Longeveron Inc. - Annual Report: 2021 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

or

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                to               

Commission File Number: 001-40060

LONGEVERON INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(305) 909-0840

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒   No ☐

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates was approximately $26,000,000 as of June 30, 2021 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter).

As of March 10, 2022, the registrant had 5,326,512 shares of Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share, and 15,585,062 shares of Class B Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. None.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

In this document, the terms “Longeveron,” “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Longeveron Inc. We have no subsidiaries.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “10-K”) contains forward-looking statements, within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that reflect our current expectations about our future results, performance, prospects and opportunities. This 10-K contains forward-looking statements that can involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this report, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, prospective products, product approvals, research and development costs, future revenue, timing and likelihood of success, plans and objectives of management for future operations, future results of anticipated products and prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” “will,” or “would” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements contained in this report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about our business, the industry in which we operate and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, and these forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance or development. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions described in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report. Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein after we distribute this report, whether as a result of any new information, future events or otherwise.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and you are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a clinical stage biotechnology company developing cellular therapies for specific aging-related and life-threatening conditions. Our lead investigational product is the LOMECEL-B™ cell-based therapy product (“Lomecel-B”), which is derived from culture-expanded medicinal signaling cells (MSCs) that are sourced from bone marrow of young healthy adult donors. We believe that by using the same cells that promote tissue repair, organ maintenance, and immune system function, we can develop safe and effective therapies for some of the most difficult disorders associated with the aging process and other conditions.

We are currently sponsoring or have sponsored Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials in the following indications: Aging Frailty, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the Metabolic Syndrome, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), and hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS). Our mission is to advance Lomecel-B and other cell-based product candidates into pivotal Phase 3 trials, with the goal of achieving regulatory approvals, subsequent commercialization and broad use by the healthcare community.

Our philosophy is that healthy aging can be improved through regenerative medicine approaches. Life expectancy has substantially increased over the past century as a result of medical and public health advancements. However, this increase in longevity has not been paralleled by the number of years a person is expected to live in relatively good health, with limited chronic disease and disabilities of aging – a period known as healthspan. As we age, we experience: a decline in our own stem cells; a decrease in immune system function, known as immunosenescence; diminished blood vessel functioning; chronic inflammation, known as “inflammaging” and other aging-related declines. Our preliminary clinical data suggest that Lomecel-B can potentially address these problems through multiple mechanisms of action, or MOAs, that simultaneously target key aging-related processes.

Improving healthspan is an imperative for governmental health agencies. The National Institute on Aging (NIA), an institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has promoted the concept of geroscience – the idea that aging itself is the biggest risk factor for aging-related human diseases and that aging can be approached as a treatable disease to improve healthspan. The geroscience hypothesis provides a strong rationale for the approach of treating underlying biological processes contributing to aging as a way to reduce disease burden and advance global human health. Our investments into developing and testing product candidates are aimed at reducing aging-related disease burden and improving healthspan.

Our Strategy

Our core business strategy is to become a world leading regenerative medicine company through the development and commercialization of novel cell therapy products for unmet medical needs, with emphasis on aging-related indications. Key elements of our business strategy are as follows.

Clinical Development Pipeline

Since our founding in 2014, we have initiated six clinical studies under five U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational New Drug applications (INDs) for the purpose of evaluating the safety and efficacy of Lomecel-B (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: Lomecel-B clinical development pipeline

Lomecel-B for Aging-Related Indications: a Geroscience Approach

While the exact mechanisms of action of Lomecel-B, and MSCs in general, are still active areas of research, based on current evidence, we believe Lomecel-B may treat multiple facets of aging-related disorders simultaneously through multiple mechanisms of actions that may include the following.

Biochemical Properties of Lomecel-B

The proposed mechanisms of action of Lomecel-B derive from intrinsic cellular features (See Figure 2). The cells in Lomecel-B cells secrete numerous proteins that include cytokines and growth factors, which are believed to be responsible for decreasing inflammation and promoting repair.

The cells in Lomecel-B also secretes exosomes, which are biochemically active membrane spheres (called vesicles) that carry cargo composed of proteins, ribonucleic acid (RNA), and other molecules. These secreted products can potentially have beneficial effects on numerous targets, even over large distances, in treated subjects. Using exosomes as a therapeutic is an emerging therapeutic approach that we are pursuing through our research and development.

Lomecel-B cells can also potentially regulate endogenous cells through actions that include direct cell-cell interactions that can allow for exchange of RNAs, proteins, and other cellular content between the cells through linkages called connexin-mediated gap-junctions. MSCs can also form tunneling nanotubes (TNTs) that allow for exchange of larger cytoplasmic content, including mitochondria (the energy-generating portions of cells). Such exchanges have been documented to occur between MSCs and neuronal stem cells, cardiomyocytes, corneal epithelial cells, lung epithelial cells, retinal ganglion cells, renal epithelial cells, and macrophages.

In the context of treating aging-related disorders, such exchange of mitochondria, proteins, RNA, and other cargo from Lomecel-B sourced from young donors may suggest cellular regenerative mechanisms for older cells of the recipient which have depleted of mitochondria, have reduced metabolic functioning, etc. In fact, mitochondria released from damaged cells appears to be a signal to induce regenerative mechanisms in MSCs, which can promote a desired shift in energy metabolism in the recipient cells.

