ha, back in the day, corx was a buy at .56 and a sell at a buck, end dd. sad but true. lots of years ago now.

fly buy,

I see zmh just went positive, why not, I don't see any problems with debt anywhere in the world........

yikes when it blows.

yea, that ogxi is a nail biter, but I got some more last week at 2.04, so I have dollar cost averaged down a couple times since my 2.12 avg. no getting rich that way, ha, flyer only and not much. no special reason. correct on the thld options, pulling for 5+ in coming 2 months, odds way against me, but stranger things have happened.

lots of funny money out there to prop things higher for a while longer, bad for my zmh puts.

it's kind of like musical chairs, don't want to be last person, standing outside of the circle, with no place to go, ha.

take care.

53 days left for it to "magically" go over/be pushed over, 5.

tea anyone?

ha

saw that gold was up 23 bucks intraday on, I think, fri, might have been Thursday, but went looking on that site near the inland water, and picked up just three more 1/10 troy oz uncirculated gold eagles from one of their big 5 dealers. always pay more for them, the 1/10 troy oz. vs. the 1 oz., but minutes after picking them up, the price went up 11 or 12 a coin, so happy with the dollar cost average purchase. a little here , a little there, missed the ctix, but thanks for heads up on finances, very interested. heavy volume if mem serves, really like them once everyone forgets about them...........

take care.

==World Bank estimates accounts for about 16 percent of economic growth. ===


hey gfp, had to put our beloved dog down, lots of loss lately.

I wonder if the 16 % growth statement meant world growth, or china growth? it's gotten so freaking big now, left me wondering, but common sense says it MUST be just china growth, geez I hope that's all.....

take care.

(people are starting to write like I spell, ha!)

Kaisa on Brink of Dollar Default Spooks Money Managers

By Bloomberg News Jan 18, 2015 9:02 PM ET

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-18/kaisa-on-brink-of-dollar-default-spooks-world-s-money-managers.html

As Europe grapples with terrorism and Switzerland scrapped a currency peg, the troubles of a Chinese developer that’s never reached $3 billion in market value became something investors from New York to London couldn’t ignore.

A missed $23 million interest payment by Kaisa Group Holdings Ltd. (1638) earlier this month puts it at risk of being the first Chinese real estate company to default on its dollar-denominated bonds. That may signal deeper risks for China’s already fragile and corruption-prone property market, which according to World Bank estimates accounts for about 16 percent of economic growth.

Chinese companies comprised 62 percent of all U.S. dollar bond sales in the Asia-Pacific region ex Japan last year, issuing $244.4 billion of the $392.5 billion total, Bloomberg data show. BlackRock Inc., the world’s biggest asset manager, owned Kaisa’s 8.875 percent securities due 2018 and the ones the subject of the missed coupon payment, the 10.25 percent 2020s, its latest filing on Jan. 14 shows. Funds managed by JPMorgan Chase & Co., Fidelity Investment and ING Investment Management also held some of Kaisa’s debt at the end of October, according to filings.

“The market has been too complacent,” said Raymond Chia, the Singapore-based head of Asia credit research at Schroder Investment Management Ltd., which had $447.7 billion under management as of Sept. 30. Investors would be “rational to adopt a cautious approach in view of the fact that anything can happen, anywhere, anytime. It would be irrational to continue thinking that after Kaisa none of the companies will see a similar fate.”

Missed Payment

Kaisa’s woes began late last year when the government in Shenzhen, less than 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) from Hong Kong, blocked approvals of its property sales and new projects in the city. It’s also being probed over alleged links to Jiang Zunyu, the former security chief of Shenzhen who was taken into custody as part of a graft probe, two people familiar with the matter said last week, asking not to be named because the connection hasn’t been made public.

Kaisa missed an interest payment due Jan. 8 on its $500 million of 2020 bonds. The notes were sold to investors at par, or 100 cents on the dollar, in January 2013. In December, when some of Kaisa’s projects were blocked and key executives quit, the debentures lost 40.1 percent. They continued to fall in January, slumping to 29.901 cents on the dollar on Jan. 7, a record low, however have since recovered to trade at about 35.1 cents.

Costs Spike

Concern is mounting that increasing financial stress among builders could spill over into a broader credit crisis in China. New-home prices fell in 65 of the 70 cities monitored in December and were unchanged in four, the National Bureau of Statistics said in a statement yesterday. Shenzhen recorded higher prices, the first city to see an increase in four months.

Borrowing costs for many developers in the world’s second-largest economy have surged since Kaisa’s travails began. Yields on Chinese dollar-denominated speculative grade debt climbed to 12.38 percent on Jan. 16, a Bank of America Merrill Lynch index shows, the highest since June 2012. The junk debt has lost 5.7 percent in 2015, the worst start to a year on record.

Accounts Frozen

Some of Kaisa’s Chinese creditors, meanwhile, have asked a court to freeze the company’s assets. In a statement on Jan. 9, the developer said that “several bank accounts of the group” had been frozen.

It’s a reminder of the risks overseas bondholders face when Chinese companies run into trouble. China’s bankruptcy laws favor local creditors while offering fewer protections to foreign debt claims. Kaisa has a 30-day grace period to make its missed payment.

A bigger concern for global investors may be the hurt inflicted on the property market by President Xi Jinping’s effort to uproot government corruption. Bribery scandals have rocked the sector in the past and the prospect other developers may be targeted has hit bond and share prices almost unanimously.

“It’s definitely a concern among investors” that similar events could happen to other Chinese developers, said Alan Jin, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Mizuho Securities Co. Emerging funding difficulties in offshore markets may have an impact on the industry’s recovery, he said.

Jiang Zunyu

Inspectors sent by the central government found property related corruption cases, including misbehavior by officials in land auctions and property development, in all but one of the 21 provinces they inspected since 2013, the official Xinhua News Agency reported Oct. 13, citing the ruling party’s disciplinary body.

Jiang Zunyu was named the target of a graft probe in October, according to Xinhua. Jiang was previously head of Longgang district, the people who spoke on condition of anonymity said. According to company filings, some approval procedures for Kaisa projects in Longgang were suspended last month.

The Shenzhen city government’s media department referred questions on Jan. 13 and a request for contact information for Jiang or a legal representative to its foreign media office, which didn’t answer three phone calls.

Agile, Hydoo

Stock moves Jan. 16 showed how jittery the markets have become. China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd. (688) fell as much as 6.9 percent after the Shenzhen government blocked some sales for unspecified reasons. China Overseas Land later said in a company statement that all the blocked units had been sold and the move won’t affect its business or finances. The Shenzhen government also issued a statement saying the restrictions were for “normal processing.” Its shares closed down 2.8 percent.

Fantasia Holdings Group Co. dropped as much as 3.7 percent while Guangzhou R&F slid as much as 4.9 percent. The benchmark Hang Seng Index closed down 1 percent.

Aside from Kaisa, Agile Property Holdings Ltd. and Hydoo International Holding Ltd. were also implicated in probes in 2014.

Agile Property’s shares plunged 17 percent in Hong Kong Oct. 13 after the company disclosed on Oct. 10 its billionaire chairman was put under control of prosecutors in September before being released last month. The company didn’t detail the nature of the detention. In August, Shenzhen-based Hydoo removed its chairman after losing contact with him for two weeks only to learn he was assisting Chinese authorities in an investigation.

Housing’s Reach

A Shenzhen government website posted an announcement on Jan. 15 that four apartments owned by Fantasia in the city had been given “restricted” status. The website didn’t indicate when the status on the properties changed. That same day, Fantasia issued an exchange filing saying it no longer owned the apartments and that its business operations were normal. Dollar bonds of Fantasia fell to record lows.

“When sales are blocked at other developers, it fuels speculation of similar political risks,” said Mari Oshidari, a Hong Kong-based strategist at Okasan Securities Group Inc.

Kaisa didn’t respond to requests for comment about its situation or its connection to Jiang Zunyu. Agile declined to comment and Hydoo also didn’t respond to e-mailed requests for comment.

Housing’s influence on China’s economy is pervasive, driving sales of everything from cement and steel to electrical appliances, furniture and cars. It’s contribution at home, and to global expansion, make it “the most important sector in the universe,” Jonathan Anderson, the former chief economist for emerging markets at UBS Group AG who now runs Beijing-based Emerging Advisors Group, wrote in a 2011 research note. Property is the main risk for China’s economy, Ma Jun, the chief economist at the People’s Bank of China, said in October.

While the clock for Kaisa’s missed dollar bond coupon payment ticks, the company has at least secured more time to repay a defaulted bank loan, reducing its immediate cash needs. It said in a Jan. 12 statement that it received a waiver from HSBC Holdings Plc on a HK$400 million ($51.6 million) facility, which was tipped into default when its chairman, Kwok Ying Shing, resigned Dec. 31. Chief Financial Officer Cheung Hung Kwong and Vice Chairman Tam Lai Ling also quit last month.

“The most exposed are small developers, particularly in small cities with weaker balance sheets and less access to the banking system,” David Loevinger, a former U.S. Treasury Department senior coordinator for China affairs and now a Los Angeles-based analyst at TCW Group Inc., said by phone on Jan. 15. “My impression is that the government won’t be unhappy to see some consolidation.”

China Stocks Plunge on Margin-Trading Suspensions as Citic Sinks
By Bloomberg News Jan 18, 2015 9:35 PM ET

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-19/china-s-stock-index-futures-plunge-on-margin-trading-suspensions.html

Chinese equities plunged, led by brokerages, after regulatory efforts to rein in record margin lending sparked concern that speculative traders will pull back from the world's best-performing stock market.

The Shanghai Composite Index (SHCOMP) slid 4.1 percent to 3,239.38 at 10:12 a.m. local time after sinking as much as 6 percent earlier. Citic Securities Co. (600030) and Haitong Securities Co., two brokerages suspended from lending money to new equity-trading clients, fell by the 10 percent daily limit. The stock gauge’s 30-day volatility advanced to the highest level in five years.

The penalties have raised concern that policy makers are trying to curb a surge in stock purchases using borrowed money, after outstanding margin loans jumped to 1.08 trillion yuan ($174 billion) as of Jan. 13 from about 400 billion yuan at the end of June. The Shanghai Composite index has jumped 61 percent during the past 12 months on record volumes as individual investors piled into the market.

“Regulators are concerned that shares have run too hard, too fast,” said Hao Hong, a strategist at Bocom International Holdings Co. in Hong Kong. “They want a measured increase in the stock market. After all, margin financing is one of the reasons for people to be bullish on brokerage stocks, and these stocks have run particularly hard.”

The Shanghai gauge advanced 2.8 percent last week, a 10th week of gains that’s the longest winning streak since May 2007, after credit growth expanded and speculation grew the central bank will cut reserve-requirement ratios.

Margin Suspensions

The nation’s two biggest listed securities firms and Guotai Junan Securities Co. were suspended from lending money and stocks to new clients for three months, the China Securities Regulatory Commission said on its microblog on Jan. 16 after the market closed.

The regulator punished nine other securities companies for offenses including allowing unqualified investors to open margin finance and securities lending accounts, it said.

“China is trying to rein in over-bullishness in the stock market as moves have been exaggerated,” Pauline Dan, Hong Kong-based head of Greater China equities at Pictet Asset Management Ltd., said by phone. “Investors will have to wait and see until this volatility settles. They don’t have a fundamental reason to stay long since government policy is driving the market.”

Developers Decline

China is scheduled to release data tomorrow that’s forecast to show the economy grew in the fourth quarter at the slowest quarterly pace since 2009.

The nation’s gross domestic product growth probably slowed to 7.2 percent in the October-to-December period, according to the median estimate of a Bloomberg survey. The economy grew 7.3 percent a quarter earlier. Economic expansion may reach 7.3 percent this year, the Xinhua News Agency reported over the weekend, citing central bank adviser Song Guoqing.

China Vanke Co. (000002) and Poly Real Estate Group Co. (600048) slid more than 5 percent. The nation’s new-home prices fell in 65 of the 70 cities monitored and were unchanged in four last month, the National Bureau of Statistics said in a statement yesterday. That compares with declines in 67 cities in November.

The Shanghai Composite is the best performer among 93 global indexes tracked by Bloomberg over the past year with a 67 percent gain. The index was valued at 12.6 times 12-month projected earnings last week, the highest level since April 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

China stocks slide, with Shanghai down 4%

Published: Jan 18, 2015 9:28 p.m. ET

By Laura He

Asia markets reporter

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-stocks-slide-with-shanghai-down-4-2015-01-18


HONG KONG (MarketWatch) -- A sell-off in Chinese brokerage firms dragged both Hong Kong and Shanghai stocks lower Monday morning, after the state's securities regulator punished a dozen mainland Chinese brokers for allowing customers to delay repayments by longer than currently allowed under China's margin-trading rules. The Shanghai Composite Index SHCOMP, -5.02% tumbled 4.6%, though off its earlier losses, while Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index HSI, -0.86% dropped 0.6%. In Hong Kong, mainland Chinese brokers took a hard hit after regulators suspended Citic Securities Co. 6030, -15.93% CIIHF, +3.31% (down 11%), Haitong Securities Co. 6837, -12.61% (down 10.5%) and Guotai Junan International Holdings Ltd. 1788, -5.78% (down 4.9%) from opening new client accounts for three months. Other losers among the financials included Shenyin Wanguo HK Ltd. 0218, -10.38% (down 8.6%), China Galaxy Securities Co. 6881, -10.50% (down 7.8%) and China Everbright Ltd. 0165, -7.80% CEVIF, -1.76% (down 5.3%). On the Chinese mainland, both Citic Securities and Haitong Securities were suspended from trading after falling limit-down by 10%. Also affecting sentiment was a fresh fall in home prices across China's major cities. Among the real-estate names listed in Hong Kong, China Vanke Co. 2202, -5.49% dropped 4.7%, China Resources Land Ltd. 1109, -3.67% CRBJF, +9.79% fell 2.4%, and China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd. 0688, -2.85% CAOVF, -2.22% gave up 2%. The Shanghai A-shares of mainland developers lost even more, with Gemdale Corp. 600383, -9.07% GMDCF down 6.6%, Poly Real Estate Group Co. 600048, -7.86% off 4.3%, and over in Shenzhen, China Merchants Property Development Co. 200024, -3.74% lower by 3.5%.

Annual Report (10-k)

Date : 01/06/2015 @ 8:04AM
Source : Edgar (US Regulatory)
Stock : Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PL) (CORX)
Quote : 0.0451 -0.00318 (-6.59%) @ 12:24PM

http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=64999116&symbol=CORX

Annual Report (10-k)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

[X] Annual Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013

OR

[ ] Transition Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Commission file number 1-16467

Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware 33-0303583

(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number)

126 Valley Road, Suite C

Glen Rock, New Jersey 07452

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

(201) 444-4947

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, $0.001 par value

(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES [ ] NO [X]



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. YES [ ] NO [X]



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 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 [X]



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 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES [ ] NO [X]



Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the 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. [X]



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 definitions of “accelerated filer,” “large accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.



Large accelerated filer [ ] Accelerated filer [ ] Non-accelerated filer [ ]
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Smaller reporting company [X]



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES [ ] NO [X]



The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2013 was approximately $8,500,000 (based on the closing sale price of the common stock as reported by the Over the Counter Bulletin Board). As of December 31, 2013, there were 144,041,556 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.



DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: NONE
















TABLE OF CONTENTS




Page
PART I

Item 1. Business 4

Item 1A. Risk Factors 9

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 15

Item 2. Properties 15

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 15

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 15

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 16

Item 6. Selected Financial Data 16

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 16

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 32

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 32

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 32

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 33

Item 9B. Other Information 34

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 35

Item 11. Executive Compensation 38

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 41

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 42

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 43

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 44

Financial Statements F-1

Signatures S-1





2






In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the terms “Cortex,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and, unless the context indicates otherwise, its consolidated subsidiaries. This Annual Report on Form 10-K is being filed by new management substantially after the deadline for its filing. In an effort to provide the most current information, at various points in the document, information regarding events that occurred after December 31, 2013 has been included.



INTRODUCTORY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS



This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and we intend that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe harbors created thereby. These forward-looking statements, which may be identified by words including “anticipates,” “believes,” “intends,” “estimates,” “expects,” “plans,” and similar expressions include, but are not limited to, statements regarding (i) future research plans, expenditures and results, (ii) potential collaborative arrangements, (iii) the potential utility of our proposed products and (iv) the need for, and availability of, additional financing.



The forward-looking statements included herein are based on current expectations that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions regarding our business and technology, which involve judgments with respect to, among other things, future scientific, economic and competitive conditions, and future business decisions, all of which are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and many of which are beyond our control. Although we believe that the assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements are reasonable, actual results may differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. In light of the significant uncertainties inherent in the forward-looking information included herein, the inclusion of such information should not be regarded as a representation by us or any other person that our objectives or plans will be achieved.



Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. We do not undertake and specifically decline any obligation to update any forward-looking statements or to publicly announce the results of any revisions to any statements to reflect new information or future events or developments.




3






PART I



Item 1. Business



Since its formation in 1987, the Company has engaged in the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative pharmaceuticals for the treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorders. In 2011, however, we conducted a re-evaluation of our strategic focus and determined that clinical development in the area of respiratory disorders, particularly respiratory depression and sleep apnea, provided the most cost-effective opportunities for potential rapid development and commercialization of our compounds. As a result of our scientific discoveries and the acquisition of strategic, exclusive license agreements, we believe we are now a leader in the discovery and development of innovative pharmaceuticals for the treatment of respiratory disorders.



Saying that there exists an unmet need for new drug treatments for breathing disorders is an understatement. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of respiratory disorders is reaching epidemic proportions, with estimates that 1 in 4 men and 1 in 10 women in this country have sleep apnea. Sleep apnea places a considerable burden on society and the health care system because of its association with adverse events ranging from loss of productivity to increased risk of cardiopulmonary illness and related death. No drugs currently are approved for the treatment of sleep apnea.



Even in patients without sleep apneas, the use of drugs such as propofol, used as an anesthetic during surgery, and opioid analgesics such as morphine, used for the treatment of post-surgical and chronic pain, are well known for producing respiratory depression. In fact, while respiratory depression is the leading cause of death from the overdose of most classes of abused drugs, it also arises during normal, physician-supervised procedures such as surgical anesthesia, post-operative analgesia and as a result of normal outpatient management of pain.



Although naloxone (Narcan) and nalmefene (Revex) can reverse respiratory depression associated with opioids, they have several major shortcomings. First and foremost, these opioid antagonists do not reverse the respiratory depression produced by other classes of drugs often given/taken either alone or in combination with narcotics. Second, while these drugs reverse the serious side effects of the opioids, they also dramatically reduce their analgesic effectiveness. Third, the side effects of opioid antagonists are themselves serious and include seizures, agitation, convulsions, tachycardia, hypotension, nausea, and vomiting.



Clearly, considerable need exists for pharmaco-therapeutic agents to 1.) treat sleep apnea, and 2.) prevent and reverse the respiratory depression produced by different classes of drugs. The Company currently has two drug platforms, each with a clinical stage compound directed at these needs.



Sleep Apnea



Sleep apnea is a serious disorder in which breathing repeatedly stops long enough to disrupt sleep, and temporarily decreases the amount of oxygen and increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood. Apnea is defined by more than five periods per hour of ten seconds or longer without breathing. The repetitive cessation of breathing during sleep has substantial impact on the affected individuals. The disorder is associated with major co-morbidities including excessive daytime sleepiness and increased risk of cardiovascular disease (such as hypertension, stroke and heart failure), diabetes and weight gain. Sleep apnea is often made worse by central nervous system depressants such as opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates and alcohol. It is therefore important for these patients to seek therapy.



The most common type of sleep apnea is obstructive sleep apnea (“OSA”), which occurs by repetitive narrowing or collapse of the pharyngeal airway during sleep. There is currently no approved pharmacotherapy, and the most common treatment is to use continuous positive airway pressure (“CPAP”) delivered via a nasal or full-face mask, as long as patients are able to tolerate the treatment. It is estimated that in more than 50% of cases patients stop using the CPAP device on a regular basis. Given the large patient population and a lack of suitable treatment options, there is a very large opportunity for pharmacotherapy to treat this disorder.



Central sleep apnea (“CSA”), a less frequently diagnosed type of sleep apnea, is caused by alterations in the brain mechanisms responsible for maintaining normal respiratory drive. CSA is most frequently observed in heart failure patients and in patients taking chronic opioids. In fact, CSA is a predictor of mortality in heart failure patients. CPAP has not demonstrated efficacy in treating CSA and no drugs presently are approved for this indication.



Mixed sleep apnea, a third type of sleep apnea, is a combination of central and obstructive factors occurring in the same episode of sleep apnea.




4






Drug-induced Respiratory Depression



Drug-induced respiratory depression (“RD”) is a life-threatening condition caused by a variety of depressant drugs, including analgesic, hypnotic, and anesthesia medications. RD is a leading cause of death from the overdose of some classes of abused drugs, yet it also arises during normal, physician-supervised procedures such as surgical anesthesia and post-operative pain management. For example, in the hospital setting, anesthetics, such as propofol, are well known for their propensity to produce RD. With more than 40 million surgical procedures performed annually, it is notable that post-operative respiratory failure produces the highest mortality rate, the second highest attributable number of deaths and the second largest overall excess cost to the Medicare system, when compared to other patient safety indicators.



In the hospital setting, the most serious complication of patient-controlled analgesia is RD and, despite nurses’ vigilance, adverse events associated with opioids continue to increase. Drug-induced RD is associated with a high mortality rate relative to other adverse drug events. If high-risk patients are receiving combination therapies, they are at even higher risk.



Outside the hospital, the primary risk factor for RD is the use of a single opioid in large doses or concomitant use of opioids and sedative agents. Whether as a result of normal outpatient management of pain or as a result of substance abuse, RD has been reported to be the leading cause of death from drug overdose, with the drug overdose death rate tripling since 1991. It has been estimated that nearly 15,000 people die every year as a result of overdoses involving prescription painkillers. Oxycodone and fentanyl have been reported to be the two most frequently reported drugs associated with death and serious nonfatal outcomes from 1998 to 2005, exceeding the number of deaths from heroin and cocaine combined. Opioid use has increased significantly along with a dramatic increase in unintentional poisoning deaths from opioids. Unintentional deaths from opioids are not only related to diversion for nonmedical use and misuse by patients, but by prescriber’s error as well.



Cannabinoids



In order to expand the Company’s respiratory disorders program, on August 10, 2012, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Pier Pharmaceuticals Inc., a privately-held corporation, (“Pier”) Pier Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Merger Sub”) and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cortex, and Cortex, Merger Sub merged with and into Pier (the “Merger”) and Pier became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cortex. Pier had been formed in June 2007 (under the name SteadySleep Rx Co.) as a clinical stage pharmaceutical company to develop a pharmacologic treatment for the respiratory disorder known as obstructive sleep apnea and had been engaged in research and clinical development activities since formation.



Through the Merger, the Company gained access to an Exclusive License Agreement, as amended (the “License Agreement”), that Pier had entered into with the University of Illinois on October 10, 2007. The License Agreement covered certain patents and patent applications in the United States and other countries claiming the use of certain compounds referred to as cannabinoids for the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders (including sleep apnea), of which dronabinol is a specific example of one type of cannabinoid. Dronabinol is a synthetic derivative of the naturally occurring substance in the cannabis plant, otherwise known as ?9-THC (?9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Dronabinol is currently approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and is sold generically for use in refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, as well as for anorexia in patients with AIDS. The License Agreement was terminated effective March 21, 2013 due to the Company’s failure to make a required payment.



However, on June 27, 2014, the Company entered into a new license agreement with the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. In exchange for certain milestone and royalty payments, the License Agreement grants the Company (i) exclusive rights to several issued and pending patents in numerous jurisdictions and (ii) the non-exclusive right to certain technical information that is generated by the University of Illinois in connection with certain clinical trials as specified in the License Agreement, all of which relate to the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders. The Company is developing dronabinol for the treatment of OSA, the most common form of sleep apnea.




5






The Company previously conducted a 21 day, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose escalation Phase 2 clinical study in 22 patients with OSA, in which dronabinol produced a statistically significant reduction in the Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), the primary therapeutic end-point, and was observed to be safe and well tolerated. Dronabinol is currently under investigation, at the University of Illinois and other centers, in a potentially pivotal Phase 2 OSA clinical trial, fully funded by the National Institutes of Health.



Dronabinol is a Schedule III, controlled generic drug with a relatively low abuse potential that is approved by the FDA for the treatment of AIDS related anorexia and chemotherapy induced emesis. The use of dronabinol for the treatment of OSA is a novel indication for an already approved drug and, as such, the Company believes that it should only require approval by the FDA of a supplemental new drug application.



Ampakines



Since its founding, the Company has been engaged in the research and clinical development of a class of compounds referred to as ampakines. By acting as positive allosteric modulators of AMPA glutamate receptors, ampakines increase the excitatory effects of the neurotransmitter glutamate. Early preclinical and clinical research suggested that these ampakines might have therapeutic potential for the treatment of memory and cognitive disorders, depression, attention deficit disorder and schizophrenia. Given our current focus on respiratory disorders, we may seek to partner, out-license or sell our rights to the use of ampakine compounds for the treatment of neurological and psychiatric indications, as we focus on the development of our compounds for the treatment of brain-related breathing disorders.



The early ampakines discovered by Cortex, Eli Lilly and Company, and others were ultimately abandoned due to the presence of undesirable side effects, particularly convulsive activity. Subsequently, Cortex scientists discovered a new, chemically distinct series of molecules termed “low impact” as opposed to the “high impact” designation given to the earlier compounds. While these low impact compounds shared many pharmacological properties with the high impact compounds, they did not produce convulsive effects in animals. These low impact compounds do not bind to the same molecular site as the high impact compounds and, as a result, do not produce the undesirable electrophysiological and biochemical effects that lead to convulsive activity.



The Company owns patents and patent applications for certain families of chemical compounds that claim the chemical structures and their use in the treatment of various disorders. These patents cover, among other compounds, the Company’s lead ampakines CX1739 and CX1942 and extend through at least 2028.



In order to broaden the use of the Company’s ampakine technology into the area of respiratory disorders, on May 8, 2007, the Company entered into a license agreement, as subsequently amended, with the University of Alberta granting the Company exclusive rights to practice patents held by the University of Alberta claiming the use of ampakines for the treatment of various respiratory disorders. These patents, along with the Company’s own patents claiming chemical structures, comprise the Company’s principal intellectual property supporting the Company’s research and clinical development program in the use of ampakines for the treatment of respiratory disorders.



The Company has obtained pre-clinical results indicating that several of its low impact ampakines, including CX717, CX1739 and CX1942, were able to antagonize the respiratory depression caused by opioids, barbiturates and anesthetics without offsetting the analgesic effects of the opiates or the sedative effects of the anesthetics. Dr. John Greer, Director of the Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute at the University of Alberta, has shown that these ampakine effects are due to a direct action on neurons in pre-Botzinger’s complex, a brain stem region responsible for regulating respiratory drive.



After several Phase 1 and 2 studies to demonstrate safety and tolerability, the first of these low impact compounds, CX717, was tested in two Phase 2A clinical studies to determine its ability to antagonize the respiratory depressant effects of fentanyl, a potent opioid analgesic. In both of these studies, one of which was published in a peer-reviewed journal, CX717 antagonized the respiratory depression produced by fentanyl without altering the analgesia produced by this drug.




6






After considerable delay in the development of CX717, due to regulatory issues with the FDA, the Company finally has decided to terminate development of this compound because of the impending loss of its U.S. patents in 2017 and international patents in 2018. Nevertheless, the Company believes that CX717 has demonstrated clinical proof of principle for the use of low impact ampakines in the treatment of opioid-induced respiratory depression.



The Company’s present lead ampakine, CX1739, has demonstrated safety and tolerability in several Phase 1 clinical studies, with maximum well-tolerated single dose identified as 900mg and 450 mg twice-a-day (for a 900mg total daily dose) for 7 days. Pharmacokinetic results to date from the volunteers who have taken CX1739 show that drug absorption over the range of 50mg to 1200mg was linear and predictable, with an approximate half-life of 8 hours.



The Company has conducted a single dose, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with CX1739 in 20 subjects with moderate to severe sleep apnea. Analysis of a range of sleep apnea parameters assessed by overnight polysomnography revealed that, while a single dose of CX1739 improved a number of sleep apnea parameters across most of the patients who were given the drug, the primary effects were observed within a sub-group of patients diagnosed with either central or mixed sleep apnea. CX1739 was safe, but the dose appeared to be near the limits of tolerability. There were no serious adverse events and no clinically relevant changes in vital signs, cardiovascular or other safety assessments.



We believe that the results from this study merit conducting a larger study with CX1739 that will be focused on patients with central and/or mixed sleep apnea. It is possible that repeated daily treatment with CX1739 for several weeks may prove to be tolerated better and with greater efficacy than a single dose. However, given the time and expense necessary to conduct such a clinical trial, the Company is not currently planning to conduct such a study. Instead, subsequent to additional funding, and using a design similar to that in which CX717 demonstrated clinical efficacy, the Company plans to conduct two clinical studies investigating the ability of orally administered CX1739 to antagonize the respiratory depressant effects of fentany and propofol without altering the analgesic and anesthetic effects of these drugs. The Company’s short term commercial goals are to obtain FDA approval for the use of orally administered CX1739 for the following indications: 1.) pre-surgical administration for the prevention of respiratory depression produced by propofol and 2.) peri- and post-operative administration in a hospital setting for the prevention of respiratory depression produced by opiods. The Company believes that these goals can be achieved in a timely and cost-effective manner. Longer term goals include obtaining FDA approval for the use oral administration of CX1739 given concomitantly with an opioid analgesic for the safe management of pain in a home setting. The Company believes that successful commercial implementation of these goals will require corporate partnership.



In addition to CX1739, the Company is developing CX1942, a soluble ampakine, to be used in an injectable formulation as a rescue medication for the emergency treatment of drug-induced respiratory depression. Animal studies have indicated that intravenously injected CX1942 can reverse the respiratory depression produced by fentanyl. In October 2014, the Company intends to begin a study, funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, to determine the parameters whereby CX1942 is able to reverse the respiratory depression and lethality produced by a number of respiratory depressant drugs, including opioids. One aspect of the study will be to determine whether intramuscular or subcutaneous injections are as effective as intravenous. Upon completion of this study and the choice of a route of administration, preclinical toxicology and safety studies can be conducted relatively quickly and inexpensively, since the clinical indication supported by these studies is for acute use.



Manufacturing



We have no experience or capability to either manufacture bulk quantities of the new compounds that we develop, or to produce finished dosage forms of the compounds, such as tablets or capsules. We rely, and presently intend to continue to rely, on the manufacturing and quality control expertise of contract manufacturing organizations or current and prospective corporate partners. There is no assurance that we will be able to enter into manufacturing arrangements to produce bulk quantities of our compounds on favorable financial terms. There is, however, substantial availability of both bulk chemical manufacturing and dosage form manufacturing capability throughout the world that we believe we can readily access. See “Risk Factors – Risks related to our business – We are at an early stage of development and we may not be able to successfully develop and commercialize our products and technologies” for a discussion of certain risks related to the development and commercialization of our products.




7






Marketing



We have no experience in the marketing of pharmaceutical products and do not anticipate having the resources to distribute and broadly market any products that we may develop. We will therefore continue to seek commercial development arrangements with other pharmaceutical companies for our proposed products for those indications that require significant sales forces to effectively market. In entering into such arrangements, we may seek to retain the right to promote or co-promote products for certain of the Orphan Drug indications in North America. We believe that there is a significant expertise base for such marketing and sales functions within the pharmaceutical industry and expect that we could recruit such expertise if we choose to directly market a drug. See “Risk Factors—Risks related to our business—We are at an early stage of development and we may not be able to successfully develop and commercialize our products and technologies” for a discussion of certain risks related to the marketing of our products.



Employees



As of December 31, 2013, the Company employed three people (all officers), one of whom was full time. The Company currently employs six people (including certain contractors who provide substantial services to the Company), one of whom is full time.



Technology Rights



University of California, Irvine License Agreements



The Company entered into a series of license agreements in 1993 and 1998 with the University of California, Irvine (“UCI”) that granted the Company proprietary rights to certain chemical compounds that acted as ampakines and their therapeutic uses. These agreements granted the Company, among other provisions, exclusive rights: (i) to practice certain patents and patent applications, as defined in the license agreement, that were then held by UCI; (ii) to identify, develop, make, have made, import, export, lease, sell, have sold or offer for sale any related licensed products; and (iii) to grant sub-licenses of the rights granted in the license agreements, subject to the provisions of the license agreements. The Company was required, among other terms and conditions, to pay UCI a license fee, royalties, patent costs and certain additional payments.



Under such license agreements, the Company was required to make minimum annual royalty payments of approximately $70,000. The Company was also required to spend a minimum of $250,000 per year to advance the ampakine compounds until the Company began to market an ampakine compound. At December 31, 2012, the Company was not in compliance with its minimum annual payment obligations and believed that this default constituted a termination of the license agreements. On April 15, 2013, the Company received a letter from UCI indicating that the license agreements between UCI and the Company had been terminated due to the Company’s failure to make certain payments required to maintain the agreements. Since the patents covered in these license agreements had begun to expire and the therapeutic uses described in these patents were no longer germane to the Company’s new focus on respiratory disorders, the loss of these license agreements is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s current drug development programs. In the opinion of management, the Company has made adequate provision for any liability relating to this matter in its financial statements at December 31, 2013 and 2012.



University of Alberta License Agreement



On May 8, 2007, the Company entered into a license agreement, as subsequently amended, with the University of Alberta granting the Company exclusive rights to practice patents held by the University of Alberta claiming the use of ampakines for the treatment of various respiratory disorders. The Company agreed to pay the University of Alberta a licensing fee and a patent issuance fee, which were paid, and prospective payments consisting of a royalty on net sales, sublicense fee payments, maintenance payments and milestone payments. The prospective maintenance payments commence on the enrollment of the first patient into the first Phase 2B clinical trial and increase upon the successful completion of the Phase 2B clinical trial. As the Company does not at this time anticipate scheduling a Phase 2B clinical trial, no maintenance payments are currently due and payable to the University of Alberta. In addition, no other prospective payments are currently due and payable to the University of Alberta.




8






University of Illinois License Agreement



Through the merger with Pier, the Company gained access to the License Agreement that Pier had entered into with the University of Illinois on October 10, 2007. The License Agreement covered certain patents and patent applications in the United States and other countries claiming the use of certain compounds referred to as cannabinoids for the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders (including sleep apnea), of which dronabinol is a specific example of one type of cannabinoid. The License Agreement was terminated effective March 21, 2013 due to the Company’s failure to make a required payment.



