pregnancy, the importance of pregnancy prevention for females of reproductive potential receiving Qsymia and the need to discontinue Qsymia immediately if pregnancy occurs. The Qsymia REMS program includes a medication guide, patient brochure, voluntary healthcare provider training, distribution through certified home delivery and retail pharmacies, an implementation system and a time‑table for assessments.

On July 20, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a claim construction, or Markman, ruling governing the Qsymia Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, lawsuits.  The Court adopted our proposed constructions for all but one of the disputed claim terms and adopted a compromise construction that was acceptable to us for the final claim term.  Expert discovery is ongoing and no trial date has been scheduled.

Upon receiving approval to market Qsymia, FDA required that we perform additional studies of Qsymia including a cardiovascular outcome trial, or CVOT.  To date, there have been no indications throughout the Qsymia clinical development program nor post-marketing experience of any increase in adverse cardiovascular events.  Given this historical information, along with the established safety profiles of phentermine and topiramate, we continue to believe that Qsymia poses no true cardiovascular safety risk. We met with FDA in May 2015 to discuss alternative strategies for obtaining cardiovascular, or CV, outcomes data that would be substantially more feasible and that ensure timely collection of data to better inform on the CV safety of Qsymia.  We worked with cardiovascular and epidemiology experts in exploring alternate solutions to demonstrate the long-term cardiovascular safety of Qsymia. After reviewing a summary of Phase 3 data relevant to CV risk and post-marketing safety data, the cardiology experts noted that they believe there was an absence of an overt CV risk signal and indicated that they did not believe a randomized placebo-controlled CVOT would provide additional information regarding the CV risk of Qsymia. The epidemiology experts maintained that a well-conducted retrospective observational study could provide data to further inform on potential CV risk. We worked with the expert group to develop a protocol and conduct a retrospective observational study. We are in the process of analyzing the collected information for discussion with FDA.  Although we and consulted experts believe there is no overt signal for CV risk to justify the CVOT, we are committed to working with FDA to reach a resolution.  There is no assurance, however, that FDA will accept any measures short of those specified in the CVOT to satisfy this requirement.

In May 2013, the EC issued a decision refusing the grant of marketing authorization in the EU for Qsiva™, the approved trade name for Qsymia in the EU. In September 2013, we submitted a request to the EMA for Scientific Advice, a procedure similar to the U.S. Special Protocol Assessment process, regarding use of a pre-specified interim analysis from the CVOT to assess the long-term treatment effect of Qsymia on the incidence of major adverse CV events in overweight and obese subjects with confirmed CV disease. Our request was to allow this interim analysis to support the resubmission of an application for a marketing authorization for Qsiva for the treatment of obesity in accordance with the EU centralized marketing authorization procedure. We received feedback in 2014 from the EMA and the various competent authorities of the EU Member States associated with review of the CVOT protocol. As for the EU, even if FDA were to accept a retrospective observational study in lieu of a CVOT, there would be no assurance that the EMA would accept the same.

Foreign regulatory approvals, including EC marketing authorization to market Qsiva in the EU, may not be obtained on a timely basis, or at all, and the failure to receive regulatory approvals in a foreign country would prevent us from marketing our products that have failed to receive such approval in that market, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

STENDRA for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction

ED affects an estimated 52% of men between the ages of 40 and 70. Prevalence increases with age and can be caused by a variety of factors, including medications (anti‑hypertensives, histamine receptor antagonists); lifestyle (tobacco, alcohol use); diseases (diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, prostate cancer); and spinal cord injuries. Left untreated, ED can negatively impact relationships and self‑esteem, causing feelings of embarrassment and guilt. About

half of men being treated with currently available phosphodiesterase 5, or PDE5, inhibitors are dissatisfied with treatment.

STENDRA is an oral PDE5 inhibitor we have licensed from MTPC. STENDRA was approved in the U.S. by FDA on April 27, 2012, for the treatment of ED. As part of the approval of STENDRA, we were committed to conduct two post‑approval clinical studies. The first was a randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled, parallel group multicenter clinical trial on the effect of STENDRA on spermatogenesis in healthy adult males and males with mild ED. The other study was a double‑blind, randomized, placebo‑controlled, single‑dose clinical trial to assess the effects of STENDRA on multiple parameters of vision, including, but not limited to, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, pupillometry, and color vision discrimination in healthy male subjects. These studies are completed.

On September 18, 2014, FDA approved a supplemental New Drug Application, or sNDA, for STENDRA. STENDRA is now indicated to be taken as early as approximately 15 minutes before sexual activity. On January 23, 2015, the EC adopted the commission implementing decision amending the marketing authorization for SPEDRA. SPEDRA is now approved in the EU to be taken as needed approximately 15 to 30 minutes before sexual activity.

We have granted an exclusive license to Menarini to commercialize and promote SPEDRA for the treatment of ED in over 40 European countries, including the EU, plus Australia and New Zealand. We have granted an exclusive license to Metuchen to market STENDRA in the United States, Canada, South America and India. We have also granted an exclusive license to Sanofi to commercialize avanafil in Africa, the Middle East, Turkey, and the CIS, including Russia. We are currently in discussions with potential partners to commercialize STENDRA in other territories where we do not currently have a commercial collaboration under our license with MTPC, including Mexico and Central America.

On July 27, 2016, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Hetero USA, Inc. and Hetero Labs Limited, collectively referred to as Hetero, in response to Hetero’s ANDA filing with FDA, requesting approval to market and sell generic versions of the currently approved doses of STENDRA tablets prior to the expiration of U.S. Patents 6,656,935 and 7,501,409, collectively referred to as the Asserted Patents. On January 3, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with Hetero, or the Settlement Agreement.  Under the Settlement Agreement, Hetero was granted a license to manufacture and commercialize the generic version of STENDRA described in its ANDA filing in the United States as of the date that is the later of (a) October 29, 2024, which is 180 days prior to the expiration of the last to expire of the Asserted Patents, or (b) the date that Hetero obtains final approval from FDA of the Hetero ANDA. The Settlement Agreement provides for a full settlement of all claims that were asserted in the suit. As required by law, the Settlement Agreement was submitted to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice.

Tacrolimus for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

PAH is a chronic life-threatening disease characterized by elevated blood pressure in the pulmonary arteries (arteries between the heart and lungs) due to severe constriction of these blood vessels.  Pulmonary blood pressure is normally between 8 and 20 mmHg at rest as measured by right heart catheterization; however, in patients with PAH, the pressure in the pulmonary artery is greater than 25 mmHg at rest or 30 mmHg during physical activity.  These high pressures make it difficult for the heart to pump blood through the lungs to be oxygenated.

The prevalence of PAH varies among specific populations, but it is estimated at between 15 and 50 cases per million adults.  PAH usually develops between the ages of 20 and 60, but can occur at any age with a mean age of diagnosis around 45 years.  Idiopathic PAH is the most common type constituting approximately 40% of the total PAH cases, and it occurs 2 to 4 times more frequently in females.  Risk factors for PAH include a family history of PAH, congenital heart disease, connective tissue disease, portal hypertension, sickle cell disease, thyroid disease, HIV infection, and use of certain drugs and toxins.  PAH patients are classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as class 1, 2, 3, or 4, with the most impaired patients being class 4.

The symptoms of PAH are non-specific and thus are unfortunately most frequently diagnosed when patients have reached an advanced stage of the disease.  Early symptoms may include shortness of breath during routine activity, fatigue, chest pain, racing heartbeat, pain in upper right side of abdomen, and decreased appetite.  As PAH progresses and worsens, symptoms may include feeling light-headed (especially during physical activity), fainting, swelling in the ankles or legs, and bluish lips or skin.  At its worse point, the patient develops right heart failure and is routinely

hospitalized to manage their progressing disease which may ultimately lead to death.  Currently, lung transplantation is the only option for patients who are not responsive to medical therapy.

The current medical therapies for PAH involve endothelin receptor antagonists, or ERA, phosphodiesterase-5, or PDE5, inhibitors, prostacyclin analogues, selective IP receptor agonists, and soluble guanylate cyclase, or sGC stimulators, which aim to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life.  All currently approved products treat the symptoms of PAH, but do not address the underlying disease.  According to LifeSci Capital (Feb 2016 Analysis), the U.S. and worldwide markets for PAH pharmaceutical treatments in 2015 exceeded $2.7 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively.

We believe that bone morphogenic protein receptor 2, or BMPR2, signaling could inhibit vascular smooth muscle proliferation.  Reduced BMPR2 expression, including loss-of-function mutations in BMPR2, is prevalent in PAH patients and may contribute to smooth muscle proliferation. Studies have shown that low doses of tacrolimus have restored BMPR2 signaling and reversed proliferative effects in animal models. We believe that enhancement of BMPR2 signaling with tacrolimus may address a fundamental cause of PAH.

On March 16, 2015, tacrolimus for the treatment of PAH received an Orphan Drug Designation.  An Orphan Drug Designation can provide benefits to us, such as: tax credits on clinical research, simplification of administrative procedures (reduction of the waiting period and reduction of the amount of registration fees), and marketing exclusivity of seven years after the marketing approval is granted for the approved orphan indication.

Stanford completed a randomized, double-blind Phase 2a with 23 class 1 and 2 PAH patients titrated to target blood levels.  All target blood levels were well tolerated with no drug related serious adverse events, nephrotoxicity or incident diabetes.  In addition, Stanford provided tacrolimus for compassionate use in three class 3 or 4 PAH patients.  The compassionate use demonstrated dramatically reduced rates of hospitalizations and functional class improvements were observed.

On January 6, 2017, we entered into a Patent Assignment Agreement with Selten, whereby we received exclusive, worldwide rights for the development and commercialization of BMPR2 activators for the treatment of PAH and related vascular diseases.  As part of the agreement, Selten assigned to us its license to a group of patents owned by Stanford which cover uses of tacrolimus and ascomycin to treat PAH. We are responsible for future financial obligations to Stanford under that license.

We have also assumed full responsibility for the development and commercialization of the licensed compounds for the treatment of PAH and related vascular diseases. Selten received an upfront payment of $1.0 million and is entitled to receive milestone payments based on global development status and future sales milestones, as well as tiered royalty payments on future sales of these compounds.  The total potential milestone payments are $39.0 million to Selten and $550,000 to Stanford. The majority of the milestone payments to Selten may be paid, at our sole option, either in cash or our common stock, provided that in no event shall the payment of common stock exceed fifty percent of the aggregate amount of such milestone payments.

Other Programs

We have licensed and intend to continue to license from third parties the rights to other investigational drug candidates to treat various diseases and medical conditions. We expect to continue to use our expertise in designing and conducting clinical trials, formulation and investigational drug candidate development to commercialize pharmaceuticals for unmet medical needs or for disease states that are underserved by currently approved drugs. We intend to develop products with a proprietary position or that complement our other products currently under development, although there can be no assurance that any of these investigational product candidates will be successfully developed and approved by regulatory authorities.

Government Regulations

FDA Regulation

Prescription pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive pre‑ and post‑marketing regulation by FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and its implementing regulations govern, among other things, requirements for

the testing, development, manufacturing, quality control, safety, efficacy, approval, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, reporting, distribution, import, export, advertising and promotion of drug products.

The activities required before a pharmaceutical agent may be marketed in the U.S. begin with pre‑clinical testing. Pre‑clinical tests generally include laboratory evaluation of potential products and animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product and its formulations. The results of these studies and other information must be submitted to FDA as part of an investigational new drug application, or IND, which must be reviewed by FDA before proposed clinical testing in human volunteers can begin. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or to patients under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCP, which establishes standards for conducting, recording data from, and reporting results of, clinical trials, and are intended to assure that the data and reported results are credible, accurate, and that the rights, safety and well‑being of study participants are protected. Clinical trials must be under protocols that detail the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used to monitor safety and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical study must be conducted under the auspices of an independent institutional review board, or IRB. The IRB will consider, among other things, regulations and guidelines for obtaining informed consent from study subjects, as well as other ethical factors and the safety of human patients. The sponsoring company, FDA, or the IRB may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Typically, human clinical trials are conducted in three phases that may overlap. In Phase 1, clinical trials are conducted with a small number of patients to determine the early safety profile and pharmacology of the new therapy. In Phase 2, clinical trials are conducted with groups of patients afflicted with a specific disease or medical condition in order to determine preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and expanded evidence of safety. In Phase 3, large‑scale, multicenter clinical trials are conducted with patients afflicted with a target disease or medical condition in order to provide substantial evidence of efficacy and safety required by FDA and others.

The results of the pre‑clinical and clinical testing, together with chemistry and manufacturing information, are submitted to FDA in the form of a New Drug Application, or NDA, for a pharmaceutical product in order to obtain approval to commence commercial sales. In responding to an NDA, FDA may grant marketing approvals, may request additional information or further research or studies, or may deny the application if it determines that the application does not satisfy its regulatory approval criteria. FDA approval for a pharmaceutical product may not be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Under the goals and policies agreed to by FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, FDA has twelve months in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA and respond to the applicant, and eight months for a priority NDA. FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates and in certain circumstances, the review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended. A subsequent application for approval of an additional indication must also be reviewed by FDA under the same criteria as apply to original applications, and may be denied as well. In addition, even if FDA approval is granted, it may not cover all the clinical indications for which approval is sought or may contain significant limitations in the form of warnings, precautions or contraindications with respect to conditions of use. In addition, FDA may require the development and implementation of a REMS to address specific safety issues at the time of approval or after marketing of the product. A REMS may, for instance, restrict distribution and impose burdensome implementation requirements. Our approved product Qsymia is subject to a REMS program.

Satisfaction of FDA premarket approval requirements for new drugs typically takes several years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or targeted disease. Government regulation may delay or prevent marketing of potential products for a considerable period of time and may impose costly procedures upon our activities. Success in early‑stage clinical trials or with prior versions of products does not assure success in later stage clinical trials. Data obtained from clinical activities are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.

Once approved, products are subject to continuing regulation by FDA. FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with post‑marketing regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. In addition, FDA may require companies to conduct post‑marketing studies or trials, referred to as PMRs, to evaluate safety issues related to the approved product, and may withdraw approval or impose marketing restrictions based on the results of PMR studies or trials or other relevant data. FDA has required us to perform PMR studies and trials for both of our approved products, Qsymia and STENDRA. FDA has broad post‑market regulatory and enforcement powers, including the ability to levy civil monetary penalties, suspend or delay issuance of approvals, seize

or recall products, or withdraw approvals. Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 requires all applicable clinical trials we conduct for our investigational drug candidates, both before and after approval, and the results of those applicable clinical trials when available, to be included in a clinical trials registry database that is available and accessible to the public via the Internet. Our failure to properly participate in the clinical trial database registry may subject us to significant civil penalties.

Facilities used to manufacture drugs are subject to periodic inspection by FDA, and other authorities where applicable, and must comply with FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP regulations. Compliance with cGMP includes adhering to requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, and records and reports. Failure to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements subjects the manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product or voluntary recall of a product.

FDA imposes a number of complex regulations on entities that advertise and promote pharmaceuticals, which include, among other things, standards and regulations relating to direct‑to‑consumer advertising, off‑label promotion, industry‑sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and effectiveness that are consistent with the labeling approved by FDA. FDA has very broad enforcement authority. Failure to abide by these regulations can result in adverse publicity, and/or enforcement actions, including the issuance of a warning letter directing the entity to correct deviations from FDA standards, and state and federal civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products.

Companies that manufacture or distribute drug products or that hold approved NDAs must comply with other regulatory requirements, including submitting annual reports, reporting information about adverse drug experiences, and maintaining certain records. In addition, we are subject to various laws and regulations regarding the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances in connection with our manufacture and research. In each of these areas, as noted above, the government has broad regulatory and enforcement powers, including the ability to levy fines and civil penalties, suspend or delay issuance of approvals, seize or recall products, and withdraw approvals, any one or more of which could have a material adverse effect upon us.

Other Government Regulations

In addition to laws and regulations enforced by FDA, we are also subject to regulation under NIH guidelines as well as under the Controlled Substances Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other present and potential future federal, state or local laws and regulations, as our research and development may involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, chemicals, viruses and various radioactive compounds.

In addition to regulations in the U.S., we are subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials, commercial sales, and distribution of our investigational drug candidates. We must obtain separate approvals by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence marketing of the product in those countries. For example, in the EU, the conduct of clinical trials is governed by Directive 2001/20/EC which imposes obligations and procedures that are similar to those provided in applicable U.S. laws. The European Union Good Clinical Practice rules, or GCP, and EU Good Laboratory Practice, or GLP, obligations must also be respected during conduct of the trials. Clinical trials must be approved by the competent authorities and the competent Ethics Committees in the EU Member States in which the clinical trials take place. A clinical trial application, or CTA, must be submitted to each EU Member State’s national health authority. Moreover, an application for a positive opinion must be submitted to the competent Ethics Committee prior to commencement of clinical trials of a medicinal product. The competent authorities of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial is conducted must authorize the conduct of the trial and the competent Ethics Committees must grant their positive opinion prior to commencement of a clinical trial in an EU Member State. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

To obtain marketing approval of a medicinal product in the EU, we would be required to submit marketing authorization applications based on the ICH Common Technical Document to the competent authorities, and must demonstrate the quality, safety and efficacy of our medicinal products. This would require us to conduct human clinical trials to generate the necessary clinical data. Moreover, we would be required to demonstrate in our application that studies have been conducted with the medicinal product in the pediatric population as provided by a Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, approved by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA. Alternatively, confirmation that we have been granted a waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies must be provided.

Medicinal products are authorized in the EU in one of two ways, either by the competent authorities of the EU Member States through the decentralized procedure or mutual recognition procedure, or through the centralized procedure by the European Commission following a positive opinion by the EMA. The authorization process is essentially the same irrespective of which route is used.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU Member States. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. It is optional for those products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients. Under the centralized procedure in the EU, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP). Accelerated evaluation may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases. These are defined as circumstances in which a medicinal product is expected to be of a “major public health interest.” Three cumulative criteria must be fulfilled in such circumstances: the seriousness of the disease, such as heavy disabling or life‑threatening diseases, to be treated; the absence or insufficiency of an appropriate alternative therapeutic approach; and anticipation of high therapeutic benefit. In these circumstances, the EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days.

The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more other (“concerned”) EU Member States of an assessment of an application for marketing authorization conducted by one EU Member State, known as the reference EU Member State. In accordance with this procedure, an applicant submits an application for marketing authorization to the reference EU Member State and the concerned EU Member States. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference EU Member State prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EU Member States who, within 90 days of receipt must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned EU Member State cannot approve the assessment report and related materials due to concerns relating to a potential serious risk to public health, disputed elements may be referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all EU Member States. In accordance with the mutual recognition procedure, the sponsor applies for national marketing authorization in one EU Member State. Upon receipt of this authorization the sponsor can then seek the recognition of this authorization by other EU Member States. Authorization in accordance with either of these procedures will result in authorization of the medicinal product only in the reference EU Member State and in the other concerned EU Member States.