Figure 2. Potential mechanisms of action of Lomecel-B. (1) Lomecel-B cells release growth factors and other proteins, such as anti-inflammatory cytokines. These have the potential to reduce inflammation, and stimulate nearby stem cells and other cells (called paracrine activity) to promote regenerative and repair responses. There is also potential for these factors to be released into the blood and work at a distance, called endocrine activity. (2) Lomecel-B cells also have the potential to engage in direct cell-cell interactions to induce positive pathways in contacted cells. (3) Lomecel-B cells release exosomes, which have cargo consisting of RNA, proteins, and other molecules that can be taken up by other cells to provide beneficial effects. (4) Lomecel-B cells also have the potential to form nanotube bridges or TNTs, which can allow the exchange of mitochondria and other cellular contents between cells.

Our Aging Frailty Research Program

Aging Frailty is a clinically-defined and extreme form of unsuccessful aging. It is readily recognized by the hallmark signs of weakness, slowness, fatigue, unintentional weight loss, and low activity. Those with Aging Frailty are disproportionately compromised in their ability to cope with every day and acute stressors, are at increased vulnerability to disease and injury, have lowered tolerance to medications, and are at risk for poor outcomes, including disability and death. Even normally “minor” insults (e.g., minor infection) can have significant consequences, and lead to a spiral of decline to debility in these patients.

The necessity for identifying patients with Aging Frailty is well-acknowledged in the geriatric community, and the treatment of Aging Frailty and promotion of healthful aging are recognized priorities of the National Academy of Medicine and NIA/NIH. Despite the pressing need for interventions, there are no FDA-approved therapies that can slow down, reverse, or prevent Aging Frailty.

Biological Underpinnings of Aging Frailty

Aging Frailty is a multifaceted biologically-driven process that is distinct from normal aging. While all of the biological mechanisms underlying frailty are still being elucidated, it is thought to involve a low-level chronic pro-inflammatory state referred to as inflammaging. This loss of control over inflammation can be attributed to an imbalance between levels of inflammatory promoters and anti-inflammatory mediators, as well as diminished capacity to restore equilibrium once an inflammatory stimulus has subsided. The ultimate result is measurable elevated serum levels of pro-inflammatory signaling molecules, such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and diminished levels of anti-inflammatory mediators, such as interleukin-10 (IL-10).

Inflammation can contribute to the physical decline in Aging Frailty through multiple mechanisms, including detrimental effects on muscles, bone tissue, the immune system, cardiovascular function, and cognition. In muscle cells, pro-inflammatory mediators such as TNF-α stimulate catabolic biochemical pathways that break down muscle tissue, which can explain the clinically observed atrophy, decreased strength and endurance, and increased exhaustion seen in Aging Frailty. Inflammation can also severely diminish immune system function, and accelerate the aging-related decline in the immune system, known as immunosenescence. This ultimately leads to an immune system that is hyporesponsive, making these patients highly vulnerable to disease and cancer.

Aging Frailty (and aging in general) is also characterized by reductions in the number and function of circulating MSCs. Therefore, treatments that can positively affect and/or replenish these endogenous stem cell functions could be of therapeutic value for Aging Frailty.

The culmination of these organ system declines can explain the common clinical manifestations of Aging Frailty, such as sarcopenia and cachexia, and forms the basis for the resulting heightened vulnerability to injury, disease, adverse health outcomes, and mortality.

Lomecel-B for the Potential Treatment of Aging Frailty

We are evaluating Lomecel-B as a therapy for Aging Frailty because the potential mechanisms of action may suitably address many of the features and underpinnings of this condition. Lomecel-B has the potential to reduce inflammation associated with Aging Frailty, and to promote an anti-inflammatory state by releasing anti-inflammatory molecules, which can promote physiological restoration to a more normal state. We believe current clinical data suggests Lomecel-B may be able to improve aspects of physical functioning, specifically exercise tolerance and endurance in mobility-impaired older, frail individuals. Furthermore, we believe our current clinical and biomarker data suggest that Lomecel-B may improve functioning of the vasculature, which in itself may result in certain systemic benefits to patients.

Market Potential

U.S. leading geriatricians and epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins University estimate approximately 15% of community-dwelling individuals 65 years and older in the U.S. have Aging Frailty, per the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) frailty phenotype definition. Another 45% are considered at risk for becoming frail, or “pre-frail”. These equate to 8.1 million and 24.3 million people, respectively. By 2035, the number of individuals with Aging Frailty is projected to reach over 11.4 million. Those with Aging Frailty are disproportionately high consumers of healthcare resources whose cost of care may have significant economic consequences. Developing effective interventions to prevent or reverse frailty is a priority for many countries with single-payor healthcare systems.

Japan is considered to be a “super-aged” society, with approximately 28% of the population aged 65 or older in 2021, representing some 35.9 million individuals. The pooled prevalence of frailty amongst this demographic per CHS frailty phenotype or modified version definition, is estimated to be 7.4%.

For the US and Japanese markets, and any other territory, the market size ultimately will be dependent on many factors, but the precise definition used to define the condition/patient population for regulatory approval purposes in the U.S. and in Japan will likely result in a refined market size that may be a subset of the frail population.