On June 27, 2014, the Company entered into a new license agreement with the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois that was similar, but not identical, to the License Agreement between the parties that had been terminated on March 21, 2013. In exchange for certain milestone and royalty payments, the License Agreement grants the Company (i) exclusive rights to several issued and pending patents in numerous jurisdictions and (ii) the non-exclusive right to certain technical information that is generated by the University of Illinois in connection with certain clinical trials as specified in the License Agreement, all of which relate to the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders. The Company is developing dronabinol for the treatment of OSA, the most common form of sleep apnea.



Item 1A. Risk Factors



In addition to the other matters set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our continuing operations and the price of our common stock are subject to the following risks:



Risks related to our business



Our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.



In its audit opinion issued in connection with our balance sheets as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 and our statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficiency), and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern given our limited working capital, recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations. The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or amounts of liabilities that might be necessary should we be unable to continue in existence. While we have relied principally in the past on external financing to provide liquidity and capital resources for our operations, we can provide no assurance that cash generated from our operations together with cash received in the future from external financing, if any, will be sufficient to enable us to continue as a going concern.



We have a history of net losses; we expect to continue to incur net losses and we may never achieve or maintain profitability.



Since our formation on February 10, 1987 through the end of our most recent fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, we have generated only modest operating revenues and we have incurred net losses of $129,542,788. We have also experienced additional losses subsequent to this period. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, our net loss was $1,201,457 and as of December 31, 2013, we had an accumulated deficit of $129,542,788. For the year ended December 31, 2012, our net loss was $7,572,244 and as of December 31, 2012, we had an accumulated deficit of $128,341,331. We have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and it is possible that we will never generate revenues from product sales in the future. Even if we do achieve significant revenues from product sales, we expect to incur significant net losses over the next several years. As with other companies in the biotechnology industry, it is possible that we will never achieve profitable operations.




9






We will need additional capital in the future and, if such capital is not available on terms acceptable to us or available to us at all, we may need to scale back our research and development efforts and may be unable to continue our business operations.



We will require substantial additional funds to advance our research and development programs and to continue our operations, particularly if we decide to independently conduct later-stage clinical testing and apply for regulatory approval of any of our proposed products, and if we decide to independently undertake the marketing and promotion of our products. Additionally, we may require additional funds in the event that we decide to pursue strategic acquisitions of or licenses for other products or businesses. Based on our operating plan as of December 31, 2013, we estimated that our existing cash resources may not be sufficient to meet our requirements for 2014. We believe that we will require additional capital to fund on-going operations. Additional funds may result from agreements with larger pharmaceutical companies that include the license or rights to the technologies and products that we are currently developing, although there is no assurance that we will secure such a transaction in a timely manner, or at all.



Our cash requirements in the future may differ significantly from our current estimates, depending on a number of factors, including:



? the results of our clinical trials;

? the time and costs involved in obtaining regulatory approvals;

? the costs of setting up and operating our own marketing and sales organization;

? the ability to obtain funding under contractual and licensing agreements;

? the costs involved in obtaining and enforcing patents or any litigation by third parties regarding intellectual property; and

? our success in entering into collaborative relationships with other parties.



To finance our future activities, we may seek funds through additional rounds of financing, including private or public equity or debt offerings and collaborative arrangements with corporate partners. We cannot say with any certainty that we will be able to obtain the additional needed funds on reasonable terms, or at all. The sale of additional equity or convertible debt securities could result in additional and possibly substantial dilution to our stockholders. If we issued preferred equity or debt securities, these securities could have rights superior to holders of our common stock, and such instruments entered into in connection with the issuance of securities could contain covenants that will restrict our operations. We might have to obtain funds through arrangements with collaborative partners or others that may require us to relinquish rights to our technologies, product candidates or products that we otherwise would not relinquish. In early March 2009 and again in August 2011, we reduced our workforce in an effort to conserve our capital resources. In 2012, several members of management departed. In March 2013 the then-current remaining members of management were removed by our newly elected board of directors and new officers were appointed. If adequate funds are not available in the future, as required, we could lose our key employees and might have to further delay, scale back or eliminate one or more of our research and development programs, which would impair our future prospects. In addition, we may be unable to meet our research spending obligations under our existing licensing agreements and may be unable to continue our business operations.



Our products rely on licenses from research institutions and if we lose access to these technologies or applications, our business could be substantially impaired.



Under our agreements with The Regents of the University of California, we had exclusive rights to certain ampakine compounds for all applications for which the University had patent rights, other than endocrine modulation. The license securing these rights has since been terminated.



Under a patent license agreement with The Governors of the University of Alberta, we have exclusive rights to the use of certain ampakine compounds to prevent and treat respiratory depression induced by opiate analgesics, barbiturates and anesthetic and sedative agents.




10






On May 8, 2007, the Company entered into a license agreement, as subsequently amended, with the University of Alberta granting the Company exclusive rights to practice patents held by the University of Alberta claiming the use of ampakines for the treatment of various respiratory disorders. The Company agreed to pay the University of Alberta a licensing fee and a patent issuance fee, which were paid, and prospective payments consisting of a royalty on net sales, sublicense fee payments, maintenance payments and milestone payments. The prospective maintenance payments commence on the enrollment of the first patient into the first Phase 2B clinical trial and increase upon the successful completion of the Phase 2B clinical trial. As the Company does not at this time anticipate scheduling a Phase 2B clinical trial, no maintenance payments are currently due and payable to the University of Alberta. In addition, no other prospective payments are currently due and payable to the University of Alberta.



Through the merger with Pier, the Company gained access to an Exclusive License Agreement (as amended, the Pier License Agreement), that Pier had entered into with the University of Illinois on October 10, 2007. The Pier License Agreement covered certain patents and patent applications in the United States and other countries claiming the use of certain compounds referred to as cannabinoids for the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders (including sleep apnea), of which dronabinol is a specific example of one type of cannabinoid. Dronabinol is a synthetic derivative of the naturally occurring substance in the cannabis plant, otherwise known as ?9-THC (?9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Dronabinol is currently approved by the FDA and is sold generically for use in refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, as well as for anorexia in patients with AIDS. Pier’s business plan was to determine whether dronabinol would significantly improve subjective and objective clinical measures in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. In addition, Pier intended to evaluate the feasibility and comparative efficacy of a proprietary formulation of dronabinol. The Pier License Agreement was terminated effective March 21, 2013 due to the Company’s failure to make a required payment and on June 27, 2014, the Company entered into a new license agreement with the University of Illinois that was similar, but not identical, to the Pier License Agreement that had been terminated. If we are unable to comply with the terms of the new license agreement, such as required payments thereunder, the new license agreement might be terminated.



We are at an early stage of development and we may not be able to successfully develop and commercialize our products and technologies.



The development of ampakine products and cannabinoid products is subject to the risks of failure commonly experienced in the development of products based upon innovative technologies and the expense and difficulty of obtaining approvals from regulatory agencies. Drug discovery and development is time consuming, expensive and unpredictable. On average, only one out of many thousands of chemical compounds discovered by researchers proves to be both medically effective and safe enough to become an approved medicine. All of our proposed products are in the preclinical or early clinical stage of development and will require significant additional funding for research, development and clinical testing before we are able to submit them to any of the regulatory agencies for clearances for commercial use.



The process from discovery to development to regulatory approval can take several years and drug candidates can fail at any stage of the process. Late stage clinical trials often fail to replicate results achieved in earlier studies. Historically, in our industry more than half of all compounds in development failed during Phase 2 trials and 30% failed during Phase 3 trials. We cannot assure you that we will be able to complete successfully any of our research and development activities. Even if we do complete them, we may not be able to market successfully any of the products or be able to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals or assure that healthcare providers and payors will accept our products. We also face the risk that any or all of our products will not work as intended or that they will be unsafe, or that, even if they do work and are safe, that our products will be uneconomical to manufacture and market on a large scale. Due to the extended testing and regulatory review process required before we can obtain marketing clearance, we do not expect to be able to commercialize any therapeutic drug for several years, either directly or through our corporate partners or licensees.



We may not be able to enter into the strategic alliances necessary to fully develop and commercialize our products and technologies, and we will be dependent on our corporate partners if we do.



We are seeking pharmaceutical company partners to develop other major indications for the ampakine compounds and cannabinoids. These agreements would potentially provide us with additional funds in exchange for exclusive or non-exclusive license or other rights to the technologies and products that we are currently developing. Competition between biopharmaceutical companies for these types of arrangements is intense. We cannot give any assurance that our discussions with candidate companies will result in an agreement or agreements in a timely manner, or at all. Additionally, we cannot assure you that any resulting agreement will generate sufficient revenues to offset our operating expenses and longer-term funding requirements.





11






Risks related to our industry



If we fail to secure adequate intellectual property protection, it could significantly harm our financial results and ability to compete.



Our success will depend, in part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection for our products and processes in the United States and elsewhere. We have filed and intend to continue to file patent applications as we need them. However, additional patents that may issue from any of these applications may not be sufficiently broad to protect our technology. Also, any patents issued to us or licensed by us may be designed around or challenged by others, and if such design or challenge is effective, it may diminish our rights.



If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient protection of our proprietary rights in our products or processes prior to or after obtaining regulatory clearances, our competitors may be able to obtain regulatory clearance and market similar or competing products by demonstrating the equivalency of their products to our products. If they are successful at demonstrating the equivalency between the products, our competitors would not have to conduct the same lengthy clinical tests that we have or will have conducted.



We also rely on trade secrets and confidential information that we try to protect by entering into confidentiality agreements with other parties. Those confidentiality agreements may be breached, and our remedies may be insufficient to protect the confidential information. Further, our competitors may independently learn our trade secrets or develop similar or superior technologies. To the extent that our consultants, key employees or others apply technological information independently developed by them or by others to our projects, disputes may arise regarding the proprietary rights to such information or developments. We cannot assure you that such disputes will be resolved in our favor.



We may be subject to potential product liability claims. One or more successful claims brought against us could materially impact our business and financial condition.



The clinical testing, manufacturing and marketing of our products may expose us to product liability claims. We have never been subject to a product liability claim, and we require each patient in our clinical trials to sign an informed consent agreement that describes the risks related to the trials, but we cannot assure you that the coverage limits of our insurance policies will be adequate or that one or more successful claims brought against us would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and result of operations. Further, if one of our ampakine or cannabinoid compounds is approved by the FDA for marketing, we cannot assure you that adequate product liability insurance will be available, or if available, that it will be available at a reasonable cost. Any adverse outcome resulting from a product liability claim could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.



We face intense competition that could result in products that are superior to the products that we are developing.



Our business is characterized by intensive research efforts. Our competitors include many companies, research institutes and universities that are working in a number of pharmaceutical or biotechnology disciplines to develop therapeutic products similar to those we are currently investigating. Most of these competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and/or other resources than we do. In addition, many of our competitors have experience in performing human clinical trials of new or improved therapeutic products and obtaining approvals from the FDA and other regulatory agencies. We have no experience in conducting and managing later-stage clinical testing or in preparing applications necessary to obtain regulatory approvals. Accordingly, it is possible that our competitors may succeed in developing products that are safer or more effective than those that we are developing and/or may obtain FDA approvals for their products faster than we can. We expect that competition in this field will continue to intensify.




12






We may be unable to recruit and retain our senior management and other key technical personnel on whom we are dependent.



We are highly dependent upon senior management and key technical personnel and currently do not carry any insurance policies on such persons. In particular, we were highly dependent on our President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark A. Varney, Ph.D. and our Vice President of Preclinical Development, Steven A. Johnson, Ph.D., each of whom entered into employment agreements with us and served in those roles until removed in March 2013. Since our change in management in March 2013, we are now highly dependent on Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer, Jeff E. Margolis, our Treasurer and Secretary, and, since his appointment in April 2013, our Chief Financial Officer Robert N. Weingarten. Competition for qualified employees among pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies is intense. The loss of any of our senior management, or our inability to attract, retain and motivate the additional or replacement highly-skilled employees and consultants that our business requires, could substantially hurt our business and prospects.



The regulatory approval process is expensive, time consuming, uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining required approvals for the commercialization of some of our products.



The FDA and other similar agencies in foreign countries have substantial requirements for therapeutic products. Such requirements often involve lengthy and detailed laboratory, clinical and post-clinical testing procedures and are expensive to complete. It often takes companies many years to satisfy these requirements, depending on the complexity and novelty of the product. The review process is also extensive, which may delay the approval process even more.



As of yet, we have not obtained any approvals to market our products. Further, we cannot assure you that the FDA or other regulatory agency will grant us approval for any of our products on a timely basis, if at all. Even if regulatory clearances are obtained, a marketed product is subject to continual review, and later discovery of previously unknown problems may result in restrictions on marketing or withdrawal of the product from the market.



Other risks



Our stock price may be volatile and our common stock could decline in value.



The market price of securities of life sciences companies in general has been very unpredictable. The range of sales prices of our common stock for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, as quoted on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board, was $0.03 to $0.10 and $0.02 to $0.11, respectively. The following factors, in addition to factors that affect that market generally, could significantly affect our business, and the market price of our common stock could decline:



? competitors announcing technological innovations or new commercial products;

? competitors’ publicity regarding actual or potential products under development;

? regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries;

? developments concerning proprietary rights, including patent litigation;

? public concern over the safety of therapeutic products; and

? changes in healthcare reimbursement policies and healthcare regulations.



Our common stock is thinly traded and you may be unable to sell some or all of your shares at the price you would like, or at all, and sales of large blocks of shares may depress the price of our common stock.



Our common stock has historically been sporadically or “thinly-traded,” meaning that the number of persons interested in purchasing shares of our common stock at desired prices at any given time may be relatively small or nonexistent. As a consequence, there may be periods of several days or more when trading activity in shares of our common stock is minimal or non-existent, as compared to a seasoned issuer that has a large and steady volume of trading activity that will generally support continuous sales without an adverse effect on share price. This could lead to wide fluctuations in our share price. You may be unable to sell your common stock at or above your purchase price, which may result in substantial losses to you. Also, as a consequence of this lack of liquidity, the trading of relatively small quantities of shares by our stockholders may disproportionately influence the price of shares of our common stock in either direction. The price of shares of our common stock could, for example, decline precipitously in the event a large number of share of our common shares are sold on the market without commensurate demand, as compared to a seasoned issuer which could better absorb those sales without adverse impact on its share price.




13






There is a large number of shares of the Company’s common stock that may be issued or sold, and if such shares are issued or sold, the market price of our common stock may decline.



As of December 31, 2013, we had 144,041,556 shares of our common stock outstanding.



If all warrants and options outstanding as of December 31, 2013 are exercised prior to their expiration, up to 9,166,668 additional shares of our common stock could become freely tradable. Such sales of substantial amounts of common stock in the public market could adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock and could also make it more difficult for us to raise funds through future offerings of common stock. Included in the 9,166,668 potentially issuable shares of common stock were shares issuable upon the exercise of warrants to purchase up to 4,000,000 shares of common stock which expired unexercised in June 2014.



Since December 31, 2013, we have issued our Series G Preferred Stock and additional convertible notes and warrants, all of which are convertible into shares of our common stock (see Note 12 to our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012—Subsequent Events—Series G Preferred Stock Placement) and may in the future issue additional equity or equity-based securities. If some or all of our Series G Preferred Stock, convertible Notes or warrants converts to common stock, or if we issue additional equity or equity-based securities, the number of shares of our common stock outstanding could increase substantially, which could adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock and could also make it more difficult for us to raise funds through future offerings of common stock.



Our charter document may prevent or delay an attempt by our stockholders to replace or remove management.



Certain provisions of our restated certificate of incorporation, as amended, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of our business, even if such change in control would be beneficial to our stockholders. Our restated certificate of incorporation, as amended, allowed the Board of Directors of the Company, referred to as the Board or Board of Directors, to issue as of December 31, 2013 up to 3,507,500 shares of preferred stock without stockholder approval. The ability of our Board of Directors to issue additional preferred stock may have the effect of delaying or preventing an attempt by our stockholders to replace or remove existing directors and management. While additional shares of our preferred stock have been authorized and issued in March and April 2014, the Company retains the authority to issue a substantial number of shares of preferred stock without stockholder approval.



If our common stock is determined to be a “penny stock,” a broker-dealer may find it more difficult to trade our common stock and an investor may find it more difficult to acquire or dispose of our common stock in the secondary market.



In addition, our common stock may be subject to the so-called “penny stock” rules. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has adopted regulations that define a “penny stock” to be any equity security that has a market price per share of less than $5.00, subject to certain exceptions, such as any securities listed on a national securities exchange. For any transaction involving a “penny stock,” unless exempt, the rules impose additional sales practice requirements on broker-dealers, subject to certain exceptions. If our common stock is determined to be a “penny stock,” a broker-dealer may find it more difficult to trade our common stock and an investor may find it more difficult to acquire or dispose of our common stock on the secondary market.




14






Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments



None.



Item 2. Properties



As of December 31, 2013, the Company did not maintain any operating facilities.



On May 14, 2012, the Company executed a three-year lease for approximately 5,000 square feet of office space beginning June 1, 2012 at a monthly rate of $9,204. During the three months ended December 31, 2012, the Company substantially vacated its operating facility and abandoned its furniture, equipment and leasehold improvements. In May 2013, the Company received notice that it had been sued in the Superior Court of California in a complaint filed on March 28, 2013 by its former landlord, PPC Irvine Center Investment, LLC, seeking among other things, $57,535 in past due rent, termination of the lease agreement, and reasonable attorney’s fees. On May 23, 2013, a settlement was reached with the landlord that provided for the Company to relinquish its security deposit in the amount of $29,545, transfer title to its remaining furniture, equipment and leasehold improvements, and pay an additional $26,000.



Item 3. Legal Proceedings



We were not a party to any material legal proceedings, nor has any material proceeding been terminated during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, except the resolution of the matter related to our lease discussed in Item 2—Properties above.



Since December 31, 2013, we have been periodically subject to various pending and threatened legal actions and claims. See Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012—Commitments and Contingencies—Pending or Threatened Legal Actions and Claims and Note 12 to our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012—Subsequent Events—Debt Settlements for details regarding these matters.



Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures



Not applicable.




15






PART II



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



Our common stock is quoted on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board, referred to as OTCBB, under the symbol “CORX”. The following table presents quarterly information on the high and low sales prices of the common stock furnished by the OTCBB for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012. The quotations on the OTCBB reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commission and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.



High Low
Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2013

Fourth Quarter $ 0.05 $ 0.03
Third Quarter 0.10 0.03
Second Quarter 0.08 0.03
First Quarter 0.05 0.03

Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2012

Fourth Quarter $ 0.07 $ 0.02
Third Quarter 0.09 0.05
Second Quarter 0.11 0.04
First Quarter 0.11 0.05



As of December 31, 2013, there were 403 stockholders of record of our common stock, and approximately 8,000 beneficial owners. The high and low sales prices for our common stock on December 31, 2013, as quoted on the OTC market, were $0.0275 and $0.0261, respectively.



We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying such dividends in the foreseeable future. The payment of dividends, if any, will be determined by the Board in light of conditions then existing, including our financial condition and requirements, future prospects, restrictions in financing agreements, business conditions and other factors deemed relevant by the Board.



During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, we did not repurchase any of our securities.



Item 6. Selected Financial Data



Not applicable to smaller reporting companies.



Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations



The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and notes related thereto appearing elsewhere in this document.



Overview



Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Cortex”) was formed in 1987 to engage in the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative pharmaceuticals for the treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorders. In 2011, prior management conducted a re-evaluation of Cortex’s strategic focus and determined that clinical development in the area of respiratory disorders, particularly respiratory depression and sleep apnea, provided the most cost-effective opportunities for potential rapid development and commercialization of Cortex’s compounds. Accordingly, Cortex narrowed its clinical focus at that time and abandoned other avenues of scientific inquiry. This re-evaluation provided the impetus for Cortex’s acquisition of Pier in August 2012, as described below. Cortex and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Pier Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Pier”), are collectively referred to herein as the “Company.”




16






On March 22, 2013, the Company received a written consent of stockholders holding a majority of the Company’s common stock signed by Origin Ventures II LP, Illinois Emerging Technologies Fund, LP, Illinois Ventures LLC, Samyang Optics Co. Ltd., Samyang Value Partners Co., Ltd., Steven Chizzik, Kenneth M. Cohen, Peter Letendre, David W. Carley and Aurora Capital LLC (the “Written Consent”) (i) removing Charles J. Casamento, M. Ross Johnson, John F. Benedik and Mark A. Varney from their positions as directors of the Company, and (ii) appointing each of Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D. and Jeff E. Margolis to fill two of the vacancies created, each to hold such office until the next annual meeting of the stockholders and until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. The Written Consent did not remove Moogak Hwang, Ph.D., a representative of Samyang Optics Co. Ltd., a lender to and significant stockholder of the Company, from the Board of Directors. Dr. Hwang continued to serve as a director until his resignation from the Board of Directors effective September 30, 2013.



Following the delivery of the Written Consent, the Board of Directors, acting by unanimous written consent dated March 22, 2013, removed all officers of the Company and appointed Dr. Lippa, as Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Margolis, as Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary. On April 29, 2013, Robert N. Weingarten was appointed as a director, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.



Since new management’s appointment in March 2013, it has continued to implement this revised strategic focus, including seeking the capital to fund such efforts. As a result of the Company’s scientific discoveries and the acquisition of strategic, exclusive license agreements (including a new license agreement with the University of Illinois, as described below), management believes that the Company is now a leader in the discovery and development of innovative pharmaceuticals for the treatment of respiratory disorders.



Since its formation in 1987, Cortex has been engaged in the research and clinical development of a class of compounds referred to as ampakines. By acting as positive allosteric modulators of AMPA glutamate receptors, ampakines increase the excitatory effects of the neurotransmitter glutamate. Preclinical research suggested that these ampakines might have therapeutic potential for the treatment of certain respiratory disorders, as well as cognitive disorders, depression, attention deficit disorder and schizophrenia.



In its early stages, Cortex entered into a series of license agreements in 1993 and 1998 with the University of California, Irvine (“UCI”) that granted Cortex proprietary rights to certain chemical compounds that acted as ampakines and their therapeutic uses. These agreements granted Cortex, among other provisions, exclusive rights: (i) to practice certain patents and patent applications, as defined in the license agreement, that were then held by UCI; (ii) to identify, develop, make, have made, import, export, lease, sell, have sold or offer for sale any related licensed products; and (iii) to grant sub-licenses of the rights granted in the license agreements, subject to the provisions of the license agreements. Cortex was required, among other terms and conditions, to pay UCI a license fee, royalties, patent costs and certain additional payments.



At December 31, 2012, the Company was not in compliance with its minimum annual payment obligations and believed that this default constituted a termination of the license agreements. On April 15, 2013, UCI notified the Company that these license agreements were terminated due to the Company’s failure to make its obligatory payments. Since the patents covered in these license agreements had begun to expire and the therapeutic uses described in these patents were no longer germane to the Company’s new focus on respiratory disorders, the loss of these license agreements is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s current or future drug development programs.



The Company also owns patents and patent applications for certain families of chemical compounds, including ampakines, which claim the chemical structures and their use in the treatment of various disorders. These patents cover, among other compounds, the Company’s lead ampakines CX1739 and CX1942, and extend through at least 2028.




17






On May 8, 2007, Cortex entered into a license agreement, as subsequently amended, with the University of Alberta granting Cortex exclusive rights to practice patents held by the University of Alberta claiming the use of ampakines for the treatment of various respiratory disorders. These patents, along with Cortex’s own patents claiming chemical structures, comprise Cortex’s principal intellectual property supporting Cortex’s research and clinical development program in the use of ampakines for the treatment of respiratory disorders. Cortex has completed pre-clinical studies indicating that several of its ampakines, including CX717, CX1739 and CX1942, were efficacious in treating drug induced respiratory depression caused by opiates or certain anesthetics without offsetting the analgesic effects of the opiates or the anesthetic effects of the anesthetics. In two clinical Phase 2 studies, one of which was published in a peer-reviewed journal, CX717, a predecessor compound to CX1739 and CX1942, antagonized the respiratory depression produced by fentanyl, a potent narcotic, without affecting the analgesia produced by this drug. In addition, Cortex has conducted a Phase 2A clinical study in which patients with sleep apnea were administered CX1739, Cortex’s lead clinical compound. Preliminary results suggested that CX1739 might have use for the treatment of central and mixed sleep apnea, but not obstructive sleep apnea.



In order to expand the Company’s respiratory disorders program, the Company acquired 100% of the issued and outstanding equity securities of Pier effective August 10, 2012 pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as described below.



Loan from SY Corporation Co., Ltd.



On June 25, 2012, the Company borrowed 465,000,000 Won (the currency of South Korea, equivalent to approximately $400,000 US dollars) from and executed a secured note payable to SY Corporation Co., Ltd., formerly known as Samyang Optics Co. Ltd. (“Samyang”), an approximately 20% common stockholder of the Company at that time. The note accrues simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum and has a maturity date of June 25, 2013, although Samyang was permitted to demand early repayment of the promissory note on or after December 25, 2012. Samyang did not demand early repayment. The Company has not made any payments on the promissory note. At June 30, 2013 and subsequently, the promissory note was outstanding and in technical default, although Samyang has not issued a notice of default or a demand for repayment. The Company believes that Samyang is in default of its obligations under its January 2012 license agreement, as amended, with the Company, but the Company has not yet issued a notice of default. The Company anticipates entering into discussions with Samyang with a view toward a comprehensive resolution of the aforementioned matters.



Merger with Pier Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



Cortex acquired 100% of the issued and outstanding equity securities of Pier effective August 10, 2012 pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger. Pier was formed in June 2007 (under the name SteadySleep Rx Co.) as a clinical stage pharmaceutical company to develop a pharmacologic treatment for the respiratory disorder known as obstructive sleep apnea and had been engaged in research and clinical development activities since formation.



In connection with the merger transaction with Pier, Cortex issued 58,417,893 newly issued shares of its common stock with an aggregate fair value of $3,271,402 ($0.056 per share), based upon the closing price of the Company’s common stock on August 10, 2012. The shares of common stock were issued to stockholders, convertible note holders, warrant holders, option holders, and certain employees and vendors of Pier in satisfaction of their interests and claims. The common stock issued by Cortex represented approximately 41% of the 144,041,556 common shares outstanding immediately following the closing of the transaction.



Through the merger, Cortex gained access to an Exclusive License Agreement, as amended (the “License Agreement”), that Pier had entered into with the University of Illinois on October 10, 2007. The License Agreement covered certain patents and patent applications in the United States and other countries claiming the use of certain compounds referred to as cannabinoids, of which dronabinol is a specific example, for the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders (including sleep apnea). Dronabinol is a synthetic derivative of the naturally occurring substance in the cannabis plant, otherwise known as ?9-THC (?9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Pier’s business plan was to determine whether dronabinol would significantly improve subjective and objective clinical measures in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (“OSA”). In addition, Pier intended to evaluate the feasibility and comparative efficacy of a proprietary formulation of dronabinol.



The License Agreement granted Pier, among other provisions, exclusive rights: (i) to practice certain patents and patent applications, as defined in the License Agreement, that were then held by the University of Illinois; (ii) to identify, develop, make, have made, import, export, lease, sell, have sold or offer for sale any related licensed products; and (iii) to grant sub-licenses of the rights granted in the License Agreement, subject to the provisions of the License Agreement. Pier was required under the License Agreement, among other terms and conditions, to pay the University of Illinois a license fee, royalties, patent costs and certain milestone payments.




18






Prior to the merger, Pier conducted a 21 day, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose escalation Phase 2 clinical study in 22 patients with obstructive sleep apnea, in which dronabinol produced a statistically significant reduction in the Apnea-Hypopnea Index (“AHI”), the primary therapeutic end-point, and was observed to be safe and well tolerated. Dronabinol is currently under investigation, at the University of Illinois and other centers, in a potentially pivotal 120 patient, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2B OSA clinical trial, fully funded by the National Institutes of Health.



Dronabinol is a Schedule III, controlled generic drug with a relatively low abuse potential that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the treatment of AIDS-related anorexia and chemotherapy induced emesis. The use of dronabinol for the treatment of OSA is a novel indication for an already approved drug and, as such, the Company believes that it would only require approval by the FDA of a supplemental new drug application.



The Company accounted for the Pier transaction pursuant to ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations. The Company identified and evaluated the fair value of the assets acquired. Based on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the history and status of Pier, including its business and intellectual property at the time of the merger transaction, the Company determined that the identifiable intangible assets were comprised solely of contract-based intangible assets, and that there was no measurable goodwill.



The intangible asset acquired in the Pier transaction consisted of the License Agreement. Unless terminated earlier, the License Agreement would terminate upon expiration or termination of all patent rights. The License Agreement defined patent rights as all of the University of Illinois’ rights in the patents and patent applications, and (b) all of the University of Illinois’ rights in all divisions, continuations, continuation-in-part applications, reissues, renewals, re-examinations, foreign counterparts, substitutions or extensions thereof. Based upon the expiration date of the underlying patents, the License Agreement would be amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining life of the underlying patents of 172 months from the date of acquisition.



The following table summarizes the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed by the Company at the closing of the Pier transaction on August 10, 2012.



Fair value of assets acquired:
Cash $ 23,208
Other current assets 698
Equipment 3,463
License agreement 3,411,157
Total assets acquired $ 3,438,526

Consideration transferred by the Company:
Fair value of common shares issued $ 3,271,402
Liabilities assumed 167,124
Total consideration paid $ 3,438,526



The License Agreement was terminated effective March 21, 2013 due to the Company’s failure to make a required payment. New management subsequently opened negotiations with the University of Illinois and as a result, the Company ultimately entered into a new license agreement with the University of Illinois on June 27, 2014, the material terms of which were similar to the License Agreement that had been terminated on March 21, 2013.



Additional information with respect to the Pier transaction, including the impairment of the License Agreement that resulted in the Company recording an impairment charge to operations of $3,321,678 at December 31, 2012, is included in Notes 3 and 4 to the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, which is included elsewhere in this document.




19






Significant Developments Subsequent to December 31, 2013



Series G Preferred Stock Placement



On March 14, 2014, the Company filed a Certificate of Designation, Preferences, Rights and Limitations, (the “Certificate of Designation”) of its Series G Preferred Stock (“Series G Preferred Stock”) with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware to amend the Company’s certificate of incorporation. The number of shares designated as Series G Preferred Stock is 1,700 (which shall not be subject to increase without the written consent of a majority of the holders of the Series G Preferred Stock or as otherwise set forth in the Certificate of Designation). The Stated Value of each share of Series G Preferred Stock is $1,000.



The Company shall pay a stated dividend on the Series G Preferred Stock at a rate per share (as a percentage of the Stated Value per share) of 1.5% per annum, payable quarterly within 15 calendar days of the end of each fiscal quarter of the Company, in duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable shares of Series G Preferred Stock, which may include fractional shares of Series G Preferred Stock.



The Series G Preferred Stock shall be convertible, beginning 60 days after the last share of Series G Preferred Stock is issued in the Private Placement, at the option of the holder, into common stock at the applicable conversion price, at a rate determined by dividing the Stated Value of the shares of Series G Preferred Stock to be converted by the conversion price, subject to adjustments for stock dividends, splits, combinations and similar events as described in the form of Certificate of Designation. The stated value of the Series G Preferred Stock is $1,000 per share, and the fixed conversion price is $0.0033. Accordingly, at the option of the holder, each share of Series G Preferred Stock is convertible commencing on the date that is 60 calendar days after the date on which the last share of Series G Preferred Stock is issued pursuant to a Purchase Agreement, into 303,030.3 shares of common stock. In addition, the Company has the right to require the holders of the Series G Preferred Stock to convert such shares into common stock under certain enumerated circumstances set forth in the Certificate of Designation.



Upon either (i) a Qualified Public Offering (as defined in the Certificate of Designation) or (ii) the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the Stated Value of the Series G Preferred Stock issued and outstanding, all outstanding shares of Series G Preferred Stock, plus all accrued or declared, but unpaid, dividends thereon, shall mandatorily be converted into such number of shares of common stock determined by dividing the Stated Value of such Series G Preferred Stock (together with the amount of any accrued or declared, but unpaid, dividends thereon) by the Conversion Price (as defined in the Certificate of Designation). If not earlier converted, the Series G Preferred Stock shall be redeemed by conversion on the two year anniversary of the date the last share of Series G Preferred Stock is issued in the Private Placement at the Conversion Price.



Except as described in the Certificate of Designation, holders of the Series G Preferred Stock will vote together with holders of the Company common stock on all matters, on an as-converted to common stock basis, and not as a separate class or series (subject to limited exceptions).



In the event of any liquidation or winding up of the Company prior to and in preference to any Junior Securities (including common stock), the holders of the Series G Preferred Stock will be entitled to receive in preference to the holders of the Company common stock a per share amount equal to the Stated Value, plus any accrued and unpaid dividends thereon.



On March 18, 2014, the Company entered into Securities Purchase Agreements with various accredited investors (the “Initial Purchasers”), pursuant to which the Company sold an aggregate of 753.22 shares of its Series G Preferred Stock for a purchase price of $1,000 per share, or an aggregate purchase price of $753,220. This financing represents the initial closing on a private placement of up to $1,500,000 (the “Private Placement”). The Initial Purchasers in this tranche of the Private Placement consisted of (i) Arnold S. Lippa, the Company’s Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Company’s Board of Directors, who had not previously owned common stock in the Company and who invested $250,000 for 250 shares of Series G Preferred Stock, and (ii) new, non-affiliated, accredited investors. Neither the Series G Preferred Stock nor the underlying shares of common stock have any registration rights.



The placement agents and selected dealers in connection with the initial tranche of the Private Placement received cash fees totaling $3,955 as compensation and warrants totaling approximately 5.6365% of the shares of common stock into which the Series G Preferred Stock may convert, exercisable for five years at a fixed price of $0.00396, which is 120% of the conversion price at which the Series G Preferred Stock may convert into the Company’s common stock. Aurora Capital LLC was one of the placement agents.




20






On April 17, 2014, the Company entered into Securities Purchase Agreements with various accredited investors (together with the Initial Purchasers, the “Purchasers”), pursuant to which the Company sold an aggregate of 175.28 shares of its Series G Preferred Stock, for a purchase price of $1,000 per share, or an aggregate purchase price of $175,280. This was the second and final closing on the Private Placement. The Purchasers in the second and final tranche of the Private Placement consisted of new, non-affiliated, accredited investors and non-management investors who had also invested in the first closing. Neither the Series G Preferred Stock nor the underlying shares of common stock have any registration rights.