Innovative medicinal products authorized in the EU on the basis of a full marketing authorization application (as opposed to an application for marketing authorization that relies on data available in the marketing authorization dossier for another, previously approved, medicinal product) are entitled to eight years’ data exclusivity. During this period, applicants for authorization of generics or biosimilars of these innovative products cannot rely on data contained in the marketing authorization dossier submitted for the innovative medicinal product. Innovative medicinal products are also entitled to ten years’ market exclusivity. During this ten year period no generic or biosimilar of this medicinal product can be placed on the EU market. The ten‑year period of market exclusivity can be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the Marketing Authorization Holder for the innovative product obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

Similarly to the U.S., marketing authorization holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA and/or the competent authorities of the EU Member States. This oversight applies both before and after grant of manufacturing and marketing authorizations. It includes control of compliance with EU GMP rules and pharmacovigilance rules. We cannot guarantee that we would be able to comply with the post‑marketing obligations imposed as part of the marketing authorization for SPEDRA. Failure to comply with

these requirements may lead to the suspension, variation or withdrawal of the marketing authorization for SPEDRA in the EU.

In the EU, the advertising and promotion of our products will also be subject to EU Member States’ laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices, as well as other EU Member State legislation that may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, as approved by the competent authorities. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. It forms an intrinsic and integral part of the marketing authorization granted for the medicinal product. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off‑label promotion. The off‑label promotion of medicinal products is prohibited in the EU. The applicable laws at the EU level and in the individual EU Member States also prohibit the direct‑to‑consumer advertising of prescription‑only medicinal products. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the EU could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict communications concerning the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on our promotional activities with healthcare professionals.

Failure to comply with the EU Member State laws implementing the Community Code on medicinal products, and EU rules governing the promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices, with the EU Member State laws that apply to the promotion of medicinal products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti‑corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the EU Member State authorities, which may include any of the following: fines, imprisonment, orders forfeiting products or prohibiting or suspending their supply to the market, or requiring the manufacturer to issue public warnings, or to conduct a product recall.

Interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self‑regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct in the individual EU Member States. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national anti‑bribery laws of the EU Member States. One example is the UK Bribery Act 2010. This Act applies to any company incorporated in or “carrying on business” in the UK, irrespective of where in the world the alleged bribery activity occurs. This Act could have implications for our interactions with physicians in and outside the UK. Violation of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publically disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians must often be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his/her competent professional organization, and/or the competent authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

United States Healthcare Reform

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively referred to in this report as the Affordable Care Act was adopted in the United States. This law substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act contains a number of provisions that are expected to impact our business and operations. Changes that may affect our business include those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement changes, rules regarding prescription drug benefits under the health insurance exchanges, expansion of the 340B program, and fraud and abuse and enforcement. These changes will impact existing government healthcare programs and will result in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives and improvements to the physician quality reporting system and feedback program.

The Affordable Care Act made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. Effective March 23, 2010, rebate liability expanded from fee‑for‑service Medicaid utilization to include the utilization of Medicaid managed

care organizations as well. With regard to the amount of the rebates owed, the Affordable Care Act increased the minimum Medicaid rebate from 15.1% to 23.1% of the average manufacturer price for most innovator products and from 11% to 13% for non‑innovator products; changed the calculation of the rebate for certain innovator products that qualify as line extensions of existing drugs; and capped the total rebate amount for innovator drugs at 100% of the average manufacturer price. In addition, the Affordable Care Act and subsequent legislation changed the definition of average manufacturer price. In February 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the federal agency that administers Medicare and the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, issued final regulations to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program under the Affordable Care Act. These regulations become effective on April 1, 2016. In addition, the Affordable Care Act requires pharmaceutical manufacturers of branded prescription drugs to pay a branded prescription drug fee to the federal government beginning in 2011. Each individual pharmaceutical manufacturer pays a prorated share of the branded prescription drug fee of $3.0 billion in 2016, based on the dollar value of its branded prescription drug sales to certain federal programs identified in the law.

Additional provisions of the Affordable Care Act may negatively affect our revenues in the future. For example, as part of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions closing a coverage gap that currently exists in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, or the donut hole, manufacturers are required to provide a 50% discount on branded prescription drugs dispensed to beneficiaries within this donut hole. We currently do not have coverage under Medicare Part D for our drugs, but this could change in the future.

Moreover, legislative changes to the Affordable Care Act remain possible and appear likely in the 115th United States Congress and under the Trump Administration. We expect that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as it may be amended in the future, and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and on our ability to maintain or increase sales of our existing products or to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

The Affordable Care Act also expanded the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing discount program. The 340B pricing program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. The Affordable Care Act expanded the 340B program to include additional types of covered entities: certain free‑standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers and sole community hospitals, each as defined by the Affordable Care Act, but exempts “orphan drugs” from the ceiling price requirements for these covered entities. The Affordable Care Act also obligates the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to update the agreement that manufacturers must sign to participate in the 340B program to obligate a manufacturer to offer the 340B price to covered entities if the manufacturer makes the drug available to any other purchaser at any price and to report to the government the ceiling prices for its drugs.  The Health Resources and Services Administration, or HRSA, the agency that administers the 340B program, recently initiated the process of updating the agreement with participating manufacturers. The Healthcare Reform Act also obligates the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create regulations and processes to improve the integrity of the 340B program.  In 2015, HRSA issued proposed omnibus guidance that addresses many aspects of the 340B program, and in August 2016, HRSA issued a proposed regulation regarding an administrative dispute resolution process for the 340B program.  It is unclear when or whether the guidance or regulation will be released in final form under the Trump Administration.  On January 5, 2017, HRSA issued a final regulation regarding the calculation of 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities. The March 6, 2017 effective date of this regulation is subject to a temporary delay directed by the Trump Administration, and the regulation could be subject to further delay or other modification by the Trump Administration. Implementation of this final rule and the issuance of any other final regulations and guidance could affect our obligations under the 340B program in ways we cannot anticipate.  In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program to additional covered entities or would require participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting.

Some states have elected not to expand their Medicaid programs by raising the income limit to 133% of the federal poverty level as permitted under the Affordable Care Act. For each state that does not choose to expand its Medicaid program, there may be fewer insured patients overall, which could impact our sales, business and financial condition.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In both U.S. and foreign markets, our ability to commercialize our products successfully and to attract commercialization partners for our products, depends in significant part on the availability of adequate financial coverage and reimbursement from third‑party payors, including, in the United States, governmental payors such as Medicare and Medicaid, as well as managed care organizations, private health insurers and other organizations. Third‑party payors decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement and co‑pay levels. Third‑party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medicines and examining their cost‑effectiveness, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost‑effectiveness of our products. Even with studies, our products may be considered less safe, less effective or less cost‑effective than existing products, and third‑party payors may not provide coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, in whole or in part.

Political, economic and regulatory influences are subjecting the healthcare industry in the United States to fundamental changes. There have been, and we expect there will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. We anticipate that the United States Congress, state legislatures and the private sector will continue to consider and may adopt healthcare policies intended to curb rising healthcare costs. These cost‑containment measures include: controls on government funded reimbursement for drugs; new or increased requirements to pay prescription drug rebates to government healthcare programs; controls on healthcare providers; challenges to the pricing of drugs or limits or prohibitions on reimbursement for specific products through other means; requirements to try less expensive products or generics before a more expensive branded product; changes in drug importation laws; expansion of use of managed care systems in which healthcare providers contract to provide comprehensive healthcare for a fixed cost per person; and public funding for cost‑effectiveness research, which may be used by government and private third‑party payors to make coverage and payment decisions. Further, federal budgetary concerns could result in the implementation of significant federal spending cuts, including cuts in Medicare and other health related spending in the near‑term. For example, beginning April 1, 2013, Medicare payments for all items and services, including drugs and biologics, were reduced by 2% under the sequestration (i.e., automatic spending reductions) required by the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.  Subsequent legislation extended the 2% reduction, on average, to 2025.  These cuts reduce reimbursement payments related to our products, which could potentially negatively impact our revenue.

Payors also are increasingly considering new metrics as the basis for reimbursement rates, such as average sales price, average manufacturer price and Actual Acquisition Cost. The existing data for reimbursement based on these metrics is relatively limited, although certain states have begun to survey acquisition cost data for the purpose of setting Medicaid reimbursement rates. CMS surveys and publishes retail community pharmacy acquisition cost information in the form of National Average Drug Acquisition Cost, or NADAC, files to provide state Medicaid agencies with a basis of comparison for their own reimbursement and pricing methodologies and rates. It may be difficult to project the impact of these evolving reimbursement mechanics on the willingness of payors to cover our products.

We participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, established by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and amended by the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 as well as subsequent legislation. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, we are required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available to the states for our drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Those rebates are based on pricing data reported by us on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of innovator products, the best price for each drug.

Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing discount program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B pricing program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low‑income patients. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the average manufacturer price and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. Changes to the definition of average manufacturer price and the Medicaid Drug Rebate

amount under the Affordable Care Act and CMS’s issuance of final regulations implementing those changes also could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively impact our results of operations.

In order to be eligible to have our products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by certain federal agencies and certain federal grantees, we participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs, or VA, Federal Supply Schedule, or FSS, pricing program, established by Section 603 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992. Under this program, we are obligated to make our product available for procurement on an FSS contract and charge a price to four federal agencies—VA, Department of Defense, Public Health Service, and Coast Guard—that is no higher than the statutory Federal Ceiling Price, or FCP. The FCP is based on the non‑federal average manufacturer price, or Non‑FAMP, which we calculate and report to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. We also participate in the Tricare Retail Pharmacy program, established by Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008, and related regulations, under which we pay quarterly rebates on utilization of innovator products that are dispensed to Tricare beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between Annual Non‑FAMP and FCP.

We expect to experience pricing pressures in the United States in connection with the sale of our products due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative proposals. In various EU countries, we expect to be subject to continuous cost‑cutting measures, such as lower maximum prices, lower or lack of reimbursement coverage and incentives to use cheaper, usually generic, products as an alternative.

We are unable to predict what additional legislation, regulations or policies, if any, relating to the healthcare industry or third‑party coverage and reimbursement may be enacted in the future or what effect such legislation, regulations or policies would have on our business. Any cost‑containment measures, including those listed above, or other healthcare system reforms that are adopted, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate profitably.

Once an applicant receives marketing authorization in an EU Member State, through any application route, the applicant is then required to engage in pricing discussions and negotiations with a separate pricing authority in that country. The legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the EU Member States continue to propose and implement cost‑containing measures to keep healthcare costs down, due in part to the attention being paid to healthcare cost‑containment and other austerity measures in the EU. Certain of these changes could impose limitations on the prices pharmaceutical companies are able to charge for their products. The amounts of reimbursement available from governmental agencies or third‑party payors for these products may increase the tax obligations on pharmaceutical companies such as ours, or may facilitate the introduction of generic competition with respect to our products. Furthermore, an increasing number of EU Member States and other foreign countries use prices for medicinal products established in other countries as “reference prices” to help determine the price of the product in their own territory. Consequently, a downward trend in prices of medicinal products in some countries could contribute to similar downward trends elsewhere. In addition, the ongoing budgetary difficulties faced by a number of EU Member States, including Greece and Spain, have led and may continue to lead to substantial delays in payment and payment partially with government bonds rather than cash for medicinal products, which could negatively impact our revenues and profitability. Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement of our medicinal products in some countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to conduct Health Technology Assessments, or HTAs, that compare the cost‑effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. There can be no assurance that our medicinal products will obtain favorable reimbursement status in any country.

In the EU, the sole legal instrument at the EU level governing the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products is Council Directive 89/105/EEC, or the Price Transparency Directive. The aim of this Directive is to ensure that pricing and reimbursement mechanisms established in the EU Member States are transparent and objective, do not hinder the free movement and trade of medicinal products in the EU and do not hinder, prevent or distort competition on the market. The Price Transparency Directive does not provide any guidance concerning the specific criteria on the basis of which pricing and reimbursement decisions are to be made in individual EU Member States. Neither does it have any direct consequence for pricing nor reimbursement levels in individual EU Member States. The EU Member States are free to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices and/or reimbursement levels of medicinal products for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the medicinal product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the medicinal product on the market, including volume‑based arrangements and reference pricing mechanisms.

Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States. These EU Member States include the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Sweden. The HTA process in the EEA Member States is governed by the national laws of these countries. HTA is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. HTA generally focuses on the clinical efficacy and effectiveness, safety, cost, and cost‑effectiveness of individual medicinal products as well as their potential implications for the healthcare system. Those elements of medicinal products are compared with other treatment options available on the market.

The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product vary between EU Member States.

In 2011, Directive 2011/24/EU was adopted at the EU level. This Directive concerns the application of patients’ rights in cross‑border healthcare. The Directive is intended to establish rules for facilitating access to safe and high‑quality cross‑border healthcare in the EU. It also provides for the establishment of a voluntary network of national authorities or bodies responsible for HTA in the individual EU Member States. The purpose of the network is to facilitate and support the exchange of scientific information concerning HTAs. This could lead to harmonization between EU Member States of the criteria taken into account in the conduct of HTA and their impact on pricing and reimbursement decisions.

Fraud and Abuse and Privacy and Data Security Laws and Regulations

The healthcare industry, and thus our business, is subject to extensive federal, state, local and foreign regulation. Some of the pertinent laws have not been definitively interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. In addition, these laws and their interpretations are subject to change. Both federal and state governmental agencies continue to subject the healthcare industry to intense regulatory scrutiny, including heightened civil and criminal enforcement efforts.

The restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse and privacy and data security laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws or regulations described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government‑funded healthcare programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Any penalties, damages, fines, curtailment or restructuring of our operations could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Although compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws and regulations, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for violation of these laws or regulations, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal and state privacy, data security and fraud laws and regulations may prove costly.

Collaboration Agreements

Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation

In January 2001, we entered into an exclusive development, license and clinical trial and commercial supply agreement with MTPC for the development and commercialization of avanafil, a PDE5 inhibitor compound for the oral and local treatment of male and female sexual dysfunction. Under the terms of the agreement, MTPC agreed to grant an exclusive license to us for products containing avanafil outside of Japan, North Korea, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines. We agreed to grant MTPC an exclusive, royalty‑free license within those countries for oral products that we develop containing avanafil. In addition, we agreed to grant MTPC an exclusive option to obtain an exclusive, royalty‑bearing license within those countries for non‑oral products that we develop containing avanafil. MTPC agreed to manufacture and supply us with avanafil for use in clinical trials, which were our primary responsibility. The MTPC agreement contains a number of milestone payments to be made by us based on various triggering events.

The term of the MTPC agreement is based on a country‑by‑country and on a product‑by‑product basis. The term shall continue until the later of 10 years after the date of the first sale for a particular product or the expiration of the last‑to‑expire patents within the MTPC patents covering such product in such country. In the event that our product is deemed to be insufficiently effective or insufficiently safe relative to other PDE5 inhibitor compounds based on published information or not economically feasible to develop due to unforeseen regulatory hurdles or costs as measured by standards common in the pharmaceutical industry for this type of product, we have the right to terminate the agreement with MTPC with respect to such product.

In August 2012, we entered into an amendment to our agreement with MTPC that permits us to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, and tablets for STENDRA ourselves or through third parties. In 2015, we transferred the manufacturing of the API and tablets for STENDRA to Sanofi.

On February 21, 2013, we entered into the third amendment to our agreement with MTPC which, among other things, expands our rights, or those of our sublicensees, to enforce the patents licensed under the MTPC agreement against alleged infringement, and clarifies the rights and duties of the parties and our sublicensees upon termination of the MTPC agreement. In addition, we were obligated to use our best commercial efforts to market STENDRA in the U.S. by December 31, 2013, which was achieved by our former commercialization partner, Auxilium.

On July 23, 2013, we entered into the fourth amendment to our agreement with MTPC which, among other things, changes the definition of net sales used to calculate royalties owed by us to MTPC.

Menarini Group

On July 5, 2013, we entered into a license and commercialization agreement, or the Menarini License Agreement, and a supply agreement, or the Menarini Supply Agreement, with the Menarini Group through its subsidiary Berlin‑Chemie AG, or Menarini.

Under the terms of the Menarini License Agreement, Menarini received an exclusive license to commercialize and promote our drug SPEDRA for the treatment of ED in over 40 countries, including the EU, plus Australia and New Zealand. Additionally, we agreed to transfer to Menarini ownership of the marketing authorization for SPEDRA in the EU for the treatment of ED, which was granted by the EC in June 2013. Each party agreed not to develop, commercialize, or in‑license any other product that operates as phosphodiesterase type‑5 inhibitor for the treatment of ED for a limited time period, subject to certain exceptions.

Under the Menarini License Agreement, we have received payments of $63.0 million relating to license and milestone payments and royalty prepayments through December 31, 2016.  Additionally, we are entitled to receive potential milestone payments based on certain net sales targets, plus royalties on SPEDRA sales. Menarini will also reimburse us for payments made to cover various obligations to MTPC during the term of the Menarini License Agreement. The Menarini License Agreement will terminate on a country‑by‑country basis in the relevant territories upon the latest to occur of the following: (i) the expiration of the last‑to‑expire valid VIVUS patent covering SPEDRA; (ii) the expiration of data protection covering SPEDRA; or (iii) 10 years after the SPEDRA product launch. In addition, Menarini may terminate the Menarini License Agreement if certain additional regulatory obligations are imposed on SPEDRA, and we may terminate the Menarini License Agreement if Menarini challenges our patents covering SPEDRA or if Menarini commits certain legal violations. Either party may terminate the Menarini License Agreement for the other party’s uncured material breach or bankruptcy.

Under the terms of the Menarini Supply Agreement, we will supply Menarini with STENDRA drug product until December 31, 2018. Menarini also has the right to manufacture STENDRA independently, provided that it continues to satisfy certain minimum purchase obligations to us. Following the expiration of the Menarini Supply Agreement, Menarini will be responsible for its own supply of STENDRA. Either party may terminate the Menarini Supply Agreement for the other party’s uncured material breach or bankruptcy, or upon the termination of the Menarini License Agreement.

Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On October 10, 2013, we entered into a license and commercialization agreement, or the Auxilium License Agreement, and a commercial supply agreement, or the Auxilium Supply Agreement, with Auxilium. On January 29,

2015, Auxilium was purchased by Endo International, plc. Under the terms of the Auxilium License Agreement, Auxilium received an exclusive license to commercialize and promote our drug STENDRA for the treatment of ED in the United States and Canada and their respective territories, or the Auxilium Territory.