Aging Frailty Clinical Trials and Regulatory Trial in the Bahamas

We have completed two multicenter trials in the U.S. for Aging Frailty, and have received Japanese PMDA approval to conduct a Phase 2 Aging Frailty clinical trial in Japan which is expected to initiate in the first half of 2022. We have government approval to administer Lomecel-B for Aging Frailty participants in a Registry Trial that is actively enrolling in The Bahamas.

U.S. Phase 2b Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial

The Phase 2b Trial is our most advanced clinical trial in our Aging Frailty program (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT03169231). The trial design was guided by input from FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), and Longeveron’s scientific and clinical advisors. Longeveron designated this as a “Phase 2b” trial because its objectives included a preliminary assessment of Lomecel-B effectiveness for an Aging Frailty indication. Longeveron did not conduct a “Phase 2a” trial.

The specific objectives of this trial were to evaluate the effectiveness of Lomecel-B in multiple domain measures of Aging Frailty: physical functioning biomarkers; patient-reported outcomes (PROs); quality-of-life measures (QOLs); frailty status; and clinical outcomes and other endpoints applicable to Aging Frailty. In addition, this trial assessed a dose-range of Lomecel-B to further our understanding of evidence of a dose-response relationship that could support the product’s pharmacological bioactivity. The target population was comprised of: individuals aged 70–85 years who were considered mild to moderately frail per the CSHA Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), could walk between 200 and 400 meters at baseline; and had systemic inflammation evidenced by elevated tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α).

The primary efficacy endpoint in this clinical trial was the change from baseline in the six-minute walk test (6MWT) at six months for investigational treatment compared to placebo treatment. The primary endpoint included a primary analysis (comparing mean change from baseline for investigational arms compared to placebo arm), and a secondary analysis (evaluating whether a dose-response relationship exists). The 6MWT is a functional assessment that engages several organ systems, including the cardiopulmonary, musculoskeletal, and neurologic systems, is a reliable indicator of frailty status, and may correlate with an individual’s ability to perform basic activities of daily living (ADLs). This validated and easily-administered test measures how many meters a person can walk in six minutes, and is a general evaluation of mobility and exercise tolerance or endurance. We intend to evaluate the full spectrum of results from both US Aging Frailty trials, and depending on the data and input from our advisors, we may choose to engage FDA to discuss whether a regulatory pathway to pivotal clinical trial(s) can be identified. These discussions would need to include evaluation of an acceptable and appropriate primary efficacy endpoint(s), in an approvable indication with a mutually agreeably-defined patient population.

Phase 2b Aging Frailty Trial Results

One hundred and forty-eight (148) subjects were randomized and received a single peripheral intravenous infusion of Lomecel-B (25 million cells, 50 million cells, 100 million cells or 200 million cells), or placebo, followed by a 52-week observation period to evaluate safety and efficacy. The Phase 2b trial was conducted at eight hospitals and clinics, primarily in South Florida, including the Miami Veterans Administration (VA) Healthcare System, and was funded by a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant from the NIH’s NIA. The trial was completed in the first quarter of 2021 and the topline results were announced on August 13, 2021.

The study’s key secondary endpoints were 6 month change in the patient reported outcome questionnaire PROMIS—Physical Function—Short Form 20a (SF-20a) total score and 6 month change in serum levels of TNF-α, a pro-inflammatory cytokine. Lomecel-B cohorts did not show a statistically significant difference compared to the placebo cohort in the SF-20a score or the TNF-α results. The remainder of the efficacy endpoints, which included assessments of physical function, sexual function, fear and risk of falling, depression, cognition, frailty status, pulmonary function, and clinical outcomes, were considered exploratory and Lomecel-B-treated groups did not show statistically significant differences versus placebo at most of the time points.

We are continuing to further evaluate the clinical and biomarker data, and perform subgroup analysis, in conjunction with working with our Frailty Steering Committee and other advisors to determine next steps in the clinical development plan for this indication.

U.S. Phase 1/2 HERA Trial: Lomecel-B as a Potential Vaccine Adjuvant

The aging-related diminution of the immune system (immunosenescence) makes Aging Frailty patients vulnerable to infection and disease. Immunosenescence is the basis for a generally muted response to any type of immune challenge in these patients, including disproportionately low response to vaccines, such as the influenza vaccine.

Many efforts are made to try to boost vaccine effectiveness by manipulation of the vaccines themselves, such as increasing vaccine dosage in the case of the High-Dose Flu Vaccine given to older recipients. However, this approach often falls short of providing the sought-after immune protection because of the patients’ diminished intrinsic ability to mount an effective immune response and furthermore, may be associated with increased incidence of adverse events. To date, there are no approved therapeutics shown to improve the intrinsic competence of the immune system (immunocompetence).

In this clinical program, Lomecel-B is being explored as a candidate for improving immunocompetence in older frail individuals receiving influenza vaccine. The HERA Trial was designed to evaluate safety, to explore whether Lomecel-B infusion may have a positive effect on the aging immune system in response to influenza vaccine, and to evaluate Lomecel-B’s possible effects on Aging Frailty status and endpoints (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02982915).

Trial Status. The trial is complete and data from the randomized, placebo-controlled phase is pending. The Phase 1 component of the trial was a 22-patient multicenter, open-label, randomized trial. Phase 2 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. The Phase 2 portion of the trial had a target enrollment of up to 60 subjects, and enrolled a total of 39 subjects before it was closed for enrollment at the conclusion of the 2020 flu season at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. Clinical data from the randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2 trial is pending.