The placement agents and selected dealers in connection with the second tranche of the Private Placement received cash fees of $3,465 as compensation and warrants totaling approximately 12% of the shares of common stock into which the Series G Preferred Stock may convert, exercisable for five years at a fixed price of $0.00396, which is 120% of the conversion price at which the Series G Preferred Stock may convert into the Company’s common stock. Aurora Capital LLC was one of the placement agents.



The stated value of the Series G Preferred Stock is $1,000 per share, and the fixed conversion price is $0.0033. Accordingly, at the option of the holder, each share of Series G Preferred Stock is convertible commencing on the date that is sixty calendar days after the date on which the last share of Series G Preferred Stock is issued pursuant to a Purchase Agreement, into 303,030.3 shares of common stock. The aggregate of 928.5 shares of Series G Preferred Stock sold in the Private Placement are convertible into a total of 281,363,634 shares of common stock. The Company had 144,041,556 shares of common stock, plus an additional 57,000,000 shares of common stock issued to management on April 14, 2014, issued and outstanding immediately prior to the closing of the Private Placement of Series G Preferred Stock described herein.



The warrants that the placement agents and selected dealers received in connection with the Private Placement represent the right to acquire 19,251,271 shares of common stock exercisable for five years at a fixed price of $0.00396, which is 120% of the conversion price at which the Series G Preferred Stock may convert into the Company’s common stock.



Purchasers in the Private Placement of the Series G Preferred Stock have executed written consents in favor of (i) approving and adopting an amendment to the Company’s certificate of incorporation that increases the number of authorized shares of the Company to 1,405,000,000, 1,400,000,000 of which are shares of common stock and 5,000,000 of which are shares of preferred stock, and (ii) approving and adopting the Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan.



The shares of Series G Preferred Stock were offered and sold without registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), in reliance on the exemptions provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act as provided in Rule 506(b) of Regulation D promulgated thereunder. The shares of Series G Preferred Stock and the Company’s common stock issuable upon conversion of the shares of Series G Preferred Stock have not been registered under the Securities Act or any other applicable securities laws, and unless so registered, may not be offered or sold in the United States except pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act.



Capitalized terms in this section that are not otherwise defined have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stock Purchase Agreements, the form of which was previously filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 24, 2014.




21






Convertible Note and Warrant Financing



On November 5, 2014, the Company entered into a Convertible Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with various accredited, non-affiliated investors (each, a “Purchaser”), pursuant to which the Company sold an aggregate principal amount of $238,500 of its (i) 10% Convertible Notes due September 15, 2015 (each a “Note”, and together, the “Notes”) and (ii) Warrants to purchase shares of common stock (the “Warrants”) as described below. This financing represents the initial closing on a private placement of up to $1,000,000, and the Company may close on one or more additional tranches of this private placement in the near future. Unless otherwise provided for in the Notes, the outstanding principal balance of each Note and all accrued and unpaid interest is due and payable in full on September 15, 2015. At any time, each Purchaser may elect, at its option and in its sole discretion, to convert the outstanding principal amount into a fixed number of shares of the Company’s common stock equal to the quotient obtained by dividing the outstanding principal amount by $0.035 (an aggregate of 6,814,286 shares), plus any accrued and unpaid interest under the Note, which is treated in the same manner as the outstanding principal amount. In the case of a Qualified Financing (as defined in the Purchase Agreement), the outstanding principal amount and accrued and unpaid interest under the Notes automatically convert into common stock at a common stock equivalent price of $0.035. In the case of an Acquisition (as defined in the Purchase Agreement), the Company may elect to either: (i) convert the outstanding principal amount and all accrued and unpaid interest under the Notes into shares of common stock or (ii) accelerate the maturity date of the Notes to the date of closing of the Acquisition. Each Warrant to purchase shares of common stock shall be exercisable into a fixed number of shares of common stock of the Company calculated as each Purchaser’s investment amount divided by $0.035 (an aggregate of 6,814,286 shares for the initial closing). The Warrants do not have any cashless exercise provisions and are exercisable through September 15, 2015 at a fixed price of $0.035 per share. The shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Notes and exercise of the Warrants are not subject to any registration rights.



On December 9, 2014, a second closing for $46,000 was conducted under this financing. On December 31, 2014, a third closing for $85,000 was conducted under this financing.



Placement agent fees, brokerage commissions, finder’s fees and similar payments were made in the form of cash and warrants to qualified referral sources in connection with the sale of the Notes and Warrants. In connection with the initial closing, fees of $16,695 were paid in cash, based on 7% of the aggregate principal amount of the Notes issued to such referral sources, and the fees paid in warrants (the “Placement Agent Warrants”) consisted of 477,000 warrants, reflecting warrants for that number of shares equal to 7% of the number of shares of common stock into which the corresponding Notes are convertible. In connection with the second closing, fees of $700 were paid in cash and 20,000 Placement Agent Warrants were issued. In connection with the third closing, fees of $3,500 were paid in cash and 100,000 Placement Agent Warrants were issued. The Placement Agent Warrants have cashless exercise provisions and are exercisable through September 15, 2015 at a fixed price of $0.035 per share. Aurora Capital LLC is acting as the placement agent for this financing.



The Notes and Warrants were offered and sold without registration under the Securities Act in reliance on the exemptions provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act as provided in Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder. The Notes and Warrants and the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Notes and exercise of the Warrants have not been registered under the Securities Act or any other applicable securities laws, and unless so registered, may not be offered or sold in the United States except pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act.



Awards to Officers and Directors as Compensation



On April 14, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Company awarded a total of 57,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company, including awards of 15,000,000 shares to each of the Company’s three executive officers, who were also the directors of the Company, and 4,000,000 shares and 8,000,000 shares to two other individuals. The individual who received the 8,000,000 shares was an associated person of Aurora Capital LLC. These awards were made to those individuals on that date as compensation for services rendered through March 31, 2014. None of the officers or directors of the Company had earned or received any cash compensation from the Company since joining the Company in March and April 2013, and there were no prior compensation arrangements or agreements with such individuals. As the initial closing of the Series G Preferred Stock was completed on March 18, 2014, and such closing represented approximately 81% of the total amount of such financing, the Company’s Board of Directors determined that it was appropriate at that time to begin consideration with respect to compensation for such officers for the period since they joined the Company in March and April 2013 through March 31, 2014. Such deliberations were concluded on April 14, 2014 with the issuance of the aforementioned stock awards. Accordingly, as a result of these factors, the fair value of these stock awards will be charged to operations as stock-based compensation effective as of March 18, 2014.




22






On July 17, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Company awarded stock options to purchase a total of 15,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company, consisting of options for 5,000,000 shares to each of the Company’s three executive officers, who are also directors of the Company. The stock options were awarded as compensation for those individuals through December 31, 2014. The awarded stock options vest in three equal installments on July 17, 2014 (at issuance), September 30, 2014, and December 31, 2014, and expire on July 17, 2019. The exercise price of the stock options of $0.05 per share was in excess of the closing market price of a share of the Company’s common stock on the date of issuance. The Company believes and intends that a portion of the stock options awarded qualify as incentive stock options under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The issuance of incentive stock awards is restricted as to amount as set forth in the Plan, and the form of award of the awarded stock options reflects this intention and the limits under the Plan.



In connection with the appointment of James Sapirstein and Kathryn MacFarlane as directors of the Company on September 3, 2014, the Board of Directors awarded an aggregate of 4,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company to the new directors, consisting of 2,000,000 shares to each new director, vesting 50% upon appointment to the Board of Directors, 25% on September 30, 2014 and 25% on December 31, 2014.



All of these awards were made under the Company’s 2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan.



Debt Settlements



During the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company executed settlement agreements with four former executives that resulted in the settlement of potential claims totaling approximately $1,336,000 for a total of approximately $118,000 in cash, plus the issuance of options to purchase 4,300,000 shares of common stock exercisable at $0.04 per share for periods ranging from five to ten years. In addition to other provisions, the settlement agreements included mutual releases.



During the three months ended June 30, 2014, the Company also executed settlement agreements with certain former service providers that resulted in the settlement of potential claims totaling approximately $591,000 for a cost of approximately $155,000 in cash, plus the issuance of options to purchase 1,250,000 shares of common stock exercisable at $0.04 per share for a period of five years. In addition to other provisions, the settlement agreements included mutual releases.



The aforementioned agreements resulted in the settlement of potential claims totaling approximately $1,927,000 for a cost of approximately $273,000 in cash, plus the issuance of options to purchase 5,550,000 shares of common stock exercisable at $0.04 per share for periods ranging from five to ten years. The Company continues to explore ways to reduce its indebtedness, and might in the future enter additional settlements of potential claims, including, without limitation, those by other former executives or third party creditors.



University of Illinois 2014 Exclusive License Agreement



On June 27, 2014, the Company entered into an Exclusive License Agreement (the “2014 License Agreement”) with the University of Illinois, the material terms of which were similar to the License Agreement between the parties that had been previously terminated on March 21, 2013. The 2014 License Agreement became effective on September 18, 2014, upon the completion of certain conditions set forth in the 2014 License Agreement, including (i) the payment by the Company of a $25,000 licensing fee, (ii) the payment by the Company of certain outstanding patent costs (not to exceed $16,000), and (iii) the assignment to the University of Illinois of certain rights the Company holds in certain patent applications. In exchange for certain milestone and royalty payments, the 2014 License Agreement granted the Company (i) exclusive rights to several issued and pending patents in numerous jurisdictions and (ii) the non-exclusive right to certain technical information that is generated by the University of Illinois in connection with certain clinical trials as specified in the 2014 License Agreement, all of which relate to the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders. The Company is developing dronabinol (?9-tetrahydrocannabinol), a cannabinoid, for the treatment of OSA, the most common form of sleep apnea.




23






Settlement with the Institute for the Study of Aging



On September 2, 2014, the Company entered into a Release Agreement (the “Release Agreement”) with the Institute for the Study of Aging (the “Institute”) to settle an outstanding promissory note, dated May 30, 2000, issued by the Company in favor of the Institute for the principal amount of $247,300 (the “Note”), which was made pursuant to an Agreement to Accept Conditions of Loan Support, also dated May 30, 2000 (the “Loan Support Agreement”). At August 31, 2014, the amount owed under the Note, including accrued interest was approximately $337,000. Pursuant to the terms of the Release Agreement, the Institute received 1,000,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock as settlement of all obligations of the Company under the Note and the Loan Support Agreement. Such common shares are “restricted securities” as defined under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and are not subject to any registration rights. The Release Agreement also includes a mutual release between the Company and the Institute, releasing each party from all claims up until the date of the Release Agreement.



Appointment of New Directors



On September 3, 2014, James Sapirstein and Kathryn MacFarlane were appointed as new directors of the Company. These two new directors are considered to be independent directors. In connection with those appointments and in conformity with its corporate policy of indemnifying all directors and officers, the Board of Directors also agreed at that time to enter into indemnification agreements for all directors and officers of the Company, namely, each existing director of the Company, Arnold S. Lippa, Jeff E. Margolis, and Robert N. Weingarten, each of whom is also an officer of the Company, and with the two new directors. Pursuant to the indemnity agreements, the Company will indemnify each director or officer when such individual is a party or threatened to become a party, by virtue of being a director or officer of the Company, from the costs and expenses, fines and certain other amounts in connection with certain proceedings, including proceedings in the right of the Company, so long as such director or officer acted in good faith and reasonably believed that such actions were not opposed to the best interests of the Company.



Appointment of Chairman of the Company’s Scientific Advisory Board



On September 18, 2014, John Greer, Ph.D. was appointed to the position of Chairman of the Company’s Scientific Advisory Board, which is currently being formed. Dr. Greer is the Director of the Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute at the University of Alberta. He holds two grants regarding research into neuromuscular control of breathing and is the inventor on the use patents licensed by the Company with respect to ampakines. Dr. Greer is expected to assist the Company in forming the rest of its Scientific Advisory Board.



In connection with the appointment of Dr. Greer as Chairman of the Company’s Scientific Advisory Board on September 18, 2014, the Board of Directors awarded 2,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company to Dr. Greer (through his wholly-owned consulting company, Progress Scientific, Inc.), vesting 25% upon appointment, 25% on September 30, 2014, 25% on December 31, 2014, and 25% on March 31, 2015. This award was made under the Company’s 2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan.



National Institute on Drug Abuse Grant



On September 18, 2014, the Company entered into a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a division of the National Institutes of Health. The funding under the contract is a Phase 1 award granted under the Small Business Innovation Research Funding Award Program. The purpose of the project is to determine the most useful injectable route of administration for CX1942, the Company’s proprietary, soluble ampakine molecule, a potential rescue medication for drug-induced respiratory depression and lethality. The grant is entitled “Novel Treatment of Drug-Induced Respiratory Depression” and is valued at $148,583, which is to be paid in increments over the expected six-month duration of the study which commenced in October 2014. The study will measure the potency, latency to onset and duration of action of CX1942 administered to rats. The Company anticipates that the data obtained from the study will be used to finalize preclinical studies in preparation for initiating Phase 1 clinical studies. The preclinical studies will be performed in collaboration with Dr. David Fuller of the University of Florida and Dr. John Greer of the University of Alberta.





24






Appointment of Senior Vice President of Research and Development



Richard Purcell was appointed as the Company’s Senior Vice President of Research and Development effective October 15, 2014. Mr. Purcell’s commitment to the Company is for 30 hours per week in order to allow him to comply with his previous professional commitments. Mr. Purcell provides his services to the Company through his consulting firm, DNA Healthlink, Inc., with which the Company has contracted for his services.



Going Concern



The Company’s consolidated financial statements have been presented on the basis that it is a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company has incurred net losses of $1,201,457 and $7,572,244 for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, negative operating cash flows of $182,435 and $1,861,870 for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and incurred additional net losses and negative operating cash flows in the 2014 fiscal year. The Company expects to continue to incur net losses and negative operating cash flows for several more years thereafter. As a result, management and the Company’s auditors believe that there is substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.



The Company is currently, and has for some time, been in significant financial distress. It has limited cash resources and current assets and has no ongoing source of revenue. Beginning in late 2012, the Company’s business activities were reduced to minimal levels, and the prior Board of Directors of the Company, which was removed by the written consent of stockholders holding a majority of the outstanding shares on March 22, 2013, had retained bankruptcy counsel to assist the Company in preparations to file for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. New management, which was appointed during March and April 2013, has evaluated the status of numerous aspects of the Company’s existing business and obligations, including, without limitation, debt obligations, financial requirements, intellectual property, licensing agreements, legal and patent matters and regulatory compliance, and has raised new capital to fund its business activities.



From June 2013 through March 2014, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer advanced short-term loans to the Company aggregating $150,000 in order to meet its minimum operating needs. In March and April 2014, the Company completed a private placement by selling 928.5 shares of its Series G Preferred Stock for gross proceeds of $928,500 and repaid the aggregate advances. The Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer invested $250,000 in the Series G Preferred Stock private placement. During November and December 2014, the Company sold convertible notes (with warrants) in an aggregate principal amount of $369,500 to various accredited investors. The Company intends to continue this financing until it has sold an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 of such notes, although there can be no assurances that the Company will be successful in this regard.



The Company will need to raise additional capital, either through the current financing or otherwise, or both, to be able to pay its liabilities and fund its business activities going forward. As a result of the Company’s current financial situation, the Company has limited access to external sources of debt and equity financing. Accordingly, there can be no assurances that the Company will be able to secure additional financing in the amounts necessary to fully fund its operating and debt service requirements. If the Company is unable to access sufficient cash resources, the Company may be forced to discontinue its operations entirely and liquidate.



Recent Accounting Pronouncements



In April 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-08 (ASU 2014-08), Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205) and Property, Plant and Equipment (Topic 360). ASU 2014-08 amends the requirements for reporting discontinued operations and requires additional disclosures about discontinued operations. Under ASU 2014-08, only disposals representing a strategic shift in operations or that have a major effect on the Company’s operations and financial results should be presented as discontinued operations. ASU 2014-08 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014. As the Company is engaged in research and development activities, the Company does not expect the adoption of this guidance to have any impact on the Company’s financial statement presentation or disclosures.




25






In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-09 (ASU 2014-09), Revenue from Contracts with Customers. ASU 2014-09 will eliminate transaction- and industry-specific revenue recognition guidance under current U.S. GAAP and replace it with a principle based approach for determining revenue recognition. ASU 2014-09 will require that companies recognize revenue based on the value of transferred goods or services as they occur in the contract. ASU 2014-09 also will require additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments and assets recognized from costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract. ASU 2014-09 is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and early adoption is not permitted. Entities can transition to the standard either retrospectively or as a cumulative-effect adjustment as of the date of adoption. As the Company does not expect to have any operating revenues for the foreseeable future, the Company does not expect the adoption of this guidance to have any impact on the Company’s financial statement presentation or disclosures.



In June 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-10 (ASU 2014-10), Development Stage Entities (Topic 915): Elimination of Certain Financial Reporting Requirements, Including an Amendment to Variable Interest Entities Guidance in Topic 810, Consolidation. ASU 2014-10 eliminated the requirement to present inception-to-date information about income statement line items, cash flows, and equity transactions, and clarifies how entities should disclosure the risks and uncertainties related to their activities. ASU 2014-10 also eliminated an exception provided to development stage entities in Consolidations (ASC Topic 810) for determining whether an entity is a variable interest entity on the basis of the amount of investment equity that is at risk. The presentation and disclosure requirements in Topic 915 will no longer be required for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2014, and the revised consolidation standards will take effect in annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of ASU 2014-10 is not expected to have any impact on the Company’s financial statement presentation or disclosures.



In August 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-15 (ASU 2014-15), Presentation of Financial Statements – Going Concern (Subtopic 205-10). ASU 2014-15 provides guidance as to management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. In connection with preparing financial statements for each annual and interim reporting period, an entity’s management should evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued (or within one year after the date that the financial statements are available to be issued when applicable). Management’s evaluation should be based on relevant conditions and events that are known and reasonably knowable at the date that the financial statements are issued (or at the date that the financial statements are available to be issued when applicable). Substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern exists when relevant conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, indicate that it is probable that the entity will be unable to meet its obligations as they become due within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued (or available to be issued). ASU 2014-15 is effective for the annual period ending after December 15, 2016, and for annual periods and interim periods thereafter. Early application is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of ASU 2014-15 on the Company’s financial statement presentation and disclosures.



Management does not believe that any other recently issued, but not yet effective, authoritative guidance, if currently adopted, would have a material impact on the Company’s financial statement presentation or disclosures.



Concentration of Risk



Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. The Company limits its exposure to credit risk by investing its cash with high credit quality financial institutions.




26






The Company’s research and development efforts and potential products rely on licenses from research institutions and if the Company loses access to these technologies or applications, its business could be substantially impaired.



Under the Company’s agreements with The Regents of the University of California, the Company had exclusive rights to certain ampakine compounds for all applications for which the University had patent rights, other than endocrine modulation. The license securing these rights has since been terminated.



Under a patent license agreement with The Governors of the University of Alberta, the Company has exclusive rights to the use of certain ampakine compounds to prevent and treat respiratory depression induced by opiate analgesics, barbiturates and anesthetic and sedative agents.



On May 8, 2007, the Company entered into a license agreement, as subsequently amended, with the University of Alberta granting the Company exclusive rights to practice patents held by the University of Alberta claiming the use of ampakines for the treatment of various respiratory disorders. The Company agreed to pay the University of Alberta a licensing fee and a patent issuance fee, which were paid, and prospective payments consisting of a royalty on net sales, sublicense fee payments, maintenance payments and milestone payments. The prospective maintenance payments commence on the enrollment of the first patient into the first Phase 2B clinical trial and increase upon the successful completion of the Phase 2B clinical trial. As the Company does not at this time anticipate scheduling a Phase 2B clinical trial, no maintenance payments are currently due and payable to the University of Alberta. In addition, no other prospective payments are currently due and payable to the University of Alberta.



Through the merger with Pier, the Company gained access to the License Agreement that Pier had entered into with the University of Illinois on October 10, 2007. The Pier License Agreement covered certain patents and patent applications in the United States and other countries claiming the use of certain compounds referred to as cannabinoids for the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders (including sleep apnea), of which dronabinol is a specific example of one type of cannabinoid. Dronabinol is a synthetic derivative of the naturally occurring substance in the cannabis plant, otherwise known as ?9-THC (?9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Dronabinol is currently approved by the FDA and is sold generically for use in refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, as well as for anorexia in patients with AIDS. Pier’s business plan was to determine whether dronabinol would significantly improve subjective and objective clinical measures in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. In addition, Pier intended to evaluate the feasibility and comparative efficacy of a proprietary formulation of dronabinol. The Pier License Agreement was terminated effective March 21, 2013 due to the Company’s failure to make a required payment and on June 27, 2014, the Company entered into a new license agreement with the University of Illinois, the material terms of which were similar to the Pier License Agreement that had been terminated. If the Company is unable to comply with the terms of the new license agreement, such as required payments thereunder, the Company risks the new license agreement being terminated.



Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates



The Company prepared its consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amount of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Management periodically evaluates the estimates and judgments made. Management bases its estimates and judgments on historical experience and on various factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates as a result of different assumptions or conditions.



The following critical accounting policies affect the more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements.




27






License Agreement



The License Agreement with the University of Illinois acquired in the Pier transaction was an acquired intangible asset recorded at cost of $3,411,157 (based on the fair value ascribed to the License Agreement in August 2012) and was being amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining life of its underlying patents of 172 months from the date of acquisition.



The Company performed an impairment assessment of the carrying value of the License Agreement as of December 31, 2012 and determined that it had no expected future value at that date. The Company made this determination because it was unable to make a $75,000 payment due under the License Agreement at December 31, 2012, as a result of which the License Agreement was forfeited during the three months ended March 31, 2013. The Company recorded an impairment charge to operations of $3,321,678 at December 31, 2012 to write-off the License Agreement.



Research Grant Revenue



The Company records research grant revenues when the expenses related to the grant projects are incurred. Amounts received under research grants are nonrefundable, regardless of the success of the underlying research, to the extent that such amounts are expended in accordance with the approved grant project.



Stock-Based Compensation



The Company periodically issues common stock and stock options to officers, directors and consultants for services rendered. Such issuances vest and expire according to terms established at the issuance date.



The Company accounts for stock-based payments to officers and directors by measuring the cost of services received in exchange for equity awards based on the grant date fair value of the awards, with the cost recognized as compensation expense on the straight-line basis in the Company’s financial statements over the vesting period of the awards. The Company accounts for stock-based payments to consultants by determining the value of the stock compensation based upon the measurement date at either (a) the date at which a performance commitment is reached or (b) at the date at which the necessary performance to earn the equity instruments is complete.



Options granted to members of the Company’s Scientific Advisory Board and to outside consultants are revalued each reporting period to determine the amount to be recorded as an expense in the respective period. As the options vest, they are valued on each vesting date and an adjustment is recorded for the difference between the value already recorded and the then current value on the date of vesting.



The fair value of stock options is determined utilizing the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, and is affected by several variables, the most significant of which are the life of the equity award, the exercise price of the security as compared to the fair market value of the common stock on the grant date, and the estimated volatility of the common stock over the term of the equity award. Estimated volatility is based on the historical volatility of the Company’s common stock. The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant. The fair value of common stock is determined by reference to the quoted market price of the Company’s common stock.



The Company recognizes the fair value of stock-based compensation in general and administrative costs and in research and development costs, as appropriate, in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.



The Company issues new shares to satisfy stock option exercises.



Results of Operations



Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012



Revenues. The Company had no revenues during the year ended December 31, 2013. Revenues for the year ended December 31, 2012 of $48,309 consisted of grant revenues awarded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for research on Parkinson’s Disease.




28






General and Administrative. For the year ended December 31, 2013, general and administrative expenses were $932,973, a decrease of $1,013,624 or approximately 52%, as compared to $1,946,597 for the year ended December 31, 2012. The decrease in general and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012, is primarily the result of cost reductions realized during the period as a result of the Company’s efforts to reduce facility and personnel costs, which had begun in May 2012, partially offset by accrued severance costs of $585,000 relating to the termination of certain corporate officers in March 2013 and the accrual of $85,000 for the reimbursement of legal fees incurred by Aurora Capital LLC in conjunction with the removal of the Company’s former Board of Directors on March 22, 2013.



Through May 31, 2012, the Company leased approximately 32,000 square feet of research laboratory, office and expansion space. Effective June 1, 2012, the Company entered into a new operating lease agreement for approximately 5,000 square feet of office space at a monthly rate of $9,204.



On June 15, 2012, each of the Company’s executive officers at that time agreed to defer 50% of their base salary, effective June 1, 2012, until the Company secured sufficient capital or certain corporate transactions occurred, in an effort to preserve the Company’s financial resources.



Commencing in October 2012, the Company ceased payment of all salaries and consulting fees, and by March 31, 2013, all officers, management and employees had either resigned or been terminated, and had been replaced by new management in March and April 2013. No compensation arrangements were made with new management until 2014.



For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, stock-based compensation costs included in general and administrative expenses were $0 and $170,805, respectively. Stock-based compensation costs for the year ended December 31, 2012 includes $131,700 attributed to the value of options to acquire 2,195,000 common shares granted on August 3, 2012 to directors of the Company for past services.



Research and Development. For the year ended December 31, 2013, research and development expenses were $206,911, a decrease of $619,791 or approximately 75%, as compared to $826,702 for the year ended December 31, 2012. The decrease in research and development expenses for the year ended December 30, 2013, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012, reflects the Company’s efforts to reduce facility and personnel costs, and outside experts and consultants, which had begun in May 2012.



The research and development costs incurred during the year ended December 31, 2013 consisted of costs related to the UCI license agreements and other patent costs and patent legal fees.



For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, stock-based compensation costs included in research and development expenses were $0 and $8,513, respectively.



Pier Merger-Related Costs. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company incurred merger costs of $1,246,107 in connection with its acquisition of Pier, including severance payments of $429,231 and the fair value of stock options to purchase 5,166,668 shares of the Company’s common stock totaling $310,000 granted to two individuals whose employment was terminated pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement. Merger costs also included $506,876 in legal and other merger related fees, including $250,000 to the Company’s investment banker.



Impairment Loss from Termination of License Agreement. The Company performed an impairment assessment of the carrying value of the License Agreement as of December 31, 2012 and determined that it had no future value at such date. Accordingly, the Company recorded an impairment charge to operations of $3,321,678 at December 31, 2012 to write off the License Agreement.




29






(Gain) Loss on Settlement of Office Lease. During the three months ended December 31, 2012, the Company substantially vacated its operating facility and abandoned its furniture, equipment and leasehold improvements. In May 2013, the Company received notice that it had been sued in the Superior Court of California in a complaint filed by its former landlord, PPC Irvine Center Investment, LLC, seeking among other things, $57,535 in past due rent, termination of the lease agreement, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. On May 23, 2013, a settlement was reached with the landlord that provided for the Company to relinquish its security deposit in the amount of $29,545, transfer title to its remaining furniture, equipment and leasehold improvements, and to pay an additional $26,000. The transfer of the Company’s furniture, equipment and leasehold improvements resulted in a loss of $39,126, which was recorded at December 31, 2012. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded a gain of $1,990 with respect to the final disposition of this matter.



Interest Income. Interest income was $0 for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to $92 for the year ended December 31, 2012.



Interest Expense. During the year ended December 31, 2013, interest expense was $56,338 (including $48,688 to related parties), a decrease of $140,646, as compared to $196,984 (including $187,843 to related parties) for the year ended December 31, 2012. The decrease resulted primarily from the amortization of discount of $143,919 and the amortization of other financing costs of $21,370 on the Company’s note payable to Samyang, which was funded on June 25, 2012 and fully-amortized as of December 25, 2012, partially offset by additional accrued interest on the note.



Foreign Currency Transaction Loss. Foreign currency transaction loss was $7,224 and $40,278 for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, reflecting the $399,774 loan from Samyang in June 2012 being denominated in South Korean currency.



Loss on Sale of Assets. The Company realized a loss on sale of assets of $3,173 during the year ended December 31, 2012. There were no gains or losses from the sale of assets during the year ended December 31, 2013.



Net Loss. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company incurred a net loss of $1,201,457, as compared to a net loss of $7,572,244 for the year ended December 31, 2012.



Liquidity and Capital Resources – December 31, 2013



The Company’s consolidated financial statements have been presented on the basis that it is a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company has incurred net losses of $1,201,457 and $7,572,244 for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, negative operating cash flows of $182,435 and $1,861,870 for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and incurred additional net losses and negative operating cash flows in the 2014 fiscal year. The Company expects to continue to incur net losses and negative operating cash flows for several more years thereafter. As a result, management and the Company’s auditors believe that there is substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.



At December 31, 2013, the Company had a working capital deficit of $4,188,424, as compared to working capital deficit of $3,021,240 at December 31, 2012, a decrease in working capital of $1,167,184 for the year ended December 31, 2013. At December 31, 2013, the Company had cash and money market funds aggregating $14,352, as compared to $152,179 at December 31, 2012, a decrease of $137,827 for the year ended December 31, 2013. The decrease in working capital and cash during the year ended December 31, 2013 was the result of cash utilized by the Company to fund its operating activities.



The Company is currently, and has for some time, been in significant financial distress. It has limited cash resources and current assets and has no ongoing source of revenue. Beginning in late 2012, the Company’s business activities were reduced to minimal levels, and the prior Board of Directors of the Company, which was removed by the written consent of stockholders holding a majority of the outstanding shares on March 22, 2013, had retained bankruptcy counsel to assist the Company in preparations to file for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. New management, which was appointed during March and April 2013, has evaluated the status of numerous aspects of the Company’s existing business and obligations, including, without limitation, debt obligations, financial requirements, intellectual property, licensing agreements, legal and patent matters and regulatory compliance, and has raised new capital to fund its business activities.




30






From June 2013 through March 2014, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer advanced short-term loans to the Company aggregating $150,000 in order to meet its minimum operating needs, of which a total of $75,000 had been advanced at December 31, 2013. In March and April 2014, the Company completed a private placement by selling 928.5 shares of its Series G Preferred Stock for gross proceeds of $928,500 and repaid the aggregate advances. The Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer invested $250,000 in the Series G Preferred Stock private placement. During November and December 2014, the Company sold convertible notes (with warrants) in an aggregate principal amount of $369,500 to various accredited investors. The Company intends to continue this financing until it has sold an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 of such Notes, although there can be no assurances that the Company will be successful in this regard.



The Company will need to raise additional capital to be able to pay its liabilities and fund its business activities going forward. As a result of the Company’s current financial situation, the Company has limited access to external sources of debt and equity financing. Accordingly, there can be no assurances that the Company will be able to secure additional financing in the amounts necessary to fully fund its operating and debt service requirements. If the Company is unable to access sufficient cash resources, the Company may be forced to discontinue its operations entirely and liquidate.



Operating Activities. For the year ended December 31, 2013, operating activities utilized cash of $182,435, as compared to utilizing cash of $1,861,870 for the year ended December 31, 2012, to support the Company’s ongoing operations, including research and development activities.



Investing Activities. There were no investing activities during the year ended December 31, 2013. For the year ended December 31, 2012, investing activities generated cash of $24,700, consisting primarily of $23,208 of cash received in connection with the Pier merger.



Financing Activities. For the year ended December 31, 2013, financing activities generated cash of $44,608 consisting of $75,000 in proceeds from notes payable issued to the Company’s Chairman and $4,728 paid by Samyang, a related party, for short-swing trading profits, partially offset by the payment of deferred financing costs of $35,120 relating to the issuance of Series G preferred stock which closed in 2014. For the year ended December 31, 2012, financing activities generated cash of $378,404, consisting of the proceeds from the note payable issued to Samyang in June 2012 of $399,774, partially offset by related financing costs of $21,370.



On June 25, 2012, the Company borrowed 465,000,000 Won (the currency of South Korea, equivalent to approximately $400,000 US dollars) from and executed a secured note payable to Samyang, an approximately 20% common stockholder of the Company at that time. The note accrues simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum and had a maturity date of June 25, 2013, although Samyang was permitted to demand early repayment of the promissory note on or after December 25, 2012. Samyang did not demand early repayment. The Company has not made any payments on the promissory note. At June 30, 2013 and subsequently, the promissory note was outstanding and in technical default, although Samyang has not issued a notice of default or a demand for repayment. The Company believes that Samyang is in default of its obligations under its January 2012 license agreement, as amended, with the Company, but the Company has not yet issued a notice of default. The Company anticipates entering into discussions with Samyang with a view toward a comprehensive resolution of the aforementioned matters.



Principal Commitments



Lease Commitment



On May 14, 2012, the Company executed a three-year lease for approximately 5,000 square feet of office space beginning June 1, 2012 at a monthly rate of $9,204. During the three months ended December 31, 2012, the Company substantially vacated its operating facility prior to the scheduled termination of the lease agreement in May 2015. In May 2013, a settlement with the landlord was reached and the lease was terminated.




31






University of California, Irvine License Agreements



The Company entered into a series of license agreements in 1993 and 1998 with the University of California, Irvine (“UCI”) that granted the Company proprietary rights to certain chemical compounds that acted as ampakines and their therapeutic uses. These agreements granted the Company, among other provisions, exclusive rights: (i) to practice certain patents and patent applications, as defined in the license agreement, that were then held by UCI; (ii) to identify, develop, make, have made, import, export, lease, sell, have sold or offer for sale any related licensed products; and (iii) to grant sub-licenses of the rights granted in the license agreements, subject to the provisions of the license agreements. The Company was required, among other terms and conditions, to pay UCI a license fee, royalties, patent costs and certain additional payments.



Under such license agreements, the Company was required to make minimum annual royalty payments of approximately $70,000. The Company was also required to spend a minimum of $250,000 per year to advance the ampakine compounds until the Company began to market an ampakine compound. The commercialization provisions in the agreements with UCI required the Company to file for regulatory approval of an ampakine compound before October 2012. In March 2011, UCI agreed to extend the required date for filing regulatory approval of an ampakine compound to October 2015. At December 31, 2012, the Company was not in compliance with its minimum annual payment obligations and believed that this default constituted a termination of the license agreements.



On April 15, 2013, the Company received a letter from UCI indicating that the license agreements between UCI and the Company had been terminated due to the Company’s failure to make certain payments required to maintain the agreements. Since the patents covered in these license agreements had begun to expire and the therapeutic uses described in these patents were no longer germane to the Company’s new focus on respiratory disorders, the loss of these license agreements is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s current drug development programs. In the opinion of management, the Company has made adequate provision for any liability relating to this matter in its financial statements at September 30, 2013.