We received an upfront license fee of $30.0 million in October 2013 and a regulatory milestone payment of $15.0 million in 2014 upon approval by FDA of a specific time of onset claim for STENDRA in the Auxilium Territory. Additionally, we have received royalty payments based on tiered percentages of the aggregate annual net sales of STENDRA in the Auxilium Territory on a quarterly basis.

Auxilium obtained STENDRA exclusively from us for a mutually agreed term pursuant to the Auxilium Supply Agreement, as further described below. Auxilium may elect to transfer the control of the supply chain for STENDRA for the Auxilium Territory to itself or its designee by assigning to Auxilium our agreements with the contract manufacturer, which is referred to below as the Supply Chain Transfer.

Auxilium terminated the Auxilium Supply Agreement effective June 30, 2016 and the Auxilium License Agreement effective September 30, 2016.

Sanofi

On December 11, 2013, we entered into the Sanofi License Agreement with Sanofi. Effective as of December 11, 2013, we entered into the Sanofi Supply Agreement with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanofi, which terminated according to its terms on June 30, 2015. Under the terms of the Sanofi License Agreement, Sanofi received an exclusive license to commercialize and promote avanafil for therapeutic use in humans in the Sanofi Territory.

In December 2013, we received an upfront license fee of $5.0 million and a $1.5 million manufacturing milestone payment, and in February 2014, we received an additional $3.5 million in manufacturing milestone payments. We were also eligible to receive up to $6.0 million in regulatory milestone payments, and up to $45.0 million in sales milestone payments, plus royalties on avanafil sales based on tiered percentages of the aggregate annual net sales in the Sanofi Territory.

On July 31, 2013, we entered into a Commercial Supply Agreement with Sanofi Chimie to manufacture and supply the API for our drug avanafil on an exclusive basis in the United States and other territories and on a semi‑exclusive basis in Europe, including the EU, Latin America and other territories. On November 18, 2013, we entered into a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie to manufacture and supply the avanafil tablets on an exclusive basis in the United States and other territories and on a semi‑exclusive basis in Europe, including the EU, Latin America and other territories. We have obtained approval from FDA and the EMA for Sanofi Chimie to be a qualified supplier of avanafil API and of Sanofi Winthrop Industrie as a qualified supplier of the avanafil tablets. We have minimum annual purchase commitments under these agreements for at least the initial five‑year terms.

Metuchen Pharmaceuticals, LLC

On September 30, 2016, we entered into the Metuchen License Agreement and the Metuchen Supply Agreement with Metuchen. Under the terms of the Metuchen License Agreement, Metuchen received an exclusive, license to develop, commercialize and promote STENDRA in the Metuchen Territory, effective October 1, 2016. We and Metuchen have agreed not to develop, commercialize, or in-license any other product that operates as a PDE-5 inhibitor in the Metuchen Territory for a limited time period, subject to certain exceptions. The license agreement will terminate upon the expiration of the last-to-expire payment obligations under the license agreement; upon expiration of the term of the license agreement, the exclusive license granted under the license agreement shall become fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable as to us but not certain trademark royalties due to MTPC.

Metuchen will obtain STENDRA exclusively from us for a mutually agreed term pursuant to the supply agreement. Metuchen may elect to transfer the control of the supply chain for STENDRA for the Metuchen Territory to itself or its designee by assigning to Metuchen our agreements with the contract manufacturer. For 2016 and each subsequent calendar year during the term of the supply agreement, if Metuchen fails to purchase an agreed minimum purchase amount of STENDRA from us, it will reimburse us for the shortfall as it relates to our out of pocket costs to acquire certain raw materials needed to manufacture STENDRA. Upon the termination of the supply agreement (other

than by Metuchen for our uncured material breach or upon completion of the transfer of the control of the supply chain), Metuchen’s agreed minimum purchase amount of STENDRA from us shall accelerate for the entire then current initial term or renewal term, as applicable. The initial term under the Supply Agreement will be for a period of five years, with automatic renewal for successive two year periods unless either party provides a termination notice to the other party at least two years in advance of the expiration of the then current term. On September 30, 2016, we received $70 million from Metuchen under the license agreement. Metuchen will also reimburse us for payments made to cover royalty and milestone obligations to MTPC during the term of the license agreement, but will otherwise owe us no future royalties.

Selten Pharma, Inc.

On January 6, 2017, we entered into a Patent Assignment Agreement with Selten, whereby we received exclusive, worldwide rights for the development and commercialization of BMPR2 activators for the treatment of PAH and related vascular diseases.  As part of the agreement, Selten assigned to us its license to a group of patents owned by Stanford, which cover uses of tacrolimus and ascomycin to treat PAH. We are responsible for future financial obligations to Stanford under that license.

We have also assumed full responsibility for the development and commercialization of the licensed compounds for the treatment of PAH and related vascular diseases. Selten received an upfront payment of $1.0 million and is entitled to receive milestone payments based on global development status and future sales milestones, as well as tiered royalty payments on future sales of these compounds.  The total potential milestone payments are $39.0 million to Selten and $550,000 to Stanford. The majority of the milestone payments to Selten may be paid, at our sole option, either in cash or our common stock, provided that in no event shall the payment of common stock exceed fifty percent of the aggregate amount of such milestone payments.

Other

In October 2001, we entered into an assignment agreement, or the Assignment Agreement, with Thomas Najarian, M.D., for a combination of pharmaceutical agents for the treatment of obesity and other disorders, or the Combination Therapy, that became the focus of our development program for Qsymia. The Combination Therapy and all related patent applications, or the Patents, were transferred to us with worldwide rights to develop and commercialize the Combination Therapy and exploit the Patents. In addition, the Assignment Agreement requires us to pay royalties on worldwide net sales of a product for the treatment of obesity that is based upon the Combination Therapy and Patents until the last‑to‑expire of the assigned Patents. To the extent that we decide not to commercially exploit the Patents, the Assignment Agreement will terminate and the Combination Therapy and Patents will be assigned back to Dr. Najarian. In 2006, Dr. Najarian joined the Company as a part‑time employee and served as a Principal Scientist. In November 2013, Dr. Najarian’s employment with the Company ended, and he continues to be available as a consultant.

Patents, Proprietary Technology and Data Exclusivity

We own or are the exclusive licensee of more than 30 patents and numerous published patent applications in the U.S. and Canada. We intend to develop, maintain and secure intellectual property rights and to aggressively defend and pursue new patents to expand upon our current patent base. Our portfolio of patents, which primarily relates to Qsymia, our FDA‑approved drug for the treatment of obesity, STENDRA, our FDA‑approved drug for the treatment of ED, and tacrolimus is summarized as follows:

*These expiration dates are based on the number of days of patent term adjustment, or PTA, calculated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. An independent calculation of PTA suggested that the patents may be entitled to fewer days of PTA than determined by the USPTO.

The EU has adopted a harmonized approach to data and marketing exclusivity under Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC. The exclusivity scheme applies to products that have been authorized in the EU by either the European Commission, through the centralized procedure, or the competent authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area, or EEA, under the Decentralized or Mutual Recognition procedures. The approach (known as the 8+2+1 formula) permits eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of marketing exclusivity. Within the first eight years of the 10 years, a generic applicant is not permitted to cross refer to the preclinical and clinical trial data relating to the reference product. Even if the generic product is authorized after expiry of the eight years of data exclusivity, it cannot be placed on the market until the full 10‑year market exclusivity has expired. This 10‑year market exclusivity may be extended cumulatively to a maximum period of 11 years if during the first eight years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for a new (second) therapeutic indication which, during the scientific evaluation prior to its authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

In addition to the Canadian patents identified in the table, we also hold foreign counterparts, patents and patent applications in major foreign jurisdictions related to our U.S. patents. We have developed and acquired exclusive rights to patented technology in support of our development and commercialization of our approved drugs and investigational drug candidates, and we rely on trade secrets and proprietary technologies in developing potential drugs. We continue to

place significant emphasis on securing global intellectual property rights and are aggressively pursuing new patents to expand upon our strong foundation for commercializing investigational drug candidates in development.

Manufacturing

Our commercial products, Qsymia and STENDRA, together with their respective APIs and finished products, as well as our clinical supplies, are manufactured on a contract basis. In addition, packaging for the commercial distribution of the Qsymia product capsules and the STENDRA product tablets is performed by contract packaging companies. We expect to continue to contract with other third‑party providers for manufacturing services, including APIs, finished products, and packaging operations as needed. We believe that our current agreements and purchase orders with third‑party manufacturers provide for sufficient operating capacity to support the anticipated commercial demand for Qsymia and STENDRA and our clinical supplies. However, if we are unable to obtain a sufficient supply of Qsymia or STENDRA for our commercial sales, or the clinical supplies to support our clinical trials, or if we should encounter delays or difficulties in our relationships with our manufacturers or packagers, we may lose potential sales, have difficulty entering into collaboration agreements for the commercialization of STENDRA for territories in which we do not have a commercial collaboration or our clinical trials may be delayed.

Catalent manufactures our clinical and commercial supplies for Qsymia. Catalent has been successful in validating the commercial manufacturing process for Qsymia at a scale that has been able to support the launch of Qsymia in the U.S. market.

On July 31, 2013, we entered into a Commercial Supply Agreement with Sanofi Chimie, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanofi, pursuant to which Sanofi Chimie manufactures and supplies the API for STENDRA. On November 18, 2013, we entered into a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanofi, pursuant to which Sanofi Winthrop Industrie manufactures and supplies the tablets for avanafil.

We currently do not have any manufacturing facilities and intend to continue to rely on third parties for the supply of the starting materials, API and finished dosage forms (tablets and capsules). However, we cannot be certain that we will be successful in entering into additional supplier agreements or that we will be able to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for any suppliers in a timely manner or at all.

We attempt to prevent disruption of supplies through supply agreements, purchase orders, appropriate forecasting, maintaining stock levels and other strategies. In the event we are unable to manufacture our products, either directly or indirectly through others or on commercially acceptable terms, if at all, we may not be able to commercialize our products as planned. Although we are taking these actions to avoid a disruption in supply, we cannot provide assurance that we may not experience a disruption in the future.

Marketing and Sales

We commercialize Qsymia in the U.S. primarily through a dedicated contract sales force, supported by an internal commercial team. Our efforts to expand the appropriate use of Qsymia include scientific publications, participation and presentations at medical conferences, and development and implementation of patient-directed support programs. We have rolled out marketing programs to encourage targeted prescribers to gain more experience with Qsymia. We have increased our investment in digital media in order to amplify our messaging to information-seeking consumers. The digital messaging encourages those consumers most likely to take action to speak with their physicians about obesity treatment options. We believe our enhanced web-based strategies will deliver clear and compelling communications to potential patients. We launched the “Smart Changes Program” in which we partner Qsymia with the Mayo Clinic diet to help on-line patients make the behavioral changes needed for sustained weight-loss.

Qsymia Distribution and REMS

We rely on Cardinal Health 105, Inc., or Cardinal Health, a third‑party distribution and supply‑chain management company, to warehouse Qsymia and distribute it to the certified home delivery pharmacies and wholesalers that then distribute Qsymia directly to patients and certified retail pharmacies. Cardinal Health provides billing,

collection and returns services. Cardinal Health is our exclusive supplier of distribution logistics services, and accordingly we depend on Cardinal Health to satisfactorily perform its obligations under our agreement with them.

Pursuant to the REMS program applicable to Qsymia, our distribution network is through a broader network of certified retail pharmacies and through a small number of certified home delivery pharmacies and wholesalers. We have contracted through a third‑party vendor to certify the retail pharmacies and collect required data to support the Qsymia REMS program. In addition to providing services to support the distribution and use of Qsymia, each of the certified pharmacies has agreed to comply with the REMS program requirements and, through our third‑party data collection vendor, will provide us with the necessary patient and prescribing HCP data. In addition, we have contracted with third‑party data warehouses to store this patient and HCP data and report it to us. We rely on this third‑party data in order to recognize revenue and comply with the REMS requirements for Qsymia, such as data analysis. This distribution and data collection network requires significant coordination with our sales and marketing, finance, regulatory and medical affairs teams, in light of the REMS requirements applicable to Qsymia.

Competition

Competition in the pharmaceutical and medical products industries is intense and is characterized by costly and extensive research efforts and rapid technological progress. We are aware of several pharmaceutical companies also actively engaged in the development of therapies for the treatment of obesity, diabetes and sexual health and medical device companies engaged in the development of therapies for the treatment of sleep apnea. Many of these companies have substantially greater research and development capabilities as well as substantially greater marketing, financial and human resources than VIVUS. Our competitors may develop technologies and products that are more effective than those we are currently marketing or researching and developing. Some of the drugs that may compete with Qsymia may not have a REMS requirement and the accompanying complexities such a requirement presents. Such developments could render Qsymia and STENDRA less competitive or possibly obsolete. We are also competing with respect to marketing capabilities and manufacturing efficiency, areas in which we have limited experience.

Qsymia for the treatment of chronic weight management competes with several approved anti‑obesity drugs including, Belviq® (lorcaserin), an anti‑obesity compound being marketed by Eisai Inc., Eisai Co., Ltd.’s U.S. subsidiary; Contrave® (naltrexone/bupropion), Orexigen Therapeutics’ anti‑obesity product; Xenical® (orlistat), marketed by Roche; alli®, the over‑the‑counter version of orlistat, marketed by GlaxoSmithKline; and Novo Nordisk A/S’ Saxenda® (liraglutide) 3.0 mg.

Agents approved for type 2 diabetes that have demonstrated weight loss in clinical studies may also compete with Qsymia. These agents include Victoza® (liraglutide; approved for diabetes at 1.2mg and 1.8mg dosage strengths) from Novo Nordisk A/S, a GLP‑1 receptor agonist approved January 25, 2010, Invokana® (canaglifozin) from Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals, an SGLT2 inhibitor, approved March 29, 2013; Farxiga™ (dapagliflozin) from AstraZeneca and Bristol‑Myers Squibb, an SGLT2 inhibitor, approved January 8, 2014; Jardiance® (empagliflozin) from Boehringer Ingelheim, an SGLT2 inhibitor, approved August 1, 2014; and Glyxambi® (empagliflozin/linagliptin) from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, an SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP‑4 inhibitor combination product, approved January 30, 2015. On January 14, 2015, FDA approved the Maestro Rechargeable System for certain obese adults, the first weight loss treatment device that targets the nerve pathway between the brain and the stomach that controls feelings of hunger and fullness. The Maestro Rechargeable System is approved to treat patients aged 18 and older who have not been able to lose weight with a weight loss program, and who have a body mass index of 35 to 45 with at least one other obesity‑related condition, such as type 2 diabetes.

In addition, there are several other investigational drug candidates in Phase 2 clinical trials. Zafgen’s beloranib, currently in Phase 2 for severe obesity, is a methionine aminopeptidase 2 (MetAP2) inhibitor, which is believed to work by re‑establishing balance to the ways the body packages and metabolizes fat. In January 2013, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, or Rhythm, announced the initiation of a Phase 2 clinical trial with RM‑493, a small‑peptide melanocortin 4 receptor, or MC4R, agonist, for the treatment of obesity. Rhythm announced in September 2013, that RM‑493 is being studied in Phase 1B for the treatment of obesity in individuals with a genetic deficiency in the MC4R pathway. There are a number of generic pharmaceutical drugs that are prescribed for obesity, predominantly phentermine, which is sold at much lower prices than we charge for Qsymia and is also widely available in retail pharmacies. The availability of branded prescription drugs, generic drugs and over‑the‑counter drugs could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for Qsymia.

We may also face competition from the off‑label use of the generic components in our drugs. In particular, it is possible that patients will seek to acquire phentermine and topiramate, the generic components of Qsymia. Neither of these generic components has a REMS program. Although these products have not been approved by FDA for use in the treatment of chronic obesity, the off‑label use of the generic components in the U.S. or the importation of the generic components from foreign markets could adversely affect the commercial potential for our drugs and adversely affect our overall business, financial condition and results of operations.

Qsymia may also face challenges and competition from newly developed generic products. Under the U.S. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, known as the Hatch‑Waxman Act, newly approved drugs and indications may benefit from a statutory period of non‑patent marketing exclusivity. The Hatch‑Waxman Act stimulates competition by providing incentives to generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to introduce non‑infringing forms of patented pharmaceutical products and to challenge patents on branded pharmaceutical products. We have received notifications under paragraph IV of the Hatch-Waxman Act challenging certain of our Qsymia patents. If we are unsuccessful in challenging an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, filed pursuant to the Hatch‑Waxman Act, a generic version of Qsymia may be launched, which would harm our business.

There are also surgical approaches to treat severe obesity that are becoming increasingly accepted. Two of the most well‑established surgical procedures are gastric bypass surgery and adjustable gastric banding, or lap bands. In February 2011, FDA approved the use of a lap band in patients with a BMI of 30 (reduced from 35) with comorbidities. The lowering of the BMI requirement will make more obese patients eligible for lap band surgery. In addition, other potential approaches that utilize various implantable devices or surgical tools are in development. Some of these approaches are in late‑stage development and may be approved for marketing.

We anticipate that STENDRA for the treatment of ED will compete with PDE5 inhibitors in the form of oral medications including Viagra® (sildenafil citrate), marketed by Pfizer, Inc.; Cialis® (tadalafil), marketed by Eli Lilly and Company; Levitra® (vardenafil), co‑marketed by GlaxoSmithKline plc and Schering‑Plough Corporation in the U.S.; and STAXYN® (vardenafil in an oral disintegrating tablet, or ODT), co‑promoted by GlaxoSmithKline plc and Merck & Co., Inc.

New developments, including the development of other drug technologies and methods of preventing the incidence of disease, occur in the pharmaceutical and medical technology industries at a rapid pace. These developments may render our drugs and future investigational drug candidates obsolete or noncompetitive. Compared to us, many of our potential competitors have substantially greater:

As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our investigational drug candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs or surgical approaches that are more effective, more useful and less costly than ours and may also be more successful in manufacturing and marketing their products. In addition, our competitors may be more effective in commercializing their products. We currently outsource our manufacturing and therefore rely on third parties for that competitive expertise. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop or contract for these capabilities on acceptable economic terms, or at all.

Avanafil qualifies as an innovative medicinal product in the EU. Innovative medicinal products authorized in the EU on the basis of a full marketing authorization application (as opposed to an application for marketing authorization that relies on data in the marketing authorization dossier for another, previously approved medicinal product) are entitled to eight years’ data exclusivity. During this period, applicants for approval of generics of these innovative products cannot rely on data contained in the marketing authorization dossier submitted for the innovative medicinal product. Innovative medicinal products are also entitled to 10 years’ market exclusivity. During this 10‑year period no generic medicinal product can be placed on the EU market. The 10‑year period of market exclusivity can be

extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the Marketing Authorization Holder for the innovative product obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. If we do not obtain extended patent protection and data exclusivity for our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Research and Development

We incurred $5.6 million, $10.1 million and $13.8 million in 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, in research and development expenses, primarily to support the approval efforts, post‑marketing requirements, and clinical programs for Qsymia and STENDRA/SPEDRA.