Aging Frailty Phase 1 Results

HERA Immune-Response Data. Phase 1 of the HERA Trial was an open-label study conducted during the 2017 – 2018 flu season. The primary goal was to evaluate the safety of Lomecel-B as a vaccine adjuvant, and evaluate how a short (1 week) or longer (4 week) interval between Lomecel-B infusion and vaccination might impacted the immune response to the vaccine. Subjects enrolled had mild to moderate Aging Frailty per the CSHA CFS, and received the Fluzone High-Dose Vaccine (Sanofi Pasteur Inc.).

Interim results from the Phase 1 portion of the trial showed that both groups (1 week and 4 week interval between infusion and vaccination) showed statistically significant positive antibody responses as determined by the blood levels of IgM and IgG antibodies raised against influenza A and B strains. IgM antibodies appear early in a normal immune response, and are normally followed by IgG antibodies which appear later. Antibody levels ≥ 1.1 index value (IV) indicate positive antibody response. Average IgM levels prior to receiving vaccine were < 1.1 IV at the Infusion Visit and Vaccination Visit, where blood samples were taken prior to Lomecel-B administration and vaccination, respectively. Post-vaccination, these increased to > 1.1 IV, with every subject showing an increase from baseline for all four antibodies (IgG and IgM for influenza A and B viruses). These increases did not significantly differ between the two study arms (1-week and 4-week interval between Lomecel-B infusion and vaccination).

We also examined potential to neutralize the specific influenza virus strains that the vaccine was directed against (Michigan, Hong Kong, and Brisbane viruses). This used a test called the hemagglutinin inhibition (HAI) assay. Overall, the 1-week interval group showed significantly higher HAI results (meaning better performance) compared to the 4-week interval group. Based on these preliminary findings, we elected to use a 1-week interval between infusion with Lomecel-B and vaccination in Phase 2 of HERA.

We view these results as encouraging, in light of the reported suboptimal efficacy of the 2017 – 2018 Fluzone High-Dose Vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) found an overall adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) of just 18% against flu-associated medically-attended acute respiratory illness in those ≥ 65 years of age (CI = -25–47%). At the approximate mid-point of Phase 2 of the HERA Trial, we performed a planned interim analysis in order to re-assess study powering. We evaluated the 6MWT and other physical function measures of Aging Frailty as part of this analysis.

The HERA Phase 2 interim analysis showed that the 6MWT increased in the Lomecel-B arm by 45.20 ± 81.03 meters (n=14) at six months post-administration, versus a decrease of 21.40 ± 81.87 meters (n=15) in the placebo arm (mean ± standard deviation; six-month difference from placebo: 66.60 meters. 95%CI: -4.70 – 137.89. p = 0.0656). A similar trend was seen in the open-label HERA Phase 1 (59.59 ± 140.57 meters. 95%CI: -12.68 – 131.86. n=19. p=0.0996). We performed an analysis using the pooled data from patients in the Phase 1 arm combined with those from the Phase 2 interim analysis Lomecel-B arms. At six months post-infusion, there was a statistically significant improvement in the combined Phase 1 & 2 Lomecel-B arms from Baseline relative to placebo (six-month difference from placebo: 75.65 meters. 95%CI: 0.71 – 150.60. p=0.0480). By 12 months post-infusion, the improvements had waned in the Lomecel-B groups (Phase 1, Phase 2 interim analysis, and combined), and were no longer significantly different from placebo (12-month difference from placebo: 35.31 meters. 95%CI: -16.99 – 87.61. p=0.1796).

Japanese Phase 2 Aging Frailty Trial

The PMDA has approved an investigator-initiated CTN application for a multicenter Phase 2 clinical study of Lomecel-B infusion in older Japanese subjects with mild to moderate Aging Frailty. The trial is similar in design to our U.S. Phase 2b Trial, and is expected to initiate in first half of 2022. The CTN applicant is the NCGG, and we are engaged in trial planning with the NCGG and Juntendo University Hospital, as the other clinical trial site.

Under the 2014 law passed by the Japanese government, two new Acts were added that regulate regenerative medicine development and offer two pathways to market for regenerative medicine product candidates: The Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine (ASRM) and the Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Act (PMD Act). A summary of the primary differences and benefits of the two Acts is described in “Japanese Laws and Regulations” within the Business section of this report.

The Bahamas Registry Trial

In 2017, we were granted approval by the Bahamian government to sponsor a Registry Trial in Nassau, The Bahamas. Eligible subjects with Aging Frailty who meet Registry eligibility requirements may receive Lomecel-B at their own expense at one of two medical centers with which we are partnered. The medical providers are responsible for the administration of Lomecel-B to these individuals as well as their care and Registry Trial-specific follow-up. The program is regulated by the Stem Cell Research and Therapy Act of 2013, and the Stem Cell Research and Therapy Regulations passed in 2014. Under the terms of the approval, participants in the Registry pay a fee directly to us, and we in turn pay a fee to the medical providers who administer Lomecel-B to the participant. Data collected from the Registry Trial contribute to our overall understanding of the safety profile of Lomecel-B, and for gathering real-world evidence on possible efficacy. Lomecel-B is not licensed for commercial sale in the Bahamas and is considered an investigational therapeutic.