University of Alberta License Agreement



On May 8, 2007, the Company entered into a license agreement, as amended, with the University of Alberta granting the Company exclusive rights to practice patents held by the University of Alberta claiming the use of ampakines for the treatment of various respiratory disorders. The Company agreed to pay the University of Alberta a licensing fee and a patent issuance fee, which were paid, and prospective payments consisting of a royalty on net sales, sublicense fee payments, maintenance payments and milestone payments. The prospective maintenance payments commence on the enrollment of the first patient into the first Phase 2B clinical trial and increase upon the successful completion of the Phase 2B clinical trial. As the Company does not at this time anticipate scheduling a Phase 2B clinical trial, no maintenance payments are currently due and payable to the University of Alberta. In addition, no other prospective payments are currently due and payable to the University of Alberta.



Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements



At December 31, 2013, the Company did not have any transactions, obligations or relationships that could be considered off-balance sheet arrangements.



Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk



Not applicable for smaller reporting companies.



Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data



Our financial statements and other information required by this item are set forth herein in a separate section beginning with the Index to Consolidated Financial Statements on page F-1.



Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure



Not applicable.




32






Item 9A. Controls and Procedures



Disclosure Controls and Procedures



We maintain disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that we file with the SEC under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosures.



As required by SEC Rule 15d-15(b), we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer who were appointed to their positions in March and April 2013, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the most recent fiscal year covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective to ensure the information required to be disclosed in our reports filed or submitted to the SEC under the Exchange Act was timely recorded, processed and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. In particular, the Company failed to complete and file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the periods ended March 31, 2013, June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2013, and its December 31, 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K in a timely manner because the Company’s accounting and financial staff had resigned by October 26, 2012 and its financial and accounting systems had been shut-down at December 31, 2012.



Since being appointed in March and April 2013, new management has taken steps to bring the Company’s periodic reporting current. With the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Company has now filed all periodic reports for periods ending on or before December 31, 2013. The Company anticipates filing its outstanding periodic reports for periods ending in 2014 in the near future, and currently expects to file timely its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2014.



Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting



Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Our internal control over financial reporting is designed to ensure that material information regarding our operations is made available to management and the board of directors to provide them reasonable assurance that the published financial statements are fairly presented. There are limitations inherent in any internal control, such as the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of controls. As a result, even effective internal controls can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation. As conditions change over time so too may the effectiveness of internal controls.



Our management, consisting of our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013 based on the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (“COSO”) of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, our management has concluded that material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting existed as of December 31, 2013 as a result of a lack of personnel and non-functioning accounting systems. As a result of these material weaknesses, our internal control over financial reporting was not effective at such date.



Prior management, which had shut-down the Company and was preparing to cause it to file for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, was replaced on March 22, 2013 in conjunction with the change in control of the Board of Directors on such date. Since that date, new management has instituted a program to reestablish the Company’s accounting and financial staff functions, as well as to install new accounting and internal control systems.




33






This annual report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to rules of the SEC that permit the Company to provide only management’s report in this annual report.



Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting



As described above, there were changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of 2012 that have materially affected, and are reasonably likely to continue to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting until we are current in our periodic reporting.



In response to such changes, new management has retained accounting personnel, established accounting and internal control systems, addressed the preparation of delinquent SEC financial filings, and has been diligently working to bring delinquent SEC filings current as promptly as reasonably possible under the circumstances. However, as of the date of the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Company had not completed the process to reestablish adequate internal controls over financial reporting. The Company currently expects to reestablish adequate internal controls over financial reporting in connection with the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2014, which it currently anticipates filing on time.



Item 9B. Other Information



None.




34






PART III



Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance



Directors



The names of each of the directors and certain biographical information about them are set forth below:




Name
Age Director
Since Principal Occupation

Arnold S Lippa, Ph.D. 67 2013 President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company

Jeff E. Margolis 59 2013 President of Aurora Capital, LLC

Robert N. Weingarten 62 2013 Business and financial consultant and advisor



Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D.: Dr. Lippa is a Senior Managing Director and founder of T Morgen Capital LLC through which he administers his family’s assets. T Morgan Capital LLC is a significant equity owner and managing member of Aurora Capital LLC (“Aurora”), a boutique investment bank and securities firm of which Mr. Margolis is the president and founder. As of December 31, 2013, Aurora owned approximately 2.1% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company. Dr. Lippa and Mr. Margolis jointly manage, since 2004, Atypical BioCapital Management LLC and Atypical BioVentures Fund LLC, a life sciences fund management company and venture fund, respectively. Since 2006, Dr. Lippa has also been the Executive Chairman of the board of Xintria Pharmaceutical Corporation, a Delaware corporation, as well as a member of its board of directors. Dr. Lippa was co-founder of DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc., where he served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer from its inception in 1995 through 2005. Dr. Lippa stepped down as a director of DOV Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in 2006.



We believe that Dr. Lippa’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his position as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, and his experience working in management roles in other pharmaceutical companies as described above. Dr. Lippa provides the Board with both technical and scientific expertise in drug discovery and drug development, research management, governmental regulations and strategic planning expertise that is important to the advancement of our research platforms as well as to the overall success of the Company. Dr. Lippa was appointed to our board of directors in March 2013.



Jeff E. Margolis: Mr. Margolis is the president and founder of Aurora, and has been since its inception in 1994. Aurora Capital Corp., a corporation wholly owned by Mr. Margolis, is a significant equity owner and managing member of Aurora. As of December 31, 2013, Aurora owned approximately 2.1% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company. Dr. Lippa and Mr. Margolis jointly manage, since 2004, Atypical BioCapital Management LLC and Atypical BioVentures Fund LLC, a life sciences fund management company and venture fund, respectively. Since 2006, Mr. Margolis has also been the Chief Financial Officer of Xintria Pharmaceutical Corporation, a Delaware corporation, as well as a member of its board of directors.



We believe that Mr. Margolis’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his significant experience in operational and management roles within pharmaceutical companies as described above. He also has extensive prior experience working in business development and provides the Company with extremely useful expertise in financing and capital markets, knowledge gained though his position as President of Aurora. Mr. Margolis also provides broad financial expertise. Mr. Margolis was appointed to our board of directors in March 2013.



Robert N. Weingarten: Mr. Weingarten is an experienced business consultant and advisor with an ongoing consulting practice. Since 1979 he has provided financial consulting and advisory services to numerous public companies in various stages of development, operation or reorganization. Mr. Weingarten received a B.A. Degree (Accounting) from the University of Washington in 1974, and an M.B.A. Degree (Finance) from the University of Southern California in 1975. Mr. Weingarten is a Certified Public Accountant (inactive) in the State of California. Mr. Weingarten was the Non-Executive Chairman of New Dawn Mining Corp. (“New Dawn”) from August 31, 2005 through September 30, 2010, and was named the Executive Chairman of New Dawn in October 2010. On July 8, 2010, Mr. Weingarten was appointed to the board of directors of Central African Gold Limited (formerly known as Central African Gold Plc and listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange at that time). Central African Gold Limited is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of New Dawn. Both New Dawn and Central African Gold Limited have ceased to be publicly traded reporting companies in their respective jurisdictions.




35






We believe that Mr. Weingarten’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his breadth of experience with public companies, especially those in the development phase. He has also served in managements capacities at other public companies and as a result brings a wealth of experience on financial matters. Mr. Weingarten was appointed to our board of directors in April 2013.



In addition to the directors mentioned above, the Company notes that John F. Benedik, Charles J. Casamento, M. Ross Johnson, Ph.D. and Mark A. Varney, Ph.D. served as directors until May, 2013. In addition, Moogak Hwang, Ph.D. served as a director from August 2012 to September 2013.



Executive Officers



Each executive officer of the Company serves at the discretion of the Board of Directors. The names of the Company’s executive officers are set forth below. At December 31, 2013, each of our executive officers was also a member of our board of directors, and their biographical information appears above in the immediately prior section.




Name
Position with Company
Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D. President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
Jeff E. Margolis Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer
Robert N. Weingarten Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



In addition to the officers listed above, the Company notes that Mark A. Varney, Ph.D. served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company until March 2013, and Steven A. Johnson, Ph.D. served as a Vice President, Preclinical Development of the Company until March 2013.



BOARD COMMITTEES



The board of directors has historically maintained a standing Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and Governance and Nominations Committee. As noted above, since the changes in the composition of our board of directors on March 22, 2013, the functions of each of the committees described below have been and are currently being addressed by the full board of directors.



Audit Committee. Traditionally, the Audit Committee meets with the Company’s independent registered public accountants and management to prepare for and to review the results of the annual audit and to discuss the annual and quarterly financial statements, earnings releases and related matters. The Audit Committee, among other things, (i) selects and retains the independent registered public accountants, (ii) reviews with the independent registered public accountants the scope and anticipated cost of their audit, and their independence and performance, (iii) reviews accounting practices, financial structure and financial reporting, (iv) receives and considers the independent registered public accountants’ comments as to controls, adequacy of staff and management performance and procedures in connection with audit and financial controls, (v) reviews and pre-approves all audit and non-audit services provided to the Company by the independent registered public accountants, and (vi) reviews and pre-approves all related-party transactions. The Audit Committee does not itself prepare financial statements or perform audits, and its members are not auditors or certifiers of the Company’s financial statements.



Charles J. Casamento and M. Ross Johnson, Ph.D. began 2013 as members of the Audit Committee, but on March 22, 2013 were removed as members of the board of directors of the Company. Since the change in composition of our board of directors in March 2013, the composition of an Audit Committee has not been determined, nor has the current board of directors adopted an amended written charter. Company records indicate that the Audit Committee previously operated under a written charter adopted by the previous board of directors. When an Audit Committee is reestablished along with a written charter, such charter will be made available on the Company’s website at www.cortexpharm.com.




36






Compensation Committee. The traditional functions of the Compensation Committee include, without limitation, administering the Company’s incentive ownership programs and approving the compensation to be paid to the Company’s directors and executive officers. The Compensation Committee typically meets no less frequently than annually as circumstances dictate to discuss and determine executive officer and director compensation. Historically, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer annually reviews the performance of each executive officer (other than the Chief Executive Officer, whose performance is reviewed by the Compensation Committee). The conclusions reached and recommendations based on these reviews, including with respect to salary adjustments and annual award amounts, are presented to the Compensation Committee, who can exercise its discretion in modifying any recommended adjustments or awards to executive officers. The Compensation Committee is entitled to, but generally does not, retain the services of any compensation consultants. Based on Company records available to the current board of directors, neither the Compensation Committee nor management has engaged a compensation consultant in the past fiscal year. The Compensation Committee has the power to form and delegate authority to subcommittees when appropriate, provided that such subcommittees are composed entirely of directors who would qualify for membership on the Compensation Committee.



The Company’s records indicate that M. Ross Johnson, Ph.D. (chair), and Charles J. Casamento began 2013 as the members of the Compensation Committee, but on March 22, 2013 were removed as members of the board of directors of the Company. Since the change in composition of our board of directors in March 2013, the members of the board of directors have performed the functions of the Compensation Committee and the composition of a Compensation Committee has not been determined nor has the current board of directors adopted a written charter. Company records indicate that the Compensation Committee previously operated under a written charter adopted by the board of directors. When a Compensation Committee is reestablished along with a written charter, such charter will be made available on the Company’s website at www.cortexpharm.com.



Governance and Nominations Committee. The traditional functions of the Governance and Nominations Committee include, without limitation, (i) identifying individuals qualified to become members of the board of directors, (ii) recommending director nominees for the next annual meeting of stockholders and to fill vacancies that may be created by the expansion of the number of directors serving on the board of directors and by resignation, retirement or other termination of services of incumbent directors, (iii) developing and recommending to the board of directors corporate governance guidelines and changes thereto, (iv) ensuring that the board of directors and the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws are structured in a way that best serves the Company’s practices and objectives, (v) leading the board of directors in its annual review of the board of directors’ performance; and (vi) recommending to the board of directors nominees for each committee. Accordingly, the Governance and Nominations Committee annually reviews the composition of the board of directors as a whole and makes recommendations, if deemed necessary, to enhance the composition of the board of directors. The Governance and Nominations Committee first considers a candidate’s management experience and then considers issues of judgment, background, conflicts of interest, integrity, ethics and commitment to the goal of maximizing stockholder value when considering director candidates. The Governance and Nominations Committee also focuses on issues of diversity, such as diversity of gender, race and national origin, education, professional experience and differences in viewpoints and skills. The Governance and Nominations Committee does not have a formal policy with respect to diversity; however, the board of directors and Governance and Nominations Committee believe that it is essential that the members of the board of directors represent diverse viewpoints. In considering candidates for the board of directors, the Governance and Nominations Committee considers the entirety of each candidate’s credentials in the context of these standards. With respect to the nomination of continuing directors for re-election, the individual’s contributions to the board of directors are also considered.



The Company’s records indicate that M. Ross Johnson, Ph.D. and John F. Benedik began 2013 as the members of the Governance and Nominations Committee, but on March 22, 2013 were removed as members of the board of directors of the Company. Since the change in composition of our board of directors in March 2013, the members of the board of directors have performed the functions of the Governance and Nominations Committee and the composition of a Governance and Nominations Committee has not been determined nor has the current board of directors adopted a written charter. When a Governance and Nominations Committee is reestablished along with a written charter, such charter will be made available on the Company’s website at www.cortexpharm.com.




37






Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance



Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s executive officers and directors and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of the Company’s outstanding common stock, whom the Company refers to collectively as the “reporting persons,” to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC, and to furnish the Company with copies of these reports.



Based solely on the Company’s review of the copies of these reports received by it and written representations received from certain of the reporting persons with respect to the filing of reports on Forms 3, 4 and 5, the Company believes that all such filings required to be made by the reporting persons for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 were made on a timely basis.



Code of Ethics



We have previously adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which covers all of our directors and employees, including our principal executive and financial officers. Any amendment to, or waiver from, any applicable provision (related to elements listed under Item 406(b) of Regulation S-K) of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to our directors or executive officers will be posted on our website at www.cortexpharm.com or in a report filed with the SEC on a Current Report on Form 8-K. The Company is in the process of updating its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. Any amendment or waiver to its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to its directors or executive officers will be posted on its website at www.cortexpharm.com and/or filed in a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on a Current Report on Form 8-K.



Item 11. Executive Compensation



Summary Compensation Table



The table below summarizes the total compensation paid or earned by each of the named executive officers for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012. The information contained under the heading “All Other Compensation” for all named executive officers includes the estimated value of equity awards using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and does not reflect actual cash payments or actual dollars awarded.




Name and Principal Position Year Salary ($) Bonus ($) All Other
Compensation ($)(1) Total ($)
Arnold S Lippa, Ph.D. 2013 $ — $ — $ — $ —
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (2)


Jeff E. Margolis 2013 $ — $ — $ — $ —
Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer (2)

Robert N. Weingarten 2013 $ — $ — $ — $ —
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (2)

Mark A. Varney, Ph.D. 2013 $ — — $ — $ —
President and Chief Executive Officer 2012 $ 190,601 — $ 144,639 ( 3) $ 335,240

Steven A. Johnson, Ph.D. 2013 $ — — $ — $ —
Vice President of Preclinical Development 2012 $ 118,217 — $ 107,126 ( 3) $ 225,343



(1) In accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission rules, “Other Annual Compensation” in the form of perquisites and other personal benefits has been omitted where the aggregate amount of such perquisites and other personal benefits was less than $10,000.

(2) Did not earn or receive any compensation in 2013. In April 2014, the board of directors authorized the issuance of 15,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock valued, as calculated for the Company’s financial statements, at $600,000, based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the effective transaction date, as compensation for his role as an officer and director with the Company for the period since he joined the Company through March 31, 2014. The Company will account for the issuance of these shares of common stock effective as of March 18, 2014.

(3) This amount does not include all amounts claimed by the individual in connection with his departure from the Company in 2013. The Company has recently settled with this individual with respect to such claimed amounts. See “Employment and Consulting Agreements—Termination or Change in Control”.




38






Narrative to Summary Compensation Table



In June 2004, the board of directors approved a performance-based incentive compensation program for named executive officers that included cash bonus targets of 20% of respective annual base salaries. Actual bonus amounts may differ from the established targets based upon our performance, as well as that of the individual named executive officer, as compared to established goals. No performance bonuses were awarded to the named executive officers for the years ended December 31, 2013 or 2012.



The exercise price for our stock options is no less than the fair market value of the stock on the date of the grant. Options generally vest at a rate of 33 1/3% per year starting on the anniversary date of the option grant and the vesting of any unvested portion is contingent upon the officer’s continued employment with the Company. Accordingly, the option will provide a return to the named executive officer only if he or she remains in the Company’s employ and the market price of the Company’s common stock appreciates over the option term. The vested portion of the option will provide a return to the named executive officer regardless of whether he or she remains in our employee, but only if the market price of the our common stock appreciates over the option exercise price during the term of the vested options. There were no stock options received by the named executive officers during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.



In connection with the recent changes to our board membership and taking into account the Company’s current operating structure and business plans, management is currently reevaluating the compensation policies of the Company and, as a result of that reassessment, and in light of the Company’s current financial circumstances, will likely make substantial adjustments to such policies, including the termination of such policies.



The Company does not have any arrangements or agreements regarding compensation with its current executive officers and paid no compensation to any named executive officer in 2013. No named executive officer received cash compensation in 2013. In April 2014, Arnold Lippa, Ph.D., Jeff E. Margolis and Robert N. Weingarten were each issued 15,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to compensate those individuals for their efforts as officers and directors of the Company since joining the Company in March 2013, in the case of Dr. Lippa and Mr. Margolis, and in April 2013, in the case of Mr. Weingarten. The Company will account for the issuance of these shares of common stock effective as of March 18, 2014.



See also “Employment and Consulting Agreements—Termination or Change in Control” for further discussion of compensation arrangements pursuant to which the amounts listed under the Summary Compensation Table were paid or awarded and the criteria for such payment or award.



Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End



There were no outstanding unvested stock awards as of December 31, 2013. There also were no outstanding option awards with current directors or officers of the Company as of December 31, 2013. There were outstanding option awards as of December 31, 2013 with two former officers of the Company:



? On July 17, 2012, pursuant to a severance agreement amended in connection with the merger transaction with Pier, Roger G. Stoll, Ph.D. was issued fully-vested, ten-year options to purchase a total of 3,083,334 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.06 per share, which was in excess of the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the closing date of the merger. Dr. Stoll left the Company in August 2012.



? On August 10, 2012, pursuant to a severance agreement amended in connection with the merger transaction with Pier, James H. Coleman was issued fully-vested, ten-year options to purchase a total of 2,083,334 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.06 per share, which was in excess of the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the closing date of the merger. Mr. Coleman left the Company in August 2012.




39






OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED FOR 2012



None of the Company’s named executive officers exercised any options to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock or had any outstanding unvested stock awards during the year ended December 31, 2013.



Employment and Consulting Agreements – Termination or Change in Control



As of December 31, 2013, two of the named executive officers listed above, Mark A. Varney, Ph.D. and Steven M. Johnson, Ph.D., had been removed as officers by the new board of directors on March 22, 2013. Each of these officers had entered into employment agreements and/or severance agreements governing payments upon termination or in the event the Company became subject to a change-in-control. Because each of these executive officers listed in the summary compensation table for 2013 was removed in early 2013, the terms and conditions related to the departure of those officers, under their respective employments agreements, as amended, are known. The details of the contracts applicable to the departure for each officer are discussed below. The Company has recently entered into settlement agreements with these officers regarding the amounts owed. Accordingly, the ultimate amounts paid in respect to the departures of these officers were different than the contractual amounts described below. See Note 12 to our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012—Subsequent Events—Debt Settlements for details regarding these matters.



The new officers appointed by the board of directors, Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D., Jeff E. Margolis and Robert N. Weingarten, have not entered into any compensation arrangements or employment agreements with the Company. Upon entering into such arrangements or agreements, the Company will disclose the information required regarding these agreements or agreements, consistent with applicable law.



With respect to named executive officers who are no longer with the Company:



? Mr. Varney was removed as an officer of the Company on March 22, 2013. As of December 31, 2012, his annual salary was $365,000. At the time of his departure, Mr. Varney’s contract called for payments of $35,674 for paid time off, $108,965 for reduced or deferred compensation in 2012, and $365,000 in severance for a total of $509,639.

? Mr. Johnson was removed as an officer of the Company on March 22, 2013. As of December 31, 2012, his annual salary was $220,000. At the time of his departure, Mr. Johnson’s contract called for payments of $42,224 for paid time off, $64,902 for reduced or deferred compensation in 2012, and $220,000 in severance for a total of $327,126.



The Company has recently executed settlement agreements with Messrs. Varney and Johnson that, together with similar agreements with other former officers of the Company, resulted in the settlement of potential claims totaling approximately $1,336,000 for a total of approximately $118,000 in cash, plus the issuance of options to purchase 4,300,000 shares of common stock exercisable at $0.04 per share for periods ranging from five to ten years. In addition to other provisions, the settlement agreements include mutual releases.



Director Compensation



The Compensation Committee historically uses a combination of cash and stock-based incentive compensation to attract and retain qualified candidates to serve on the Board of Directors. In setting director compensation, the Compensation Committee considers the significant amount of time that directors expend in fulfilling their duties to the Company, as well as the skill-level required by the Company of members of the Board of Directors.




40






Director Summary Compensation Table



The following table shows the compensation received by the non-employee members of our board of directors for the year ended December 31, 2013. Directors who are also employees of the Company did not receive any additional compensation for services as a director.



Name Fees Earned
or Paid in
Cash ($) Stock
Awards ($) Option
Awards ($)(1) Total ($)
John F. Benedik (1) 0 0 0 0
Charles J. Casamento (1) 0 0 0 0
Moogak Hwang, Ph.D. (2) 0 0 0 0
M. Ross Johnson (1) 0 0 0 0








(1) Removed from the board of directors by written consent on March 22, 2013.



(2) Appointed to the board of directors on August 3, 2012; resigned from the board of directors effective September 30, 2013.



Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters



Beneficial Ownership of Common Stock



The following table sets forth certain information regarding the beneficial ownership of the Company’s common stock as of December 31, 2013, by (i) each person known by the Company to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the outstanding common stock, (ii) each of the Company’s directors, (iii) each of the Company’s named executive officers, and (iv) all of the Company’s executive officers and directors as a group. Except as indicated in the footnotes to this table, the Company believes that the persons named in this table have sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares of common stock indicated. In computing the number and percentage ownership of shares beneficially owned by a person, shares of common stock that a person has a right to acquire within sixty (60) days of December 31, 2013 pursuant to options, warrants or other rights are considered as outstanding, while these shares are not considered as outstanding for computing the percentage ownership of any other person or group.



Directors, Officers and 5% Stockholders(1) Number of Shares
of Beneficial
Ownership
of Common Stock Percent of
Class(2)
Origin Ventures II, L.P. (and affiliates)(3) 24,200,507 16.80 %

SY Corporation Co., Ltd.(4) 20,422,464 13.80 %

Illinois Emerging Technology Fund, L.P. (and affiliates)(5) 20,334,546 14.12 %

Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D.(6) 2,971,792 2.06 %

Jeff E. Margolis(6) 2,971,792 2.06 %

Robert N. Weingarten 0 0 %

All directors and officers as a group 2,971,792 2.06 %



(1) Except as otherwise indicated, the address of such beneficial owner is c/o Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 126 Valley Road, Suite C, Glen Rock, New Jersey 07452.

(2) Based on 144,041,556 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2013, plus, in the case of SY Corporation Co., Ltd., warrants then exercisable to purchase up to 4,000,000 shares of common stock.

(3) Pursuant to Schedule 13g filed with the SEC on June 16, 2013. These shares are held by Origin Ventures II, L.P., which holds voting and dispositive control with respect to such shares. Origin Ventures II Management, LLC, the general partner of Origin Ventures II, L.P., and Bruce Barron and Steven N. Miller, the managing members of Origin Ventures II Management, LLC, may be deemed to beneficially own such shares, and to share voting and dispositive control of the shares owned by Origin Ventures II, L.P.

(4) Pursuant to Schedule 13D filed with the SEC on June 16, 2013. Consists of (i) 16,422,464 shares of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. common stock, and (ii) a warrant to purchase up to 4,000,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $0.056 per share (which subsequently expired unexercised). SY Corporation Co., Ltd. was formerly known as Samyang Optics Co. Ltd.

(5) Pursuant to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on August 20, 2012, Illinois Emerging Technology Fund, LP owns 20,334,546 shares and holds voting and dispositive control with respect to such shares. Illinois Ventures GP, LLC is the general partner of Illinois Emerging Technology Fund, LP, and may be deemed to beneficially own such shares, and to share voting and dispositive control of the shares.

(6) Aurora Capital LLC holds 2,971,792 shares of common stock. Aurora Capital Corp., a New York Corporation, and T Morgen Capital LLC, a New Jersey LLC, are managing members of Aurora Capital LLC. Jeff Margolis is the Manager and President of Aurora Capital LLC, as well as the sole shareholder and Director of Aurora Capital Corp. Arnold S. Lippa is a manager of T Morgen Capital LLC. By virtue of their control of Aurora Capital LLC, Aurora Capital Corp., and T Morgen Capital LLC, Arnold S. Lippa and Jeff Margolis may be deemed to share beneficial ownership of (and, with respect to Mr. Margolis, voting and dispositive power with respect to) the shares of common stock beneficially owned by Aurora Capital LLC.



The Company is not aware of any arrangements that may at a subsequent date result in a change of control of the Company.





41






EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION



The following table sets forth information regarding outstanding options, warrants and rights and shares reserved for future issuance under our existing equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2013. Our stockholders approved the Company’s 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended. From October 2006 through December 31, 2013, all stock options granted and issued under stockholder approved plans were issued from the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan. In March 2014, the Company’s stockholders approved, by written consent, the Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan, filed as exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 24, 2014.




Plan Category Number of securities
to be issued upon
exercise
of outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(a) Weighted-average
exercise price of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(b) Number of securities
remaining available for
issuance under equity
compensation plans
(excluding securities
reflected in column
(a))
(c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders — $ — 9,863,799

Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders 5,166,668( 1) $ 0.06 —

Total 5,166,668 $ 0.06 9,863,799




(1) In July and August 2012, pursuant to severance agreements amended in connection with the merger transaction with Pier, fully-vested, ten year stock options to purchase a total of 5,166,668 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.06 per share, which was in excess of the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the closing date of the Pier transaction, were granted to two of the Company’s officers, outside of the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, and its predecessor, the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, which had also been approved by stockholders.



Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence



Director Independence



As of December 31, 2013, no member of the board of directors was an “independent director”, as that term is defined under Section 803 of the NYSE Amex Company Guide. In September 2014, the board of directors added James Sapirstein, RPh., M.B.A. and Kathryn MacFarlane, PharmD. as members of the board of directors, both of whom are independent directors. As noted above, as of December 31, 2013, all of the functions of the Audit, Compensation and Governance and Nominations Committees were being performed by the full board of directors.




42







Transactions with Related Persons



In 2013, the Company engaged in certain transactions with Arnold S. Lippa, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and certain of his affiliates. These transactions have been previously disclosed and are discussed in Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012—Organization and Business Operations—Going Concern and Note 12 to our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012—Subsequent Events—Working Capital Advances.



Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services



Haskell & White LLP, acted as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013 and for the interim periods in such fiscal years. The following table shows the approximate fees that were incurred by us for audit and other services provided by Haskell & White LLP in fiscal 2012 and 2013.



2012 2013(1)
Audit Fees(2) $ 31,000 $ —
Audit-Related Fees(3) — —
Tax Fees(4) 11,000 —
All Other Fees(5) — —
Total $ 42,000 $ —



(1)
The Company did not file its 2012 or 2013 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, or any of its 2013 Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, when required. These documents were prepared, and the fees incurred in preparing them were generated, in 2014, as new management worked towards bringing the Company current in its periodic reporting requirements. Accordingly, the Company incurred no accounting fees in 2013.


(2) Audit fees represent fees for professional services provided in connection with the audit of our annual financial statements and the review of our financial statements included in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and services that are normally provided in connection with statutory or regulatory filings.

(3) Audit-related fees represent fees for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of our financial statements and not reported above under “Audit Fees.”

(4) Tax fees represent fees for professional services related to tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning.

(5) All other fees represent fees related to Sarbanes-Oxley compliance work.



All audit related services, tax services and other services rendered by Haskell & White LLP were pre-approved by our Board of Directors. The Board of Directors has adopted a pre-approval policy that provides for the pre-approval of all services performed for us by our independent registered public accounting firm.




43






PART IV



Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules



(a) List of documents filed as part of this report:

(1) Financial Statements

Reference is made to the Index to Financial Statements on page F-1, where these documents are listed.

(2) Financial Statement Schedules

The financial statement schedules have been omitted because the required information is not applicable, or not present in amounts sufficient to require submission of the schedules, or because the information is included in the financial statements or notes thereto.

(3) Exhibits

See (b) below.

(b) Exhibits:

A list of exhibits required to be filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K is set forth in the Index to Exhibits, which is presented elsewhere in this document, and is incorporated herein by reference.





44






CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

AND SUBSIDIARY



INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(INCLUDING REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM)



Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm F-2

Consolidated Balance Sheets – December 31, 2013 and 2012 F-3

Consolidated Statements of Operations – Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 F-4

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity (Deficiency) – Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 F-5

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows – Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 F-6

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements – Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 F-8




F-1






REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To the Stockholders and Board of Directors

Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary



We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiary (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficiency) and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2013. Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s management is responsible for these financial statements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.



We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2013 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 of the consolidated financial statements, the Company does not currently possess sufficient working capital to fund its operations and commitments. This raises substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to this matter are also described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.



/s/ HASKELL & WHITE LLP

Irvine, California
January 5, 2015




F-2






CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

AND SUBSIDIARY



CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS



December 31,
2013 2012

ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 14,352 $ 152,179
Deferred financing costs 35,120 —
Other current assets 2,383 17,002

Total current assets 51,855 169,181
Other — 29,545

Total assets $ 51,855 $ 198,726

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIENCY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued expenses $ 1,829,616 $ 1,509,827
Accrued compensation and related expenses 1,480,264 885,180
Notes payable to Chairman, including accrued interest of $48 75,048 —
Note payable to related party, including accrued interest of $73,979 and $25,340 at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively 521,255 465,392
Project advance, including accrued interest of $86,796 and $82,722 at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively 334,096 330,022

Total current liabilities 4,240,279 3,190,421

Commitments and contingencies (Note 11)

Stockholders’ deficiency:
Series B convertible preferred stock, $0.001 par value; $0.6667 per share liquidation preference; aggregate liquidation preference $25,001; shares authorized: 37,500; shares issued and outstanding: 37,500; common shares issuable upon conversion at 0.09812 per share: 3,679 21,703 21,703
Common stock, $0.001 par value; shares authorized: 205,000,000; shares issued and outstanding: 144,041,556 144,041 144,041
Additional paid-in capital 125,188,620 125,183,892
Accumulated deficit (129,542,788 ) (128,341,331 )

Total stockholders’ deficiency (4,188,424 ) (2,991,695 )

Total liabilities and stockholders’ deficiency $ 51,855 $ 198,726



See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements and

report of independent registered public accounting firm.




F-3






CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

AND SUBSIDIARY



CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS



Years Ended December 31,
2013 2012

Grant revenues $ — $ 48,309

Operating expenses:
General and administrative 932,973 1,946,597
Research and development 206,911 826,702
Pier merger-related costs (Note 3) — 1,246,107
Impairment loss from termination of license agreement (Note 4) — 3,321,678
(Gain) loss on settlement of office lease (1,990 ) 39,126

Total operating expenses 1,137,894 7,380,210

Loss from operations (1,137,894 ) (7,331,901 )

Interest income — 92
Interest expense, including $48,688 and $187,843 to related parties for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively (56,339 ) (196,984 )
Foreign currency transaction loss (7,224 ) (40,278 )
Loss on sale of assets — (3,173 )

Net loss $ (1,201,457 ) $ (7,572,244 )

Net loss per common share - Basic and diluted $ (0.01 ) $ (0.04 )

Weighted average common shares outstanding - Basic and diluted 144,041,556 108,448,141



See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements and

report of independent registered public accounting firm.




F-4






CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

AND SUBSIDIARY



CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (DEFICIENCY)



Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012



Series B
Convertible
Preferred Stock Common Stock Additional Total
Stockholders’
Shares Dollar
Amount Shares Par
Value Paid-in
Capital Accumulated
Deficit Equity
(Deficiency)

Balance, December 31, 2011 37,500 $ 21,703 85,623,663 $ 85,624 $ 121,337,670 $ (120,769,087 ) $ 675,910
Issuance of shares of common stock in connection with the acquisition of Pier Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Note 3) — — 58,417,893 58,417 3,212,985 — 3,271,402
Fair value of warrant issued in connection with note payable — — — — 143,919 — 143,919
Stock-based compensation expense — — — — 489,318 — 489,318
Net loss — — — — — (7,572,244 ) (7,572,244 )

Balance, December 31, 2012 37,500 21,703 144,041,556 144,041 125,183,892 (128,341,331 ) (2,991,695 )
Related party short-swing trading profits of $11,500, net of legal costs of $6,772 — — — — 4,728 — 4,728
Net loss — — — — — (1,201,457 ) (1,201,457 )

Balance, December 31, 2013 37,500 $ 21,703 144,041,556 $ 144,041 $ 125,188,620 $ (129,542,788 ) $ (4,188,424 )



See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements and

report of independent registered public accounting firm.




F-5






CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

AND SUBSIDIARY



CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS



Years Ended December 31,
2013 2012
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss $ (1,201,457 ) $ (7,572,244 )
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Depreciation expense — 26,383
Amortization of license agreement — 89,479
Impairment loss from termination of license agreement — 3,321,678
(Gain) loss on settlement of office lease (1,990 ) 39,126
Stock-based compensation costs — 179,318
Pier merger-related costs paid in common stock options — 310,000
Foreign currency transaction loss 7,224 40,278
Amortization of capitalized financing costs — 19,408
Amortization of discount on note payable — 143,919
Loss on sales of assets — 3,173
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
(Increase) decrease in -
Restricted cash — 48,309
Other current assets 14,619 69,325
Other non-current assets 29,545 (20,656 )
Increase (decrease) in -
Accounts payable and accrued expenses 321,779 871,908
Accrued compensation and related expenses 595,084 649,781
Unearned revenue — (48,309 )
Deferred rent — (64,329 )
Accrued interest payable 52,761 31,583

Net cash used in operating activities (182,435 ) (1,861,870 )

Cash flows from investing activities:
Cash acquired in connection with acquisition of Pier Pharmaceuticals, Inc. — 23,208
Proceeds from sales of equipment — 6,785
Purchases of furniture and equipment — (5,293 )

Net cash provided by investing activities — 24,700

Cash flows from financing activities:
Proceeds from related party short-swing trading profits 4,728 —
Deferred financing costs related to Series G preferred stock (35,120 ) —
Proceeds from issuance of notes payable 75,000 399,774
Financing costs related to issuance of note payable — (21,370 )

Net cash provided by financing activities 44,608 378,404

Cash and cash equivalents:
Net decrease (137,827 ) (1,458,766 )
Balance at beginning of period 152,179 1,610,945
Balance end of period $ 14,352 $ 152,179



(Continued)




F-6







CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

AND SUBSIDIARY



CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Continued)



Years Ended December 31,
2013 2012
Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information:
Cash paid for -
Interest $ — $ —
Income taxes $ — $ —

Non-cash investing and financing activities:
Fair value of common stock issued in connection with acquisition of Pier Pharmaceuticals, Inc. $ — $ 3,271,402
Fair value of warrant issued in connection with note payable $ — $ 143,919
Write-off of fully-depreciated fixed assets $ — $ 834,016



See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements and

report of independent registered public accounting firm.




