What Liquidia Corporation told the SEC could break it.

Liquidia's revenue is concentrated: one customer accounted for 100% of its service revenue (from the Promotion Agreement profit-share on Treprostinil Injection), and a small number of significant customers — specialty distributors/pharmacies — account for the bulk of YUTREPIA gross product sales (which began June 2025 at $148.3M for the year). It extends credit without collateral, so loss of, or a credit problem at, a top specialty distributor would materially affect product revenue and receivables. Counterparties not fully named/quantified in these windows → register concentration risk.

“One customer accounted for 100 % of service revenue, net.”

Liquidia imports YUTREPIA's critical inputs from abroad — treprostinil API from South Korea (via LGM), the RS00 DPI device from Italy (Plastiape) — and procures APIs/devices/materials from South Korea, Taiwan, China and Italy, so pharma-specific trade policy is a real cost/continuity threat. It flags the U.S. Department of Commerce's Section 232 national-security investigation into pharmaceutical/ingredient imports (which could impose new pharma tariffs) and an announced 100% tariff on branded or patented pharmaceuticals imported from manufacturers without (or not building) a U.S. facility — a measure that, if implemented, could sharply raise its imported-input costs. Unlike pre-commercial peers shielded by pharma exemptions, this is a specific, commercial-stage pharma-tariff exposure.

“the U.S. announced a 100% tariff, on any branded or patented pharmaceuticals imported into the U.S. from drug manufacturers that do not have, or is not in the process of building, a manufacturing facility in the U.S.”