In 2019, we received approval to expand the Registry for the following indications: mild cognitive impairment; AD and related dementias; frailty due to reasons other than aging, including overuse and injury; and osteoarthritis. The Registry Trial has specified baseline assessments and a prescribed follow up schedule over a 12-month post-administration time period. Participants are expected to follow up with their local physician at the specified time points so that we may collect safety data and gain additional efficacy information, specifically with respect to physical function, the individual’s global impressions of change, biomarkers, and other indication-specific measures.

Participation in the Registry Trial has been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to travel restrictions. Starting on July 22, 2020, the Bahamian government halted travel from the U.S. into The Bahamas, which resulted in the temporary cessation of participation in The Bahamas Registry Trial. While this travel restriction has now been lifted, participation in the Bahamas Registry Trial remains lower than anticipated, due in part to pandemic-related effects on international travel.

Lomecel-B for Alzheimer’s Disease

AD is the leading form of dementia. This disease affects millions of Americans, leads to early mortality, and creates a tremendous burden on families and society that costs the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars annually in direct costs and lost productivity.

Patients afflicted with AD have characteristic brain changes that include abnormal protein deposits in the brain, called β-amyloid deposits. Another feature that occurs within the neurons themselves is called neurofibrillary tangles, which interferes with the structure and function of the neurons, and leads to neuron death. Inflammation in the brain – a process called neuroinflammation – is also a key feature of AD. This pro-inflammatory state appears essential for the clinical manifestation of dementia resulting from AD. In addition, the functioning of the blood vessels in the brain are often compromised in AD, the consequences of which include impaired exchange across the barrier between the blood and the brain, called the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Ultimately, these pathological processes lead to the structural changes in the brain and resulting dementia.

We are testing Lomecel-B as a potential treatment for AD based on the hypothesis that its multiple MOAs can simultaneously address multiple features of AD. Preclinical studies show that MSCs can potentially reduce AD-associated brain inflammation, improve the function of blood vessels in the brain, and reduce brain damage due to AD progression, and promote regenerative responses. We have completed a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 1 safety study of subjects with mild AD. The trial met its primary safety endpoint, and also provided preliminary evidence suggestive of efficacy. Based on the results, we are preparing a larger Phase 2 study. If successful in clinical studies and approved by FDA, we hope that Lomecel-B may prove to be a disease-modifying therapy for AD.

Prevalence of AD and Market Potential

The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that 6.2 million Americans have AD, and as many as 12.7 million Americans will be afflicted by 2050 barring significant medical breakthroughs. An estimated 35.6 million people are affected with AD worldwide, and that number is expected to quadruple by 2050. Among individuals age 85 and older, over a third have AD. AD is currently the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., taking more lives annually than breast cancer and prostate cancer combined, underscoring the critical importance for developing a therapeutic intervention that can delay or reverse the progression of the disease. Arguably, AD represents the only leading cause of death that cannot be prevented, cured, or slowed using existing approved therapies with the possible exception of Aduhelm in certain patients. This disease has a tremendous impact on the quality of lives of the patients and their caregivers, costing American society an estimated $355 billion for health-care, long-term care, and hospice services in 2021, and over $256.7 billion in unpaid dementia caregiving (usually borne by family members) based on 2020 estimates.

Analysts have suggested that any disease-modifying AD drug that makes it all the way to market could rapidly achieve over $10 billion in sales. Without a major market competitor, analysts have predicted that that figure could balloon to over $20 billion by 2030.

Phase 1 Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial

We have conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 1 trial to evaluate the safety and explore whether there was any preliminary evidence of efficacy of Lomecel-B in subjects with mild AD (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02600130). Each subject received a single infusion of low-dose of Lomecel-B (20 million cells), high-dose of Lomecel-B (100 million cells), or placebo. The observation period was 12 months post-infusion. Our results support the safety and tolerability of using Lomecel-B in individuals with AD, in which the primary safety endpoint was met, and no product-associated SAEs were observed.

Results from the AD Phase 1 Trial

While this Phase 1 study was powered for safety as the primary endpoint, it was also designed to evaluate the potential effects of Lomecel-B in multiple efficacy domains that include cognition, ADLs, QOL, and biomarkers.

The Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) is a validated and commonly used assessment of cognitive function. A decreased score on the MMSE indicates worsening, and a 6-month change of ~1.4 points has been calculated to be a minimally clinically important difference (MCID). Statistically significant differences on the MMSE were found between the low-dose Lomecel-B and placebo groups. The placebo group showed a fairly steady decline on the MMSE over the course of a year (p < 0.05 at Weeks 13, 39, and 52 post-treatment versus baseline). However, the low-dose Lomecel-B group showed no significant change from baseline until Week 52 (1 year) post-infusion. At Week 39, average MMSE scores were 19.78 ± 3.347 in low-dose Lomecel-B arm (Δ from baseline= -1.22 ± 2.728, n = 11) versus 15.43 ± 4.117 in the placebo group (Δ from baseline= -5.09 ± 3.854, n = 7). The difference in change from baseline between the low-dose Lomecel-B arm and placebo was 3.87 points (p = 0.0236; 95%CI: 0.59 – 7.14 points). The high-dose Lomecel-B arm showed no significant changes from baseline or versus placebo. Other cognitive assessments (such as the “Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive”) showed no significant differences between the Lomecel-B and placebo groups.