F-7






CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

AND SUBSIDIARY



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012



1. Organization and Business Operations



Business



Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Cortex” or the “Company”) was formed in 1987 to engage in the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative pharmaceuticals for the treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorders. In 2011, prior management conducted a re-evaluation of Cortex’s strategic focus and determined that clinical development in the area of respiratory disorders, particularly respiratory depression and sleep apnea, provided the most cost-effective opportunities for potential rapid development and commercialization of Cortex’s compounds. Accordingly, Cortex narrowed its clinical focus at that time and abandoned other avenues of scientific inquiry. This re-evaluation provided the impetus for Cortex’s acquisition of Pier Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Pier”) in August 2012 (see Note 3). Since new management’s appointment in March 2013, it has continued to implement this revised strategic focus, including seeking the capital to fund such efforts. As a result of the Company’s scientific discoveries and the acquisition of strategic, exclusive license agreements (including a new license agreement with the University of Illinois, as described at Note 12), management believes that the Company is now a leader in the discovery and development of innovative pharmaceuticals for the treatment of respiratory disorders.



Since its formation in 1987, Cortex has been engaged in the research and clinical development of a class of compounds referred to as ampakines. By acting as positive allosteric modulators of AMPA glutamate receptors, ampakines increase the excitatory effects of the neurotransmitter glutamate. Preclinical research suggested that these ampakines might have therapeutic potential for the treatment of certain respiratory disorders, as well as cognitive disorders, depression, attention deficit disorder and schizophrenia.



In its early stages, Cortex entered into a series of license agreements in 1993 and 1998 with the University of California, Irvine (“UCI”) that granted Cortex proprietary rights to certain chemical compounds that acted as ampakines and their therapeutic uses. These agreements granted Cortex, among other provisions, exclusive rights: (i) to practice certain patents and patent applications, as defined in the license agreement, that were then held by UCI; (ii) to identify, develop, make, have made, import, export, lease, sell, have sold or offer for sale any related licensed products; and (iii) to grant sub-licenses of the rights granted in the license agreements, subject to the provisions of the license agreements. Cortex was required, among other terms and conditions, to pay UCI a license fee, royalties, patent costs and certain additional payments.



At December 31, 2012, the Company was not in compliance with its minimum annual payment obligations and believed that this default constituted a termination of the license agreements. On April 15, 2013, UCI notified the Company that these license agreements were terminated due to the Company’s failure to make its obligatory payments. Since the patents covered in these license agreements had begun to expire and the therapeutic uses described in these patents were no longer germane to the Company’s new focus on respiratory disorders, the loss of these license agreements is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s current or future drug development programs.



Cortex also owns patents and patent applications for certain families of chemical compounds, including ampakines, which claim the chemical structures and their use in the treatment of various disorders. These patents cover, among other compounds, Cortex’s lead ampakines CX 1739 and CX1942, and extend through at least 2028.



On May 8, 2007, Cortex entered into a license agreement, as subsequently amended, with the University of Alberta granting Cortex exclusive rights to practice patents held by the University of Alberta claiming the use of ampakines for the treatment of various respiratory disorders. These patents, along with Cortex’s own patents claiming chemical structures, comprise Cortex’s principal intellectual property supporting Cortex’s research and clinical development program in the use of ampakines for the treatment of respiratory disorders. Cortex has completed pre-clinical studies indicating that several of its ampakines, including CX717, CX1739 and CX1942, were efficacious in treating drug induced respiratory depression caused by opiates or certain anesthetics without offsetting the analgesic effects of the opiates or the anesthetic effects of the anesthetics. In two clinical Phase 2 studies, one of which was published in a peer-reviewed journal, CX717, a predecessor compound to CX1739 and CX1942, antagonized the respiratory depression produced by fentanyl, a potent narcotic, without affecting the analgesia produced by this drug. In addition, Cortex has conducted a Phase 2A clinical study in which patients with sleep apnea were administered CX1739, Cortex’s lead clinical compound. Preliminary results suggested that CX1739 might have use for the treatment of central and mixed sleep apnea, but not obstructive sleep apnea.




F-8






In order to expand Cortex’s respiratory disorders program, the Company acquired 100% of the issued and outstanding equity securities of Pier effective August 10, 2012 pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (see Note 3). Pier was formed in June 2007 (under the name SteadySleep Rx Co.) as a clinical stage pharmaceutical company to develop a pharmacologic treatment for the respiratory disorder known as obstructive sleep apnea and had been engaged in research and clinical development activities since formation.



Through the merger, the Company gained access to an Exclusive License Agreement, as amended (the “License Agreement”), that Pier had entered into with the University of Illinois on October 10, 2007. The License Agreement covered certain patents and patent applications in the United States and other countries claiming the use of certain compounds referred to as cannabinoids, of which dronabinol is a specific example, for the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders (including sleep apnea). Dronabinol is a synthetic derivative of the naturally occurring substance in the cannabis plant, otherwise known as ?9-THC (?9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Pier’s business plan was to determine whether dronabinol would significantly improve subjective and objective clinical measures in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. In addition, Pier intended to evaluate the feasibility and comparative efficacy of a proprietary formulation of dronabinol.



The License Agreement granted Pier, among other provisions, exclusive rights: (i) to practice certain patents and patent applications, as defined in the License Agreement, that were then held by the University of Illinois; (ii) to identify, develop, make, have made, import, export, lease, sell, have sold or offer for sale any related licensed products; and (iii) to grant sub-licenses of the rights granted in the License Agreement, subject to the provisions of the License Agreement. Pier was required under the License Agreement, among other terms and conditions, to pay the University of Illinois a license fee, royalties, patent costs and certain milestone payments.



Prior to the merger, Pier conducted a 21 day, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose escalation Phase 2 clinical study in 22 patients with obstructive sleep apnea (“OSA”), in which dronabinol produced a statistically significant reduction in the Apnea-Hypopnea Index (“AHI”), the primary therapeutic end-point, and was observed to be safe and well tolerated. Dronabinol is currently under investigation, at the University of Illinois and other centers, in a potentially pivotal 120 patient, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2B OSA clinical trial, fully funded by the National Institutes of Health.



Dronabinol is a Schedule III, controlled generic drug with a relatively low abuse potential that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the treatment of AIDS-related anorexia and chemotherapy induced emesis. The use of dronabinol for the treatment of OSA is a novel indication for an already approved drug and, as such, the Company believes that it would only require approval by the FDA of a supplemental new drug application.



The License Agreement was terminated effective March 21, 2013 due to the Company’s failure to make a required payment (see Note 4). New management subsequently opened negotiations with the University of Illinois and as a result, the Company ultimately entered into a new license agreement with the University of Illinois on June 27, 2014, the material terms of which were similar to the License Agreement that had been terminated on March 21, 2013 (see Note 12).



Going Concern



The Company’s consolidated financial statements have been presented on the basis that it is a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company has incurred net losses of $1,201,457 and $7,572,244 for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, negative operating cash flows of $182,435 and $1,861,870 for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and incurred additional net losses and negative operating cash flows in the 2014 fiscal year. The Company expects to continue to incur net losses and negative operating cash flows for several more years thereafter. As a result, management and the Company’s auditors believe that there is substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.




F-9






The Company is currently, and has for some time, been in significant financial distress. It has limited cash resources and current assets and has no ongoing source of revenue. Beginning in late 2012, the Company’s business activities were reduced to minimal levels, and the prior Board of Directors of the Company, which was removed by the written consent of stockholders holding a majority of the outstanding shares on March 22, 2013, had retained bankruptcy counsel to assist the Company in preparations to file for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. New management, which was appointed during March and April 2013, has evaluated the status of numerous aspects of the Company’s existing business and obligations, including, without limitation, debt obligations, financial requirements, intellectual property, licensing agreements, legal and patent matters and regulatory compliance, and has raised new capital to fund its business activities.



From June 2013 through March 2014, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer advanced short-term loans to the Company aggregating $150,000 in order to meet its minimum operating needs. In March and April 2014, the Company completed a private placement by selling 928.5 shares of its Series G Preferred Stock for gross proceeds of $928,500 (see Note 12) and repaid the aggregate advances. The Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer invested $250,000 in the Series G Preferred Stock private placement. During November and December 2014, the Company sold convertible notes (with warrants) in an aggregate principal amount of $369,500 to various accredited investors (see Note 12). The Company intends to continue this financing until it has sold an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 of such notes, although there can be no assurances that the Company will be successful in this regard.



The Company will need to raise additional capital, either through the current financing or otherwise, or both, to be able to pay its liabilities and fund its business activities going forward. As a result of the Company’s current financial situation, the Company has limited access to external sources of debt and equity financing. Accordingly, there can be no assurances that the Company will be able to secure additional financing in the amounts necessary to fully fund its operating and debt service requirements. If the Company is unable to access sufficient cash resources, the Company may be forced to discontinue its operations entirely and liquidate.



2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies



Principles of Consolidation



The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the financial statements of Cortex and Pier, its wholly-owned subsidiary, from its August 10, 2012 acquisition date. Intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.



Cash Concentrations



The Company’s cash balances may periodically exceed federally insured limits. The Company has not experienced a loss in such accounts to date. The Company maintains its accounts with financial institutions with high credit ratings.



Cash Equivalents



The Company considers all highly liquid short-term investments with maturities of less than three months when acquired to be cash equivalents.




F-10






Concentrations of Credit Risk



Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. The Company limits its exposure to credit risk by investing its cash with high credit quality financial institutions.



Fair Value of Financial Instruments



The authoritative guidance with respect to fair value established a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels, and requires that assets and liabilities carried at fair value be classified and disclosed in one of three categories, as presented below. Disclosure as to transfers into and out of Levels 1 and 2, and activity in Level 3 fair value measurements, is also required.



Level 1. Observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets for an identical asset or liability that the Company has the ability to access as of the measurement date. Financial assets and liabilities utilizing Level 1 inputs include active-exchange traded securities and exchange-based derivatives.



Level 2. Inputs, other than quoted prices included within Level 1, which are directly observable for the asset or liability or indirectly observable through corroboration with observable market data. Financial assets and liabilities utilizing Level 2 inputs include fixed income securities, non-exchange based derivatives, mutual funds, and fair-value hedges.



Level 3. Unobservable inputs in which there is little or no market data for the asset or liability which requires the reporting entity to develop its own assumptions. Financial assets and liabilities utilizing Level 3 inputs include infrequently-traded, non-exchange-based derivatives and commingled investment funds, and are measured using present value pricing models.



The Company determines the level in the fair value hierarchy within which each fair value measurement falls in its entirety, based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. In determining the appropriate levels, the Company performs an analysis of the assets and liabilities at each reporting period end.



Deferred and Capitalized Financing Costs



Costs incurred in connection with ongoing financing activities, including legal and other professional fees, cash finders and placement agent fees, and escrow agent fees, are deferred until the related financing is either completed or abandoned. Costs related to abandoned financings are charged to operations.



Costs related to completed debt financings are capitalized on the balance sheet and amortized over the term of the related debt agreements. Amortization of these costs is calculated on the straight-line basis, which approximates the effective interest method, and is charged to interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations. Costs related to completed equity financings are charged directly to additional paid-in capital.



Deferred financing costs included in the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2013 and 2012 were $35,120 and $0, respectively.



Furniture and Equipment



Furniture and equipment are recorded at cost and depreciated on a straight-line basis over the lesser of their estimated useful lives, ranging from three to five years.



Long-Lived Assets



The Company reviews its long-lived assets, including intangible assets such as the License Agreement, for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the total amount of an asset may not be recoverable, but at least annually, in conjunction with the preparation of the Company’s fiscal year-end audited financial statements. An impairment loss is recognized when estimated future cash flows expected to result from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition is less than the asset’s carrying amount. The Company does not have any goodwill.




F-11






License Agreement



The License Agreement with the University of Illinois acquired in the Pier transaction was an acquired intangible asset recorded at cost of $3,411,157 (based on the fair value ascribed to the License Agreement in August 2012, as described in Note 3), and was being amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining life of its underlying patents of 172 months from the date of acquisition.



The Company performed an impairment assessment of the carrying value of the License Agreement as of December 31, 2012 and determined that it had no expected future value at that date. The Company made this determination because it was unable to make a $75,000 payment due under the License Agreement at December 31, 2012, as a result of which the License agreement was forfeited during the three months ended March 31, 2013. The Company recorded an impairment charge to operations of $3,321,678 at December 31, 2012 to write off the License Agreement (see Note 4).



Research Grant Revenues



The Company records research grant revenues when the expenses related to the grant projects are incurred. Amounts received under research grants are nonrefundable, regardless of the success of the underlying research, to the extent that such amounts are expended in accordance with the approved grant project.



Stock-Based Compensation



The Company periodically issues common stock and stock options to officers, directors and consultants for services rendered. Such issuances vest and expire according to terms established at the issuance date.



The Company accounts for stock-based payments to officers and directors by measuring the cost of services received in exchange for equity awards based on the grant date fair value of the awards, with the cost recognized as compensation expense on the straight-line basis in the Company’s financial statements over the vesting period of the awards. The Company accounts for stock-based payments to consultants by determining the value of the stock compensation based upon the measurement date at either (a) the date at which a performance commitment is reached or (b) at the date at which the necessary performance to earn the equity instruments is complete.



Options granted to members of the Company’s Scientific Advisory Board and to outside consultants are revalued each reporting period to determine the amount to be recorded as an expense in the respective period. As the options vest, they are valued on each vesting date and an adjustment is recorded for the difference between the value already recorded and the then current value on the date of vesting.



The fair value of stock options is determined utilizing the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, and is affected by several variables, the most significant of which are the life of the equity award, the exercise price of the security as compared to the fair market value of the common stock on the grant date, and the estimated volatility of the common stock over the term of the equity award. Estimated volatility is based on the historical volatility of the Company’s common stock. The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant. The fair value of common stock is determined by reference to the quoted market price of the Company’s common stock.



The Company recognizes the fair value of stock-based compensation in general and administrative costs and in research and development costs, as appropriate, in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.



The Company issues new shares to satisfy stock option exercises.



There were no stock options issued during the year ended December 31, 2013. For options granted during the year ended December 31, 2012, the fair value of each option award was estimated using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model using the following input variables: expected life – 10 years; expected volatility – 176%; expected dividend yield – 0%; risk-free interest rate – 0.30%.



There were no stock options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.




F-12






Income Taxes



The Company accounts for income taxes under an asset and liability approach for financial accounting and reporting for income taxes. Accordingly, the Company recognizes deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected impact of differences between the financial statements and the tax basis of assets and liabilities.



The Company records a valuation allowance to reduce its deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. In the event the Company was to determine that it would be able to realize its deferred tax assets in the future in excess of its recorded amount, an adjustment to the deferred tax assets would be credited to operations in the period such determination was made. Likewise, should the Company determine that it would not be able to realize all or part of its deferred tax assets in the future, an adjustment to the deferred tax assets would be charged to operations in the period such determination was made.



Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Sections 382 and 383, use of the Company’s net operating loss and credit carryforwards may be limited if a cumulative change in ownership of more than 50% occurs within any three-year period since the last ownership change. The Company may have had a change in control under these Sections. However, the Company does not anticipate performing a complete analysis of the limitation on the annual use of the net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards until the time that it projects it will be able to utilize these tax attributes.



As of December 31, 2013, the Company did not have any unrecognized tax benefits related to various federal and state income tax matters.



The Company is subject to U.S. federal income taxes and income taxes of various state tax jurisdictions. As the Company’s net operating losses have yet to be utilized, all previous tax years remain open to examination by Federal authorities and other jurisdictions in which the Company currently operates or has operated in the past. The Company had no unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 and does not anticipate any material amount of unrecognized tax benefits within the next 12 months.



The Company is currently delinquent with respect to certain of its U.S. federal and applicable states income tax filings and no potential penalties, interest or other charges have been provided for in the Company’s consolidated financial statements because no income was generated during those periods.



Foreign Currency Transactions



The note payable to related party, which is denominated in a foreign currency (the South Korean Won), is translated into the Company’s functional currency (the United States dollar) at the exchange rate on the balance sheet date. The foreign currency exchange gain or loss resulting from translation is recognized in the related consolidated statements of operations.



Research and Development Costs



Research and development costs consist primarily of fees paid to consultants and outside service providers, patent fees and costs, and other expenses relating to the acquisition, design, development and testing of the Company’s treatments and product candidates.



Research and development costs are expensed as incurred over the life of the underlying contracts on the straight-line basis, unless the achievement of milestones, the completion of contracted work, or other information indicates that a different expensing schedule is more appropriate. Payments made pursuant to research and development contracts are initially recorded as advances on research and development contract services in the Company’s balance sheet and then charged to research and development costs in the Company’s statements of operations as those contract services are performed. Expenses incurred under research and development contracts in excess of amounts advanced are recorded as research and development contract liabilities in the Company’s balance sheet, with a corresponding charge to research and development costs in the Company’s statements of operations. The Company reviews the status of its research and development contracts on a quarterly basis.




F-13






Comprehensive Income (Loss)



Components of comprehensive income or loss, including net income or loss, are reported in the financial statements in the period in which they are recognized. Comprehensive income or loss is defined as the change in equity during a period from transactions and other events and circumstances from non-owner sources. Net income (loss) and other comprehensive income (loss) are reported net of any related tax effect to arrive at comprehensive income (loss). The Company did not have any items of comprehensive income (loss) for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.



Earnings per Share



The Company’s computation of earnings per share (“EPS”) includes basic and diluted EPS. Basic EPS is measured as the income (loss) available to common stockholders divided by the weighted average common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS is similar to basic EPS but presents the dilutive effect on a per share basis of potential common shares (e.g., warrants and options) as if they had been converted at the beginning of the periods presented, or issuance date, if later. Potential common shares that have an anti-dilutive effect (i.e., those that increase income per share or decrease loss per share) are excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS.



Loss per common share is computed by dividing net loss by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the respective periods. Basic and diluted loss per common share is the same for all periods presented because all warrants and stock options outstanding are anti-dilutive.



At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company excluded the outstanding securities summarized below, which entitle the holders thereof to acquire shares of common stock, from its calculation of earnings per share, as their effect would have been anti-dilutive.



December 31,
2013 2012
Convertible preferred stock 3,679 3,679
Warrants 4,000,000 12,357,884
Stock options 5,166,668 10,754,155
Total 9,170,347 23,115,718



Use of Estimates



The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual amounts may differ from those estimates.



Recent Accounting Pronouncements



In April 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-08 (ASU 2014-08), Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205) and Property, Plant and Equipment (Topic 360). ASU 2014-08 amends the requirements for reporting discontinued operations and requires additional disclosures about discontinued operations. Under ASU 2014-08, only disposals representing a strategic shift in operations or that have a major effect on the Company’s operations and financial results should be presented as discontinued operations. ASU 2014-08 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014. As the Company is engaged in research and development activities, the Company does not expect the adoption of this guidance to have any impact on the Company’s financial statement presentation or disclosures.




F-14






In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-09 (ASU 2014-09), Revenue from Contracts with Customers. ASU 2014-09 will eliminate transaction- and industry-specific revenue recognition guidance under current U.S. GAAP and replace it with a principle based approach for determining revenue recognition. ASU 2014-09 will require that companies recognize revenue based on the value of transferred goods or services as they occur in the contract. ASU 2014-09 also will require additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments and assets recognized from costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract. ASU 2014-09 is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and early adoption is not permitted. Entities can transition to the standard either retrospectively or as a cumulative-effect adjustment as of the date of adoption. As the Company does not expect to have any operating revenues for the foreseeable future, the Company does not expect the adoption of this guidance to have any impact on the Company’s financial statement presentation or disclosures.



In June 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-10 (ASU 2014-10), Development Stage Entities (Topic 915): Elimination of Certain Financial Reporting Requirements, Including an Amendment to Variable Interest Entities Guidance in Topic 810, Consolidation. ASU 2014-10 eliminated the requirement to present inception-to-date information about income statement line items, cash flows, and equity transactions, and clarifies how entities should disclosure the risks and uncertainties related to their activities. ASU 2014-10 also eliminated an exception provided to development stage entities in Consolidations (ASC Topic 810) for determining whether an entity is a variable interest entity on the basis of the amount of investment equity that is at risk. The presentation and disclosure requirements in Topic 915 will no longer be required for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2014, and the revised consolidation standards will take effect in annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of ASU 2014-10 is not expected to have any impact on the Company’s financial statement presentation or disclosures.



In August 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-15 (ASU 2014-15), Presentation of Financial Statements – Going Concern (Subtopic 205-10). ASU 2014-15 provides guidance as to management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. In connection with preparing financial statements for each annual and interim reporting period, an entity’s management should evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued (or within one year after the date that the financial statements are available to be issued when applicable). Management’s evaluation should be based on relevant conditions and events that are known and reasonably knowable at the date that the financial statements are issued (or at the date that the financial statements are available to be issued when applicable). Substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern exists when relevant conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, indicate that it is probable that the entity will be unable to meet its obligations as they become due within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued (or available to be issued). ASU 2014-15 is effective for the annual period ending after December 15, 2016, and for annual periods and interim periods thereafter. Early application is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of ASU 2014-15 on the Company’s financial statement presentation and disclosures.



Management does not believe that any other recently issued, but not yet effective, authoritative guidance, if currently adopted, would have a material impact on the Company’s financial statement presentation or disclosures.



3. Merger with Pier Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



On August 10, 2012, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Pier, a privately-held corporation, Pier Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Merger Sub”) and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cortex, and Cortex, Merger Sub merged with and into Pier and Pier became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cortex. Pier was formed in June 2007 (under the name SteadySleep Rx Co.) as a clinical stage pharmaceutical company to develop a pharmacologic treatment for the respiratory disorder known as obstructive sleep apnea and had been engaged in research and clinical development activities since formation. As a result, Cortex acquired 100% of the issued and outstanding equity securities of Pier.




F-15






In connection with the merger transaction with Pier, Cortex issued 58,417,893 newly issued shares of its common stock with an aggregate fair value of $3,271,402 ($0.056 per share), based upon the closing price of Cortex’s common stock on August 10, 2012. The shares of common stock were issued to stockholders, convertible note holders, warrant holders, option holders, and certain employees and vendors of Pier in satisfaction of their interests and claims. The common stock issued by Cortex represented approximately 41% of the 144,041,556 common shares outstanding immediately following the closing of the transaction.



Pier was formed on June 25, 2007 as a closely-held clinical stage pharmaceutical company to develop a pharmacologic treatment for the respiratory disorder known as obstructive sleep apnea and has been engaged in research and early clinical development activities since formation. Pier was a development stage company, as it had not commenced any revenue-generating operations, did not have any cash flows from operations, and was dependent on debt and equity funding to finance its operations.



On October 10, 2007, Pier obtained the basis for its research and clinical development activities by entering into a License Agreement with the University of Illinois. The License Agreement covered certain patents and patent applications in the United States and other countries claiming the use of certain compounds referred to as cannabinoids, of which dronabinol is a specific example, for the treatment of breathing-related sleep disorders (including sleep apnea). Dronabinol is a synthetic derivative of the naturally occurring substance in the cannabis plant, otherwise known as ?9-THC (?9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Pier’s business plan was to determine whether dronabinol administration to humans would significantly improve subjective and objective clinical measures in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. In addition, Pier intended to evaluate the feasibility and comparative efficacy of a proprietary formulation of dronabinol.



The License Agreement granted Pier, among other provisions, exclusive rights: (i) to practice certain patents and patent applications, as defined in the License Agreement, that were then held by the University of Illinois; (ii) to identify, develop, make, have made, import, export, lease, sell, have sold or offer for sale any related licensed products; and (iii) to grant sub-licenses of the rights granted in the License Agreement, subject to the provisions of the License Agreement. Pier was required under the License Agreement to pay the University of Illinois a license fee, royalties, patent costs and certain milestone payments.



The License Agreement was the basis for Pier’s research and development activities, and was Pier’s primary asset and its only intellectual property asset. By providing Cortex with the means to expand its respiratory disorders program, the License Agreement was the central reason that Cortex entered into the merger transaction with Pier in August 2012.



The transaction brought together a series of unique drug products that in preclinical animal models and early clinical studies have shown efficacy in preventing or reversing drug-induced respiratory depression and in reducing obstructive, central and mixed sleep apneas. Phase 2 clinical assets include Cortex’s CX1739, a compound targeting opiate-induced respiratory depression and central sleep apnea, and Pier’s dronabinol, a compound that was, at the time, about to begin a Phase 2B study in obstructive sleep apnea patients that was funded entirely by a National Institutes of Health grant of nearly $5 million. Subsequent to the closing of the transaction, the Company intended to focus entirely on treatments for breathing disorders, and expected to have multiple opportunities for value-generating clinical milestones with dronabinol and CX1739.



Pursuant to the terms of the transaction, Cortex agreed to issue contingent consideration, consisting of up to approximately 18,300,000 additional shares of common stock, to Pier’s former security holders and certain other creditors and service providers (the “Pier Stock Recipients”) that received the Company’s common stock as part of the Pier transaction if certain of the Company’s stock options and warrants outstanding immediately prior to the closing of the merger were subsequently exercised. In the event that such contingent shares were issued, the ownership percentage of the Pier Stock Recipients, following their receipt of such additional shares, could not exceed their ownership percentage as of the initial transaction date.




F-16






The stock options and warrants outstanding at June 30, 2012 were all out-of-the-money on August 10, 2012. During late July and early August 2012, the Company issued options to officers and directors at that time to purchase a total of 7,361,668 shares of common stock exercisable for ten years at $0.06 per share (see Note 8). By October 1, 2012, these options were also out-of-the-money and continued to be out-of-the-money through December 31, 2013. All of the aforementioned options and warrants became increasingly out-of-the-money as December 31, 2012 approached (with most options and warrants being out of the money by multiples of the exercise price at such date), reflecting the fact that the Company’s prospects were very negative. The Company was unable to raise operating capital subsequent to its acquisition of Pier, had run out of working capital and essentially ceased business operations during the fourth quarter of 2012, had not filed its September 30, 2012 Form 10-Q Quarterly Report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission due on November 14, 2012, had accepted the resignations of most of its officers and directors, and had prepared to shut-down and liquidate. There were no stock options or warrants exercised from August 10, 2012 through December 31, 2013, and all of these stock options and warrants were out-of-the-money at December 31, 2013. As of December 31, 2013, approximately 2,100,000 contingent shares of common stock remained issuable under the Pier merger agreement due to forfeitures and expirations of stock options and warrants occurring since August 10, 2012.



The Company concluded that the issuance of any of the contingent shares to the Pier Stock Recipients was remote, given the large spread between exercise prices of these stock options and warrants as compared to the common stock trading range, the expiration of most of the lower priced option and warrants within two years, the Company’s distressed financial condition and capital requirements, and that these stock options and warrants have remained and have become increasingly out-of-the-money through December 31, 2013, and have continued to expire, as time passes. Accordingly, the Company considered the fair value of the contingent consideration to be immaterial and therefore did not ascribe any value to such contingent consideration; if any such shares are ultimately issued to the former Pier stockholders, the Company will recognize the fair value of such shares as a charge to operations.



The Company agreed to file a registration statement on Form S-1 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, with the SEC within ninety days after the closing of the transaction covering the shares of common stock issued to the former Pier stockholders, as well as the contingent shares, and to take certain other actions to maintain the effectiveness of such registration statement for a period not exceeding three years. The Company has not filed this registration statement. The Agreement and Plan of Merger did not provide for any financial penalties in the event that the Company failed to comply with the registration statement filing requirements.



The Company accounted for the Pier transaction pursuant to ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations. The Company identified and evaluated the fair value of the assets acquired. Based on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the history and status of Pier, including its business and intellectual property at the time of the merger transaction, the Company determined that the identifiable intangible assets were comprised solely of a contract-based intangible asset, and that there was no measurable goodwill.



The intangible asset acquired in the Pier transaction consisted of the License Agreement. Unless terminated earlier, the License Agreement would terminate upon expiration or termination of all patent rights. The License Agreement defined patent rights as all of the University of Illinois’ rights in the patents and patent applications, and (b) all of the University of Illinois’ rights in all divisions, continuations, continuation-in-part applications, reissues, renewals, re-examinations, foreign counterparts, substitutions or extensions thereof. Based upon the expiration date of the underlying patents, the License Agreement would be amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining life of the underlying patents of 172 months from the date of acquisition.




F-17






The following table summarizes the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed by the Company at the closing of the Pier transaction on August 10, 2012.



Fair value of assets acquired:
Cash $ 23,208
Other current assets 698
Equipment 3,463
License agreement 3,411,157
Total assets acquired $ 3,438,526

Consideration transferred by the Company:
Fair value of common shares issued $ 3,271,402
Liabilities assumed 167,124
Total consideration paid $ 3,438,526



The following pro forma operating data presents the results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2012, as if the merger had occurred on the first day of the period presented. The pro forma results are not necessarily indicative of the financial results that might have occurred had the merger transaction actually taken place on the first day of the period presented, or of future results of operations. Pro forma information for the year ended December 31, 2012 is summarized as follows:



Total revenues $ 48,309
Net loss $ (6,679,370 )
Net loss per common share - Basic and diluted $ (0.05 )
Weighted average common shares outstanding - Basic and diluted 144,041,556



As a condition of the Pier transaction, positions for two of Cortex’s executive officers were eliminated and thus the severance agreements for such executive officers were amended. As amended, the severance agreements provided for the grant of fully vested, ten-year options to purchase up to a total of 5,166,668 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.06 per share, which was in excess of the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the closing date of the Pier acquisition. The fair value of these options, as calculated pursuant to the Black-Scholes option-pricing model was determined to be $310,000 ($0.06 per share) and was charged to merger costs on August 10, 2012. The Black-Scholes option-pricing model utilized the following inputs: exercise price per share-$0.06; stock price per share – $0.056; expected dividend yield – 0.00%; expected volatility – 176%; average risk-free interest rate – 0.31%; expected life – 10 years. As amended, the severance agreements also required the payment of $429,231 for various other amounts due the two executive officers. As of August 10, 2012, these amounts were accrued and charged to merger costs. As a result of the management change that occurred on March 22, 2013, these officers asserted claims against the Company (see Note 12).



Pier merger-related costs for the year ended December 31, 2012 are summarized as follows:



Direct merger costs $ 506,876
Merger-related severance and termination costs 739,231
Total $ 1,246,107



The License Agreement was terminated effective March 21, 2013 due to the Company’s failure to make a required payment (see Note 4). New management subsequently opened negotiations with the University of Illinois and as a result, the Company ultimately entered into a new license agreement with the University of Illinois on June 27, 2014, the material terms of which were similar to the License Agreement that had been terminated on March 21, 2013 (see Note 12).




F-18






4. Impairment and Termination of University of Illinois License Agreement



At December 31, 2012, the Company was obligated to pay a $75,000 milestone fee to the University of Illinois under the License Agreement (see Note 3). At such date, due to the Company’s distressed financial condition, lack of working capital and inability to raise additional operating capital, the Company was unable to make such payment on a timely basis, or within the 30-day cure period.



At December 31, 2012, the Company determined that the License Agreement would be forfeited during the first quarter of the 2013 fiscal year. Accordingly, the License Agreement had no expected future value and was therefore impaired at December 31, 2012, as a result of which the Company recorded a charge to operations of $3,321,678 at December 31, 2012 (reflecting the remaining unamortized carrying value of the License Agreement at December 31, 2012).



Subsequently, on February 19, 2013, the University of Illinois notified the Company that it had defaulted under the License Agreement due to non-payment of the $75,000 milestone fee due December 31, 2012. On March 22, 2013, the University of Illinois notified the Company that the License Agreement had been terminated effective March 21, 2013 due to the Company’s failure to make the required $75,000 payment.



5. Notes Payable



Note Payable to Related Party



On June 25, 2012, the Company borrowed 465,000,000 Won (the currency of South Korea, equivalent to approximately $400,000 US dollars) from and executed a secured note payable to SY Corporation Co., Ltd., formerly known as Samyang Optics Co. Ltd. (“Samyang”), an approximately 20% common stockholder of the Company at that time. The note accrues simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum and has a maturity date of June 25, 2013, although Samyang was permitted to demand early repayment of the promissory note on or after December 25, 2012. Samyang did not demand early repayment. The Company has not made any payments on the promissory note. At June 30, 2013 and subsequently, the promissory note was outstanding and in technical default, although Samyang has not issued a notice of default or a demand for repayment. The Company believes that Samyang is in default of its obligations under its January 2012 license agreement, as amended, with the Company, but the Company has not yet issued a notice of default. The Company anticipates entering into discussions with Samyang with a view toward a comprehensive resolution of the aforementioned matters.



Pursuant to the terms of this borrowing arrangement, Samyang was granted the right to designate a representative to serve on the Company’s Board of Directors, pursuant to which Samyang designated Moogak Hwang, Ph.D. as its representative. In this regard, the Company elected Dr. Hwang to its Board of Directors on August 3, 2012. Dr. Hwang resigned from the Company’s Board of Directors effective September 30, 2013.



The promissory note is secured by collateral that represents a lien on certain patents owned by the Company, including composition of matter patents for certain of the Company’s high impact ampakine compounds and the low impact ampakine compounds CX2007 and CX2076, and other related compounds. The security interest does not extend to the Company’s patents for its ampakine compounds CX1739 and CX1942, or to the patent for the use of ampakine compounds for the treatment of respiratory depression.