Employees

As of February 28, 2017, we had 65 employees located at our corporate headquarters in Campbell, California and in the field. None of our current employees are represented by a labor union or are the subject of a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that our relations with our employees are good, and we have never experienced a work stoppage at any of our facilities.

Insurance

We maintain product liability insurance for our clinical trials and commercial sales and general liability and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for our operations. 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. Although we have obtained product liability insurance coverage, we may be unable to maintain this product liability coverage for our approved drugs in amounts or scope sufficient to provide us with adequate coverage against all potential risks.

Geographic Area Financial Information

For financial information concerning the geographic areas in which we operate, see Note 18: “Segment Information and Concentration of Customers and Suppliers—Geographic Information” to our Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K.

Available Information

Our Annual Report on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8‑K and amendments to reports filed pursuant to Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available on our website at www.vivus.com, when such reports are available on the SEC website. Copies of our Annual Report will be made available, free of charge, upon written request.

The public may read and copy any materials filed by VIVUS with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1‑800‑SEC‑0330. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. The contents of these websites are not incorporated into this filing. Further, VIVUS’s references to the URLs for these websites are intended to be inactive textual references only.

In addition, information regarding our code of ethics and the charters of our Audit, Compensation, and Nominating and Governance Committees are available free of charge on our website listed above.

Item 1A.  Risk Factors

Set forth below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K and in other documents we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, are risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ

materially from the results contemplated by the forward‑looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. These are not the only risks and uncertainties facing VIVUS. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations.

Risks Relating to our Business

Our success will depend on our ability and that of our collaborators to effectively and profitably commercialize Qsymia®  and STENDRA.

Our success will depend on our ability and that of our collaborators to effectively and profitably commercialize Qsymia and STENDRA, which will include our ability to:

If we are unable to successfully commercialize Qsymia, our ability to generate product sales will be severely limited, which will have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We may not be able to successfully develop, launch and commercialize tacrolimus or any other potential future development programs.

We may not be able to effectively develop and profitably launch and commercialize tacrolimus or any other potential future development programs which we may undertake, which will include our ability to:

If we are unable to successfully develop, launch and commercialize tacrolimus, our ability to generate product sales will be severely limited, which will have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Changes to our management and strategic business plan may cause uncertainty regarding the future of our business, and may adversely impact employee hiring and retention, our stock price, and our revenue, operating results, and financial condition.

We commenced corporate restructuring plans in November 2013 and July 2015 that resulted in significant reductions in our workforce.  These changes, and the potential for additional changes to our management, organizational structure and strategic business plan, may cause speculation and uncertainty regarding our future business strategy and direction. These changes may cause or result in:

If we are unable to mitigate these or other potential risks, our revenue, operating results and financial condition may be adversely impacted.

We depend on our collaboration partners to gain or maintain approval, market, and sell STENDRA/SPEDRA in their respective licensed territories.

In July 2013, we entered into the Menarini License Agreement under which Menarini received an exclusive license to commercialize and promote SPEDRA for the treatment of ED in over 40 countries, including the EU, plus Australia and New Zealand. In October 2013, we entered into the Auxilium License Agreement and the Auxilium Supply Agreement under which Auxilium received an exclusive license to commercialize and promote STENDRA for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, or ED, in the United States and Canada. Auxilium terminated the Auxilium Supply Agreement effective June 30, 2016 and the Auxilium License Agreement effective September 30, 2016. On September 30, 2016, we entered into the Metuchen License Agreement whereby Metuchen received an exclusive license to develop, commercialize and promote STENDRA in the Metuchen Territory, effective October 1, 2016. In December 2013, we entered into the Sanofi License Agreement under which Sanofi received an exclusive license to commercialize and promote avanafil for therapeutic use in humans in the Sanofi Territory.

We are relying on our collaboration partners to successfully commercialize STENDRA or SPEDRA in their respective territories, inclusive of obtaining any necessary approvals. There can be no assurances that these collaboration partners will be successful in doing so. In general, we cannot control the amount and timing of resources that our collaboration partners devote to the commercialization of our drugs. If any of our collaboration partners fails to successfully commercialize our drug products, our business may be negatively affected. For example, if our collaboration partners do not successfully commercialize STENDRA or SPEDRA, we may receive limited or no revenues under our agreements with them.

Under our license agreement with MTPC, we are obligated to ensure that Menarini, Metuchen, Sanofi, and any future sublicensees comply with its terms and conditions. MTPC has the right to terminate our license rights to avanafil in the event of any uncured material breach of the license agreement. Consequently, failure by Menarini, Metuchen, Sanofi, or any future sublicensees to comply with these terms and conditions could result in termination of our license rights to avanafil on a worldwide basis, which could delay, impair, or preclude our ability to commercialize avanafil.

We depend on collaborative arrangements or strategic alliances for the commercialization of STENDRA or SPEDRA.

Our dependence on collaborative arrangements or strategic alliances for the commercialization of STENDRA or SPEDRA, including our license agreements with MTPC, Menarini, Metuchen and Sanofi, will subject us to a number of risks, including the following:

We currently rely on reports from our commercialization partners in determining our royalty revenues, and these reports may be subject to adjustment or restatement, which may materially affect our financial results.

We have royalty and milestone-bearing license and commercialization agreements for STENDRA or SPEDRA with Menarini and Sanofi and, prior to October 1, 2016, with Auxilium.  In determining our royalty revenue from such agreements, we rely on our collaboration partners to provide accounting estimates and reports for various discounts and allowances, including product returns.  As a result of fluctuations in inventory, allowances and buying patterns, actual sales and product returns of STENDRA or SPEDRA in particular reporting periods may be affected, resulting in the need for our commercialization partners to adjust or restate their accounting estimates set forth in the reports provided to us. For example, in April 2015, we were informed by Endo, upon their purchase of Auxilium, that Endo had revised its accounting estimate for STENDRA return reserve related to sales made in 2014. Under the terms of our license and commercialization agreement, adjustments to the return reserve can be deducted from reported net revenue. As a result, in the year ended December 31, 2015, we recorded an adjustment of $1.2 million to reduce our royalty revenue on net sales of STENDRA. The reduction in royalty revenue resulted in an increase to net loss of $1.2 million, or $0.01 per share, for the year ended December 31, 2015.  Such adjustments or restatements may materially and negatively affect our financial position and results of operations. Beginning October 1, 2016, we ceased earning royalty revenue from U.S. sales as a result of the termination of our license and commercialization agreement with Auxilium. Our new license agreement with Metuchen is royalty-free as to us.

If we are unable to enter into agreements with collaborators for the territories that are not covered by our existing commercialization agreements, our ability to commercialize STENDRA in these territories may be impaired.

We intend to enter into collaborative arrangements or a strategic alliance with one or more pharmaceutical partners or others to commercialize STENDRA in territories that are not covered by our current commercial collaboration agreements, such as Mexico and Central America. We may be unable to enter into agreements with third parties for STENDRA for these territories on favorable terms or at all, which could delay, impair, or preclude our ability to commercialize STENDRA in these territories.

Failure to obtain regulatory approval in foreign jurisdictions will prevent us from marketing our products abroad.

In order to market products in many foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. Approval by FDA in the U.S. does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries. For example, while our drug STENDRA has been approved in both the U.S. and the EU, our drug Qsymia has been approved in the U.S. but Qsiva (the intended trade name for Qsymia in the EU) was denied a marketing authorization by the EC due to concerns over the potential cardiovascular and central nervous system effects associated with long-term use, teratogenic potential and use by patients for whom Qsiva would not have been indicated. We intend to seek approval, either directly or through our collaboration partners, for Qsymia and STENDRA in other territories outside the U.S. and the EU. However, we have had limited interactions with foreign regulatory authorities, and the approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional testing. Foreign regulatory approvals may not be obtained, by us or our collaboration partners responsible for obtaining approval, on a timely basis, or at all, for any of our products. The failure to receive regulatory approvals in a foreign country would prevent us from marketing and commercializing our products in that country, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We, together with Menarini, Sanofi and any potential future collaborators in certain territories, intend to market STENDRA or SPEDRA outside the U.S., which will subject us to risks related to conducting business internationally.

We, through Menarini, Sanofi and any potential future collaborators in certain territories, intend to manufacture, market, and distribute STENDRA or SPEDRA outside the U.S. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to conducting business internationally, including:

We have significant inventories on hand and, for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we recorded inventory impairment and commitment fees totaling $29.5 million and $2.2 million, respectively, primarily to write off excess inventory related to Qsymia.

We maintain significant inventories and evaluate these inventories on a periodic basis for potential excess and obsolescence. During the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we recognized total charges of $29.5 million and $2.2 million, respectively, primarily for Qsymia inventories on hand in excess of projected demand. The inventory impairment charges were based on our analysis of current Qsymia inventory on hand and remaining shelf life, in relation to our projected demand for the product. The current FDA-approved commercial product shelf life for Qsymia is 36 months. STENDRA is approved in the U.S. and SPEDRA is approved in the EU for 48 months of commercial product shelf life.

Our write-down for excess and obsolete inventory is subjective and requires forecasting of the future market demand for our products. Forecasting demand for Qsymia, a drug in the obesity market in which there had been no new FDA-approved medications in over a decade prior to 2012, and for which reimbursement from third-party payors had previously been non-existent, has been difficult. Forecasting demand for STENDRA or SPEDRA, a drug that is new to a crowded and competitive market and has limited sales history, is also difficult. We will continue to evaluate our inventories on a periodic basis. The value of our inventories could be impacted if actual sales differ significantly from our estimates of future demand or if any significant unanticipated changes in future product demand or market conditions occur. Any of these events, or a combination thereof, could result in additional inventory write-downs in future periods, which could be material.

Our failure to manage and maintain our distribution network for Qsymia or compliance with certain requirements of the Qsymia REMS program could compromise the commercialization of this product.

We rely on Cardinal Health 105, Inc., or Cardinal Health, a third-party distribution and supply-chain management company, to warehouse Qsymia and distribute it to the certified home delivery pharmacies and wholesalers that then distribute Qsymia directly to patients and certified retail pharmacies. Cardinal Health provides billing, collection and returns services. Cardinal Health is our exclusive supplier of distribution logistics services, and accordingly we depend on Cardinal Health to satisfactorily perform its obligations under our agreement with them.

Pursuant to the REMS program applicable to Qsymia, our distribution network is through a small number of certified home delivery pharmacies and wholesalers and through a broader network of certified retail pharmacies. We

have contracted through a third-party vendor to certify the retail pharmacies and collect required data to support the Qsymia REMS program. In addition to providing services to support the distribution and use of Qsymia, each of the certified pharmacies has agreed to comply with the REMS program requirements and, through our third-party data collection vendor, will provide us with the necessary patient and prescribing healthcare provider, or HCP, data. In addition, we have contracted with third-party data warehouses to store this patient and HCP data and report it to us. We rely on this third-party data in order to recognize revenue and comply with the REMS requirements for Qsymia, such as data analysis. This distribution and data collection network requires significant coordination with our sales and marketing, finance, regulatory and medical affairs teams, in light of the REMS requirements applicable to Qsymia.

We rely on the certified pharmacies to implement a number of safety procedures and report certain information to our third-party REMS data collection vendor. Failure to maintain our contracts with Cardinal Health, our third-party REMS data collection vendor, or with the third-party data warehouses, or the inability or failure of any of them to adequately perform under our contracts with them, could negatively impact the distribution of Qsymia, or adversely affect our ability to comply with the REMS applicable to Qsymia. Failure to comply with a requirement of an approved REMS can result in, among other things, civil penalties, imposition of additional burdensome REMS requirements, suspension or revocation of regulatory approval and criminal prosecution. Failure to coordinate financial systems could also negatively impact our ability to accurately report and forecast product revenue. If we are unable to effectively manage the distribution and data collection process, sales of Qsymia could be severely compromised and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be harmed.

If we are unable to enter into agreements with suppliers or our suppliers fail to supply us with the APIs for our products or finished products or if we rely on sole-source suppliers, we may experience delays in commercializing our products.

We currently do not have supply agreements for topiramate or phentermine, which are the APIs used in Qsymia. We cannot guarantee that we will be successful in entering into supply agreements on reasonable terms or at all or that we will be able to obtain or maintain the necessary regulatory approvals for potential future suppliers in a timely manner or at all.

We anticipate that we will continue to rely on single-source suppliers for phentermine and topiramate for the foreseeable future. Any production shortfall on the part of our suppliers that impairs the supply of phentermine or topiramate could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we are unable to obtain a sufficient quantity of these compounds, there could be a substantial delay in successfully developing a second source supplier. An inability to continue to source product from any of these suppliers, which could be due to regulatory actions or requirements affecting the supplier, adverse financial or other strategic developments experienced by a supplier, labor disputes or shortages, unexpected demands or quality issues, could adversely affect our ability to satisfy demand for Qsymia, which could adversely affect our product sales and operating results materially, which could significantly harm our business.

We currently do not have any manufacturing facilities and intend to continue to rely on third parties for the supply of the API and tablets, as well as for the supply of starting materials. However, we cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain or maintain the necessary regulatory approvals for these suppliers in a timely manner or at all. In August 2012, we entered into an amendment to our license agreement with MTPC that permits us to manufacture the API and tablets for STENDRA ourselves or through third-parties. In 2015, we transferred the manufacturing of the API and tables for STENDRA to Sanofi.

In July 2013, we entered into a Commercial Supply Agreement with Sanofi Chimie to manufacture and supply the API for avanafil on an exclusive basis in the United States and other territories and on a semi-exclusive basis in Europe, including the EU, Latin America and other territories. In November 2013, we entered into a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie to manufacture and supply the avanafil tablets on an exclusive basis in the United States and other territories and on a semi-exclusive basis in Europe, including the EU, Latin America and other territories. We have obtained approval from FDA and the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, of Sanofi Chimie as a qualified supplier of avanafil API and of Sanofi Winthrop Industrie as a qualified supplier of the avanafil tablets. We have entered into supply agreements with Menarini and Metuchen under which we are obligated to supply them with avanafil tablets. If we are unable to maintain a reliable supply of avanafil API or tablets from Sanofi Chimie and/or Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, we may be unable to satisfy our obligations under these supply agreements in a timely

manner or at all, and we may, as a result, be in breach of one or both of these agreements.

We have in-licensed all or a portion of the rights to Qsymia and STENDRA from third parties. If we default on any of our material obligations under those licenses, we could lose rights to these drugs.

We have in-licensed and otherwise contracted for rights to Qsymia and STENDRA, and we may enter into similar licenses in the future. Under the relevant agreements, we are subject to commercialization, development, supply, sublicensing, royalty, insurance and other obligations. If we fail to comply with any of these requirements, or otherwise breach these license agreements, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license in whole or to terminate the exclusive nature of the license. Loss of any of these licenses or the exclusive rights provided therein could harm our financial condition and operating results.

In particular, we license the rights to avanafil from MTPC, and we have certain obligations to MTPC in connection with that license. We license the rights to Qsymia from Dr. Najarian. We believe we are in compliance with the material terms of our license agreements with MTPC and Dr. Najarian. However, there can be no assurance that this compliance will continue or that the licensors will not have a differing interpretation of the material terms of the agreements. If the license agreements were terminated early or if the terms of the licenses were contested for any reason, it would have a material adverse impact on our ability to commercialize products subject to these agreements, our ability to raise funds to finance our operations, our stock price and our overall financial condition. The monetary and disruption costs of any disputes involving our agreements could be significant despite rulings in our favor.

Our ability to gain market acceptance and generate revenues will be subject to a variety of risks, many of which are out of our control.

Qsymia and STENDRA/SPEDRA may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors or the medical community. We believe that the degree of market acceptance and our ability to generate revenues from such drugs will depend on a number of factors, including:

Our drugs may fail to achieve market acceptance or generate significant revenue to achieve sustainable profitability. In addition, our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the safety and benefits of our drugs may require significant resources and may not be successful.

We are required to complete post-approval studies and trials mandated by FDA for Qsymia, and such studies and trials are expected to be costly and time consuming. If the results of these studies and trials reveal unacceptable safety risks, Qsymia may be required to be withdrawn from the market.

As part of the approval of Qsymia, we are required to conduct several post-marketing studies and trials, including a clinical trial to assess the long-term treatment effect of Qsymia on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events in overweight and obese subjects with confirmed cardiovascular disease, or AQCLAIM, studies to assess the safety and efficacy of Qsymia for weight management in obese pediatric and adolescent subjects, studies to assess drug utilization and pregnancy exposure and a study to assess renal function. We estimate the AQCLAIM trial as currently designed will cost between $180 million and $220 million and the trial could take as long as five to six years to complete. In September 2013, we submitted a request to the EMA for Scientific Advice, a procedure similar to the U.S. Special Protocol Assessment process, regarding use of a pre-specified interim analysis from the CVOT, known as AQCLAIM, to assess the long-term treatment effect of Qsymia on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events in overweight and obese subjects with confirmed cardiovascular disease. Our request was to allow this interim analysis to support the resubmission of an application for a marketing authorization for Qsiva for treatment of obesity in accordance with the EU centralized marketing authorization procedure. We received feedback in 2014 from the EMA and the various competent authorities of the EU Member States associated with review of the AQCLAIM CVOT protocol, and we received feedback from FDA in late 2014 regarding the amended protocol. As a part of addressing FDA comments from a May 2015 meeting to discuss alternatives to completion of a CVOT, we worked with cardiovascular and epidemiology experts in exploring alternate solutions to demonstrate the long-term cardiovascular safety of Qsymia. After reviewing a summary of Phase 3 data relevant to CV risk and post-marketing safety data, the cardiology experts noted that they believe there was an absence of an overt CV risk. The epidemiology experts maintained that a well-conducted retrospective observational study could provide data to further inform on potential CV risk. We worked with the expert group to develop a protocol and conduct a retrospective observational study. We are in the process of analyzing the collected information for discussion with FDA. Although we and the consulted experts believe there is no overt signal for CV risk to justify the AQCLAIM CVOT, VIVUS is committed to working with FDA to reach a resolution. As for the EU, even if FDA were to accept a retrospective observational study in lieu of a CVOT, there would be no assurance that the EMA would accept the same. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in developing a further revised protocol or that any such revised protocol will reduce the costs of the study or obtain FDA or EMA agreement that it will fulfill the requirement of demonstrating the long-term cardiovascular safety of Qsymia. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that FDA or EMA will not request or require us to provide additional information or undertake additional preclinical studies and clinical trials or retrospective observational studies.

In addition to these studies, FDA may also require us to perform other lengthy post-approval studies or trials, for which we would have to expend significant additional resources, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and stock price. Failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements, including the completion of post-marketing studies and trials, can result in, among other things, civil monetary penalties, suspensions

of regulatory approvals, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution. The restriction, suspension or revocation of regulatory approvals or any other failure to comply with regulatory requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and stock price. We have not complied with all the regulatory timelines for the required post-marketing trials and studies, and this may be considered a violation of the statute if FDA does not find good cause.