Phase 2a Alzheimer’s Disease Trial 

In the last quarter of 2021, we initiated this 48-patient, Phase 2a, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter study enrolling mild to moderate AD patients. The study is currently actively screening patients for enrollment. This study is designed to measure brain changes using MRI, and include detailed biomarker assessments of the inflammatory and vascular systems thought to contribute to the worsening of AD, in addition to cognitive function, ADLs, safety, and other endpoints.

Lomecel-B for the Metabolic Syndrome

We conducted a clinical sub-study to our Aging Frailty studies to explore whether Lomecel-B may improve the Metabolic Syndrome, and if the Metabolic Syndrome presents confounding issues for this treatment approach in Aging Frailty patients. This sub-study primarily focuses upon blood-based biomarker changes, and non-invasive evaluation of vascular (blood vessel) functioning.

For the purpose of analysis, we are evaluating the Metabolic Syndrome in subjects enrolled in our Phase 2b Trial and HERA Aging Frailty trials, and dividing them into two groups: those with and without the Metabolic Syndrome. We will look at the effect of Lomecel-B relative to placebo on the two groups with respect to effect changes relevant to the Metabolic Syndrome. Approximately 40% of Aging Frailty patients have been reported to have the Metabolic Syndrome, which we have empirically confirmed from our Phase 2b Trial and HERA clinical trial, in which we have identified approximately 45% and 33% of enrolled subjects, respectively, who meet the criteria for the Metabolic Syndrome. The Metabolic Syndrome is also becoming a well-recognized contributor to AD and related dementias.

The Metabolic Syndrome is a clinically-defined condition (ICD-10: code 277.7) that increases the chances of developing CVD and T2DM. It is also known as X syndrome, insulin resistance syndrome, cardiometabolic syndrome, and Reaven’s syndrome. The Metabolic Syndrome lacks consensus definition regarding the specific variables amongst clinicians and researchers. The Metabolic Syndrome is defined as a cluster of risk factors for which at least three of the following five criteria must be met.

The Metabolic Syndrome is associated with vascular dysfunction and damage, and a proinflammatory state marked by elevated serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and D-dimer. Obesity also directly contributes to this proinflammatory state and the Metabolic Syndrome. Compared to unaffected individuals, patients with the Metabolic Syndrome are twice as likely to develop CVD in 5 – 10 years, five-times as likely for developing T2DM, over twice as likely to have a stroke, over three-times as likely to have a heart attack, and have double the risk of dying from such events. The incidence of the Metabolic Syndrome has reached epidemic proportions and continues to increase, as the overall prevalence in the U.S. is approximately 35% of the total population, or over 80 million individuals.

Lomecel-B may be a potential candidate for the Metabolic Syndrome through multiple potential MOAs that include the potential to reduce associated inflammation and improve vascular function. Preclinical studies support the clinical benefits of allogeneic MSC therapy for treating the Metabolic Syndrome, which resulted in improvements in vascular function, atherosclerosis, and glucose homeostasis.

Lomecel-B for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)

We are conducting a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial for ARDS due to COVID-19 or influenza virus infection. ARDS can be rapidly induced by a variety of insults, such as coronavirus and influenza virus infection. Approximately 200,000 people suffer from ARDS in the U.S. annually, with a mortality rate of about 40%. These numbers may increase as a result of COVID-19, which could become a seasonal epidemic. Older persons, those with Aging Frailty, and those with the Metabolic Syndrome, are at significantly increased risk for severely poor outcomes from ARDS due to viral infection, including prolonged hospitalization and death.

Viral infection leading to ARDS can result in severe inflammation called a “cytokine storm”, most pronounced by severely elevated serum levels of CRP and IL-6. This in turn leads to disruption of the lung cell layers (the endothelial and epithelial barriers), and consequently, to severe inhibition of pulmonary exchange. ARDS can result in long-term adverse effects on patients, such as lung scarring (fibrosis). As now widely appreciated due to COVID-19, there is a dearth of treatment options available for ARDS, and first-line defense measures often have sub-optimal palliative effects.

Lomecel-B has the potential to be a treatment for ARDS due to the previously described MOAs. These include the potential to treat the cytokine storm induced in ARDS without leading to toxic immunosuppression, reduce fibrotic damage, promote reparative mechanisms, and improve immune functioning.

Status of Clinical Trial. This trial is currently enrolling and we expect enrollment to continue through 2022.

Grant Funding Award. This study is being supported in part by a grant award from the MSCRF, part of Maryland TEDCO.

Emergency Use Expanded Access. In addition to our clinical trial, four patients with ARDS have been treated with Lomecel-B under FDA emergency-use expanded-access through individual physician-filed applications.

Lomecel-B for Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS)

We are testing Lomecel-B as a potential combinatorial therapy candidate to surgical intervention for HLHS. The scientific goal underlying this study builds on surgical advances of the past thirty years, and is intended to address remaining obstacles to improving long-term cardiac function in HLHS patients.