In connection with this financing, the Company issued to Samyang two-year detachable warrants to purchase 4,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a fixed exercise price of $0.056 per share. The warrants have a call right for consideration of $0.001 per share, in favor of the Company, to the extent that the weighted average closing price of the Company’s common stock exceeds $0.084 per share for each of ten consecutive trading days, subject to certain circumstances. Additionally, an existing license agreement with Samyang was expanded to include rights to ampakine CX1739 in South Korea for the treatment of sleep apnea and respiratory depression. The unexercised warrants expired on June 25, 2014.



The Company used the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to estimate the fair value of the two-year detachable warrants to purchase 4,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a fixed exercise price of $0.056 per share. The Company applied the relative fair value method to allocate the proceeds from the borrowing to the note payable and the detachable warrants. The Company did not consider the expansion of the existing license agreement with Samyang to have any significant value. Consequently, approximately 64% of the proceeds of the borrowing were attributed to the debt instrument.




F-19






The 36% value attributed to the warrant was being amortized as additional interest expense over the life of the note. Additionally, financing costs aggregating $21,370 incurred in connection with the transaction were also amortized over the expected life of the note. In that repayment could be demanded after six months, that period was used as the expected life of the note payable for amortization purposes.



Note payable to Samyang consists of the following at December 31, 2013 and 2012:



2013 2012
Principal amount of note payable $ 399,774 $ 399,774
Accrued interest payable 73,979 25,340
Foreign currency transaction adjustment 47,502 40,278
$ 521,255 $ 465,392



Notes Payable to Chairman



On June 25, 2013, the Arnold Lippa Family Trust, an affiliate of Dr. Lippa, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, began advancing funds to the Company in order to meet minimum operating needs. At December 31, 2013, Dr. Lippa had advanced a total of $75,000 to the Company. Such advances reached a maximum of $150,000 on March 3, 2014 and were due on demand with interest at a rate per annum equal to the “Blended Annual Rate”, as published by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service of approximately 0.22% for the period outstanding. In March 2014, the Company repaid the working capital advances, including accrued interest of $102, with the proceeds from the private placement of its Series G Preferred Stock (see Note 12).



6. Furniture, Equipment and Leasehold Improvements



During the year ended December 31, 2012, in connection with the downsizing of the Company’s operations, the Company disposed of furniture, equipment and leasehold improvements costing a total of $1,170,849.



On May 14, 2012, the Company executed a three-year lease for approximately 5,000 square feet of office space beginning June 1, 2012 at a monthly rate of $9,204. During the three months ended December 31, 2012, the Company substantially vacated its operating facility and abandoned its furniture, equipment and leasehold improvements. In May 2013, the Company received notice that it had been sued in the Superior Court of California in a complaint filed on March 28, 2013 by its former landlord, PPC Irvine Center Investment, LLC, seeking among other things, $57,535 in past due rent, termination of the lease agreement, and reasonable attorney’s fees. On May 23, 2013, a settlement was reached with the landlord that provided for the Company to relinquish its security deposit in the amount of $29,545, transfer title to its remaining furniture, equipment and leasehold improvements, and pay an additional $26,000. The transfer of the Company’s furniture, equipment and leasehold improvements resulted in a loss of $39,126, which was recorded at December 31, 2012. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded a gain of $1,990 with respect to the final resolution of this matter.



In order to estimate the fair value of the liability to be accrued with respect to the Company’s potential liability under the abandoned lease at December 31, 2012, the Company considered various factors, including the current lease rates for similar office space in Irvine, California, the desirability of the area to businesses, and the estimated time that it would take to find a new tenant for the office space. Taking these factors into account, the Company concluded that the potential rental income from a sublease of its operating facility would equal or exceed the Company’s remaining lease obligation. The Company also considered the negotiations with the landlord during May 2013, which indicated that a settlement for substantially less than the remaining payments under the lease was more likely than not to be successful.




F-20






7. Project Advance



In June 2000, the Company received $247,300 from the Institute for the Study of Aging (the “Institute”) to fund testing of CX516, the Company’s ampakine in patients with mild cognitive impairment (“MCI”). Patients with MCI represent the earliest clinically-defined group with memory impairment beyond that expected for normal individuals of the same age and education, but such patients do not meet the clinical criteria for Alzheimer’s disease. During 2002 and 2003, the Company conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study with 175 elderly patients displaying MCI and issued a final report on June 21, 2004. CX516 did not improve the memory impairments observed in these patients.



Pursuant to the funding agreement, if the Company complied with certain conditions, including the completion of the MCI clinical trial, the Company would not be required to make any repayments unless and until the Company enters one of its ampakine compounds into a Phase 3 clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease. Upon initiation of such clinical trials, repayment would include the principal amount plus accrued interest computed at a rate equal to one-half of the prime lending rate. In the event of repayment, the Institute could elect to receive the outstanding principal balance and any accrued interest thereon in shares of the Company’s common stock. The conversion price for such form of repayment was fixed at $4.50 per share and was subject to adjustment if the Company paid a dividend or distribution in shares of common stock, effected a stock split or reverse stock split, effected a reorganization or reclassification of its capital stock, or effected a consolidation or merger with or into another corporation or entity. Included in the consolidated balance sheets is principal and accrued interest with respect to this funding agreement in the amount of $334,096 and $330,022 at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.



The Company entered into an agreement with the Institute on September 2, 2014 to settle this obligation by issuing 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock (see Note 12). The note payable, including accrued interest, had an approximate balance of $337,000 on such date.



8. Stockholders’ Equity



Preferred Stock



The Company has authorized a total of 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, 1,250,000 shares were designated as 9% Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock (non-voting, “9% Preferred”); 37,500 shares were designated as Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (non-voting, “Series B Preferred”); 205,000 were designated as Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock (non-voting, “Series A Junior Participating”) and 3,507,500 shares were undesignated and may be issued with such rights and powers as the Board of Directors may designate.



None of the 9% Preferred shares or the Series A Junior Participating shares were outstanding as of December 31, 2013 or 2012.



Series B Preferred shares outstanding as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 consisted of 37,500 shares issued in a May 1991 private placement. Each share of Series B Preferred is convertible into approximately 0.09812 shares of common stock at an effective conversion price of $6.795 per share of common stock, which is subject to adjustment under certain circumstances. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, these shares of Series B Preferred outstanding are convertible into 3,679 shares of common stock. The Company may redeem the Series B Preferred for $25,001, equivalent to $0.6667 per share, an amount equal to its liquidation preference, at any time upon 30 days prior notice.



On March 14, 2014, the Company designated 1,700 shares of the previously undesignated shares of preferred stock as Series G Preferred Stock (see Note 12).



Common Stock and Common Stock Purchase Warrants



Under the terms of the Company’s registered direct offering with several institutional investors in January 2007, the Company sold an aggregate of 5,021,427 shares of its common stock and warrants to purchase 3,263,927 shares of its common stock. The warrants had an exercise price of $1.66 per share and were exercisable on or before January 21, 2012. During the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company received approximately $443,000 from the partial exercise of such warrants. None of the remaining warrants to purchase 2,996,927 shares of the Company’s common stock were exercised, and consequently, those unexercised warrants expired in January 2012.




F-21






Under the terms of the Company’s registered direct offering with several institutional investors in August 2007, the Company sold an aggregate of 7,075,000 shares of its common stock and warrants to purchase 2,830,000 shares of its common stock. The warrants had an exercise price of $2.64 per share and were exercisable on or before August 28, 2012. In addition, the Company issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 176,875 shares of its common stock to the placement agents in that offering. The placement agent warrants had an exercise price of $3.96 per share and were also exercisable on or before August 28, 2012. None of those investor or placement agent warrants were exercised, and consequently, those unexercised warrants to purchase 3,006,875 shares of the Company’s common stock expired in August 2012.



In connection with the registered direct offering of the Company’s 0% Series E Convertible Preferred Stock in April 2009, the Company issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 6,941,176 shares of its common stock to a single institutional investor. The warrants had an exercise price of $0.3401 per share and were exercisable on or before October 17, 2012. In February 2010, the exercise price of these warrants was reduced to $0.2721 in exchange for the investor’s consent and waiver with respect to the Company’s completed financing transaction with Samyang in January 2010. The warrants were also subject to a call provision in favor of the Company. The Company also issued warrants to purchase an additional 433,824 shares of the Company’s common stock to the placement agent for that transaction. These warrants had an exercise price of $0.26 per share and were subject to the same exercisability term as the warrants issued to the investor. None of those investor or placement agent warrants were exercised, and consequently, those unexercised warrants to purchase 7,375,000 shares of the Company’s common stock expired in August 2012.



In connection with the private placement of the Company’s Series F Convertible Preferred Stock in July 2009, the Company issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 6,060,470 shares of its common stock to a single institutional investor. The warrants had an exercise price of $0.2699 per share and were exercisable on or before January 31, 2013. The Company also issued warrants to purchase an additional 606,047 shares of the Company’s common stock to the placement agent for that transaction. These warrants had an exercise price of $0.3656 per share and were subject to the same exercisability term as the warrants issued to the investor. The warrants issued to the investor and the placement agent were subject to a call provision in favor of the Company. None of those investor or placement agent warrants were exercised, and consequently, those unexercised warrants to purchase 6,666,517 shares of the Company’s common stock expired in January 2013.



In connection with the conversion of a promissory note issued to Samyang in June 2010, the Company issued to Samyang two-year warrants to purchase 4,081,633 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.206 per share. None of those warrants were exercised, and consequently, those unexercised warrants to purchase 4,081,633 shares of the Company’s common stock expired in June 2012.



In October 2011, the Company completed a private placement of $500,000 in securities with Samyang Value Partners Co., Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samyang. The transaction included the issuance of 6,765,466 shares of the Company’s common stock and two-year warrants to purchase an additional 1,691,367 shares of its common stock. The warrants had an exercise price of $0.1035 per share and a call right in favor of the Company. None of those warrants were exercised, and consequently, those unexercised warrants to purchase 1,691,367 shares of the Company’s common stock expired in October 2013. Related to this private placement, the Company and Samyang entered into a non-binding memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) regarding a potential license agreement for rights to the ampakine CX1739 for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases in South Korea. The MOU also provided Samyang with rights of negotiation to expand its territory into other South East Asian countries, excluding Japan, Taiwan and China, and to include rights to the high impact ampakine CX1846 for the potential treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. The related license agreement was subsequently completed in January 2012.



In connection with a private placement of debt on June 25, 2012, the Company issued to Samyang two-year detachable warrants to purchase 4,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a fixed exercise price of $0.056 per share (see Note 5). The warrants had a call right for consideration of $0.001 per share, in favor of the Company, to the extent that the weighted average closing price of the Company’s common stock exceeded $0.084 per share for each of ten consecutive trading days, subject to certain circumstances. The unexercised warrants expired in June 2014.




F-22






A summary of warrant activity for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 is presented below.



Number of
Shares Weighted
Average
Exercise Price Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life (in Years)
Warrants outstanding at December 31, 2011 25,818,319 $ 0.700
Issued 4,000,000 0.056
Exercised — —
Expired (17,460,435 ) 0.587
Warrants outstanding at December 31, 2012 12,357,884 0.182
Issued — —
Exercised — —
Expired (8,357,884 ) 0.243
Warrants outstanding at December 31, 2013 4,000,000 $ 0.056 0.48

Warrants exercisable at December 31, 2012 12,357,884 $ 0.182
Warrants exercisable at December 31, 2013 4,000,000 $ 0.056 0.48



The exercise prices of common stock warrants outstanding and exercisable are as follows at December 31, 2013:



Exercise Price Warrants
Outstanding
(Shares) Warrants
Exercisable
(Shares) Expiration Date
$ 0.056 4,000,000 4,000,000 June 25, 2014



Based on a fair market value of $0.03 per share on December 31, 2013, there were no exercisable in-the-money stock warrants as of December 31, 2013.



Stock Option and Stock Purchase Plan



The Company’s 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (the “1996 Plan”), which terminated pursuant to its terms on October 25, 2006, provided for the granting of options and rights to purchase up to an aggregate of 10,213,474 shares of the Company’s authorized but unissued common stock to qualified employees, officers, directors, consultants and other service providers. Options granted under the 1996 Plan generally vested over a three-year period, although some options granted to officers included more accelerated vesting. Options previously granted under the 1996 Plan generally expired ten years from the date of grant, but some options granted to consultants expired five years from the date of grant. Pursuant to the 1996 Plan, options are generally forfeited three months from the date of termination of an optionee’s continuous service if such termination occurs for any reason other than permanent disability or death.



On March 30, 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2006 Plan”), which subsequently was approved by the Company’s stockholders on May 10, 2006. Upon the approval of the 2006 Plan, no further options were granted under the 1996 Plan. The 2006 Plan provides for the granting of options and rights to purchase up to an aggregate of 9,863,799 shares of the Company’s authorized but unissued common stock (subject to adjustment under certain circumstances, such as stock splits, recapitalizations and reorganization) to qualified employees, officers, directors, consultants and other service providers.




F-23






Under the 2006 Plan, the Company may issue a variety of equity vehicles to provide flexibility in implementing equity awards, including incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, restricted stock grants, stock appreciation rights, stock payment awards, restricted stock units and dividend equivalents. The exercise price of stock options offered under the 2006 Plan must be at least 100% of the fair market value of the common stock on the date of grant. If the person to whom an incentive stock option is granted is a 10% stockholder of the Company on the date of grant, the exercise price per share shall not be less than 110% of the fair market value on the date of grant. Vesting and expiration provisions for options granted under the 2006 Plan are similar to those under the 1996 Plan. Pursuant to the 2006 Plan, options are generally forfeited ninety days from the date of termination of an optionee’s continuous service if such termination occurs for any reason other than permanent disability or death.



Subject to any restrictions under federal or securities laws, the Chief Executive Officer may award stock options to new non-executive officer employees and consultants, with a market value at the time of hire equivalent to up to 100% of the employee’s annual salary or the consultant’s anticipated annual consulting fees. The Chief Executive Officer shall have the discretion to increase or decrease such awards based on market and recruiting factors subject to a limit per person in each case of options to purchase 50,000 shares. Additionally, on an annual basis, the Chief Executive Officer may grant continuing employees and consultants, based upon performance and subject to meeting objectives, a stock option for that number of shares up to 40% of the employee’s annual salary or the consultant’s annual fees, but not to exceed 50,000 shares per person per year. Any option grant exceeding 50,000 shares per person per year requires approval by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors or the full Board of Directors. These options shall be granted with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date of issuance, have a ten-year term, vest annually over a three-year period from the dates of grant and have other terms consistent with the 2006 Plan.



On August 3, 2012, fully vested, ten-year options to purchase a total of 2,195,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.06 per share, representing the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date of issue, were granted to directors of the Company for past services. The fair value of these options, as calculated pursuant to the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, was determined to be $131,700 ($0.06 per share), which was charged to general and administrative expense on that date.



In July and August 2012, pursuant to severance agreements amended in connection with the merger transaction with Pier, fully-vested, ten-year options to purchase a total of 5,166,668 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.06 per share, which was in excess of the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the closing date of the merger, were granted to two of the Company’s former executive officers. The fair value of these options, as calculated pursuant to the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, was determined to be $310,000 ($0.06 per share), which was charged to merger-related costs on the dates of grant.



The Company is no longer making awards under the 2006 Plan and has adopted, with stockholder approval, the 2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan (see Note 12).



As of December 31, 2013, options to purchase an aggregate of 5,166,668 shares of common stock were exercisable under the Company’s stock option plans. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company did not issue any options to purchase shares of common stock.




F-24






A summary of stock option activity for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 is presented below.



Number
of
Shares Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price Weighted
Average
Remaining Contractual
Life
(in Years)
Options outstanding at December 31, 2011 $ 10,800,856 $ 1.380
Granted 7,361,668 0.060
Expired (992,500 ) 0.899
Forfeited (6,415,869 ) 1.314
Options outstanding at December 31, 2012 10,754,155 0.557
Granted — —
Expired — —
Forfeited (5,587,487 ) 1.018
Options outstanding at December 31, 2013 5,166,668 $ 0.060 8.61

Options exercisable at December 31, 2012 10,754,155 $ 0.557
Options exercisable at December 31, 2013 5,166,668 $ 0.060 8.61



As all stock options outstanding were fully vested at December 31, 2013, there is no compensation expense to be recognized in future periods with respect to such options.



The exercise prices of common stock options outstanding and exercisable were as follows at December 31, 2013:



Exercise
Price Options
Outstanding
(Shares) Options
Exercisable
(Shares) Expiration
Date
$ 0.060 3,083,334 3,083,334 July 17, 2022
$ 0.060 2,083,334 2,083,334 August 10, 2022

5,166,668 5,166,668



Based on a fair market value of $0.03 per share on December 31, 2013, there were no exercisable in-the-money stock options as of December 31, 2013.



For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, stock-based compensation costs included in the statements of operations consisted of general and administrative expenses of $0 and $170,805, respectively, and research and development expenses of $0 and $8,513, respectively.



As of December 31, 2013, the Company had reserved an aggregate of 3,679 shares for issuance upon conversion of the Series B Preferred; 4,000,000 shares for issuance upon exercise of warrants; 5,166,668 shares for issuance upon exercise of outstanding stock options; 9,863,799 shares for issuance upon exercise of stock options available for future grant pursuant to the 2006 Plan; and 2,111,445 shares issuable as contingent shares pursuant to the Pier merger (see Note 3). The Company expects to satisfy such stock obligations through the issuance of authorized but unissued shares of common stock.



Stockholder Rights Plan



On February 5, 2002, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the adoption of a Stockholder Rights Plan to protect stockholder interests against takeover strategies that may not provide maximum stockholder value. A dividend of one Right (each, a “Right” and, collectively, the “Rights”) for each outstanding share of the Company’s common stock was distributed to stockholders of record on February 15, 2002. The Stockholder Rights Plan terminated and the related Rights expired by their terms on February 15, 2012.




F-25






9. Related Party Transactions



In 2012, Aurora Capital LLC provided investment banking services to Pier, a company that the Company acquired by merger on August 10, 2012 (see Note 3). For those services, on August 10, 2012 Aurora Capital LLC received 2,971,792 shares of the Company’s common stock in payment of its fee of $194,950. Both Arnold Lippa and Jeff Margolis, officers and directors of the Company since March 22, 2013, have indirect ownership interests in Aurora Capital LLC through interests held in its members.



On March 31, 2013, the Company accrued $85,000 as reimbursement for legal fees incurred by Aurora Capital LLC in conjunction with the removal of the Company’s prior Board of Directors on March 22, 2013 (see Note 2).



During the three months ended September 30, 2013, the Company received a payment from Samyang, a related party (see Note 5), for $4,728, representing short-swing trading profits of $11,500, less legal costs of $6,772, which was recorded as a credit to additional paid-in capital.



See Notes 5 and 8 for a description of transactions with Samyang, a significant stockholder of the Company and a lender to the Company.



10. Income Taxes



Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Significant components of the Company’s deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 are summarized below.



December 31,
2013 2012
Capitalized research and development costs $ 148,000 $ 317,000
Research and development credits 3,239,000 3,239,000
Stock-based compensation 126,000 980,000
Net operating loss carryforwards 35,450,000 35,072,000
Accrued compensation 603,000 361,000
Accrued interest due to related party 89,000 69,000
Other, net 38,000 42,000
Total deferred tax assets 39,693,000 40,080,000
Valuation allowance (39,693,000 ) (40,080,000 )
Net deferred tax assets $ — $ —



In assessing the potential realization of deferred tax assets, management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the Company attaining future taxable income during the periods in which those temporary differences become deductible. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, management was unable to determine that it was more likely than not that the Company’s deferred tax assets will be realized, and has therefore recorded an appropriate valuation allowance against deferred tax assets at such dates.



No federal tax provision has been provided for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 due to the losses incurred during such periods. The Company’s effective tax rate is different from the federal statutory rate of 35% due primarily to net losses that receive no tax benefit as a result of a valuation allowance recorded for such losses.




F-26






Reconciled below is the difference between the income tax rate computed by applying the U.S. federal statutory rate and the effective tax rate for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.



Years Ended December 31,
2013 2012

U. S. federal statutory tax rate (35.0 )% (35.0 )%
Non-deductible merger-related costs — % 1.8 %
Non-deductible amortization and loss from termination of license — % 15.8 %
Adjustment to deferred tax asset for expirations and forfeitures related to stock-based compensation 61.0 % 17.2 %
Other adjustments to deferred tax asset — % (0.3 )%
Change in valuation allowance (26.3 )% 0.1 %
Other 0.3 % 0.4 %
Effective tax rate 0.0 % 0.0 %



As of December 31, 2013, the Company had federal and California tax net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $86,228,000 and $91,940,000, respectively. The difference between the federal and California tax loss carryforwards was primarily attributable to the capitalization of research and development expenses for California franchise tax purposes. The federal and California net operating loss carryforwards will expire at various dates from 2013 through 2033. The Company also had federal and California research and development tax credit carryforwards that totaled approximately $2,093,000 and $1,146,000, respectively, at December 31, 2013. The federal research and development tax credit carryforwards will expire at various dates from 2013 through 2031. The California research and development tax credit carryforward does not expire and will carryforward indefinitely until utilized.



While the Company has not performed a formal analysis of the availability of its net operating loss carryforwards under Internal Revenue Code Sections 382 and 383, management expects that the Company’s ability to use its net operating loss carryforwards will be limited in future periods.



11. Commitments and Contingencies



Pending or Threatened Legal Actions and Claims



The Company is periodically the subject of various pending and threatened legal actions and claims. In the opinion of management of the Company, adequate provision has been made in the Company’s financial statements with respect to such matters.



The Company’s former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer has asserted certain claims for compensation against the Company through the date of her resignation from the Company on October 26, 2012. The Company is engaged in negotiations with this former officer to resolve this matter in its entirety to avoid litigation, but there can be no assurances that the Company will be successful in such endeavor. To the extent that the former officer files a formal complaint or other legal claim against the Company, the Company intends to defend itself through the appropriate legal process and will consider all available options, including filing legal counter-claims. In the opinion of management, the Company has made adequate provision for any liability relating to this matter in its financial statements at December 31, 2013 and 2012.



A former director of the Company, who joined the Company’s Board of Directors on August 10, 2012 in conjunction with the Pier transaction and who resigned from the Company’s Board of Directors on September 28, 2012, has asserted certain claims for consulting compensation against the Company. In the opinion of management, the Company has made adequate provision for any liability relating to this matter in its financial statements at December 31, 2013 and 2012.




F-27






Lease Commitment



On May 14, 2012, the Company executed a three-year lease for approximately 5,000 square feet of office space beginning June 1, 2012 at a monthly rate of $9,204. During the three months ended December 31, 2013, the Company substantially vacated its operating facility prior to the scheduled termination of the lease agreement in May 2015. In May 2013, a settlement with the landlord was reached and the lease was terminated (see Note 6).



University of California, Irvine License Agreements



The Company entered into a series of license agreements in 1993 and 1998 with UCI that granted the Company proprietary rights to certain chemical compounds that acted as ampakines and their therapeutic uses. These agreements granted the Company, among other provisions, exclusive rights: (i) to practice certain patents and patent applications, as defined in the license agreement, that were then held by UCI; (ii) to identify, develop, make, have made, import, export, lease, sell, have sold or offer for sale any related licensed products; and (iii) to grant sub-licenses of the rights granted in the license agreements, subject to the provisions of the license agreements. The Company was required, among other terms and conditions, to pay UCI a license fee, royalties, patent costs and certain additional payments.



Under such license agreements, the Company was required to make minimum annual royalty payments of approximately $70,000. The Company was also required to spend a minimum of $250,000 per year to advance the ampakine compounds until the Company began to market an ampakine compound. The commercialization provisions in the agreements with UCI required the Company to file for regulatory approval of an ampakine compound before October 2012. In March 2011, UCI agreed to extend the required date for filing regulatory approval of an ampakine compound to October 2015. At December 31, 2012, the Company was not in compliance with its minimum annual payment obligations and believed that this default constituted a termination of the license agreements.



On April 15, 2013, the Company received a letter from UCI indicating that the license agreements between UCI and the Company had been terminated due to the Company’s failure to make certain payments required to maintain the agreements. Since the patents covered in these license agreements had begun to expire and the therapeutic uses described in these patents were no longer germane to the Company’s new focus on respiratory disorders, the loss of these license agreements is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s current drug development programs. In the opinion of management, the Company has made adequate provision for any liability relating to this matter in its consolidated financial statements at December 31, 2013 [and 2012].



University of Alberta License Agreement



On May 8, 2007, the Company entered into a license agreement, as amended, with the University of Alberta granting the Company exclusive rights to practice patents held by the University of Alberta claiming the use of ampakines for the treatment of various respiratory disorders. The Company agreed to pay the University of Alberta a licensing fee and a patent issuance fee, which were paid, and prospective payments consisting of a royalty on net sales, sublicense fee payments, maintenance payments and milestone payments. The prospective maintenance payments commence on the enrollment of the first patient into the first Phase 2B clinical trial and increase upon the successful completion of the Phase 2B clinical trial. As the Company does not at this time anticipate scheduling a Phase 2B clinical trial, no maintenance payments are currently due and payable to the University of Alberta. In addition, no other prospective payments are currently due and payable to the University of Alberta.



12. Subsequent Events



Series G Preferred Stock Placement



On March 14, 2014, the Company filed a Certificate of Designation, Preferences, Rights and Limitations, (the “Certificate of Designation”) of its Series G Preferred Stock (“Series G Preferred Stock”) with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware to amend the Company’s certificate of incorporation. The number of shares designated as Series G Preferred Stock is 1,700 (which shall not be subject to increase without the written consent of a majority of the holders of the Series G Preferred Stock or as otherwise set forth in the Certificate of Designation). The Stated Value of each share of Series G Preferred Stock is $1,000.




F-28






The Company shall pay a stated dividend on the Series G Preferred Stock at a rate per share (as a percentage of the Stated Value per share) of 1.5% per annum, payable quarterly within 15 calendar days of the end of each fiscal quarter of the Company, in duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable shares of Series G Preferred Stock, which may include fractional shares of Series G Preferred Stock.



The Series G Preferred Stock shall be convertible, beginning 60 days after the last share of Series G Preferred Stock is issued in the Private Placement, at the option of the holder, into common stock at the applicable conversion price, at a rate determined by dividing the Stated Value of the shares of Series G Preferred Stock to be converted by the conversion price, subject to adjustments for stock dividends, splits, combinations and similar events as described in the form of Certificate of Designation. The stated value of the Series G Preferred Stock is $1,000 per share, and the fixed conversion price is $0.0033. Accordingly, at the option of the holder, each share of Series G Preferred Stock is convertible commencing on the date that is 60 calendar days after the date on which the last share of Series G Preferred Stock is issued pursuant to a Purchase Agreement, into 303,030.3 shares of common stock. In addition, the Company has the right to require the holders of the Series G Preferred Stock to convert such shares into common stock under certain enumerated circumstances as set forth in the Certificate of Designation.



Upon either (i) a Qualified Public Offering (as defined in the Certificate of Designation) or (ii) the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the Stated Value of the Series G Preferred Stock issued and outstanding, all outstanding shares of Series G Preferred Stock, plus all accrued or declared, but unpaid, dividends thereon, shall mandatorily be converted into such number of shares of common stock determined by dividing the Stated Value of such Series G Preferred Stock (together with the amount of any accrued or declared, but unpaid, dividends thereon) by the Conversion Price (as defined in the Certificate of Designation). If not earlier converted, the Series G Preferred Stock shall be redeemed by conversion on the two year anniversary of the date the last share of Series G Preferred Stock is issued in the Private Placement at the Conversion Price.



Except as described in the Certificate of Designation, holders of the Series G Preferred Stock will vote together with holders of the Company common stock on all matters, on an as-converted to common stock basis, and not as a separate class or series (subject to limited exceptions).



In the event of any liquidation or winding up of the Company prior to and in preference to any Junior Securities (including common stock), the holders of the Series G Preferred Stock will be entitled to receive in preference to the holders of the Company common stock a per share amount equal to the Stated Value, plus any accrued and unpaid dividends thereon.



On March 18, 2014, the Company entered into Securities Purchase Agreements with various accredited investors (the “Initial Purchasers”), pursuant to which the Company sold an aggregate of 753.22 shares of its Series G Preferred Stock for a purchase price of $1,000 per share, or an aggregate purchase price of $753,220. This financing represents the initial closing on a private placement of up to $1,500,000 (the “Private Placement”). The Initial Purchasers in this tranche of the Private Placement consisted of (i) Arnold S. Lippa, the Company’s Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Company’s Board of Directors, who invested $250,000 for 250 shares of Series G Preferred Stock, and (ii) new, non-affiliated, accredited investors. Neither the Series G Preferred Stock nor the underlying shares of common stock have any registration rights.



The placement agents and selected dealers in connection with the initial tranche of the Private Placement received cash fees totaling $3,955 as compensation and warrants totaling approximately 5.6365% of the shares of common stock into which the Series G Preferred Stock may convert, exercisable for five years at a fixed price of $0.00396, which is 120% of the conversion price at which the Series G Preferred Stock may convert into the Company’s common stock. Aurora Capital LLC was one of the placement agents.



On April 17, 2014, the Company entered into Securities Purchase Agreements with various accredited investors (together with the Initial Purchasers, the “Purchasers”), pursuant to which the Company sold an aggregate of 175.28 shares of its Series G Preferred Stock, for a purchase price of $1,000 per share, or an aggregate purchase price of $175,280. This was the second and final closing on the Private Placement. The Purchasers in the second and final tranche of the Private Placement consisted of new, non-affiliated, accredited investors and non-management investors who had also invested in the first closing. One of the investors in this second and final closing was an affiliate of an associated person of Aurora Capital LLC. Neither the Series G Preferred Stock nor the underlying shares of common stock have any registration rights.




F-29






The placement agents and selected dealers in connection with the second tranche of the Private Placement received cash fees of $3,465 as compensation and warrants totaling approximately 12% of the shares of common stock into which the Series G Preferred Stock may convert, exercisable for five years at a fixed price of $0.00396, which is 120% of the conversion price at which the Series G Preferred Stock may convert into the Company’s common stock. Aurora Capital LLC was one of the placement agents.



The stated value of the Series G Preferred Stock is $1,000 per share, and the fixed conversion price is $0.0033. Accordingly, at the option of the holder, each share of Series G Preferred Stock is convertible commencing on the date that is sixty calendar days after the date on which the last share of Series G Preferred Stock is issued pursuant to a Purchase Agreement, into 303,030.3 shares of common stock. The aggregate of 928.5 shares of Series G Preferred Stock sold in the Private Placement are convertible into a total of 281,363,634 shares of common stock. The Company had 144,041,556 shares of common stock, plus an additional 57,000,000 shares of common stock issued to management on April 14, 2014, issued and outstanding immediately prior to the closing of the Private Placement of Series G Preferred Stock described herein.



The warrants that the placement agents and selected dealers received in connection with the Private Placement represent the right to acquire 19,251,271 shares of common stock exercisable for five years at a fixed price of $0.00396, which is 120% of the conversion price at which the Series G Preferred Stock may convert into the Company’s common stock.



Purchasers in the Private Placement of the Series G Preferred Stock have executed written consents in favor of (i) approving and adopting an amendment to the Company’s certificate of incorporation that increases the number of authorized shares of the Company to 1,405,000,000, 1,400,000,000 of which are shares of common stock and 5,000,000 of which are shares of preferred stock, and (ii) approving and adopting the Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan.



The shares of Series G Preferred Stock were offered and sold without registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), in reliance on the exemptions provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act as provided in Rule 506(b) of Regulation D promulgated thereunder. The shares of Series G Preferred Stock and the Company’s common stock issuable upon conversion of the shares of Series G Preferred Stock have not been registered under the Securities Act or any other applicable securities laws, and unless so registered, may not be offered or sold in the United States except pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act.



Convertible Note and Warrant Financing



On November 5, 2014, the Company entered into a Convertible Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with various accredited, non-affiliated investors (each, a “Purchaser”), pursuant to which the Company sold an aggregate principal amount of $238,500 of its (i) 10% Convertible Notes due September 15, 2015 (each a “Note”, and together, the “Notes”) and (ii) Warrants to purchase shares of common stock (the “Warrants”) as described below. This financing represents the initial closing on a private placement of up to $1,000,000, and the Company may close on one or more additional tranches of this private placement in the near future. Unless otherwise provided for in the Notes, the outstanding principal balance of each Note and all accrued and unpaid interest is due and payable in full on September 15, 2015. At any time, each Purchaser may elect, at its option and in its sole discretion, to convert the outstanding principal amount into a fixed number of shares of the Company’s common stock equal to the quotient obtained by dividing the outstanding principal amount by $0.035 (an aggregate of 6,814,286 shares), plus any accrued and unpaid interest, which is treated in the same manner as the outstanding principal amount. In the case of a Qualified Financing (as defined in the Purchase Agreement), the outstanding principal amount and accrued and unpaid interest under the Notes automatically convert into common stock at a common stock equivalent price of $0.035. In the case of an Acquisition (as defined in the Purchase Agreement), the Company may elect to either: (i) convert the outstanding principal amount and all accrued and unpaid interest under the Notes into shares of common stock or (ii) accelerate the maturity date of the Notes to the date of closing of the Acquisition. Each Warrant to purchase shares of common stock shall be exercisable into a fixed number of shares of common stock of the Company calculated as each Purchaser’s investment amount divided by $0.035 (an aggregate of 6,814,286 shares for the initial closing). The Warrants do not have any cashless exercise provisions and are exercisable through September 15, 2015 at a fixed price of $0.035 per share. The shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Notes and exercise of the Warrants are not subject to any registration rights.




F-30






On December 9, 2014, a second closing for $46,000 was conducted under this financing. On December 31, 2014, a third closing for $85,000 was conducted under this financing.



Placement agent fees, brokerage commissions, finder’s fees and similar payments were made in the form of cash and warrants to qualified referral sources in connection with the sale of the Notes and Warrants. In connection with the initial closing, fees of $16,695 were paid in cash, based on 7% of the aggregate principal amount of the Notes issued to such referral sources, and the fees paid in warrants (the “Placement Agent Warrants”) consisted of 477,000 warrants, reflecting warrants for that number of shares equal to 7% of the number of shares of common stock into which the corresponding Notes are convertible. In connection with the second closing, fees of $700 were paid in cash and 20,000 Placement Agent Warrants were issued. In connection with the third closing, fees of $3,500 were paid in cash and 100,000 Placement Agent Warrants were issued. The Placement Agent Warrants have cashless exercise provisions and are exercisable through September 15, 2015 at a fixed price of $0.035 per share. Aurora Capital LLC is acting as the placement agent for this financing.



The Notes and Warrants were offered and sold without registration under the Securities Act in reliance on the exemptions provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act as provided in Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder. The Notes and Warrants and the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Notes and exercise of the Warrants have not been registered under the Securities Act or any other applicable securities laws, and unless so registered, may not be offered or sold in the United States except pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act.