We depend upon consultants and outside contractors extensively in important roles within our company.

We outsource many key functions of our business and therefore rely on a substantial number of consultants, and we will need to be able to effectively manage these consultants to ensure that they successfully carry out their contractual obligations and meet expected deadlines. However, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials or other development activities may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to complete our post-approval clinical trials for Qsymia and STENDRA, obtain regulatory approval for our future investigational drug candidates, successfully commercialize our approved drugs or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

Qsymia is a combination of two active ingredient drug products approved individually by FDA that are commercially available and marketed by other companies, although the specific dose strengths differ. As a result, Qsymia may be subject to substitution by prescribing physicians, or by pharmacists, with individual drugs contained in the Qsymia formulation, which would adversely affect our business.

Although Qsymia is a once-a-day, proprietary extended-release formulation, both of the approved APIs (phentermine and topiramate) that are combined to produce Qsymia are commercially available as drug products at prices that together are lower than the price at which we sell Qsymia. In addition, the distribution and sale of these drug products is not limited under a REMS program, as is the case with Qsymia. Further, the individual drugs contained in the Qsymia formulation are available in retail pharmacies. We cannot be sure that physicians will view Qsymia as sufficiently superior to a treatment regimen of Qsymia’s individual APIs to justify the significantly higher cost for Qsymia, and they may prescribe the individual generic drugs already approved and marketed by other companies instead of our combination drug. Although our U.S. and European patents contain composition, product formulation and method-of-use claims that we believe protect Qsymia, these patents may be ineffective or impractical to prevent physicians from prescribing, or pharmacists from dispensing, the individual generic constituents marketed by other companies instead of our combination drug. Phentermine and topiramate are currently available in generic form, although the doses used in Qsymia are currently not available. In the third quarter of 2013, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. launched Trokendi XR™ and in the second quarter of 2014, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. launched Qudexy™. Both products provide an extended-release formulation of the generic drug topiramate that is indicated for certain types of seizures and migraines. Topiramate is not approved for obesity treatment, and phentermine is only approved for short-term treatment of obesity. However, because the price of Qsymia is significantly higher than the prices of the individual components as marketed by other companies, physicians may have a greater incentive to write prescriptions for the individual components outside of their approved indication, instead of for our combination drug, and this may limit how we price or market Qsymia. Similar concerns could also limit the reimbursement amounts private health insurers or government agencies in the U.S. are prepared to pay for Qsymia, which could also limit market and patient acceptance of our drug and could negatively impact our revenues.

In many regions and countries where we may plan to market Qsymia, the pricing of reimbursed prescription drugs is controlled by the government or regulatory agencies. The government or regulatory agencies in these countries could determine that the pricing for Qsymia should be based on prices for its APIs when sold separately, rather than allowing us to market Qsymia at a premium as a new drug, which could limit our pricing of Qsymia and negatively impact our revenues.

Once an applicant receives authorization to market a medicinal product in an EU Member State, through any application route, the applicant is required to engage in pricing discussions and negotiations with a separate pricing authority in that country. The legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the EU Member States

continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures to keep healthcare costs down, due in part to the attention being paid to healthcare cost containment and other austerity measures in the EU. Certain of these changes could impose limitations on the prices pharmaceutical companies are able to charge for their products. The amounts of reimbursement available from governmental agencies or third-party payors for these products may increase the tax obligations on pharmaceutical companies such as ours, or may facilitate the introduction of generic competition with respect to our products. Furthermore, an increasing number of EU Member States and other foreign countries use prices for medicinal products established in other countries as “reference prices” to help determine the price of the product in their own territory. Consequently, a downward trend in the price of medicinal products in some countries could contribute to similar downward trends elsewhere. In addition, the ongoing budgetary difficulties faced by a number of EU Member States, including Greece and Spain, have led and may continue to lead to substantial delays in payment and payment partially with government bonds rather than cash for medicinal products, which could negatively impact our revenues and profitability. Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement of our medicinal products in some countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to conduct clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. There can be no assurance that our medicinal products will obtain favorable reimbursement status in any country.

If we become subject to product liability claims, we may be required to pay damages that exceed our insurance coverage.

Qsymia and STENDRA/SPEDRA, like all pharmaceutical products, are subject to heightened risk for product liability claims due to inherent potential side effects. For example, because topiramate, a component of Qsymia, may increase the risk of congenital malformation in infants exposed to topiramate during the first trimester of pregnancy and also may increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior, such risks may be associated with Qsymia as well. Other potential risks involving Qsymia may include, but are not limited to, an increase in resting heart rate, acute angle closure glaucoma, cognitive and psychiatric adverse events, metabolic acidosis, an increase in serum creatinine, hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, kidney stone formation, decreased sweating and hypokalemia, or lower-than-normal amount of potassium in the blood.

Although we have obtained product liability insurance coverage for Qsymia, we may be unable to maintain this product liability coverage for Qsymia or any other of our approved drugs in amounts or scope sufficient to provide us with adequate coverage against all potential risks. A product liability claim in excess of, or excluded from, our insurance coverage would have to be paid out of cash reserves and could have a material adverse effect upon our business, financial condition and results of operations. Product liability insurance is expensive even with large self-insured retentions or deductibles, difficult to maintain, and current or increased coverage may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all.

In addition, we develop, test, and manufacture through third parties, approved drugs and future investigational drug candidates that are used by humans. We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our approved drugs and investigational drug candidates in clinical trials. An individual may bring a liability claim against us if one of our approved drugs or future investigational drug candidates causes, or merely appears to have caused, an injury.

If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against a product liability claim, whether involving Qsymia, STENDRA/SPEDRA or a future investigational drug candidate or product, we may incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Damages awarded in a product liability action could be substantial and could have a negative impact on our financial condition. Whether or not we were ultimately successful in product liability litigation, such litigation would consume substantial amounts of our financial and managerial resources, and might result in adverse publicity, all of which would impair our business. In addition, product liability claims could result in an FDA investigation of the safety or efficacy of our product, our third-party manufacturing processes and facilities, or our marketing programs. An FDA investigation could also potentially lead to a recall of our products or more serious enforcement actions, limitations on the indications for which they may be used, or suspension or withdrawal of approval.

The markets in which we operate are highly competitive and we may be unable to compete successfully against new entrants or established companies.

Competition in the pharmaceutical and medical products industries is intense and is characterized by costly and extensive research efforts and rapid technological progress. We are aware of several pharmaceutical companies also actively engaged in the development of therapies for the treatment of obesity and erectile dysfunction. Many of these companies have substantially greater research and development capabilities as well as substantially greater marketing, financial and human resources than we do. Some of the drugs that may compete with Qsymia may not have a REMS requirement and the accompanying complexities such a requirement presents. Our competitors may develop technologies and products that are more effective than those we are currently marketing or researching and developing. Such developments could render Qsymia and STENDRA less competitive or possibly obsolete. We are also competing with respect to marketing capabilities and manufacturing efficiency, areas in which we have limited experience.

Qsymia for the treatment of chronic weight management competes with several approved anti-obesity drugs including, Belviq® (lorcaserin), Arena Pharmaceutical’s approved anti-obesity compound marketed by Eisai Inc., Eisai Co., Ltd.’s U.S. subsidiary; Xenical® (orlistat), marketed by Roche; alli®, the over-the-counter version of orlistat, marketed by GlaxoSmithKline; Contrave® (naltrexone/bupropion), Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.’s anti-obesity compound; and Saxenda® (liraglutide), an anti-obesity compound marketed by Novo Nordisk A/S. Agents that have been approved for type 2 diabetes that have demonstrated weight loss in clinical studies may also compete with Qsymia. These include Farxiga™ (dapagliflozin) from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb, an SGLT2 inhibitor; Jardiance® (empagliflozin) from Boehringer Ingelheim, an SGLT2 inhibitor; Victoza® (liraglutide) from Novo Nordisk A/S, a GLP-1 receptor agonist; Invokana® (canaglifozin) from Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals, an SGLT2 inhibitor and Glyxambi® (empagliflozin/linagliptin) from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, an SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor combination product. Also, EnteroMedics® Inc. markets the Maestro Rechargeable System for certain obese adults, the first weight loss treatment device that targets the nerve pathway between the brain and the stomach that controls feelings of hunger and fullness.

There are also several other investigational drug candidates in Phase 2 clinical trials for the treatment of obesity. There are also a number of generic pharmaceutical drugs that are prescribed for obesity, predominantly phentermine. Phentermine is sold at much lower prices than we charge for Qsymia. The availability of branded prescription drugs, generic drugs and over-the-counter drugs could limit the demand for, and the price we are able to charge for, Qsymia.

We also may face competition from the off-label use of the generic components in our drugs. In particular, it is possible that patients will seek to acquire phentermine and topiramate, the generic components of Qsymia. Neither of these generic components has a REMS program and both are available at retail pharmacies. Although the dose strength of these generic components has not been approved by FDA for use in the treatment of obesity, the off-label use of the generic components in the U.S. or the importation of the generic components from foreign markets could adversely affect the commercial potential for our drugs and adversely affect our overall business, financial condition and results of operations.

There are also surgical approaches to treat severe obesity that are becoming increasingly accepted. Two of the most well established surgical procedures are gastric bypass surgery and adjustable gastric banding, or lap bands. In February 2011, FDA approved the use of a lap band in patients with a BMI of 30 (reduced from 35) with comorbidities. The lowering of the BMI requirement will make more obese patients eligible for lap band surgery. In addition, other potential approaches that utilize various implantable devices or surgical tools are in development. Some of these approaches are in late-stage development and may be approved for marketing.

Qsymia may also face challenges and competition from newly developed generic products. Under the U.S. Drug

Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, newly approved drugs and indications may benefit from a statutory period of non-patent marketing exclusivity. The Hatch-Waxman Act stimulates competition by providing incentives to generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to introduce non-infringing forms of patented pharmaceutical products and to challenge patents on branded pharmaceutical products. If we are unsuccessful at challenging an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, filed pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, a generic version of Qsymia may be launched, which would harm our business.  Generic manufacturers pursuing ANDA approval are not required to conduct costly and time-consuming clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of their products; rather, they are permitted to rely on FDA’s finding that the innovator’s product is safe and effective. Additionally, generic drug companies generally do not expend significant sums on sales and marketing activities, instead relying on physicians or payors to substitute the generic form of a drug for the branded form. Thus, generic manufacturers can sell their products at prices much lower than those charged by the innovative pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies who have incurred substantial expenses associated with the research and development of the drug product and who must spend significant sums marketing a new drug.

The FDCA provides that an ANDA holder and an innovator drug with a REMS with Elements to Assure Safe use, like Qsymia, must use a single shared REMS system to assure safe use unless FDA waives this requirement and permits the ANDA holder to implement a separate but comparable REMS. We cannot predict the outcome or impact on our business of any future action that we may take with regard to sharing our REMS program or if FDA grants a waiver allowing the generic competitor to market a generic drug with a separate but comparable REMS.

New developments, including the development of other drug technologies and methods of preventing the incidence of disease, occur in the pharmaceutical and medical technology industries at a rapid pace. These developments may render our drugs and future investigational drug candidates obsolete or noncompetitive. Compared to us, many of our potential competitors have substantially greater:

As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our future investigational drug candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs or surgical approaches that are more effective, more useful and less costly than ours and may also be more successful in manufacturing and marketing their products. In addition, our competitors may be more effective in commercializing their products. We currently outsource our manufacturing and therefore rely on third parties for that competitive expertise. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop or contract for these capabilities on acceptable economic terms, or at all.

We may participate in new partnerships and other strategic transactions that could impact our liquidity, increase our expenses and present significant distractions to our management.

From time to time, we consider strategic transactions, such as out-licensing or in-licensing of compounds or technologies, acquisitions of companies and asset purchases. Most recently, on September 30, 2016, we entered into a license and commercialization agreement and a commercial supply agreement with Metuchen. Under the terms of the agreements, Metuchen received an exclusive license to develop, commercialize and promote STENDRA in the United States, Canada, South America and India, or the Territory, effective October 1, 2016. Additionally, on January 6, 2017, we entered into a Patent Assignment Agreement with Selten, whereby we received exclusive, worldwide rights for the development and commercialization of tacrolimus for the treatment of PAH and related vascular diseases.  Further potential transactions we may consider include a variety of different business arrangements, including strategic partnerships, joint ventures, spin-offs, restructurings, divestitures, business combinations and investments. In addition, another entity may pursue us as an acquisition target. Any such transactions may require us to incur non-recurring or other charges, may increase our near- and long-term expenditures and may pose significant integration challenges,

require additional expertise or disrupt our management or business, any of which could harm our operations and financial results.

As part of an effort to enter into significant transactions, we conduct business, legal and financial due diligence with the goal of identifying and evaluating material risks involved in the transaction. Despite our efforts, we ultimately may be unsuccessful in ascertaining or evaluating all such risks and, as a result, might not realize the expected benefits of the transaction. If we fail to realize the expected benefits from any transaction we may consummate, whether as a result of unidentified risks, integration difficulties, regulatory setbacks or other events, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Our failure to successfully identify, acquire, develop and market additional investigational drug candidates or approved drugs would impair our ability to grow.

As part of our growth strategy, we may acquire, in-license, develop and/or market additional products and investigational drug candidates. Most recently, on January 6, 2017, we entered into a Patent Assignment Agreement with Selten, whereby we received exclusive, worldwide rights for the development and commercialization of tacrolimus for the treatment of PAH and related vascular diseases. Because our internal research capabilities are limited, we may be dependent upon pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic scientists and other researchers to sell or license products or technology to us. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify, select and acquire promising pharmaceutical investigational drug candidates and products.

The process of proposing, negotiating and implementing a license or acquisition of an investigational drug candidate or approved product is lengthy and complex. Other companies, including some with substantially greater financial, marketing and sales resources, may compete with us for the license or acquisition of investigational drug candidates and approved products. We have limited resources to identify and execute the acquisition or in-licensing of third-party products, businesses and technologies and integrate them into our current infrastructure. Moreover, we may devote resources to potential acquisitions or in-licensing opportunities that are never completed, or we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of such efforts. We may not be able to acquire the rights to additional investigational drug candidates on terms that we find acceptable, or at all.

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

Further, any investigational drug candidate that we acquire may require additional development efforts prior to commercial sale, including extensive clinical testing and obtaining approval by FDA and applicable foreign regulatory authorities. All investigational drug candidates are prone to certain failures that are relatively common in the field of drug development, including the possibility that an investigational drug candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, we cannot be certain that any drugs that we develop or approved products that we may acquire will be commercialized profitably or achieve market acceptance.

If we fail to retain our key personnel and hire, train and retain qualified employees, we may not be able to compete effectively, which could result in reduced revenues or delays in the development of our investigational drug candidates or commercialization of our approved drugs.

Our success is highly dependent upon the skills of a limited number of key management personnel. To reach our business objectives, we will need to retain and hire qualified personnel in the areas of manufacturing, commercial operations, research and development, regulatory and legal affairs, business development, clinical trial design, execution and analysis, and pre-clinical testing. There can be no assurance that we will be able to retain or hire such personnel, as we must compete with other companies, academic institutions, government entities and other agencies. The loss of any of our key personnel or the failure to attract or retain necessary new employees could have an adverse effect on our research programs, investigational drug candidate development, approved drug commercialization efforts and business operations.

We rely on third parties and collaborative partners to manufacture sufficient quantities of compounds within product specifications as required by regulatory agencies for use in our pre-clinical and clinical trials and commercial operations and an interruption to this service may harm our business.

We do not have the ability to manufacture the materials we use in our pre-clinical and clinical trials and commercial operations. Rather, we rely on various third parties to manufacture these materials and there may be long lead times to obtain materials. There can be no assurance that we will be able to identify, contract with, qualify and obtain prior regulatory approval for additional sources of clinical materials. If interruptions in this supply occur for any reason, including a decision by the third parties to discontinue manufacturing, technical difficulties, labor disputes, natural or other disasters, or a failure of the third parties to follow regulations, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for our investigational drug candidates and may not be able to successfully commercialize these investigational drug candidates or our approved drugs.

Our third-party manufacturers and collaborative partners may encounter delays and problems in manufacturing our approved drugs or investigational drug candidates for a variety of reasons, including accidents during operation, failure of equipment, delays in receiving materials, natural or other disasters, political or governmental changes, or other factors inherent in operating complex manufacturing facilities. Supply-chain management is difficult. Commercially available starting materials, reagents, excipients, and other materials may become scarce, more expensive to procure, or not meet quality standards, and we may not be able to obtain favorable terms in agreements with subcontractors. Our third-party manufacturers may not be able to operate manufacturing facilities in a cost-effective manner or in a time frame that is consistent with our expected future manufacturing needs. If our third-party manufacturers, cease or interrupt production or if our third-party manufacturers and other service providers fail to supply materials, products or services to us for any reason, such interruption could delay progress on our programs, or interrupt the commercial supply, with the potential for additional costs and lost revenues. If this were to occur, we may also need to seek alternative means to fulfill our manufacturing needs.

For example, Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, or Catalent, is our sole source of clinical and commercial supplies for Qsymia. While Catalent has significant experience in commercial scale manufacturing, there is no assurance that Catalent will be successful in continuing to supply Qsymia at current levels or increasing the scale of the Qsymia manufacturing process, should the market demand for Qsymia expand beyond the level supportable by the current validated manufacturing process. Such a failure by Catalent to meet current demand or to further scale up the commercial manufacturing process for Qsymia could have a material adverse impact on our ability to realize commercial success with Qsymia in the U.S. market, and have a material adverse impact on our plan, market price of our common stock and financial condition.

For avanafil, in July 2013, we entered into a Commercial Supply Agreement with Sanofi Chimie to manufacture and supply the API for avanafil on an exclusive basis in the United States and other territories and on a semi-exclusive basis in Europe, including the EU, Latin America and other territories. On November 18, 2013, we entered into a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie to manufacture and supply the avanafil tablets for STENDRA and SPEDRA on an exclusive basis in the United States and other territories and on a semi-exclusive basis in Europe, including the EU, Latin America and other territories. Sanofi is responsible for all aspects of manufacture, including obtaining the starting materials for the production of API. If Sanofi is unable to manufacture the API or tablets in sufficient quantities to meet projected demand, future sales could be adversely affected, which in turn could have a

detrimental impact on our financial results, our license, commercialization, and supply agreements with our collaboration partners, and our ability to enter into a collaboration agreement for the commercialization in other territories.

Any failure of current or future manufacturing sites, including those of Sanofi Chimie and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, to receive or maintain approval from FDA or foreign authorities, obtain and maintain ongoing FDA or foreign regulatory compliance, or manufacture avanafil API or tablets in expected quantities could have a detrimental impact on our ability to commercialize STENDRA under our agreements with Menarini, Metuchen and Sanofi and our ability to enter into a collaboration agreement for the commercialization of STENDRA in our other territories not covered by our agreements with Menarini, Metuchen and Sanofi.