HLHS is a severe congenital birth defect in which the left ventricle of the heart is either severely underdeveloped or missing. As a consequence, babies born with this condition have severely diminished systemic blood flow, which previously led to a 100% mortality rate shortly after birth. Babies born with HLHS now undergo a complex three stage heart reconstruction over the course of years, in which the single remaining right ventricle is used to support systemic circulation (the right ventricle is normally used for lung circulation, which is a much lower load). While these children can now live into adulthood, early mortality is still extremely high in this population due to right ventricle failure, which is not meant for the increased load demanded for systemic circulation. Furthermore, HLHS patients after undergoing heart reconstructive surgery are often not ideal candidates for a heart transplant. As such, there is an important unmet medical need to improve right ventricular function in these patients to improve both short-term and long-term outcomes.

We believe that Lomecel-B has potential as a combinatorial therapy with HLHS surgery to improve both short- and long-term clinical outcomes. We are evaluating whether a direct injection in the heart can improve right ventricle function by promoting regenerative and repair responses. In animal studies, this combinatorial approach resulted in a 10 – 15% improvement in right ventricle function.

Prevalence of HLHS. HLHS is a rare indication, occurring at approximately 2 – 3 cases per 10,000 live births, or roughly 1,000 children annually in the U.S. FDA has granted both RPD Designation and ODD for the treatment of HLHS.

Results from Phase 1 HLHS Clinical Trial

We have completed a multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled Phase 1 clinical trial in HLHS (ELPIS I, NCT02587572). This study was designed to assess safety of intramyocardial injection of Lomecel-B administered to 10 infants with HLHS during Stage 2 bidirectional cavopulmonary anastomosis (BDCPA, or “Glenn procedure”) surgeries. Children with HLHS undergoing Stage 2 surgery (Glenn procedure) were treated via intramyocardial (direct heart) injection of Lomecel-B. This study met the primary safety endpoint: no major adverse cardiac events (MACE), nor any treatment-related infections during the first month post-treatment.

Phase 2 Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome Clinical Trial

A randomized, double-blind and controlled Phase 2 clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of Lomecel-B in conjunction with reconstructive surgery compared to surgery alone, is currently actively enrolling (ELPIS II, NCT04925024). With a target enrollment of 38 infants, we expect ELPIS II to enroll in approximately 7 children’s hospitals in major metropolitan centers located throughout the U.S.

Phase 2 supported by Grant Funding Award. A grant from the NIH’s NHLBI (Grant number 1UG3HL148318), was awarded to the Principal Investigator. We are a subawardee and provide clinical trial material (Lomecel-B) and other support. We may provide additional financial and organizational support for this trial in the future.

Expanded Access. In addition to the clinical trial, one HLHS baby has received Lomecel-B under FDA expanded access, or “compassionate use” approval through an individual physician request.

Other Investigational Products in Development

We have conducted preclinical research and development work for additional cellular therapy product candidates, including exosomes and CD271+ cells. While similar to Lomecel-B, CD271+ cells may have characteristics that could lead to a next generation product and may have additional uses. We conduct research and development for other cellular-based experimental products called exosomes, which are small membrane-bound products secreted by cells, including MSCs, which contain bioactive cargo.

Manufacturing

The manufacture and delivery of cell therapy products to patients involves complex, integrated processes. Commercial success in this area requires manufacturing processes that are reliable, scalable, and economical. We currently operate a manufacturing facility in Miami, FL, which supplies Lomecel-B for our clinical trials and also serves as our corporate headquarters. We have and will continue to devote significant resources to optimization of process development and manufacturing to reduce per-unit manufacturing costs and to enable quick scale-up of production upon approval of any of our candidates in a particular country. We also intend to expand the manufacturing capacities in the U.S. and potentially Japan or other regions in Asia.

We also intend to expand the manufacturing capacities in the U.S. and potentially Japan or other regions in Asia for commercialization at both a regional and global scale upon regulatory approvals.

Our GMP facility went online in early 2017, and consists of 4,150 ft² (385.5 m²) with approximately 3,000 ft² (279 m²) of GMP space comprised of ISO 7 cleanrooms, and ISO 8 ancillary areas and 1,150 ft² (107 m²) of warehouse, research and development and Quality Control space. The GMP cleanrooms are used exclusively for the manufacture of human cellular therapy products for use in clinical trials. The facility is in compliance with FDA regulations in 21 CFR Parts 210 and 211.

Our lead product, Lomecel-B, consists of human allogeneic bone-marrow derived MSCs as the active ingredient. These cells undergo culture-expansion using proprietary processes, and are then formulated, packaged and stored frozen (cryopreserved) until shortly before use. Fresh bone marrow is procured from established, licensed U.S.-based third-party tissue suppliers, which harvest the tissue from young, healthy consenting donors. Lomecel-B is produced using processes that FDA has reviewed and authorized as part of our INDs. We currently have bone marrow supply contracts in place with two suppliers: the Oklahoma Blood Institute and Vista Health Research. These suppliers provide adequate bone marrow for our current and anticipated needs; however, if one or both suppliers were to no longer provide bone marrow, alternate suppliers would be needed or our ability to produce Lomecel-B in the future could be impacted.

Technology Capabilities

From the commencement of operations in 2014, we recognized the potential for a cellular therapy product to be a novel therapeutic candidate in our chosen indications. We have assembled a team of experts and proprietary technologies that we believe enables us to take a systematic approach to rapidly develop improved cell therapies. We believe having established manufacturing capabilities and operations within the U.S. early in the development of our product candidates is a competitive advantage. Over time, we expect to expand regional manufacturing capacity and potentially add external supply nodes to meet projected product requirements for commercialization. We believe that anticipated future clinical and commercial demand for Lomecel-B and new pipeline programs can be met, as our process has been designed to meet these demands as milestones are achieved. We believe our scalable robust manufacturing process, along with our proprietary technologies and our industry experienced team, would be challenging and costly for potential competitors to replicate.