Conversion of Series G Preferred Stock



Effective December 16, 2014, 66.68888 shares of Series G Preferred Stock, including 0.68888 dividend shares, were converted into 20,208,752 shares of common stock on a cashless basis.



Exercise of Placement Agent and Selected Dealer Warrants



Effective August 25, 2014, a warrant issued on April 17, 2014 in conjunction with the Private Placement of the Series G Preferred Stock, representing the right to acquire a total of 2,112,879 shares of common stock, was exercised in full on a cashless basis, resulting in the net issuance of 1,942,124 shares of common stock.



Effective September 5, 2014, a warrant issued on April 17, 2014 in conjunction with the Private Placement of the Series G Preferred Stock, representing the right to acquire a total of 2,412,878 shares of common stock, was exercised in part (50%) on a cashless basis, resulting in the net issuance of 1,126,814 shares of common stock.



Effective September 26, 2014, a warrant issued on April 17, 2014 in conjunction with the Private Placement of the Series G Preferred Stock, representing the right to acquire a total of 1,400,000 shares of common stock, was exercised in full on a cashless basis, resulting in the net issuance of 1,326,080 shares of common stock.



Increase in Authorized Common Shares



The holders of the Series G Preferred Stock approved and adopted an amendment to increase the number of authorized shares of the Company to 1,405,000,000, 1,400,000,000 of which are shares of common stock and 5,000,000 of which are shares of preferred stock. The Company also sought, and on April 17, 2014 obtained by written consent, sufficient votes of the holders of its common stock, voting as a separate class, to effect the amendment. A certificate of Amendment to the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to effect the increase in the authorized shares was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on April 17, 2014.




F-31






2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan



In connection with the Private Placement, effective March 18, 2014, the stockholders of the Company holding a majority of the votes to be cast on the issue approved the adoption of the Company’s 2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which had been previously adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company, subject to stockholder approval. The Plan permits the grant of options and restricted stock with respect to up to 105,633,002 shares of common stock, in addition to stock appreciation rights and phantom stock, to directors, officers, employees, consultants and other service providers of the Company.



Awards to Officers and Directors as Compensation



On April 14, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Company awarded a total of 57,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company, including awards of 15,000,000 shares to each of the Company’s three executive officers, who were also the directors of the Company, and 4,000,000 shares and 8,000,000 shares to two other individuals. The individual who received the 8,000,000 shares was an associated person of Aurora Capital LLC. These awards were made to those individuals on that date as compensation for services rendered through March 31, 2014. None of the officers or directors of the Company had earned or received any cash compensation from the Company since joining the Company in March and April 2013, and there were no prior compensation arrangements or agreements with such individuals. As the initial closing of the Series G Preferred Stock was completed on March 18, 2014, and such closing represented approximately 81% of the total amount of such financing, the Company’s Board of Directors determined that it was appropriate at that time to begin consideration with respect to compensation for such officers for the period since they joined the Company in March and April 2013 through March 31, 2014. Such deliberations were concluded on April 14, 2014 with the issuance of the aforementioned stock awards. Accordingly, as a result of these factors, the fair value of these stock awards will be charged to operations as stock-based compensation effective as of March 18, 2014.



On July 17, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Company awarded stock options to purchase a total of 15,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company, consisting of options for 5,000,000 shares to each of the Company’s three executive officers, who are also directors of the Company. The stock options were awarded as compensation for those individuals through December 31, 2014. The awarded stock options vest in three equal installments on July 17, 2014 (at issuance), September 30, 2014, and December 31, 2014, and expire on July 17, 2019. The exercise price of the stock options of $0.05 per share was in excess of the closing market price of a share of the Company’s common stock on the date of issuance. The Company believes and intends that a portion of the stock options awarded qualify as incentive stock options under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The issuance of incentive stock awards is restricted as to amount as set forth in the Plan, and the form of award of the awarded stock options reflects this intention and the limits under the Plan.



In connection with the appointment of James Sapirstein and Kathryn MacFarlane as directors of the Company on September 3, 2014, the Board of Directors awarded an aggregate of 4,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company to the new directors, consisting of 2,000,000 shares to each new director, vesting 50% upon appointment to the Board of Directors, 25% on September 30, 2014 and 25% on December 31, 2014.



All of these awards were made under the Company’s 2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan.



Debt Settlements



During the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company executed settlement agreements with four former executives that resulted in the settlement of potential claims totaling approximately $1,336,000 for a total of approximately $118,000 in cash, plus the issuance of options to purchase 4,300,000 shares of common stock exercisable at $0.04 per share for periods ranging from five to ten years. In addition to other provisions, the settlement agreements included mutual releases.




F-32






During the three months ended June 30, 2014, the Company also executed settlement agreements with certain former service providers that resulted in the settlement of potential claims totaling approximately $591,000 for a cost of approximately $155,000 in cash, plus the issuance of options to purchase 1,250,000 shares of common stock exercisable at $0.04 per share for a period of five years. In addition to other provisions, the settlement agreements included mutual releases.



The aforementioned agreements resulted in the settlement of potential claims totaling approximately $1,927,000 for a cost of approximately $273,000 in cash, plus the issuance of options to purchase 5,550,000 shares of common stock exercisable at $0.04 per share for periods ranging from five to ten years. The Company continues to explore ways to reduce its indebtedness, and might in the future enter additional settlements of potential claims, including, without limitation, those by other former executives or third party creditors



University of Illinois 2014 Exclusive License Agreement



On June 27, 2014, the Company entered into an Exclusive License Agreement (the “2014 License Agreement”) with the University of Illinois, the material terms of which were similar to the License Agreement between the parties that had been previously terminated on March 21, 2013. The 2014 License Agreement became effective on September 18, 2014, upon the completion of certain conditions set forth in the 2014 License Agreement, including (i) the payment by the Company of a $25,000 licensing fee, (ii) the payment by the Company of certain outstanding patent costs (not to exceed $16,000), and (iii) the assignment to the University of Illinois of certain rights the Company holds in certain patent applications. In exchange for certain milestone and royalty payments, the 2014 License Agreement granted the Company (i) exclusive rights to several issued and pending patents in numerous jurisdictions and (ii) the non-exclusive right to certain technical information that is generated by the University of Illinois in connection with certain clinical trials as specified in the 2014 License Agreement, all of which relate to the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of sleep related breathing disorders. The Company is developing dronabinol (?9-tetrahydrocannabinol), a cannabinoid, for the treatment of OSA, the most common form of sleep apnea.



Settlement with the Institute for the Study of Aging



On September 2, 2014, the Company entered into a Release Agreement (the “Release Agreement”) with the Institute for the Study of Aging (the “Institute”) to settle an outstanding promissory note, dated May 30, 2000, issued by the Company in favor of the Institute for an initial principal amount of $247,300 (the “Note”), which was made pursuant to an Agreement to Accept Conditions of Loan Support, also dated May 30, 2000 (the “Loan Support Agreement”). At August 31, 2014, the amount owed under the Note, including accrued interest was approximately $337,000. Pursuant to the terms of the Release Agreement, the Institute received 1,000,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock as settlement of all obligations of the Company under the Note and the Loan Support Agreement. Such common shares are “restricted securities” as defined under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and are not subject to any registration rights. The Release Agreement also includes a mutual release between the Company and the Institute, releasing each party from all claims up until the date of the Release Agreement.



Appointment of New Directors



On September 3, 2014, James Sapirstein and Kathryn MacFarlane were appointed as new directors of the Company. These two new directors are considered to be independent directors. In connection with those appointments and in conformity with its corporate policy of indemnifying all directors and officers, the Board of Directors also agreed at that time to enter into indemnification agreements for all directors and officers of the Company, namely, each existing director of the Company, Arnold S. Lippa, Jeff E. Margolis, and Robert N. Weingarten, each of whom is also an officer of the Company, and with the two new directors. Pursuant to the indemnity agreements, the Company will indemnify each director or officer when such individual is a party or threatened to become a party, by virtue of being a director or officer of the Company, from the costs and expenses, fines and certain other amounts in connection with certain proceedings, including proceedings in the right of the Company, so long as such director or officer acted in good faith and reasonably believed that such actions were not in the best interests of the Company.




F-33






Appointment of Chairman of the Company’s Scientific Advisory Board



On September 18, 2014, John Greer, Ph.D. was appointed to the position of Chairman of the Company’s Scientific Advisory Board, which is currently being formed. Dr. Greer is the Director of the Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute at the University of Alberta. He holds two grants regarding research into neuromuscular control of breathing and is the inventor on the use patents licensed by the Company with respect to ampakines. Dr. Greer is expected to assist the Company in forming the rest of its Scientific Advisory Board.



In connection with the appointment of Dr. Greer as Chairman of the Company’s Scientific Advisory Board on September 18, 2014, the Board of Directors awarded 2,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company to Dr. Greer (through his wholly-owned consulting company, Progress Scientific, Inc.), vesting 25% upon appointment, 25% on September 30, 2014, 25% on December 31, 2014, and 25% on March 31, 2015. This award was made under the Company’s 2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan.



National Institute on Drug Abuse Grant



On September 18, 2014, the Company entered into a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a division of the National Institutes of Health. The funding under the contract is a Phase 1 award granted under the Small Business Innovation Research Funding Award Program. The purpose of the project is to determine the most useful injectable route of administration for CX1942, the Company’s proprietary, soluble ampakine molecule, a potential rescue medication for drug-induced respiratory depression and lethality. The grant is entitled “Novel Treatment of Drug-Induced Respiratory Depression” and is valued at $148,583, which is to be paid in increments over the expected six-month duration of the study which commenced in October 2014. The study will measure the potency, latency to onset and duration of action of CX1942 administered to rats. The Company anticipates that the data obtained from the study will be used to finalize preclinical studies in preparation for initiating Phase 1 clinical studies. The preclinical studies will be performed in collaboration with Dr. David Fuller of the University of Florida and Dr. John Greer of the University of Alberta.



Appointment of Senior Vice President of Research and Development



Richard Purcell was appointed as the Company’s Senior Vice President of Research and Development effective October 15, 2014. Mr. Purcell’s commitment to the Company is for 30 hours per week in order to allow him to comply with his previous professional commitments. Mr. Purcell provides his services to the Company through his consulting firm, DNA Healthlink, Inc., with which the Company has contracted for his services.




F-34






Signatures



Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

Date: January 5, 2015
By:

/s/ Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D.

Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer



We, the undersigned directors and officers of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., do hereby constitute and appoint each of Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D., Jeff E. Margolis. and Robert N. Weingarten as our true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with power of substitution, to do any and all acts and things in our name and behalf in our capacities as directors and officers and to execute any and all instruments for us and in our names in the capacities indicated below, which said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or either of them, may deem necessary or advisable to enable said corporation to comply with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations and requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including specifically but without limitation, power and authority to sign for us or any of us in our names in the capacities indicated below, any and all amendments (including post-effective amendments) hereto; and we do hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



In accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.



Signature Title Date


/s/ Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D.
President, Chief Executive Officer January 5, 2015
Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D. (Principal Executive Officer), Director and Chairman of the Board


/s/ Robert N. Weingarten
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer January 5, 2015
Robert N. Weingarten (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) and Director


/s/ Jeff E. Margolis
Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary and Director January 5, 2015
Jeff E. Margolis


/s/ James E. Sapirstein
Director January 5, 2015
James E. Sapirstein


/s/ Kathryn MacFarlane
Director January 5, 2015
Kathryn MacFarlane




S-1






Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Annual Report on Form 10-K

Year Ended December 31, 2013

Exhibit Index



Exhibit Number Description

2.1 Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 10, 2012, by and among Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pier Acquisition Corp. and Pier Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 16, 2012.

3.1 Second Restated Certificate of Incorporation dated May 19, 2010, incorporated by reference to the same numbered Exhibit to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 24, 2010.

3.2 By-Laws of the Company, as adopted March 4, 1987, and amended on October 8, 1996, incorporated by reference to the same numbered Exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed October 15, 1996.

3.3 Certificate of Designation, Preferences, Rights and Limitations of Series G 1.5% Convertible Preferred Stock, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 24, 2014.

3.4 Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 18, 2014.

3.5 Certificate of Amendment of By-Laws of the Company, incorporated by reference to the same numbered Exhibit to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed November 15, 2007.

4.3 Placement Agency Agreement, dated August 24, 2007, by and between Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and JMP Securities LLC and Rodman and Renshaw, LLC, Form of Subscription Agreement and Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant issued by Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibits 1.1, 1.2 and 4.1, respectively, to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed August 27, 2007.

4.4 Placement Agency Agreement, dated April 13, 2009, by and between the Company and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, Form of Securities Purchase Agreement and Form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant issued by the Company, incorporated by reference to Exhibits 1.1, 1.2 and 4.1, respectively, to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed April 17, 2009.

10.1 License Agreement dated March 27, 1991 between the Company and the Regents of the University of California, incorporated by reference to the same numbered Exhibit to the Company’s Amendment on Form 8 filed November 27, 1991 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed September 30, 1991. (Portions of this Exhibit are omitted and were filed separately with the Secretary of the Commission pursuant to the Company’s application requesting confidential treatment under Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

10.2 License Agreement dated June 25, 1993, as amended, between the Company and the Regents of the University of California, incorporated by reference to the same numbered Exhibit to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed February 12, 2004. (Portions of this exhibit are omitted and were filed separately with the Secretary of the Commission pursuant to the Company’s application requesting confidential treatment under Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).





S-2






10.3 Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to the same numbered Exhibit to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as filed on November 14, 2002.*

10.4 Employment agreement dated May 17, 2000, between the Company and James H. Coleman, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.69 to the Company’s Report on Form 10-QSB filed February 12, 2001.*

10.5 Severance agreement dated October 26, 2000, between the Company and Maria S. Messinger, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.70 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB filed February 12, 2001.*

10.6 Employment agreement dated October 29, 2002 between the Company and Roger G. Stoll, Ph.D., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.74 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as filed on November 14, 2002.*

10.7 First Amendment dated August 8, 2003 to the employment agreement between the Company and Roger G. Stoll, Ph.D., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.76 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed September 19, 2003.*

10.8 Form of Incentive/Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement under the Company’s Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.80 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on September 27, 2004.*

10.9 Form of Restricted Stock Award under the Company’s Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.81 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on September 27, 2004.*

10.10 Amendment dated January 1, 2004 to the employment agreement dated May 17, 2000 between the Company and James H. Coleman, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.82 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on September 27, 2004.*

10.11 Second Amendment dated November 10, 2004 to the employment agreement dated October 29, 2002 between the Company and Roger G. Stoll, Ph.D., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.86 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on November 15, 2004.*

10.12 Form of Notice of Grant of Stock Options and Stock Option Agreement under the Company’s Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.88 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed March 21, 2005.*

10.13 Stock Ownership Policy for the Company’s Directors and Executive Officers as adopted by the Company’s Board of Directors on December 16, 2004, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.89 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed March 21, 2005.*

10.14 Third Amendment dated August 13, 2005 to the employment agreement dated October 29, 2002 between the Company and Roger G. Stoll, Ph.D, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed August 17, 2005.*

10.15 Employment letter of agreement dated January 9, 2006 between the Company and Mark Varney, Ph.D., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.92 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed March 16, 2006.*

10.16 Non-qualified Stock Option Agreement dated January 30, 2006 between the Company and Mark Varney, Ph.D., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.93 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed May 9, 2006.*





S-3






10.17 Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.94 to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed May 11, 2006.*

10.18 Form of Notice of Grant of Stock Options and Stock Option Agreement under the Company’s 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.96 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed August 8, 2006.*

10.19 Form of Incentive/Non-qualified Stock Option Agreement under the Company’s 2006 Stock Plan, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.97 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed August 8, 2006.*

10.20 Negative Equity Agreement dated February 1, 2007 between the Company and Mark A. Varney, Ph.D., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.100 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed May 10, 2007.*

10.21 Amendment No. 1 to the Company’s 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.101 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 15, 2007.*

10.22 Amendment to the Exclusive License Agreement between the Company and The Regents of the University of California, dated as of June 1, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.102 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed June 7, 2007.

10.23 Patent License Agreement between the Company and the University of Alberta, dated as of May 9, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.105 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed March 17, 2008. (Portions of this Exhibit are omitted and were filed separately with the Secretary of the Commission pursuant to the Company’s application requesting confidential treatment under Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

10.24 Severance Agreement dated May 2, 2008, between the Company and Steven A. Johnson, Ph.D., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.107 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed May 8, 2008.*

10.25 Fourth Amendment, dated July 11, 2008, to the employment agreement dated October 29, 2002 between the Company and Roger G. Stoll, Ph.D., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.109 to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed July 17, 2008.*

10.26 Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement, dated as of December 22, 2008, between the Company and James H. Coleman, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.110 to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed December 23, 2008.*

10.27 Amendment No. 1 Severance Agreement, dated as of December 22, 2008, between the Company and Maria S. Messinger, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.111 to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed December 23, 2008.*

10.28 Employment Agreement, dated as of December 19, 2008, between the Company and Mark A. Varney, Ph.D., incorporated by reference Exhibit 10.112 to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed December 23, 2008.*

10.29 Form of Retention Bonus Agreement, dated March 13, 2009, between the Company and each of its executive officers, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.113 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 19, 2009.*





S-4






10.30 Securities Purchase Agreement, dated July 29, 2009, by and between the Company and the Investor, including a form of Registration Rights Agreement attached as Exhibit B thereto and a form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant attached as Exhibit C thereto, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.114 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed July 30, 2009.

10.31 Amendment No. 2 to the Company’s 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, effective as of June 5, 2009, incorporated by reference Exhibit 10.115 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed August 14, 2009.*

10.32 Amendment No. 3 to the Company’s 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.118 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 24, 2010.*

10.33 Sixth Amendment dated August 12, 2010 to the employment agreement dated October 29, 2002 between the Company and Roger G. Stoll, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.119 to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed August 18, 2010.*

10.34 Amendment to the License Agreement between the Company and The Regents of the University of California, dated as of August 24, 2010, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.120 to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K filed August 30, 2010

10.35 Fifth Amendment to the License Agreement between the Company and The Regents of the University of California, dated as of March 15, 2011, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.121 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 21, 2011.

10.36 Asset Purchase Agreement dated March 15, 2011 by and between the Company and Biovail Laboratories SRL, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.122 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed May 23, 2011. (Portions of this exhibit are omitted and were filed separately with the Secretary of the Commission pursuant to the Company’s application requesting confidential treatment under Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

10.37 First Amendment dated August 2, 2011 to the Employment Agreement dated December 19, 2008 between the Company and Mark A. Varney, Ph.D., incorporated by Exhibit 10.123 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed August 8, 2011.*

10.38 Seventh Amendment dated August 2, 2011 to the Employment Agreement dated October 29, 2002 between the Company and Roger G. Stoll, Ph.D., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.124 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed August 8, 2011.*

10.39 Patent Assignment and Option and Amended and Restated Agreement dated June 10, 2011 between the Company and Les Laboratoires Servier, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.125 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed August 18, 2011. (Portions of this exhibit are omitted and were filed separately with the Secretary of the Commission pursuant to the Company’s application requesting confidential treatment under Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

10.40 Securities Purchase Agreement, dated January 15, 2010, by and between the Company and Samyang Optics Co. Ltd., including a form of Promissory Note attached as Exhibit A thereto and a form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant attached as Exhibit B thereto, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.116 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 21, 2010.

10.41 Securities Purchase Agreement, dated October 20, 2011, by and between the Company and Samyang Value Partners Co., Ltd., including a form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant attached as Exhibit C thereto, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.127 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed March 30, 2012.





S-5






10.42 Lease Agreement, dated May 17, 2012, for the Company’s facilities in Irvine, California, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.128 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on August 16, 2012.

10.43 Securities Purchase Agreement, dated June 25, 2012, by and between the Company and Samyang Optics Co. Ltd., including a form of Promissory Note attached as Exhibit A thereto, a form of Common Stock Purchase Warrant attached as Exhibit B thereto, and a form of Security Agreement attached as Exhibit C thereto, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.129 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on August 16, 2012.

10.44 Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 24, 2014.

10.45 Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2014 Equity, Equity-Linked and Equity Derivative Incentive Plan, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 24, 2014.*

10.46 Exclusive License Agreement, dated as of June 27, 2014, by and between the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, a body corporate and politic of the State of Illinois, and Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 1, 2014.

10.47 Form of Non-Statutory Stock Option Award Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 23, 2014.*

10.48 Form of Incentive Stock Option Award Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 23, 2014.*

10.49 Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 23, 2014.*

10.50 Release Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 5, 2014.

21** Subsidiaries of the Registrant.

23.1** Consent of Haskell & White LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

24** Power of Attorney (included as part of the signature page of this Annual Report on Form 10-K).

31.1** Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

31.2** Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

32** Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.

101.INS** XBRL Instance Document.

101.SCH** XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.

101.CAL** XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document†

101.DEF** XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.

101.LAB** XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.

101.PRE** XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.



* Each of these Exhibits constitutes a management contract, compensatory plan or arrangement.

** Filed herewith.




S-6











EXHIBIT 21



Subsidiaries of the Registrant



Pier Pharmaceuticals, Inc. incorporated in the state of Delaware



Cortex UK Limited, incorporated in the United Kingdom



Orchid Acquisition Corp. (inactive), incorporated in the state of Delaware



Rose Acquisition Corp. (inactive), incorporated in the state of Delaware














EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-161143, No. 333-155749, No. 333-138844, No. 333-122026, No. 333-112043, and No. 333-108948) on Form S-3 of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses and in the Registration Statements (No. 333-143374, No. 333-134490, No. 333-102042, No. 333-82477, and No. 333-20777) on Form S-8 and pertaining to the 2006 and 1996 Stock Incentive Plans, the Mark A. Varney Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement dated January 30, 2006 and the Leslie Street Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement dated March 5, 2007, the 1989 Incentive Stock Option, Nonqualified Stock Option and Stock Purchase Plan, the 1989 Special Nonqualified Stock Option and Stock Purchase Plan, and the Executive Stock Plan, of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated January 5, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in the Prospectuses, which is part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 referred to above.



/s/ HASKELL & WHITE LLP

Irvine, California
January 5, 2015














EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




Date: January 5, 2015 /s/ Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D.
Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D.
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

















EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Robert N. Weingarten, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.



Date: January 5, 2015 /s/ Robert N. Weingarten
Robert N. Weingarten
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer














EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION



Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D., President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), and Robert N. Weingarten, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: January 5, 2015 /s/ Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D.
Arnold S. Lippa, Ph.D.
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

Dated: January 5, 2015 /s/ Robert N. Weingarten
Robert N. Weingarten
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

==Nanobubbles== Awesome, First I had heard of them. EOM

heard in channel flipping that 2014 was the first year EVER to NOT record 4 CONSECUTIVE DOWN days.....oh that doesn't smell of manipulate wherever the hell you want it.....those with the biggest printing press wins, at least temporarily.

ugg, no wonder it's so hard to figure this past year out, no precedent.........bast___ds, mf___ers, can think of lots more.....

thanks for update gfp, first time everything has been up in a while on my screens, and in the case of thld, up nicely. ogxi at 2.01 is starting to look good too, ha.

still trying to buy ctix and zmh 100 jan 16 puts, but no executions on those yet.....also been trying to buy the ole standby, don't ask me why, for weeks at 10k shares each time, at .09+, and no takers.

the sugar coating on this market has stunk so long, I think we all take it to be roses, when all I see is thorns.......ha famous last words. easy does it and not the bread money.......

take care.

---$90 mil in cash ----'

do you know their current burn rate?

thanks for the heads up, will have a look.....

missed ctix yesterday at 3.95, too late.

still lowballing some zmh 100 puts, no exections,

pretty much no action lately other than those few ogxi's at 2.01, hoping for temp oversold.......

hope everyone here has a good holiday !!!

thanks gfp, got some more at 2.01, might regret that, just love them when everyone else hates em, and dumping them right before year end......

Russia's Largest Bank Warns Of A 'Full-Scale Banking Crisis'

Business Insider By Tomas Hirst 6 hours ago

Fri, Dec 19, 2014, 8:17pm EST - US Markets are closed

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russias-largest-bank-warns-full-185900610.html

Evgeny Gavrilenkov, the chief economist at the investment banking arm of Russia's largest lender Sberbank CIB, has warned that actions taken by the Russian authorities to bail out Russia's troubled banking sector could cause a "full-scale banking crisis".

"If the Central Bank of Russia continues to provide refinancing in exchange for non-marketable securities that banks can generate in almost unlimited amounts, the system will gradually ramp up to full-scale banking crisis," Gavrilenkov said.

That is, the emergency measures undertaken by the central bank to pump liquidity into the country's banking system in order to prevent widespread defaults could end up coming back to bite it. In essence he thinks that banks may prove unable to pay back loans from the central bank with interest rates now set at 17% and the collateral that they pledge in exchange for it may not be of sufficient quality to cover the losses.

He estimates that servicing over 7.3 trillion rubles of debt at current interest rates will cost the banks somewhere in the region of 1.2-1.3 trillion rubles ($20 billion) a year.

Last week Russian central bank head Elvira Nabiullina announced that "the Bank of Russia plans to consider the introduction of foreign currency lending on the security of non-marketable assets" is an effort to calm investor fears about the health of the country's banks. However, Gavrilenkov suggests that this move may increase risks in the system rather than alleviate them.

Indeed he pointed the finger for the plight of the ruble, which has fallen over 40% this year, squarely at the central bank and the Russian Finance Ministry for "pumping the economy with additional liquidity". In remarks that could be interpreted as highly critical of the government, he also said the unprecedented injections of liquidity had "coincided with a significant increase budget expenditures".

There are already clear signs of stress in the banking system. The interbank lending rate, the interest rate that banks charge to lend to each other, jumped to 27.3% yesterday, the highest rate since data started being collected in 2006 according to Bloomberg. The news suggests that confidence in the banking sector is quickly eroding and that banks are becoming concerned with the quality of their peers' balance sheets.

Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov admitted on Friday that the country's banks have insufficient capital to meet their capital adequacy ratios.

Following his remarks Russia's lower house of parliament rushed through a draft law to give the banking sector a capital boost of up to 1 trillion rubles ($16.5 billion), Reuters reports. The bill passed three draft readings in a day, a process that frequently takes weeks to complete, in a sign that the government is concerned about the financial sector.

In a note on Thursday Morgan Stanley warned that Russian banks are a major area of concern:

" In addition to margin pressures driven by CBR interest rate hikes, risk of corporate default poses an immediate threat to banks’ earnings, in our view. Cost of risk has increased significantly in corporate portfolios over the past nine months and appears likely to accelerate from here."

These worries have already led to a significant easing of standards by the central bank. On Thursday it announced that banks would no longer have to mark their assets to market and could use the average exchange rate from the previous quarter to assess how much foreign capital they require to cover foreign-currency denominated debt repayments. In essence, the central bank is allowing the banking sector to indulge in a bit of balance sheet fiction during a time of stress.

The question, however, is whether current balance sheet stress is predominantly related to the ruble exchange rate (as in, it is a liquidity problem) or whether the problems are more fundamental (a solvency problem that could lead to default and collapse). As Morgan Stanley puts it, " the Russian banking sector looks to be a risk-absorption buffer between the CBR’s policy and real economy, seemingly poised to bear the brunt of interest rate and depreciation-related adjustment".

For the Russian authorities the issue that must now be addressed is to what extent they can differentiate between banks under stress due to temporary factors and fundamentally damaged institutions. Supporting the latter could end up being an extremely costly and ultimately unrewarding enterprise for the Russian state.

gfp, ogxi reported on a phase II, selling on news, but I can't tell if good or bad, down a few cent, don't mind dollar cost averaging if goes below two, unless this is really not so go good going forward,


any thoughts?

take care......

(yesterday left my mouth open, gapping, oil continued down, no real good political news that I could see, yet best day in years. guess that = more free money, eventually will come home to roost....have enough longs that I actually had paper gain, but still have mucho downside protection.....)

Russia Crisis Hits Pimco Fund, Wipes Out Options

By Vladimir Kuznetsov, Ksenia Galouchko and Ye Xie Dec 16, 2014 6:16 PM ET

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-16/russia-crisis-hits-pimco-fund-wipes-out-options-as-ruble-sinks.html

After the single worst day in Russia’s nine-month-old financial crisis, the fallout is spreading across global markets.

Pacific Investment Management Co. (PEBIX) is facing mounting losses on its Russian bond holdings; almost every bullish ruble option contract registered in the U.S. has been made worthless; and foreign-exchange brokers in New York and London told clients they’re no longer taking ruble trades. Sergey Shvetsov, a first deputy central bank governor, expressed astonishment at the scope of the collapse during a business conference in Moscow.

“We couldn’t imagine what’s happening in our worst nightmare even a year ago,” Shvetsov, who oversees financial markets at the central bank, said yesterday. He said the bank’s surprise interest-rate increase in the middle of the night, a 6.5 percentage-point move that failed to stem the run on the ruble yesterday, was a choice between a “very bad” option and and a “very, very bad” option.

The ruble sank beyond 80 per dollar, a record low, as panic swept across Moscow’s financial markets before it rebounded after Economy Minister Alexei Ulyukayev denied speculation the government would impose restrictions to stop Russians from converting cash into dollars. The currency ended the day at 67.9 per dollar, down 5.4 percent on the day, while bonds and stocks also tumbled, sending the RTS equity gauge down the most since 2008.

Oil Collapse

The speed of the ruble’s retreat indicates policy makers are losing control of the situation as the six-month tumble in oil robs President Vladimir Putin of the hard currency he needs to sustain an economy that’s faltering under the weight of international sanctions tied to the Ukraine conflict. The selloff in Moscow is being felt in other developing nations, where investors are pulling money amid concern that Russia’s financial struggles and the tumble in oil point to a global economic slowdown.

A Bloomberg gauge tracking the top emerging-market currencies fell to the lowest since 2003 while equity benchmarks in Dubai and Saudi Arabia lost more than 7 percent each and Indonesian policy makers propped up the rupiah after it fell to a 16-year low. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said he sees the potential for contagion effect from emerging markets into developed ones that could have “some impact” on financial stability and growth.

Pimco Losses

Pimco’s $3.3 billion Emerging Markets Bond Fund has been one of the hardest hit funds. It held $803 million of Russian corporate and sovereign bonds at the end of September, equal to 21 percent of total assets, an amount that’s more than double that of the benchmark it tracks, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The fund has lost 7.9 percent in the past month, trailing 95 percent of its peers.

“The investment themes in Pimco’s portfolios are based on long-term ideas and views,” said Michael Gomez, the head of emerging markets at Pimco. “While emerging markets have been volatile, we think segments of the market offer compelling risk-reward opportunities for long-term investors.”

Traders and investors in the currency options market were also caught off-guard by the ruble’s 52 percent slide this year. In a market with hundreds of bullish call options worth more than $15 billion combined, only one of them -- a $5 million contract expiring a year from now -- is still profitable at the current exchange rate.

Worthless Options

Every single other contract is now out-of-the-money because they gave traders the right to buy the ruble at exchange rates that are stronger than yesterday’s closing level, according to data compiled by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. from clients of U.S. banks.

The volatility is proving too much for some brokers. New York-based FXCM Inc., the third-largest currency broker for retail clients, will stop offering the ruble versus the dollar and begin closing its customers’ trades while Alpari UK stopped clients from taking new positions.

As the currency sank yesterday, government officials including central bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina and Finance Minister Anton Siluanov huddled outside Moscow to discuss ways to combat the crisis. The 6.5 percentage-point rate increase to 17 percent, taken less than 24 hours earlier, had only managed to stoke a brief rally in the ruble before it began falling again.

In addition to denying that officials were considering currency restrictions, Ulyukayev, the economy minister, told reporters after the meeting that “of course” interest rates should have been raised earlier than they were. No policy changes were announced.

Capital Controls

Speculation has been growing that foreign-exchange controls were imminent, with firms from Schroder Investment Management Ltd. to Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEBA), or SEB, saying they were possible. Per Hammarlund, chief emerging-markets strategist at SEB, said the government could make it harder for depositors to swap cash into hard currency or require exporters to bring some earnings into the country.

While there were no initial signs yesterday of Russians lining up in downtown Moscow to pull their ruble deposits and buy dollars, Khanty-Mansiysk Otkritie Bank, the retail arm of the country’s second-largest private lender, said demand for foreign currencies was three to four times the daily average.

Even after rebounding late in Moscow, the ruble was still down 14 percent this week and 27 percent this month. It earlier fell the most in a day since the country defaulted and devalued the currency in 1998. Ten-year ruble bond yields jumped 3.05 percentage points to 16.28 percent while the annual cost of insuring against a debt default climbed to 5.55 percent in the credit-default swaps market, the highest since 2009.

`No Bids'

“Our traders are informing me that we see no bids to buy rubles,” SEB’s Hammarlund said. “I thought 17 percent would give them at least a month of breathing space. We next have to look at the experience in 1998-1999. We are also one big step closer to capital controls.”

The ruble has kept plunging even after the central bank raised rates 11.5 percentage points this year, including yesterday’s surprise move, and spent more than $80 billion in the foreign-exchange market, draining reserves to a five-year low of $416 billion. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg said they expect central bankers to step up currency-market interventions again, spending about another $70 billion to try to curb the declines.

Stagflation Risk

Russia, meanwhile, is sinking into stagflation.

A recession looms at the same time that inflation is soaring to a three-year high. The economy may shrink as much as 4.7 percent next year if oil, the country’s biggest export, averages $60 a barrel under a “stress scenario,” the central bank said earlier this week. Net capital outflows may reach $134 billion this year, more than double last year’s total. Prices for benchmark Brent crude fell below $60 yesterday, leaving them down 48 percent in the past six months.

While Putin’s approval rating remains near an all-time high on the back of his stance over Ukraine, the currency crisis risks eroding his popularity and undermining his authority, Moscow-based analysts said. And there are few signs suggesting that the crisis will fade any time soon.

“It’s very hard to stop the panic,” Vadim Bit-Avragim, a money manager at Kapital Asset Management LLC in Moscow, said by phone. “Everyone is betting against the ruble.”

Oil Rot Spreading in Credit

By Lisa Abramowicz Dec 12, 2014 12:14 PM ET

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-12/oil-rot-spreading-in-credit-.html

Photographer: Andrew Burton/Getty Images

Credit investors are preparing for the worst.

They’re cleaning up their portfolios, selling riskier debt that’s harder to trade in bad times and hoarding longer-term government bonds that do best in souring markets. While investors have pruned energy-related holdings in particular as oil prices plunge, they’re also getting rid of other types of corporate bonds, causing yields to surge to the highest in more than a year.