We rely on third parties to maintain appropriate levels of confidentiality of the data compiled during clinical, pre-clinical and retrospective observational studies and trials.

We seek to maintain the confidential nature of our confidential information through contractual provisions in our agreements with third parties, including our agreements with clinical research organizations, or CROs, that manage our clinical studies for our investigational drug candidates. These CROs may fail to comply with their obligations of confidentiality or may be required as a matter of law to disclose our confidential information. As the success of our clinical studies depends in large part on our confidential information remaining confidential prior to, during and after a clinical study, any disclosure or breach affecting that information could have a material adverse effect on the outcome of a clinical study, our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The collection and use of personal health data and other personal data in the EU is governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive as implemented into national laws by the EU Member States. This Directive imposes restrictions on the processing (e.g., collection, use, disclosure) of personal data, including a number of requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals prior to processing their personal data, notification of data processing obligations to the competent national data protection authorities and the security and confidentiality of the personal data. The Data Protection Directive also imposes strict restrictions on the transfer of personal data out of the EU to the United States. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Directive and the related national data protection laws of the EU Member States may result in fines and other administrative penalties. The General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, an EU-wide regulation that will be fully enforceable by May 25, 2018, will introduce new data protection requirements in the EU and substantial fines for violations of the data protection rules. The GDPR will increase our responsibility and liability in relation to EU personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new EU data protection rules. This may be onerous and increase our cost of doing business.

If we fail to comply with applicable healthcare and privacy and data security laws and regulations, we could face substantial penalties, liability and adverse publicity and our business, operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Our arrangements with third-party payors and customers expose us to broadly applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse.  In addition, our operations expose us to privacy and data security laws and regulations. The restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, and privacy and data security laws and regulations, that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws and regulations described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Any penalties, damages, fines, curtailment or restructuring of our operations, or associated adverse publicity, could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Although compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws and regulations, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for violation of these laws or regulations, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal and state privacy data, security and fraud laws and regulations may prove costly.

In the EU, the advertising and promotion of our products will also be subject to EU Member States’ laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices, as well as other EU Member State legislation governing statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption. Failure to comply with these rules can result in enforcement action by the EU Member State authorities, which may include any of the following: fines, imprisonment, orders forfeiting products or prohibiting or suspending their supply to the market, or requiring the manufacturer to issue public warnings, or to conduct a product recall.

Significant disruptions of information technology systems or security breaches could adversely affect our business.

We are increasingly dependent upon information technology systems, infrastructure and data to operate our business. In the ordinary course of business, we collect, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information (including but not limited to trade secrets or other intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information). It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information. We also have outsourced elements of our operations to third parties, and as a result we manage a number of third party vendors who may or could have access to our confidential information. The size and complexity of our information technology systems, and those of third party vendors with whom we contract, and the large amounts of confidential information stored on those systems, make such systems potentially vulnerable to service interruptions or to security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, third party vendors, and/or business partners, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties. Cyber-attacks are increasing in their frequency, sophistication, and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. Cyber-attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information.

Significant disruptions of our information technology systems or security breaches could adversely affect our business operations and/or result in the loss, misappropriation and/or unauthorized access, use or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, confidential information (including but not limited to trade secrets or other intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information), and could result in financial, legal, business and reputational harm to us.  For example, any such event that leads to unauthorized access, use or disclosure of personal information, including personal information regarding patients or employees, could harm our reputation, require us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect the privacy and security of personal information. Security breaches and other inappropriate access can be difficult to detect, and any delay in identifying them may lead to increased harm of the type described above. While we have implemented security measures to protect our information technology systems and infrastructure, there can be no assurance that such measures will prevent service interruptions or security breaches that could adversely affect our business.

Marketing activities for our approved drugs are subject to continued governmental regulation.

FDA, and third-country authorities, including the competent authorities of the EU Member States, have the authority to impose significant restrictions, including REMS requirements, on approved products through regulations on advertising, promotional and distribution activities. After approval, if products are marketed in contradiction with FDA laws and regulations, FDA may issue warning letters that require specific remedial measures to be taken, as well as an immediate cessation of the impermissible conduct, resulting in adverse publicity. FDA may also require that all future promotional materials receive prior agency review and approval before use. Certain states have also adopted regulations and reporting requirements surrounding the promotion of pharmaceuticals. Qsymia and STENDRA are subject to these regulations. Failure to comply with state requirements may affect our ability to promote or sell pharmaceutical drugs in certain states. This, in turn, could have a material adverse impact on our financial results and financial condition and could subject us to significant liability, including civil and administrative remedies as well as criminal sanctions.

We are subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and restrictions, which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize our drugs.

We are required to comply with extensive regulations for drug manufacturing, labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, distribution, advertising, promotion and record keeping in connection with the marketing of Qsymia and STENDRA. Regulatory approvals may also be subject to significant limitations on the indicated uses or marketing of the investigational drug candidates or to whom and how we may distribute our products. Even after FDA approval is obtained, FDA may still impose significant restrictions on a drug’s indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for REMS or potentially costly post-approval studies. For example, the labeling approved for Qsymia includes restrictions on use, including recommendations for pregnancy testing, level of obesity and duration of treatment. We are subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and restrictions that may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize Qsymia. FDA has also required the distribution of a Medication Guide to Qsymia patients outlining the increased risk of teratogenicity with fetal exposure and the possibility of suicidal thinking or behavior. In addition, FDA has required a REMS that may act to limit access to the drug, reduce our revenues and/or increase our costs. FDA may modify the Qsymia REMS in the future to be more or less restrictive.

Even if we maintain FDA approval, or receive a marketing authorization from the EC, and other regulatory approvals, if we or others identify adverse side effects after any of our products are on the market, or if manufacturing problems occur, regulatory approval or EU marketing authorization may be varied, suspended or withdrawn and reformulation of our products, additional clinical trials, changes in labeling and additional marketing applications may be required, any of which could harm our business and cause our stock price to decline.

We and our contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing of our products.

All of those involved in the preparation of a therapeutic drug for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our existing supply contract manufacturers, and clinical trial investigators, are subject to extensive regulation. Components

of a finished drug product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP. These regulations govern quality control of the manufacturing processes and documentation policies and procedures, and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of our third-party contractors must be inspected routinely for compliance. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulation occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or FDA may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third party to implement and that may include the issuance of a warning letter, temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales, recalls, market withdrawals, seizures, or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures would be imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract until satisfactory cGMP compliance is achieved. FDA could also impose civil penalties. We must also comply with similar regulatory requirements of foreign regulatory agencies.

We obtain the necessary raw materials and components for the manufacture of Qsymia and STENDRA as well as certain services, such as analytical testing packaging and labeling, from third parties. In particular, we rely on Catalent to supply Qsymia capsules and Packaging Coordinators, Inc., or PCI, for Qsymia packaging services. We rely on Sanofi Chimie and Sanofi Winthrop to supply avanafil API and tablets. We and these suppliers and service providers are required to follow cGMP requirements and are subject to routine and unannounced inspections by FDA and by state and foreign regulatory agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements and other applicable regulations. Upon inspection of these facilities, FDA or foreign regulatory agencies may find the manufacturing process or facilities are not in compliance with cGMP requirements and other regulations. Because manufacturing processes are highly complex and are subject to a lengthy regulatory approval process, alternative qualified supply may not be available on a timely basis or at all.

Difficulties, problems or delays in our suppliers and service providers’ manufacturing and supply of raw materials, components and services could delay our clinical trials, increase our costs, damage our reputation and cause us to lose revenue or market share if we are unable to timely meet market demands.

If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program or other governmental pricing programs, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, established by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and amended by the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 as well as subsequent legislation. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, we are required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available to the states for our drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Those rebates are based on pricing data reported by us on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS, the federal agency that administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of innovator products, the best price for each drug.

The Affordable Care Act made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. Effective in March 2010, rebate liability expanded from fee-for-service Medicaid utilization to include the utilization of Medicaid managed care organizations as well. With regard to the amount of the rebates owed, the Affordable Care Act increased the minimum Medicaid rebate from 15.1% to 23.1% of the average manufacturer price for most innovator products and from 11% to 13% for non-innovator products; changed the calculation of the rebate for certain innovator products that qualify as line extensions of existing drugs; and capped the total rebate amount for innovator drugs at 100% of the average manufacturer price. In addition, the Affordable Care Act and subsequent legislation changed the definition of average manufacturer price. Finally, the Affordable Care Act requires pharmaceutical manufacturers of branded prescription drugs to pay a branded prescription drug fee to the federal government beginning in 2011. Each individual pharmaceutical manufacturer pays a prorated share of the branded prescription drug fee of $3.0 billion in 2015, based on the dollar value of its branded prescription drug sales to certain federal programs identified in the law.

In February 2016, CMS issued final regulations to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program under the Affordable Care Act These regulations become effective on April 1, 2016. Moreover, legislative changes to the Affordable Care Act remain possible and appear likely in the 115th United States Congress and under the Trump Administration. We expect that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as it may be amended in the future, and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and on our ability to maintain or increase sales of our existing products or to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved. The issuance of regulations and coverage expansion by various governmental agencies relating to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program has and will continue to increase our costs and the complexity of compliance, has been and will be time consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing discount program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B pricing program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the average manufacturer price and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. Changes to the definition of average manufacturer price and the Medicaid rebate amount under the Affordable Care Act and CMS’s issuance of final regulations implementing those changes also could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively impact our results of operations.

The Affordable Care Act expanded the 340B program to include additional entity types: certain free-standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers and sole community hospitals, each as defined by the Affordable Care Act, but exempts “orphan drugs” from the ceiling price requirements for these covered entities. The Affordable Care Act also obligates the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to update the agreement that manufacturers must sign to participate in the 340B program to obligate a manufacturer to offer the 340B price to covered entities if the manufacturer makes the drug available to any other purchaser at any price and to report to the government the ceiling prices for its drugs.  The Health Resources and Services Administration, or HRSA, the agency that administers the 340B program, recently initiated the process of updating the agreement with participating manufacturers.  The Healthcare Reform Act also obligates the Secretary of HHS to create regulations and processes to improve the integrity of the 340B program.  In 2015, HRSA issued proposed omnibus guidance that addresses many aspects of the 340B program, and in August 2016, HRSA issued a proposed regulation regarding an administrative dispute resolution process for the 340B program.  It is unclear when or whether the guidance or regulation will be released in final form under the Trump Administration.  On January 5, 2017, HRSA issued a final regulation regarding the calculation of 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities. The March 6, 2017 effective date of this regulation is subject to a temporary delay directed by the Trump Administration, and the regulation could be subject to further delay or other modification by the Trump Administration. Implementation of this final rule and the issuance of any other final regulations and guidance could affect our obligations under the 340B program in ways we cannot anticipate.  In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program to additional covered entities or would require participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting.

Pricing and rebate calculations vary among products and programs. The calculations are complex and are often subject to interpretation by us, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. The Medicaid rebate amount is computed each quarter based on our submission to CMS of our current average manufacturer prices and best prices for the quarter. If we become aware that our reporting for a prior quarter was incorrect, or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we are obligated to resubmit the corrected data for a period not to exceed 12 quarters from the quarter in which the data originally were due. Such restatements and recalculations increase our costs for complying with the laws and regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. Any corrections to our rebate calculations could result in an overage or underage in our rebate liability for past quarters, depending on the nature of the correction. Price recalculations also may affect the ceiling price at which we are required to offer our products to certain covered entities, such as safety-net providers, under the 340B drug discount program.

We are liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data. In addition to retroactive rebates and the potential for 340B program refunds, if we are found to have knowingly submitted false average manufacturer price or best price information to the government, we may be liable for civil monetary penalties in the amount of $178,156 per item of false information. Our failure to submit monthly/quarterly average manufacturer price and best price data on a timely basis could result in a civil monetary penalty of $12,856 per day for each day the information is late beyond the due date. Such failure also could be grounds for CMS to terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, pursuant to which we participate in the Medicaid program. In the event that CMS terminates our rebate agreement, no federal payments would be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs.

In September 2010, CMS and the Office of the Inspector General indicated that they intend to pursue more aggressively companies that fail to report these data to the government in a timely manner. Governmental agencies may also make changes in program interpretations, requirements or conditions of participation, some of which may have implications for amounts previously estimated or paid. We cannot assure you that our submissions will not be found by CMS to be incomplete or incorrect.

If we misstate Non-FAMPs or FCPs, we must restate these figures.  Additionally, pursuant to the VHCA, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject us to penalties of $178,156 for each item of false information.   If we overcharge the government in connection with our FSS contract or the Tricare Retail Pharmacy Program, whether due to a misstated FCP or otherwise, we are required to refund the difference to the government.  Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify contract overcharges can result in allegations against us under the False Claims Act and other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and responding to a government investigation or enforcement action, would be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Changes in reimbursement procedures by government and other third-party payors, including changes in healthcare law and implementing regulations, may limit our ability to market and sell our approved drugs, or any future drugs, if approved, may limit our product revenues and delay profitability, and may impact our business in ways that we cannot currently predict. These changes could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In the U.S. and abroad, sales of pharmaceutical drugs are dependent, in part, on the availability of reimbursement to the consumer from third-party payors, such as government and private insurance plans. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. Some third-party payor benefit packages restrict reimbursement, charge co-pays to patients, or do not provide coverage for specific drugs or drug classes.

In addition, certain healthcare providers are moving towards a managed care system in which such providers contract to provide comprehensive healthcare services, including prescription drugs, for a fixed cost per person. We are unable to predict the reimbursement policies employed by third-party healthcare payors.

Payors also are increasingly considering new metrics as the basis for reimbursement rates, such as average sales price, average manufacturer price and Actual Acquisition Cost. The existing data for reimbursement based on these metrics is relatively limited, although certain states have begun to survey acquisition cost data for the purpose of setting Medicaid reimbursement rates. CMS, the federal agency that administers Medicare and the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, surveys and publishes retail community pharmacy acquisition cost information in the form of National Average Drug Acquisition Cost, or NADAC, files to provide state Medicaid agencies with a basis of comparison for their own reimbursement and pricing methodologies and rates. It may be difficult to project the impact of these evolving reimbursement mechanics on the willingness of payors to cover our products.

The healthcare industry in the U.S. and abroad is undergoing fundamental changes that are the result of political, economic and regulatory influences. The levels of revenue and profitability of pharmaceutical companies may be affected by the continuing efforts of governmental and third-party payors to contain or reduce healthcare costs through various means. Reforms that have been and may be considered include mandated basic healthcare benefits, controls on healthcare spending through limitations on the increase in private health insurance premiums and the types of drugs eligible for reimbursement and Medicare and Medicaid spending, the creation of large insurance purchasing groups, and fundamental changes to the healthcare delivery system. These proposals include measures that would limit or prohibit payments for some medical treatments or subject the pricing of drugs to government control and regulations

changing the rebates we are required to provide. Further, federal budgetary concerns could result in the implementation of significant federal spending cuts, including cuts in Medicare and other health related spending in the near-term. For example, beginning April 1, 2013, Medicare payments for all items and services, including drugs and biologics, were reduced by 2% under the sequestration (i.e., automatic spending reductions) required by the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.  Subsequent legislation extended the 2% reduction, on average, to 2025. These cuts reduce reimbursement payments related to our products, which could potentially negatively impact our revenue.

In March 2010, the President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively referred to in this report as the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and could have a material adverse effect on our future business, cash flows, financial condition and results of operations, including by operation of the following provisions:

In February 2016, CMS issued final regulations to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program under the Affordable Care Act. These regulations become effective on April 1, 2016.

The Affordable Care Act also expanded the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing discount program. The 340B pricing program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. The Affordable Care Act expanded the 340B program to include additional types of covered entities: certain free-standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers and sole community hospitals, each as defined by the Affordable Care Act, but exempts “orphan drugs” from the ceiling price requirements for these covered entities. The Affordable Care Act also obligates the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to update the agreement that manufacturers must sign to participate in the 340B program to obligate a manufacturer to offer the 340B price to covered entities if the manufacturer makes the drug available to any other purchaser at any price and to report to the government the ceiling prices for its drugs.  The Health Resources and Services Administration, or HRSA, the agency that administers the 340B program, recently initiated the process of updating the agreement with participating manufacturers.  The Healthcare Reform Act also obligates the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create regulations and processes to

improve the integrity of the 340B program.  In 2015, HRSA issued proposed omnibus guidance that addresses many aspects of the 340B program, and in August 2016, HRSA issued a proposed regulation regarding an administrative dispute resolution process for the 340B program.  It is unclear when or whether the guidance or regulation will be released in final form under the Trump Administration.  On January 5, 2017, HRSA issued a final regulation regarding the calculation of 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities. The March 6, 2017 effective date of this regulation is subject to a temporary delay directed by the Trump Administration, and the regulation could be subject to further delay or other modification by the Trump Administration. Implementation of this final rule and the issuance of any other final regulations and guidance could affect our obligations under the 340B program in ways we cannot anticipate.  In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program to additional covered entities or would require participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting.

There can be no assurance that future healthcare legislation or other changes in the administration or interpretation of government healthcare or third-party reimbursement programs will not have a material adverse effect on us. Healthcare reform is also under consideration in other countries where we intend to market Qsymia. Moreover, legislative changes to the Affordable Care Act remain possible and appear likely in the 115th United States Congress and under the Trump Administration. We expect that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as it may be amended in the future, and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and on our ability to maintain or increase sales of our existing products or to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

We expect to experience pricing and reimbursement pressures in connection with the sale of Qsymia, STENDRA and our investigational drug candidates, if approved, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative proposals. In addition, we may confront limitations in insurance coverage for Qsymia, STENDRA and our investigational drug candidates. For example, the Medicare program generally does not provide coverage for drugs used to treat erectile dysfunction or drugs used to treat obesity. Similarly, other insurers may determine that such products are not covered under their programs. If we fail to successfully secure and maintain reimbursement coverage for our approved drugs and investigational drug candidates or are significantly delayed in doing so, we will have difficulty achieving market acceptance of our approved drugs and investigational drug candidates and our business will be harmed. Congress has enacted healthcare reform and may enact further reform, which could adversely affect the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, and therefore could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Both of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in Qsymia, phentermine and topiramate, are available as single ingredient generic products and do not have a REMS requirement. The exact doses of the active ingredients in Qsymia are different than those currently available for the generic components. State pharmacy laws prohibit pharmacists from substituting drugs with differing doses and formulations. The safety and efficacy of Qsymia is dependent on the titration, dosing and formulation, which we believe could not be easily duplicated, if at all, with the use of generic substitutes. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to provide for optimal reimbursement of Qsymia as a treatment for obesity or, if approved, for any other indication, from third-party payors or the U.S. government. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that healthcare providers would not actively seek to provide patients with generic versions of the active ingredients in Qsymia in order to treat obesity at a potential lower cost and outside of the REMS requirements.

An increasing number of EU Member States and other foreign countries use prices for medicinal products established in other countries as “reference prices” to help determine the price of the product in their own territory. Consequently, a downward trend in prices of medicinal products in some countries could contribute to similar downward trends elsewhere. In addition, the ongoing budgetary difficulties faced by a number of EU Member States, including Greece and Spain, have led and may continue to lead to substantial delays in payment and payment partially with government bonds rather than cash for medicinal products, which could negatively impact our revenues and profitability. Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement of our medicinal products in some countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to conduct clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. There can be no assurance that our medicinal products will obtain favorable reimbursement status in any country.

Setbacks and consolidation in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and our, or our collaborators’, inability to obtain third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement, could make partnering more difficult and diminish our revenues.

Setbacks in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, such as those caused by safety concerns relating to high-profile drugs like Avandia®, Vioxx® and Celebrex®, or investigational drug candidates, as well as competition from generic drugs, litigation, and industry consolidation, may have an adverse effect on us. For example, pharmaceutical companies may be less willing to enter into new collaborations or continue existing collaborations if they are integrating a new operation as a result of a merger or acquisition or if their therapeutic areas of focus change following a merger. Moreover, our and our collaborators’ ability to commercialize any of our approved drugs or future investigational drug candidates will depend in part on government regulation and the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including private health insurers and government payors, such as the Medicaid and Medicare programs, increases in government-run, single-payor health insurance plans and compulsory licenses of drugs. Government and third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by limiting coverage and reimbursement levels for new drugs. Given the continuing discussion regarding the cost of healthcare, managed care, universal healthcare coverage and other healthcare issues, we cannot predict with certainty what additional healthcare initiatives, if any, will be implemented or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on our business. These efforts may limit our commercial opportunities by reducing the amount a potential collaborator is willing to pay to license our programs or investigational drug candidates in the future due to a reduction in the potential revenues from drug sales. Adoption of legislation and regulations could limit pricing approvals for, and reimbursement of, drugs. A government or third-party payor decision not to approve pricing for, or provide adequate coverage and reimbursements of, our drugs could limit market acceptance of these drugs.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our contract sales organization, or CSO, CROs, safety monitoring company and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, accidents, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our investigational drug candidate development programs and drug manufacturing operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing clinical trials for our investigational drug candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts with FDA, the EC, or the competent authorities of the EU Member States, and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development of our investigational drug candidates, or commercialization of our approved drugs, could be delayed. If we are unable to restore our information systems in the event of a systems failure, our communications, daily operations and the ability to develop our investigational drug candidates and approved drug commercialization efforts would be severely affected.

Natural disasters or resource shortages could disrupt our investigational drug candidate development and approved drug commercialization efforts and adversely affect results.

Our ongoing or planned clinical trials and approved drug commercialization efforts could be delayed or disrupted indefinitely upon the occurrence of a natural disaster. For example, Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, hindered our Qsymia sales efforts. In 2005, our clinical trials in the New Orleans area were interrupted by Hurricane Katrina. In addition, our offices are located in the San Francisco Bay Area near known earthquake fault zones and are therefore vulnerable to damage from earthquakes. In October 1989, a major earthquake in our area caused significant property damage and a number of fatalities. We are also vulnerable to damage from other disasters, such as power loss, fire, floods and similar events. If a significant disaster occurs, our ability to continue our operations could be seriously impaired and we may not have adequate insurance to cover any resulting losses. Any significant unrecoverable losses could seriously impair our operations and financial condition.

Risks Relating to our Intellectual Property

Obtaining intellectual property rights is a complex process, and we may be unable to adequately protect our proprietary technologies.

We hold various patents and patent applications in the U.S. and abroad targeting obesity and morbidities related to obesity, including sleep apnea and diabetes, and sexual health, among other indications. The procedures for obtaining a patent in the U.S. and in most foreign countries are complex. These procedures require an analysis of the scientific technology related to the invention and many sophisticated legal issues. Consequently, the process for having our pending patent applications issue as patents will be difficult, complex and time consuming. We do not know when, or if, we will obtain additional patents for our technologies, or if the scope of the patents obtained will be sufficient to protect our investigational drug candidates or products, or be considered sufficient by parties reviewing our patent positions pursuant to a potential licensing or financing transaction.

In addition, we cannot make assurances as to how much protection, if any, will be provided by our issued patents. Our existing patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from practicing our technologies or from developing competing products. Others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or design around our patented technologies or products. These companies would then be able to develop, manufacture and sell products that compete directly with our products. In that case, our revenues and operating results could decline.

Other entities may also challenge the validity or enforceability of our patents and patent applications in litigation or administrative proceedings. The sponsor of a generic application seeking to rely on one of our approved drug products as the reference listed drug must make one of several certifications regarding each listed patent. A “Paragraph III” certification is the sponsor’s statement that it will wait for the patent to expire before obtaining approval for its product. A “Paragraph IV” certification is a challenge to the patent; it is an assertion that the patent does not block approval of the later product, either because the patent is invalid or unenforceable or because the patent, even if valid, is not infringed by the new product. Once FDA accepts for filing a generic application containing a Paragraph IV certification, the applicant must within 20 days provide notice to the reference listed drug, or RLD, NDA holder and patent owner that the application with patent challenge has been submitted, and provide the factual and legal basis for the applicant’s assertion that the patent is invalid or not infringed. If the NDA holder or patent owner file suit against the generic applicant for patent infringement within 45 days of receiving the Paragraph IV notice, FDA is prohibited from approving the generic application for a period of 30 months from the date of receipt of the notice. If the RLD has new chemical entity exclusivity and the notice is given and suit filed during the fifth year of exclusivity, the 30-month stay does not begin until five years after the RLD approval. FDA may approve the proposed product before the expiration of the 30-month stay if a court finds the patent invalid or not infringed or if the court shortens the period because the parties have failed to cooperate in expediting the litigation. If a competitor or a generic pharmaceutical provider successfully challenges our patents, the protection provided by these patents could be reduced or eliminated and our ability to commercialize any approved drugs would be at risk. In addition, if a competitor or generic manufacturer were to receive approval to sell a generic or follow-on version of one of our products, our approved product would become subject to increased competition and our revenues for that product would be adversely affected.

We also may rely on trade secrets and other unpatented confidential information to protect our technology, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We seek to protect our trade secrets and other confidential information by entering into confidentiality agreements with employees, collaborators, vendors (including CROs and our CSO), consultants and, at times, potential investors. Nevertheless, employees, collaborators, vendors, consultants or potential investors may still disclose or misuse our trade secrets and other confidential information, and we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. In addition, others may independently develop substantially equivalent information or techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets. Disclosure or misuse of our confidential information would harm our competitive position and could cause our revenues and operating results to decline.

If we believe that others have infringed or misappropriated our proprietary rights, we may need to institute legal action to protect our intellectual property rights. Such legal action may be expensive, and we may not be able to afford the costs of enforcing or defending our intellectual property rights against others.

We have received notices of ANDA filings for Qsymia submitted by generic drug companies. These ANDA filings assert that generic forms of Qsymia would not infringe on our issued patents. As a result of these filings, we have commenced litigation to defend our patent rights, which is expected to be costly and time-consuming and, depending on the outcome of the litigation, we may face competition from lower cost generic or follow-on products in the near term.

Qsymia is approved under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, which renders it susceptible to potential competition from generic manufacturers via the Hatch-Waxman Act and ANDA process. The ANDA procedure includes provisions allowing generic manufacturers to challenge the innovator’s patent protection by submitting “Paragraph IV” certifications to FDA in which the generic manufacturer claims that the innovator’s patent is invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the generic product. A patent owner who receives a Paragraph IV certification may choose to sue the generic applicant for patent infringement.

We have received a Paragraph IV certification notice from Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., or Actavis, contending that our patents listed in the Orange Book for Qsymia (U.S. Patents 7,056,890, 7,553,818, 7,659,256, 7,674,776, 8,580,298, and 8,580,299) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of a generic form of Qsymia. In response to this notice, we have filed suit to defend our patent rights. We have received a second Paragraph IV certification notice from Actavis contending that two additional patents listed in the Orange Book for Qsymia (U.S. Patents 8,895,057 and 8,895,058) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of a generic form of Qsymia. In response to this second notice, we have filed a second lawsuit against Actavis. We have received a third Paragraph IV certification notice from Actavis contending that two additional patents listed in the Orange Book for Qsymia (U.S. Patents 9,011,905 and 9,011,906) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of a generic form of Qsymia. In response to this third notice, we have filed a third lawsuit against Actavis. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single suit.  On July 20, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a claim construction (Markman) ruling governing the suit.

In accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act, as a result of having filed a timely lawsuit against Actavis, FDA approval of Actavis’ ANDA will be stayed until the earlier of (i) up to 30 months from our May 7, 2014 receipt of Actavis’ Paragraph IV certification notice (i.e. November 7, 2016) or (ii) a District Court decision finding that the identified patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed.

We have received a Paragraph IV certification notice from Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (collectively, Teva) contending that eight of our patents listed in the Orange Book for Qsymia (U.S. Patents 7,056,890, 7,533,818, 7,659,256, 7,674,776, 8,580,298, 8,580,299, 8,895,057, and 8,895,058) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of a generic form of Qsymia. In response to this notice, we have filed suit against Teva to defend our patent rights.  We have received a second Paragraph IV certification notice from Teva contending that two additional patents listed in the Orange Book for Qsymia (U.S. Patents 9,011,905 and 9,011,906) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of a generic form of Qsymia.  In response to this second notice, we have filed a second lawsuit against Teva. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single suit.  On July 20, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a claim construction (Markman) ruling governing the suit.  On September 27, 2016, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., collectively referred to as DRL, were substituted for Teva as defendants in the lawsuit.

In accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act, as a result of having filed a timely lawsuit against Teva, FDA approval of Teva’s ANDA will be stayed until the earlier of (i) up to 30 months from our March 5, 2015 receipt of Teva’s Paragraph IV certification notice (i.e. September 5, 2017) or (ii) a District Court decision finding that the identified patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed.

The schedule for both suits has now been consolidated for expert discovery and trial. Expert discovery is scheduled to close on April 21, 2017. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for May 31, 2017 and a second pretrial conference, if necessary, is scheduled for June 28, 2017. No trial date has been scheduled.

On June 20, 2016, we have received a Paragraph IV certification notice from Hetero USA Inc. and Hetero Labs Limited, collectively referred to as Hetero, contending that our patents listed in the Orange Book for STENDRA (U.S. Patents 6,656,935 and 7,501,409) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of a generic form of STENDRA. On July 27, 2016, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New

Jersey against Hetero. On January 3, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with Hetero.  Under the settlement agreement, Hetero was granted a license to manufacture and commercialize the generic version of STENDRA described in its ANDA filing in the United States as of the date that is the later of (a) October 29, 2024, which is 180 days prior to the expiration of the last to expire of the Asserted Patents,  or (b) the date that Hetero obtains final approval from FDA of the Hetero ANDA. The Settlement Agreement provides for a full settlement of all claims that were asserted in the suit.

Although we intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to Qsymia, there can be no assurance that we will prevail in our defense of our patent rights. Our existing patents could be invalidated, found unenforceable or found not to cover a generic form of Qsymia. If an ANDA filer were to receive approval to sell a generic version of Qsymia and/or prevail in any patent litigation, Qsymia would become subject to increased competition and our revenue would be adversely affected.

We may be sued for infringing the intellectual property rights of others, which could be costly and result in delays or termination of our future research, development, manufacturing and sales activities.

Our commercial success also depends, in part, upon our ability to develop future investigational drug candidates, market and sell approved drugs and conduct our other research, development and commercialization activities without infringing or misappropriating the patents and other proprietary rights of others. There are many patents and patent applications owned by others that could be relevant to our business. For example, there are numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by others that are related to the therapeutic areas in which we have approved drugs or future investigational drug candidates as well as the therapeutic targets to which these drugs and candidates are directed. There are also numerous issued patents and patent applications covering chemical compounds or synthetic processes that may be necessary or useful to use in our research, development, manufacturing or commercialization activities. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that our approved drugs, future investigational drug candidates or technologies may infringe. There also may be existing patents, of which we are not aware, that our approved drugs, investigational drug candidates or technologies may infringe. Further, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. We cannot assure you that others holding any of these patents or patent applications will not assert infringement claims against us for damages or seek to enjoin our activities. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our products or methods do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent and/or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this.

There can be no assurance that approved drugs or future investigational drug candidates do not or will not infringe on the patents or proprietary rights of others. In addition, third parties may already own or may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes these patents.

If a person or entity files a legal action or administrative action against us, or our collaborators, claiming that our drug discovery, development, manufacturing or commercialization activities infringe a patent owned by the person or entity, we could incur substantial costs and diversion of the time and attention of management and technical personnel in defending ourselves against any such claims. Furthermore, parties making claims against us may be able to obtain injunctive or other equitable relief that could effectively block our ability to further develop, commercialize and sell any current or future approved drugs, and such claims could result in the award of substantial damages against us. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be required to pay damages and obtain one or more licenses from third parties. We may not be able to obtain these licenses at a reasonable cost, if at all. In that case, we could encounter delays in product introductions while we attempt to develop alternative investigational drug candidates or be required to cease commercializing any affected current or future approved drugs and our operating results would be harmed.

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

We may face additional competition outside of the U.S. as a result of a lack of patent coverage in some territories and differences in patent prosecution and enforcement laws in foreign countries.

Filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing patents on all of our drug discovery technologies and all of our approved drugs and potential investigational drug candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. While we have filed patent applications in many countries outside the U.S., and have obtained some patent coverage for approved drugs in certain foreign countries, we do not currently have widespread patent protection for these drugs outside the U.S. and have no protection in many foreign jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies to develop their own drugs in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection. These drugs may compete with our approved drugs or future investigational drug candidates and may not be covered by any of our patent claims or other intellectual property rights.

Even if international patent applications ultimately issue or receive approval, it is likely that the scope of protection provided by such patents will be different from, and possibly less than, the scope provided by our corresponding U.S. patents. The success of our international market opportunity is dependent upon the enforcement of patent rights in various other countries. A number of countries in which we have filed or intend to file patent applications have a history of weak enforcement and/or compulsory licensing of intellectual property rights. Moreover, the legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the aggressive enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and/or pharmaceuticals, which make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents. Even if we have patents issued in these jurisdictions, there can be no assurance that our patent rights will be sufficient to prevent generic competition or unauthorized use.

Attempting to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

Risks Relating to our Financial Position and Need for Financing

We may require additional capital for our future operating plans and debt servicing requirements, and we may not be able to secure the requisite additional funding on acceptable terms, or at all, which would force us to delay, reduce or eliminate commercialization or development efforts.

We expect that our existing capital resources combined with future anticipated cash flows will be sufficient to support our operating activities at least through the next twelve months. However, we anticipate that we will be required to obtain additional financing to fund our commercialization efforts, additional clinical studies for approved products, the development of our research and development pipeline and the servicing requirements of our debt. Our future capital requirements will depend upon numerous factors, including:

Future capital requirements will also depend on the extent to which we acquire or invest in additional businesses, products and technologies. On January 6, 2017, we entered into a Patent Assignment Agreement with Selten whereby we received exclusive, worldwide rights for the development and commercialization of BMPR2 activators for the treatment of PAH and related vascular diseases.  Selten received an upfront payment of $1.0 million and is entitled to milestone payments based on global development status and future sales milestones, as well as tiered royalty payments on future sales of these compounds.  The total potential milestone payments are $39.6 million.

To obtain additional capital when needed, we will evaluate alternative financing sources, including, but not limited to, the issuance of equity or debt securities, corporate alliances, joint ventures and licensing agreements. However, there can be no assurance that funding will be available on favorable terms, if at all. We are continually evaluating our existing portfolio and we may choose to divest, sell or spin-off one or more of our drugs and/or investigational drug candidates at any time. We cannot assure you that our drugs will generate revenues sufficient to enable us to earn a profit. If we are unable to obtain additional capital, management may be required to explore alternatives to reduce cash used by operating activities, including the termination of research and development efforts that may appear to be promising to us, the sale of certain assets and the reduction in overall operating activities. If adequate funds are not available, we may be required to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more of our development programs or our commercialization efforts.

Raising additional funds by issuing securities will cause dilution to existing stockholders and raising funds through lending and licensing arrangements may restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.

To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our existing stockholders’ ownership will be diluted. We have financed our operations, and we expect to continue to finance our operations, primarily by issuing equity and debt securities. Moreover, any issuances by us of equity securities may be at or below the prevailing market price of our common stock and in any event may have a dilutive impact on your ownership interest, which could cause the market price of our common stock to decline. To raise additional capital, we may choose to issue additional securities at any time and at any price.

As of December 31, 2016, we have $250.0 million in 4.5% Convertible Senior Notes due May 1, 2020, which we refer to as the Convertible Notes. The Convertible Notes are convertible into approximately 16,826,000 shares of our common stock under certain circumstances prior to maturity at a conversion rate of 67.3038 shares per $1,000 principal amount of Convertible Notes, which represents a conversion price of approximately $14.858 per share, subject to adjustment under certain conditions. On October 8, 2015, IEH Biopharma LLC, a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises L.P., announced that it had received tenders for $170,165,000 of the aggregate principal amount of our Convertible Notes in

its previously announced cash tender offer for any and all of the outstanding Convertible Notes. The Convertible Notes are convertible at the option of the holders under certain conditions at any time prior to the close of business on the business day immediately preceding November 1, 2019. Investors in our common stock will be diluted to the extent the Convertible Notes are converted into shares of our common stock, rather than being settled in cash.

We may also raise additional capital through the incurrence of debt, and the holders of any debt we may issue would have rights superior to our stockholders’ rights in the event we are not successful and are forced to seek the protection of bankruptcy laws.

In addition, debt financing typically contains covenants that restrict operating activities. For example, on March 25, 2013, we entered into the Purchase and Sale Agreement with BioPharma Secured Investments III Holdings Cayman LP, or BioPharma, which provides for the purchase of a debt-like instrument. Under the BioPharma Agreement, we may not (i) incur indebtedness greater than a specified amount, (ii) pay a dividend or other cash distribution on our capital stock, unless we have cash and cash equivalents in excess of a specified amount, (iii) amend or restate our certificate of incorporation or bylaws unless such amendments or restatements do not affect BioPharma’s interests under the BioPharma Agreement, (iv) encumber the collateral, or (v) abandon certain patent rights, in each case without the consent of BioPharma. Any future debt financing we enter into may involve similar or more onerous covenants that restrict our operations.