“We believe the pervasive nature of the sell-off is more reflective of overall liquidity concerns in the cash market than of fundamental deterioration,” Barclays Plc (BARC) analysts Jeffrey Meli and Bradley Rogoff wrote in a report today. “The weakness, while certainly most pronounced in the energy sector, has been broad based.”

Rather than waiting around for a trigger to escalate this month’s selloff, investors are pulling out of dollar-denominated corporate debt now, causing a 0.8 percent decline in the notes this month, according to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch index that includes investment-grade and junk-rated securities. This would be the first month of losses since September.

Yields on the debt have surged to 2.21 percentage points more than benchmark rates, the highest premium in 14 months.


Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Low Defaults

While the biggest driver of the selling is plummeting oil prices, the selling extends beyond just energy. Bonds of wireless provider Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) have fallen 1 percent this month and debt of HCA Holdings Inc. (HCA), a hospital operator, has dropped 1.2 percent, Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data show.

Even though the global speculative-grade default rate is less than half its historical average at 2.2 percent, investors are getting ready for sentiment to turn. When that happens, it may be all the more difficult to get out as hoards of other investors try to sell in a market where trading hasn’t kept pace with the growth of outstanding debt.

There’s “very little liquidity” in corporate bonds, especially in lower-rated debt, Bill Gross, who joined Janus Capital Group Inc. (JNS) in September, said today in a Bloomberg Surveillance interview with Tom Keene. “Everyone is trying to squeeze through a very small door.”

hey gfp, just a note on zmh, as I was watching the close, at exactly 4:00pm est, it traded at 111.40. Then at 4:01pm est, it traded 75,252 shares at 111.34, which I took to be a sell as it was 6 full cents below the previous trade and it was not doubled up as in buy and a sell, just one block. Nice chunk of change.

I'll be curious to see if it is pushed up on little volume in the coming days as those shares are unwound.......there is so much money out there now that I think it makes little difference weather a corx or a zmh, they can push them where they want.....remember the thousands of out of the money call options on nyse wnr, right before it started its run from 4 to 45.......?

take care.

===Gross said, adding there is “very little liquidity” in the corporate bond markets, especially in high-yield debt. “Everyone is trying to squeeze through a very small door.” ====

Gross Says Fed May Become ‘Dovish’ as Oil Prices Plunge

By Sree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam and Mary Childs Dec 12, 2014 3:25 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-12/bill-gross-says-very-little-liquidity-in-corporate-bond-market.html?cmpid=yhoo

Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Bill Gross, a fund manager at Janus Capital Management LLC and former chief investment officer at Pacific Investment Management Co., talks about global financial markets, oil prices, and Federal Reserve policy. Gross, speaking with Tom Keene on Bloomberg Radio’s "Bloomberg Surveillance," also discusses the outlook for Pimco and the U.S. economy. (Source: Bloomberg)

(Bloomberg) --Bill Gross, who used to run the world’s largest bond fund before joining Janus Capital Group Inc. (JNS) in September, said the Federal Reserve may become more “dovish” after oil prices plunged in recent weeks.

The Federal Reserve would have to take lower oil prices “into consideration,” Gross said today in a Bloomberg Surveillance interview with Tom Keene. “I think that yes, it moves towards a dovish stance relative to what the market expected a few days ago.”

Benchmark U.S. oil prices have fallen below $60 a barrel, extending losses today as the International Energy Agency cut its global demand forecast for the fourth time in five months. Gross said with inflation showing no signs of approaching the Fed’s 2 percent target, policy makers won’t be in a hurry to raise interest rates.

“Why would they start to eliminate language that talked about an extensive period of time when the U.S. itself is, not deflating but disinflating, and certainly not moving in the direction of its 2 percent target,” Gross said.

The sharp decline in the price of oil has disoriented markets and changed the perception of the creditworthiness of companies and countries, said Gross, who co-founded Pacific Investment Management Co. in 1971 and left the firm Sept. 26 to run an unconstrained bond fund at Janus.


Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

‘Small Door’

“When levered money moves and tries to seek a safe haven, basically you have violent price movements,” Gross said, adding there is “very little liquidity” in the corporate bond markets, especially in high-yield debt. “Everyone is trying to squeeze through a very small door.”

The relative small size of his fund at Janus, the Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund (JUCIX), which has grown to $1.2 billion from $13 million since he joined, allows more flexibility than the bigger funds at Pimco, he said. Gross previously ran the $162.8 billion Pimco Total Return Fund (PTTRX), which reached a peak of $293 billion in April 2013.

Gross’s Unconstrained fund has lost 0.6 percent in the past month,lagging behind 71 percent of similar funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

With the U.S. economy still “highly levered” and dependent on cheap financing, the equilibrium interest rate may be close to where rates are now, Gross said.

‘New Natural’

“I call it the new natural, Pimco called it the new neutral,” Gross said, adding that Fed governors “talk about natural interest rates as opposed to neutral interest rates, so it’s a better one.”


Photographer: Tim Boyle/Bloomberg

“I think its closer to zero percent real and maybe even lower, which is close to where we are now,” he said.

His view echoes an outlook published in May by Newport Beach, California-based Pimco. The firm said at the time that economic growth globally was converging toward lower, more stable speeds than in the past and that interest rates in that era would remain below their pre-crisis equilibrium, a scenario it called the “new neutral.”

Pimco filed to register the phrase “the new neutral” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 16, according to the office’s website.

==all the bond posts===

just a note that all of the bond posts I have been putting up as of late are all predicated on a comment I heard on the tube the other day that just sparked off alarms in my head of days gone past and frozen credit markets.

the comment was, close to, "there are just no bids out there for some of the high yield, (read junk,) bonds out there for stuff in the oil sector." I heard it again today on the tube.

no bids out there and the fed has said specifically that they would not enter the market due to "market fluctuations." My guess is that their easy money are the only reason there have been bids out there for a year/years, or more, so if they let the well go dry, I read frozen credit markets, without more free money into the system, and yes I see it cascading once it gets going in earnest, into other "sectors." jmho........, and anyone who reads my posts knows how often THAT is wrong, ha...... but still.....bound to be right one of these days

10-year Treasury yields fall most in a week since June 2012

Published: Dec 12, 2014 5:39 p.m. ET

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/falling-oil-prices-push-benchmark-treasury-yield-near-18-month-low-2014-12-12?link=MW_home_latest_news

By Joseph Adinolfi News editor

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The 10-year Treasury yield recorded its largest weekly decline Friday since June 1, 2012 as falling oil prices caused investors worldwide to buy Treasurys, overshadowing a slate of strong U.S. economic data.

The benchmark 10-year yield 10_YEAR, -0.19% declined 9.5 basis points to 2.085%, according to data from Tradeweb — just above an 18-month low.

“Yields are certainly capturing the flight to safety we’ve seen in financial markets because the ongoing slide in oil is compounding fears of deflation in parts of the eurozone, Russia, Japan and even China,” said Joe Manimbo, senior market analyst at Western Union Business Solutions.

The five-year Treasury yield 5_YEAR, +0.00% was down nine basis points to 1.543%, its lowest level since Dec. 1, while the 30-year yield 30_YEAR, -0.07% was down 8.7 basis points to 2.739%, its lowest level since December 2012.

On the short end of the curve, the two-year yield 2_YEAR, +0.00% shed 6.4 basis points, falling to 0.544%, its lowest level since Dec. 4.

Bond yields move inversely to prices.

Treasury yields briefly spiked after the strong consumer sentiment report, only to settle back near their session lows within an hour of the report’s release. Yields recorded similar movement Thursday after the Commerce Department said retail sales in November grew at the fastest pace in eight months.

Here’s what bond investors were paying attention to Friday:
•European stocks moved lower Friday as energy-company shares were battered by falling oil prices. The Stoxx Europe 600 was down 1.5% to 334.38, facing a 4.7% weekly decline.
•The Greek 10-year bond yield shed 5.6 basis points to 9.227% Friday after rising nearly 200 basis points in three sessions.
•The German 10-year bund yield fell to 0.625% friday, another all-time low, as falling oil drives a flight to safety. The yield later recovered to 0.629%, finishing down 4.7 basis points for the session.
•West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell below $59 a barrel.
•The ICE U.S. Dollar Index DXY, -0.26% was down 0.38% to 88.3200 Friday morning as the euro climbed to just below $1.25, which Boris Schlossberg of BK Asset Management said was due mostly to profit taking in the dollar.

Mass Exodus: Dow Plunges 678 Points This Week, S&P 500 Suffers Largest Loss Since 2012

December 12, 2014, 5:40 P.M. ET

http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2014/12/12/mass-exodus-dow-plunges-678-points-this-week-sp-500-suffers-largest-loss-since-2012/?mod=BOLBlog

By Ben Levisohn

You know you’re in trouble when the biggest film hitting the box office is Ridley Scott’s Exodus: Gods and Kings, which tells the tale of Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt. Not to be confused with Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments, a classic if not exactly a work of art, Exodus is getting destroyed by critics. The New York Post’s Lou Lumenick calls the film “an utterly clueless, relentlessly grim and rambling action epic guaranteed to displease devout Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, amuse atheists — and generally bore everyone.” Newsday’s Rafer Guzman, meanwhile, says “Exodus turns out to be part of a time-honored tradition: the old-fashioned, super-spectacular Hollywood bomb.” Best of all, God turns out to be a petulant boy with a British accent (personally, my favorite God is Alanis Morissette in Kevin Smith’s Dogma). BoxOfficeMojo is predicting a $29 million haul for Exodus but expects it to make most of its money overseas.

20th Century Fox
Investors staged an exodus of their own this week, fleeing the stock market as quickly as the Hebrew’s fled Egypt. The S&P 500 fell 3.5% to 2,002.33, its worst percentage drop since May 2012, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 677.96 points, or 3.8%, to 17,280, its biggest decline since Sept. 2011. The Nasdaq Composite dropped 2.7% to 4,653.60 and the small-company Russell 2000 finished off 2.5% at 1,152.45.

The selling started in earnest on Friday when the International Energy Agency cut its demand forecast for oil, a sign that global economic growth is slowing. That fact apparently freaked out investors, despite the fact that U.S. economic data has remained resilient. Still, the drop in oil contributed to a very weak reading of the producer price index, increasing concerns that the U.S. will be wrestling with deflation in the near future.

Still, Wall Street remains reasonably optimistic. Citigroup’s Tobias Levkovich reconsidered his 2015 outlook, but ultimately kept his target for the end of that year at 2,200. He explains why:


While the 2014 estimate at $119.25 remains unchanged, the 2015 EPS forecast is being bumped up slightly to $128.25 from $127.50. Notably, 1Q15 profits should rise strongly (up 9.5% versus an overall year gain of 7.5%), due to an easy comparison as GDP dropped in 1Q14. Additionally, both the Energy sector and a stronger dollar probably will restrain what could have been an even better year for corporate net income…

With Energy sector earnings dropping an expected 17% in 2015, areas like IT, Consumer Discretionary, Health Care and Financials will need to do some heavy lifting in the face of a stronger dollar. Yet, with the greenback expected to climb about 10% versus the Euro and European direct sales exposure at under 10%, the impact may be smaller than originally perceived.

JPMorgan’s Dubravko Lakos-Bujas and team thinks stocks still have a wall of worry to climb:


The global economy stands on fragile footing and yet the S&P 500 has tested new record levels in each of the last seven consecutive quarters. It is not surprising that investors feel uneasy and are constantly second-guessing when the next correction might start. Call this behavioral finance—however, this continued skepticism is quite possibly what has kept S&P 500 momentum in check. If US fundamentals were weak, we believe we would not be sitting far from 2011 levels, a year that many have labeled a mini-recession. Yet, we stand 60% higher since then and are on path to soon break 2100. So what to expect in 2015?

We believe 2015 will turn out to be another positive year for US equities. Our positive outlook is primarily driven by: (1) solid momentum in US economic growth coupled with low inflation; (2) a materializing “wealth effect” and expected pickup in consumer spending; (3) better than expected 4Q14 and 1Q15 earnings coupled with strong guidance providing greater upside in the earlier parts of next year; (4) stimulus from lower commodity prices and continued lower financing costs; (5) increasing G4 liquidity and positive spillover effects from foreign central bank actions; and (6) strong US market technicals and corporate sentiment.

Schwab’s Liz Ann Sonders and team second that emotion:


Since the 2008 crash, stocks have risen fairly steadily and impressively, with 2014 set to mark another year of solid gains. This may be one of the most doubted rallies in the history of Wall Street, as numerous record highs in major indices have been met with skepticism. Gone are the days of streamers, hats and t-shirts when the Dow passed 10,000.

And after this week’s bloodbath, I’m sure the doubting will begin anew.

Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming Munis At Risk From Falling Oil

http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2014/12/12/alaska-north-dakota-wyoming-munis-at-risk-from-falling-oil/?mod=BOL_hp_blog_ii

December 12, 2014, 3:50 P.M. ET

By Michael Aneiro

Associated PressNo longer pumping up local economies.
Falling energy prices are benefiting some municipal bond sectors, like toll-road bonds and airport bonds. But states that lean heavily on the oil industry face growing financial risks as the price of oil keeps heading lower. Bank of America Merrill Lynch reports today that while 10 states account for nearly 78% of U.S. oil production, “the relative impact of declining prices differs widely” among these states. More from BofA strategists Philip Fischer, Yingchen Li, and Celena Chan:


Alaska, North Dakota and Wyoming will feel the pinch much more acutely than states like Texas, California or Oklahoma, because tax revenues from oil production in the former states makes up disparately large proportions of total revenue collections. Texas has been through the ups and downs of crude prices and has, accordingly, developed a vibrant and diversified economy away from oil. Alaska is the most heavily reliant on oil revenues, where 78% of the states total revenues are attributed to oil. Each of these states, though, is a strongly rated credit.

BofA says the pain will extend to many local governments too:


In some states, like North Dakota, large portions of the severance taxes that the state collects on oil are passed down to the local governments. Thus, local governments, which themselves budgeted for large remittances from the state, might face budget shortfalls. In states that do not pass down those revenues, local governments rely heavily on sales and use taxes. As oil production grew, so too did the labor force, which then participated in the local economy…. However, as production becomes less and less economical at lower and lower prices, producers may scale back production or altogether cease production….

As production is cut and new wells are left undrilled, jobs and individuals’ discretionary income will likely fall in tandem. Local governments may be forced to find alternative sources of funds to pay for government services that were otherwise funded with revenues associated with that oil production. This will likely be felt in cities and counties where oil production is the dominant, if not only, industry. As these revenue streams begin to decline, issuers’ often-competing responsibility between essential government services and debt service becomes that much more strained.

there is so much sludge in the system today, that a few can influence the price of whatever they what, anytime.

trust = 0.

just hope you are on their side of trade, (central banks and their minions.)

Fed Bubble Bursts in $550 Billion of Energy Debt: Credit Markets

By Christine Idzelis and Craig Torres Dec 11, 2014 10:59 AM ET

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-11/fed-bubble-bursts-in-550-billion-of-energy-debt-credit-markets.html

The danger of stimulus-induced bubbles is starting to play out in the market for energy-company debt.

Since early 2010, energy producers have raised $550 billion of new bonds and loans as the Federal Reserve held borrowing costs near zero, according to Deutsche Bank AG. With oil prices plunging, investors are questioning the ability of some issuers to meet their debt obligations. Research firm CreditSights Inc. predicts the default rate for energy junk bonds will double to eight percent next year.

“Anything that becomes a mania -- it ends badly,” said Tim Gramatovich, who helps manage more than $800 million as chief investment officer of Santa Barbara, California-based Peritus Asset Management. “And this is a mania.”

The Fed’s decision to keep benchmark interest rates at record lows for six years has encouraged investors to funnel cash into speculative-grade securities to generate returns, raising concern that risks were being overlooked. A report from Moody’s Investors Service this week found that investor protections in corporate debt are at an all-time low, while average yields on junk bonds were recently lower than what investment-grade companies were paying before the credit crisis.

Borrowing costs for energy companies have skyrocketed in the past six months as West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, has dropped 44 percent to $60.46 a barrel since reaching this year’s peak of $107.26 in June.

Yields Surge

Yields on junk-rated energy bonds climbed to a more-than-five-year high of 9.5 percent this week from 5.7 percent in June, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data. At least three energy-related borrowers, including C&J Energy Services Inc. (CJES), postponed financings this month as sentiment soured.

“It’s been super cheap” for energy companies to obtain financing over the past five years, said Brian Gibbons, a senior analyst for oil and gas at CreditSights in New York. Now, companies with ratings of B or below are “virtually shut out of the market” and will have to “rely on a combination of asset sales” and their credit lines, he said.

Companies rated Ba1 and lower by Moody’s and BB+ and below by Standard & Poor’s are considered speculative grade.

Stimulus Effect

The Fed’s three rounds of bond buying were a gift to small companies in the capital-intensive energy industry that needed cheap borrowing costs to thrive, according to Chris Lafakis, a senior economist at Moody’s Analytics in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Quantitative easing “has been one of the keys to the fast, breakneck pace of the growth in U.S. oil production which requires abundant capital,” Lafakis said.

One of those to take advantage was Energy XXI Ltd. (EXXI), an oil and gas explorer, which has raised more than $2 billion in the bond market in the past four years.

The Houston-based company’s $750 million of 9.25 percent notes, issued in December 2010, have tumbled to 64 cents on the dollar from 106.3 cents in September, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. They yield 27.7 percent.

Energy XXI got its lenders in August to waive a potential violation of its credit agreement because its debt had risen relative to its earnings, according to a regulatory filing. In September, lenders agreed to increase the amount of leverage allowed.

Bubble Risk

“We think the sell-off has been a little over done,” said Greg Smith, a vice president in Energy XXI’s investor relations department. “People are trading us as though we’re distressed.”

The company has “plenty of liquidity,” Smith said. “Come January we’ll be free cash flow positive,” which is “a rarity in this business,” he said.

The debt rout is one of the latest examples of a boom and bust in U.S. markets as unprecedented Fed stimulus fuels a hunt for yield. The fallout has been limited so far, yet the longer the Fed holds its benchmark lending rate near zero, the greater the risk of more consequential bubbles, according to former Fed governor Jeremy Stein.

“To the extent that highly accommodative monetary policy courts risks to the economy further down the road, there is more of a live trade-off than there was at 8 percent unemployment” said Stein, now a Harvard University professor.

Joblessness of 5.8 percent in November was about half a percentage point away from the Fed’s estimate of full employment, or the lowest level of labor market slack the economy can sustain before companies bid up wages.

Job Creation

Employment in support services for oil and gas operations has surged 70 percent since the U.S. expansion began in June 2009, while oil and gas extraction payrolls have climbed 34 percent.

“There are distortions in multiple markets,” said Lawrence Goodman, president of the Center for Financial Stability, a monetary research group in New York. “It is like a Whac-A-Mole game: You don’t know where it is going to pop up next.”

Fed Chair Janet Yellen said in a July 2 speech in Washington that she saw “pockets of increased risk-taking,” including in the corporate debt markets.

Midstates Petroleum Co. (MPO) is spending about $1.15 drilling for every dollar earned selling oil and gas. Outspending cash flow is the norm for many companies in the U.S. shale boom.

Changing Environment

The Houston-based company’s $700 million of 9.25 percent notes due in June 2021 have plummeted to 53.5 cents from 108 cents at the beginning of September, according to Trace. The debt is rated Caa1 by Moody’s and B- by S&P.

Representatives of Midstates didn’t respond to phone calls and e-mails seeking comment.

Some borrowers are under pressure just a few months after selling new debt. Sanchez Energy Corp.’s $1.15 billion of 6.125 percent notes maturing in January 2023, issued this year, have tumbled to 77 cents from 101 cents in September, according to Trace. Proceeds from the bonds were partly used to fund a purchase of Eagle Ford shale assets from Royal Dutch Shell Plc. (RDSA)

“The company has planned for and is poised to rapidly adapt to a changing commodity price environment,” Tony Sanchez, III, chief executive officer of Sanchez Energy, said in a statement yesterday.

The Houston-based company expects to fully fund its 2015 capital program from operating cash flow and cash on hand without drawing on its revolving credit line, the statement said.

Magnum Hunter

Sanchez Energy has never had positive free cash flow. Michael Long, chief financial officer, didn’t return a call seeking comment.

“Oil companies that have high funding costs in the Eagle Ford and the Bakken shale plays are the ones that are most exposed right now due to lower crude prices,” Gary C. Evans, chief executive officer of Magnum Hunter Resources (MHR) Corp., said in a phone interview.

Magnum Hunter’s $600 million of 9.75 percent debt due in 2020 has tumbled to 84.5 cents from 109 cents in September, Trace data show. The notes are rated CCC by S&P and yield 13.9 percent.

Evans said Houston-based Magnum Hunter sold almost all of its oil properties over the last year and a half and is now predominantly a gas company.

Default Risk

“We’ve insulated ourselves,” Evans said. For other energy borrowers at risk, “the liquidity squeeze” will probably occur in March or April when banks re-calculate have much they may borrow under their credit lines based on the value of their oil reserves.

Deutsche Bank analysts predicted in a Dec. 8 report that about a third of companies rated B or CCC may be unable to meet their obligations should oil prices drop to $55 a barrel.

“If you keep oil prices low enough for long enough, there is a pretty good case that some of the weakest issuers in the high-yield space will run into cash-flow issues,” Oleg Melentyev, a New York-based credit strategist at Deutsche Bank, said in a telephone interview.

High-yield contagion fears rise as oil extends drop

Published: Dec 11, 2014 1:38 p.m. ET

By Claudia Assis Energy reporter

William Watts Reporter

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/junk-bond-contagion-fears-rise-as-oil-extends-drop-2014-12-11? ? ?

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Plunging oil prices are playing havoc with high-yield corporate bonds. Now, some observers are beginning to wonder whether trouble in the energy portion of the junk-bond market could pose broader risks.

A week ago, the answer to that question would have been no, said Dan Heckman, senior fixed-income strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management. Now, with the U.S. oil benchmark plunging Wednesday to within a whisker of $60 a barrel, the answer isn’t so clear cut.

There’s “no question” that for energy companies with a riskier debt profile the high-yield debt market “is essentially shut down at this stage,” and there are signs that further pain could hit the sector, Heckman said.


For energy companies with weaker credit, debt spreads are around 800 basis points over Treasurys, he said.

“We are getting to the point that it is becoming very concerning, “ he said. “In the last few days we’ve seen a further selloff in energy names.”

For the high-yield debt specifically, there’s a threat to liquidity, and the high-yield market is “very, very sensitive to liquidity.” Liquidity for energy issuers in the high-yield market is gone, and it’s very difficult to be a seller, Heckman said. If liquidity dries up further, the high-yield market would extend the selloff, he said.

Junk-bond expert Martin Fridson, chief investment officer at Lehmann Livian Fridson Advisors, argued that energy companies aren’t so much shut out of the high-yield market as they may be unwilling to tap it under current conditions.

He notes that around 30% of the bonds in a key junk-bond index are trading at “distressed” levels, defined as more than 1,000 basis points above U.S. Treasurys, with some sporting yields of around 20%.

That’s not the kind of market a chief financial officer would want to tap for debt, he said. And fortunately, most won’t need to. If cash is tight, companies would instead seek a loan, cut spending, or sell assets, he said.

“The squeeze is really going to come in 2016,” when the oil patch will likely be in a recession, Fridson said.

Meanwhile, analyst Doug Sipkin at Susquehanna on Wednesday downgraded shares of investment-bank juggernaut Goldman Sachs GS, +0.80% , citing, in part, tougher credit and high-yield markets.

With energy accounting for 22% of U.S. high-yield issuance and 16% of loan issuance through December, Goldman will face “an incredibly difficult” comparable in 2015 as the oil plunge takes a toll on new business, Sipkin wrote.

Sipkin also noted that energy is starting to weigh on the high-yield secondary markets, with spreads over Treasurys now the widest they’ve been since mid-2013. That could spell a harder slog for Goldman’s lending and investment business.

More broadly, it appears analysts aren’t pressing the panic button. But they are paying attention.

Some analysts are predicting a wave of defaults in the next couple of years. New York-traded oil futures around $60 a barrel would push energy companies with a riskier credit profiles to a level that would imply a 30% default rate, Deutsche Bank analysts said.

Analysts at J.P. Morgan said that WTI at $65 a barrel for three years, a scenario they emphasized was “unrealistically draconian,” could push the default rate to 25% to 40% among energy companies over that period.

===everyone likes to routinely break, flaunt, and disregard ==

ha, good one,

missed all day wed when zmh was down 2.22, would have been excited if seeing it live....but it acts like it is on autopilot japan money whenever I watch it, big sells, then constant buys moving it up.....

oil down near 50%, all markets can do same, hit 400 day time frame on those puts yesterday......market pulls back, we go around the world, ha.

folks keep coming out with high price targets on the thld, like 12 bucks, so it goes up a little, then falls back. would really like to see that one shoot up yet again, and stay there a few days,,,,,,as in dollars a share......

tried to buy some different 2016 puts on zmh 100's a couple times this week with no execution, and missed ctix by just a little last week, not much action....

saw this 3d company on "fast money" tonight, working with live liver tissue, selling, I guess time, on their system to big pharma, potentially saving them billions by catching liver issues early on, rather than spending xxxx to get to phase III, and then finding liver issues. interesting angle, lumped with 3d printing companies rather than biotech, down 50% ytd, likely bump from being on show, but amazing in my mind......

take care.....

ha, just signed on to wish you well on this call. had several orders in since you first mentioned it, but none executed. being a bio I didn't want to chase, and hanging at 3-3.30, rather than dropping off gave me the 'willies' even further.

my latest investment theory, read what I say, and do 180 degrees....ha

nice move for sure, congrats.......

thanks gfp, interested to see how thld's options open on Monday, as they can swing pretty good on price moves. but I also have a pretty good amount of dollar cost averaged shares in those, so no telling. gets north of 5 and vegas here we come....ha.....

was hoping the zmh base would leg down off new base, but with japan money now coming to market, and God knows who else's money, it keeps ticking upward, non stop. big sells, followed by steady buys, sound familiar, like 2012, 2013, 2014......

so I almost took 50% loss and moved on last week, but then saw still had over 400 days on options, so decided to ride a bit longer....famous last words..ha,

now look at it as just a short on overall market, nothing goes straight up forever, but with funny money coming in, no telling....

interesting to watch for sure.

had small orders in on ctix most of the week with none being executed yet, as well as old favorite, 10k shares at a time, no executions........

zmh goes against my nomal, buy when they are way out of favor, but it is buy a put with it very favorable, so I guess some similarities.....maybe I sould lollar cost average those as well, but with put blunder amount, I think i'll stand pat, ha.....

saw threats against Europe, with one of their top nuke guys going to dark side couple years ago, now in control of uranium, 40 or 80 pounds from Iraq university, now making veiled threats against London with dirty pow.....so many hot spots in world now, after period of brief, relative calm....

take care.

recorded some early evening shows and just heard that silver hit an all time record of 18.7% swing in one day prices today, low to high, YIKES.

OOPS SORRY, largest in two years:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/silver-just-had-its-largest-intraday-move-in-two-years-2014-12-01


Silver just had its largest intraday move in two years

Published: Dec 1, 2014 5:04 p.m. ET

Silver rallied as much as 18.7% from its intraday low

By

Victor
Reklaitis

Markets writer

Silver saw a huge intraday swing on Monday.

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Silver staged a huge recovery on Monday, with the magnitude of its intraday swing even outshining gold’s move.

The gray, shiny metal jumped as high as $16.81 an ounce, as it climbed a whopping 18.7% from its intraday low at $14.15, according to FactSet data.

Gold’s intraday recovery also was dramatic, as the yellow metal’s most-active contract rose as high as $1,221 an ounce after falling as low as $1,141.70 — a positive swing of 6.9%.

“Today was probably the most important technical price action in gold and silver that we’ve seen in months,” said Jim Wyckoff, senior analyst at Kitco.com.

Silver dropped to a five-year low and then rebounded, and that suggests a bottom now could be in place for that metal, Wyckoff told MarketWatch. He said gold also may have found a floor, given Monday’s move.

But Jim Steel, an HSBC analyst, sounded a cautious note, saying demand for gold might fizzle now that the metal is back over the $1,200 level.

The big swings by these metals likely cheered volatility-loving traders. While an intraday move of $40 dollars isn’t unusual for gold, Monday’s swing of nearly $80 is “like Christmas coming early” for some day traders, said Naeem Aslam, chief market analyst at Ava Trade, in an email.

The two metals initially dropped on Monday after a Swiss vote to boost that country’s gold reserves failed decisively, but gold and silver quickly switched to rally mode. They got a lift from a Japan downgrade that boosted haven demand, India easing its import restrictions for gold and a softer dollar.

To put the moves of the precious metals into perspective: Silver saw its largest intraday percentage swing for a most-active contract SIH5, -2.11% since May 8, 2012, while for gold GCG5, -0.99% it was the biggest intraday swing on a percent basis since April 15, 2013, according to data from FactSet and a Dow Jones markets data group.



Stock
References
SIH5
-0.35 -2.11%

GCG5
-12.00 -0.99%

stocks futures down 1am est, EOM

hence the puts, ha EOM

The Chinese Economy Is Facing A $6.8 Trillion Nightmare That Could Get Worse

Fri, Nov 28, 2014, 12:54pm EST - US Markets close in 3 hrs and 6 mins

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chinese-economy-facing-6-8-085100243.html

Business Insider By Mike Bird 8 hours ago

REUTERS/David Gray Empty apartment buildings litter Ordos, one of the "ghost cities" that have characterised China's wasteful investment. The Chinese economy has wasted $6.8 trillion (£4.3 trillion) in investment during the last four years.

Six-point-eight trillion dollars.

That's according to a report from China's National Development and Reform Commission and the Academy of Macroeconomic Research, written up here in the Financial Times. The report says that amount has been "ineffective investment."


For sure, $6.8 trillion is a difficult figure to imagine. That's two years of output for the entire German economy . It's more than four times as much as is invested in S&P 500 index funds .

Even in the enormous Chinese economy, that's practically half of the investment between 2009 and 2013, the period covered by the investigation. This is likely to have pretty grim effects on Chinese economic growth in the years ahead.

Investment of whatever variety initially shows us up in GDP figures. For example, the spending on building a bridge. Initially, the bridge construction will boost GDP simply because of the spending needed to finish it.

But after that, the economic effect of the bridge depends on a lot: Where is it from? Where does it lead to? If it's a useful investment, it could keep boosting spending by making consumers' journey to a city less arduous, and allowing them to go to the shops more often. If it's a bridge to nowhere, it's not likely to have that effect, and will simply be a waste of resources without any positive growth effect in the future.

China seems to have built the equivalent of $6.8 trillion in bridges to nowhere.

According to the FT, the authors are blaming the investment on low interest rates and other forms of government stimulus, suggesting that there's been a sort of malinvestment . The country's deserted ghost cities are probably the ultimate symbol of this wasted investment.

And if that's the case, it's not likely to be the last of it: The People's Bank of China just slashed interest rates, and it looks like there's probably more coming. The economy has slowed significantly in recent years: The government now targets a growth rate of 7.5%, well down from the double-digit rates seen before the crisis, and many analysts believe they will struggle to even reach that.

That's not all: The problem is exacerbated by graft and corruption among the country's autocratic elite, which skims off the investment whether it's wasteful or not. If the report's authors are correct about the causes, don't expect to see an improvement in the quality of China's investment any time soon.

thanks gfp, kicking myself I didn't slowly load up in the 3's when no one was interested and I didn't listen to that little voice that said, maybe they have done it again, now 2 decades old, with the price being relative....was .56 for years, my twisted logic buy no matter what price, that worked. ha.....

take care.

happy day after to everyone. we had 18 here, closest to us and feel lucky to have them despite losing people along the way. have brother who couldn't make it and had thanksgiving alone, but still made the best of it joking and taking our old family recipe handed down of "bloom were you are planted," ha.

gfp, I think I mentioned once about seeing George carlon live with bb king, I think in the 70's as he was coming up. there was so much cussing, that I think it caught the audience off guard and you have heard pin drop. I actually felt bad for him. now I just think he was ahead of his time after seeing some of his later, more toned down, language wise anyway, work.......

hoping the zimmer move was going to be down after basing, but looks like 100% wrong on that on so far, but being pushed around on light volume with option expiration and still 400 plus days, hanging in there...ha...

take care.....

hello,to be honest, I didn't read it as I am not currently in cortex. I saw the little "news" symbol in my favorites page in ihub, and assumed it was news out that day, as I have found that has always been the case in the past. I thought it was a little odd that no one had commented on it, so it could have been an ihub mess up on my favorites page. sorry if it was old info, i'll try to be more careful in the future now that I know it's possible for them to post that news symbol on old news.

take care......

got back into pcl in the 30's and trying to figure out how long to hold it this time around. sold in low 50's last time around if fuzzy memory serves, but I love this stock, and its div., so it is harder than most for me to sell.....

way off topic.....just got my house tax bill here in South Carolina. the way they do homeowners tax here in our county is to assume that you are an "away" owner and they bill you about triple what of the "live in" rate is. many years ago I did not know this and paid the higher tax once or twice, again if fuzzy memory serves as this was many years ago. then one day a neighbor started talking about his taxes and I realized that his were about 1/3 of mine and we had the same floor plan in the same development. long story short, the state does not tell you to come down with a utility bill and prove you are actually residing in the home, they assume, and bill you, like you do not, but once done once, I have never had to repeat it, even moving within the county. now the tax bill arrives with the lower figure, and a notation of what it would have been for an "away" owner.....real low taxes here, but they do charge "personal property taxes" on cars, boats, that kind of thing to make up some of the difference. I think my home taxes are about 1/6 of a new york state home, (not nyc,) and the cars add a few hundred each to that..........

thanks for letting me rant but I still kick myself at not catching the "tax issue" all those years ago, ha.

hope you are doing well.

10Q out today, link below EOM

http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=64538329&symbol=CORX

hey bw, just can't this off my mind, but our local news, wmbfnews.com, had an 11 pm lead story the other night where the lead story was a man accused of rape, by a women who knew that she could be accepted for immigration, even if charges are proven untrue, once applied for, unbelievable. man married, wife standing behind him.

accuser was "too torn up and crying to appear on the stand" 3 days before she entered gym where the guy was on a treadmill, and took the machine just three away from his and is caught on tape just laughing it up and having a great time. he says someone sent her in there to "provoke" him and she is being "coached" on the immigration loophole.

horrible topic, but if he is found innocent, they should string her up, and how loopholes can be exploited everywhere to get aid, or "help." even at the expense of others........

thanks for the rant......