If we raise additional capital through collaboration, licensing or other similar arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish potentially valuable rights to our drugs or future investigational drug candidates, potential products or proprietary technologies, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If adequate funds are not available, our ability to achieve profitability or to respond to competitive pressures would be significantly limited and we may be required to delay, significantly curtail or eliminate the commercialization of one or more of our approved drugs or the development of one or more of our future investigational drug candidates.

The investment of our cash balance and our available-for-sale securities are subject to risks that may cause losses and affect the liquidity of these investments.

At December 31, 2016, we had $269.5 million in cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale securities. While at December 31, 2016, our excess cash balances were invested in money market, U.S. Treasury securities and corporate debt securities, our investment policy as approved by our Board of Directors, also provides for investments in debt securities of U.S. government agencies, corporate debt securities and asset-backed securities. Our investment policy has the primary investment objectives of preservation of principal. However, there may be times when certain of the securities in our portfolio will fall below the credit ratings required in the policy. These factors could impact the liquidity or valuation of our available-for-sale securities, all of which were invested in U.S. Treasury securities or corporate debt securities as of December 31, 2016. If those securities are downgraded or impaired we would experience losses in the value of our portfolio which would have an adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition. An investment in money market mutual funds is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. Although money market mutual funds seek to preserve the value of the investment at $1 per share, it is possible to lose money by investing in money market mutual funds.

Our involvement in securities-related class action and shareholder litigation could divert our resources and management’s attention and harm our business.

The stock markets have from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market prices for the common stock of pharmaceutical companies. These broad market fluctuations may cause the market price of our common stock to decline. In the past, securities-related class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies often experience significant stock price volatility in connection with their investigational drug candidate development programs, the review of marketing applications by regulatory authorities and the commercial launch of newly approved drugs. We were a defendant in federal and consolidated state shareholder derivative lawsuits. These securities-related class action lawsuits generally alleged that we and our officers misled the investing public regarding the safety and efficacy of Qsymia and the prospects for FDA’s

approval of the Qsymia NDA as a treatment for obesity. Securities-related class action litigation often is expensive and diverts management’s attention and our financial resources, which could adversely affect our business.

For example, on March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud against us and three of our former officers and directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 114 cv 261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California’s securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for our success, including with respect to the launch of Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit. Plaintiffs alleged losses of “at least” $2.8 million, and sought damages and other relief. On July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 5:14 cv 03263. The Jasins’ federal complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on facts substantially similar to those alleged in their state court action. On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their state court action with prejudice.  Defendants moved to dismiss the federal action and moved to dismiss again after plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional factual allegations and to add seven new claims under California law.  The court granted the latter motion on June 18, 2015, dismissing the seven California claims with prejudice and dismissing the two federal claims with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 17, 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint as well.  On April 19, 2016, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 18, 2016.  Briefing on the appeal has now been completed.  The Ninth Circuit has not yet scheduled the matter for oral argument or consideration.

We maintain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance that we believe affords coverage for much of the anticipated cost of the remaining Jasin action, subject to the use of our financial resources to pay for our self-insured retention and the policies’ terms and conditions.

We have an accumulated deficit of $813.1 million as of December 31, 2016, and we may continue to incur substantial operating losses for the future.

We have generated a cumulative net loss of $813.1 million for the period from our inception through December 31, 2016, and we anticipate losses in future years due to continued investment in our research and development programs. There can be no assurance that we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability or that we will be successful in the future.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes to offset future taxable income may be limited.

As of December 31, 2016, we had approximately $635.7 million and $265.0 million of net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards with which to offset our future taxable income for federal and state income tax reporting purposes, respectively. Utilization of our net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards, or tax attributes, may be subject to substantial annual limitations provided by the Internal Revenue Code and similar state provisions to the extent certain ownership changes are deemed to occur. Such an annual limitation could result in the expiration of the tax attributes before utilization. The tax attributes reflected above have not been reduced by any limitations. To the extent it is determined upon completion of the analysis that such limitations do apply, we will adjust the tax attributes accordingly. We face the risk that our ability to use our tax attributes will be substantially restricted if we undergo an “ownership change” as defined in Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or Section 382. An ownership change under Section 382 would occur if “5-percent shareholders,” within the meaning of Section 382, collectively increased their ownership in the Company by more than 50 percentage points over a rolling three-year period. We have not completed a recent study to assess whether any change of control has occurred or whether there have been multiple changes of control since the Company’s formation, due to the significant complexity and cost associated with the study. We have completed studies through June 30, 2016 and concluded no adjustments were required. If we have experienced a change of control at any time since our formation, our NOL carryforwards and tax credits may not be available, or their utilization could be subject to an annual limitation under Section 382. A full valuation allowance has been provided against our NOL carryforwards, and if an adjustment is required, this adjustment would be offset by an adjustment to the

valuation allowance. Accordingly, there would be no impact on the consolidated balance sheet or statement of operations.

We may have exposure to additional tax liabilities that could negatively impact our income tax provision, net income, and cash flow.

We are subject to income taxes and other taxes in both the U.S. and the foreign jurisdictions in which we currently operate or have historically operated. The determination of our worldwide provision for income taxes and current and deferred tax assets and liabilities requires judgment and estimation. In the ordinary course of our business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. We are subject to regular review and audit by U.S. tax authorities as well as subject to the prospective and retrospective effects of changing tax regulations and legislation. Although we believe our tax estimates are reasonable, the ultimate tax outcome may materially differ from the tax amounts recorded in our consolidated financial statements and may materially affect our income tax provision, net income, or cash flows in the period or periods for which such determination and settlement is made.

Risks Relating to an Investment in our Common Stock

Our stock price has been and may continue to be volatile.

The market price of our common stock has been volatile and is likely to continue to be so. The market price of our common stock may fluctuate due to factors including, but not limited to:

These factors and fluctuations, as well as political and other market conditions, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Additionally, volatility or a lack of positive performance in our stock price may adversely affect our ability to retain or recruit key employees, all of whom have been or will be granted equity awards as an important part of their compensation packages.

Our operating results are unpredictable and may fluctuate. If our operating results are below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, the trading price of our stock could decline.

Our operating results will likely fluctuate from fiscal quarter to fiscal quarter, and from year to year, and are difficult to predict. Although we have commenced sales of Qsymia, we may never increase these sales or become profitable. In addition, although we have entered into license and commercialization agreements with Menarini to commercialize and promote SPEDRA for the treatment of ED in over 40 countries, including the EU, plus Australia and New Zealand, with Metuchen to commercialize STENDRA in the U.S., Canada, South America and India, and with Sanofi to commercialize avanafil in Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and the CIS, including Russia, we and they may not be successful in commercializing avanafil in these territories. Our operating expenses are largely independent of sales in any particular period. We believe that our quarterly and annual results of operations may be negatively affected by a variety of factors. These factors include, but are not limited to, the level of patient demand for Qsymia and STENDRA, the ability of our distribution partners to process and ship product on a timely basis, the success of our third-party’s manufacturing efforts to meet customer demand, fluctuations in foreign exchange rates, investments in sales and marketing efforts to support the sales of Qsymia and STENDRA, investments in the research and development efforts, and expenditures we may incur to acquire additional products.

Future sales of our common stock may depress our stock price.

Sales of our stock by our executive officers or directors, or the perception that such sales may occur, could adversely affect the market price of our stock. We have also registered all common stock that we may issue under our employee benefits plans. As a result, these shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to restrictions under the securities laws. Any of our executive officers or directors may adopt trading plans under SEC Rule 10b5-1 to dispose of a portion of their stock. If any of these events cause a large number of our shares to be sold in the public market, the sales could reduce the trading price of our common stock and impede our ability to raise future capital.

Our charter documents and Delaware law could make an acquisition of our company difficult, even if an acquisition may benefit our stockholders.

On November 8, 2016, our Board of Directors adopted an amendment and restatement of our Preferred Stock Rights Plan, which was originally adopted on March 26, 2007. As amended and restated, the Preferred Stock Rights Plan is designed to protect stockholder value by mitigating the likelihood of an “ownership change” that would result in significant limitations to our ability to use our net operating losses or other tax attributes to offset future income. As amended and restated, the Preferred Stock Rights Plan will continue in effect until November 9, 2019, unless earlier terminated or the rights are earlier exchanged or redeemed by our Board of Directors. We expect to submit the plan to a vote at the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders. If stockholders do not approve the plan at the 2017 annual meeting, it will expire at the close of business of the following day. The Preferred Stock Rights Plan has the effect of causing substantial dilution to a person or group that acquires more than 4.9% of our shares without the approval of our Board of Directors. The existence of the Preferred Stock Rights Plan could limit the price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock and could discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that a stockholder may consider favorable.

Some provisions of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws could delay or prevent a change in control of our Company. Some of these provisions:

In addition, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of Delaware General Corporation Law. These provisions may prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us. These and other provisions in our charter documents could reduce the price that investors might be willing to pay for shares of our common stock in the future and result in the market price being lower than it would be without these provisions.

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2.  Properties

In August 2016, we entered into a lease for new principal executive offices, consisting of approximately 13,981 square feet of office space at 900 East Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, California, or the Campbell Lease. The Campbell Lease has an initial term of approximately 58 months, commencing on December 27, 2016, with a beginning annual rental rate of $3.10 per rentable square foot, subject to agreed-upon increases. We are entitled to an abatement of the monthly rent for the first four months on the lease term, subject to conditions detailed in the Campbell Lease. We have one option to extend the lease term for two years at the fair market rental rate then prevailing as detailed in the Campbell Lease.

We have a lease on 4,914 square feet of office space located at 1174 Castro Street, Mountain View, California, or the Castro Facility. The lease for the Castro Facility has a term of 60 months commencing March 15, 2012, with an option to extend the term for one year from the expiration of the new lease. The Castro Facility has been subleased commencing on September 1, 2014 for a period of 31 months.

In general, our existing facilities are in good condition and adequate for all present and near‑term uses.

For additional information regarding obligations under operating leases, see Note 16: “Commitments” to our Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K.

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings

Shareholder Lawsuit

On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud against the Company and three of its former officers and directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 114‑cv‑261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California’s securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for the Company’s success, including with respect to the launch of Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit. Plaintiffs alleged losses of “at least” $2.8 million, and sought damages and other relief. On July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 5:14‑cv‑03263. The Jasins’ federal complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on facts substantially similar to those alleged in their state court action. On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their state court action with prejudice.  Defendants moved to dismiss the federal action and moved to dismiss again after plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional factual allegations and to add seven new claims under California law.  The court granted the latter motion on June 18, 2015, dismissing the seven California claims with prejudice and dismissing the two federal claims with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 17, 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint as well.  On April 19, 2016, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 18, 2016.  Briefing on the appeal has now been completed.  The Ninth Circuit has not yet scheduled the matter for oral argument or consideration.  The Company maintains directors’ and officers’ liability insurance that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated cost of the remaining Jasin action, subject to the use of our financial resources to pay for our self‑insured retention and the policies’ terms and conditions.

The Company and the defendant former officers and directors cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit, but they believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to continue vigorously defending against the claims.

Qsymia ANDA Litigation

On May 7, 2014, the Company received a Paragraph IV certification notice from Actavis Laboratories FL indicating that it filed an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, requesting approval to market a generic version of Qsymia and contending that the patents listed for Qsymia in FDA Orange Book at the time the notice was received (U.S. Patents 7,056,890, 7,553,818, 7,659,256, 7,674,776, 8,580,298, and 8,580,299 (collectively “patents‑in‑suit”)) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of a generic form of Qsymia as described in their ANDA. On June 12, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., Actavis, Inc., and Actavis PLC, collectively referred to as Actavis. The lawsuit (Case No. 14‑3786 (SRC)(CLW)) was filed on the basis that Actavis’ submission of their ANDA to obtain approval to manufacture, use, sell or offer for sale generic versions of Qsymia prior to the expiration of the patents‑in‑suit constitutes infringement of one or more claims of those patents.

In accordance with the Hatch‑Waxman Act, as a result of having filed a timely lawsuit against Actavis, FDA approval of Actavis’ ANDA will be stayed until the earlier of (i) up to 30 months from the Company’s May 7, 2014 receipt of Actavis’ Paragraph IV certification notice (i.e. November 7, 2016) or (ii) a District Court decision finding that the identified patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed.

On January 21, 2015, the Company received a second Paragraph IV certification notice from Actavis contending that two additional patents listed in the Orange Book for Qsymia (U.S. Patents 8,895,057 and 8,895,058) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale, or offer for sale of a generic form of Qsymia. On March 4, 2015, the Company filed a second lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

against Actavis (Case No. 15-1636 (SRC)(CLW)) in response to the second Paragraph IV certification notice on the basis that Actavis’ submission of their ANDA constitutes infringement of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit.

On July 7, 2015, the Company received a third Paragraph IV certification notice from Actavis contending that two additional patents listed in the Orange Book for Qsymia (U.S. Patents 9,011,905 and 9,011,906) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale, or offer for sale of a generic form of Qsymia.  On August 17, 2015, the Company filed a third lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Actavis (Case No. 15-6256 (SRC)(CLW)) in response to the third Paragraph IV certification notice on the basis that Actavis’ submission of their ANDA constitutes infringement of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit.  The three lawsuits against Actavis have been consolidated into a single suit (Case No. 14-3786 (SRC)(CLW)).  On July 20, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a claim construction (Markman) ruling governing the suit.  The Court adopted the Company’s proposed constructions for all but one of the disputed claim terms and adopted a compromise construction that was acceptable to the Company for the final claim term.

On March 5, 2015, the Company received a Paragraph IV certification notice from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. indicating that it filed an ANDA with FDA, requesting approval to market a generic version of Qsymia and contending that eight patents listed for Qsymia in the Orange Book at the time of the notice (U.S. Patents 7,056,890, 7,553,818, 7,659,256, 7,674,776, 8,580,298, 8,580,299, 8,895,057 and 8,895,058) (collectively “patents-in-suit”) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of a generic form of Qsymia as described in their ANDA. On April 15, 2015, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., collectively referred to as Teva. The lawsuit (Case No. 15-2693 (SRC)(CLW)) was filed on the basis that Teva’s submission of their ANDA to obtain approval to manufacture, use, sell, or offer for sale generic versions of Qsymia prior to the expiration of the patents-in-suit constitutes infringement of one or more claims of those patents.

In accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act, as a result of having filed a timely lawsuit against Teva, FDA approval of Teva’s ANDA will be stayed until the earlier of (i) up to 30 months from our March 5, 2015 receipt of Teva’s Paragraph IV certification notice (i.e. September 5, 2017) or (ii) a District Court decision finding that the identified patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed.

On August 5, 2015, the Company received a second Paragraph IV certification notice from Teva contending that two additional patents listed in the Orange Book for Qsymia (U.S. Patents 9,011,905 and 9,011,906) are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale, or offer for sale of a generic form of Qsymia. On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a second lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva (Case No. 15-6957(SRC)(CLW)) in response to the second Paragraph IV certification notice on the basis that Teva’s submission of their ANDA constitutes infringement of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit.  The two lawsuits against Teva have been consolidated into a single suit (Case No. 15-2693 (SRC)(CLW)).

On July 20, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a claim construction (Markman) ruling governing the suit.  The Court adopted the Company’s proposed constructions for all but one of the disputed claim terms and adopted a compromise construction that was acceptable to the Company for the final claim term.  On September 27, 2016, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., collectively referred to as DRL, were substituted for Teva as defendants in the lawsuit as a result of Teva’s transfer to DRL of ownership and all rights in the ANDA that is the subject of the lawsuit.

The schedule for both suits has now been consolidated for expert discovery and trial. Expert discovery is scheduled to close on April 21, 2017. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for May 31, 2017 and a second pretrial conference, if necessary, is scheduled for June 28, 2017. No trial date has been scheduled.

The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Qsymia, but the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

STENDRA ANDA Litigation

On June 20, 2016, the Company received a Paragraph IV certification notice from Hetero USA, Inc. and Hetero Labs Limited, collectively referred to as Hetero, indicating that it filed an ANDA with FDA, requesting approval to market a generic version of STENDRA and contending that patents listed for STENDRA in the Orange Book at the time of the notice (U.S. Patents 6,656,935, and 7,501,409) (collectively “patents-in-suit”) are invalid, unenforceable and/or

will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of a generic form of STENDRA as described in their ANDA. On July 27, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Hetero (Case No. 16-4560 (KSH)(CLW)). On January 3, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with Hetero.  Under the settlement agreement, Hetero was granted a license to manufacture and commercialize the generic version of STENDRA described in its ANDA filing in the United States as of the date that is the later of (a) October 29, 2024, which is 180 days prior to the expiration of the last to expire of the patents-in-suit,  or (b) the date that Hetero obtains final approval from FDA of the Hetero ANDA. The Settlement Agreement provides for a full settlement of all claims that were asserted in the suit.

The Company is not aware of any other asserted or unasserted claims against it where it believes that an unfavorable resolution would have an adverse material impact on the operations or financial position of the Company.

Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures.

None.

PART II

Item 5.  Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

VIVUS’s common stock trades publicly on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “VVUS.” The following table sets forth for the periods indicated the quarterly high and low sales prices of our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

Stockholders

As of February 28, 2017, there were 105,583,530 shares of outstanding common stock that were held by 2,833 stockholders of record and no outstanding shares of preferred stock. On February 28, 2017, the last reported sales price of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market was $1.12 per share.

Dividends

We have not paid any dividends since our inception and we do not intend to declare or pay any dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Declaration or payment of future dividends, if any, will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors after taking into account various factors, including VIVUS’s financial condition, operating results and current and anticipated cash needs.

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph shows a comparison of total stockholder return for holders of our common stock from December 31, 2011 through December 31, 2016 compared with the NASDAQ Composite Index and the RDG SmallCap Pharmaceutical Index. Total stockholder return assumes $100 invested at the beginning of the period in our common stock, the stock represented in the NASDAQ Composite Index and the stock represented by the RDG SmallCap Pharmaceutical Index, respectively. This graph is presented pursuant to SEC rules. We believe that while total stockholder return can be an important indicator of corporate performance, the stock prices of small cap pharmaceutical stocks like VIVUS are subject to a number of market‑related factors other than company performance, such as competitive announcements, mergers and acquisitions in the industry, the general state of the economy, and the performance of other medical technology stocks.

COMPARISON OF 5‑YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*

Among VIVUS, Inc., the NASDAQ Composite Index, and the RDG SmallCap Pharmaceutical Index

*$100 invested on 12/31/2011 in stock or index, including reinvestment of dividends. Fiscal year ending December 31.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Item 6.  Selected Financial Data

The following selected financial data have been derived from our audited financial statements. The information set forth below is not necessarily indicative of the results of future operations and should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. The selected data is not intended to replace the financial statements.

Selected Financial Data

(In thousands, except per share data)

Selected Annual Financial Data