Contract Development and Manufacturing Services

We produce all of our product candidates in the ISO 7 cleanrooms of our GMP facility to satisfy our ongoing clinical studies, and The Bahamas Registry Trial. As a revenue-generating opportunity, occasionally we utilize excess capacity, when available, to provide contract manufacturing and development services to third parties; however, our business development activity is limited in this area.

Commercialization

We currently have no established sales, marketing or product distribution infrastructure. In order to commercialize any of our product candidates if approved for commercial sale, we will need a sales and marketing organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities or collaborate with third parties that have sales and marketing experience. As we move our product candidates through development toward regulatory approval, we will evaluate several options for each product candidate’s commercialization strategy. These options include further building an internal sales force, entering into a joint marketing collaboration with another pharmaceutical or biotechnology company, or out-licensing any future approved product to another pharmaceutical or biotechnology company.

Competition

The field of regenerative medicine, which includes gene therapies, cell therapies (such as Lomecel-B), and tissue-engineered products, is broadly defined as “products intended to repair, replace or regenerate organs, tissues, cells, genes, and metabolic processes in the body,” per the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), an international advocacy organization. Regenerative medicine companies number over 1,000 worldwide as of the first half of 2021.

In some of our indications, we face competition from both cellular therapy companies, and pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies. The following table is a general, non-comprehensive list of cellular therapy companies that we believe could be considered our primary competition on the basis that these companies are developers of living cell-based therapies, albeit for different indications in most cases.

ARDS = Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome; GvHD = Graft versus host disease; ALS = Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; MS = Multiple sclerosis; BPD = Bronchopulmonary dysplasia; CLI = Critical limb ischemia; CMD = coronary microvascular disease; ARS = Acute radiation syndrome.

Biology of Aging Research Companies

To our knowledge, there are no other companies currently conducting clinical trials for Aging Frailty using a regenerative medicine approach. However, this is likely to change as the emphasis on developing an effective treatment grows. Per clincialtrials.gov, as of March 1, 2022, there are a few groups testing different types of stem cells for frailty:

The University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio is collaborating with the NIH to conduct a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial of metformin, the Type-2 diabetes medication, for the prevention of frailty in subjects aged 65 to 95. Other academic groups or hospitals have or are testing hormonal treatments such as ghrelin or testosterone to prevent or treat frailty. The vast majority of interventional trials typically involve lifestyle intervention, specifically evaluating diet, dietary supplements, or exercise modifications, or a combination thereof. A number of companies are researching different approaches and therapeutics in the broad “anti-aging” category, developing therapies that may extend “healthspan” by slowing or reversing diseases associated with aging, or the aging process itself.

Competition in Alzheimer’s Disease

There are several companies currently testing cellular therapy in neurologic and cognitive disorders. However, in the U.S., we believe we are the furthest advanced in the clinical development of a regenerative medicine approach to treating AD. The following companies have publicly indicated that they are conducting, or intend to conduct, cell therapy clinical trials in AD.

There are many other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are conducting clinical trials of various therapeutics for the treatment of AD. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, in 2021 there were 121 unique therapies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Some of the more established and well-known companies in this group include Biogen, Novartis, Eisai, and Eli Lilly.

Competition in HLHS

Currently there are no FDA-approved treatments for HLHS. In addition to our HLHS clinical program, Boston Children’s Hospital is sponsoring a study of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells (rexlemestrocel-L) in HLHS with cells provided by Mesoblast Ltd. According to clinicaltrials.gov, ReGen Theranostics is sponsoring an active trial of intramyocardial injection of autologous umbilical cord blood derived mononuclear cells during surgical repair of HLHS.

Competition in ARDS

Currently there are no FDA-approved treatments for ARDS. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a spike in research on the potential for allogeneic MSCs to treat acute lung injury resulting from infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Several cellular therapy companies had ongoing ARDS programs prior to the pandemic, and several other companies, including us, initiated clinical studies during the pandemic.

Intellectual Property

We seek to protect our proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business by seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally, acquired from third parties, or licensed from third parties. We also intend to seek and rely on any statutory or regulatory protections, including FDA’s expedited review program, data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions where available.

We have a combination of Company-owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications related to cell-based therapy and its various uses. This portfolio includes patent applications directed to use of allogeneic MSCs to (a) increase humoral immunity; (b) treat sexual dysfunction; and (c) act as adjuvants for vaccines. We also have in-licensed a patent family directed to methods of use of CD271+ MSC precursor cells. Our patent applications contain claims that, if allowed, specifically protect the use of our product in individuals with Aging Frailty, immunosenescence, and other age-related diseases. We also rely on trade secrets that may be important to the development of our business. Trade secrets are difficult to protect and enforce and therefore provide us with only limited protection.

We expect to file additional patent applications in support of current and new product candidates, as well as for process and manufacturing-related improvements or inventions, should these arise. These expected additional patent applications may be related to existing patent applications or may create new patent families. Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection for our current and future product candidates and the methods used to develop, manufacture, administer, and use them. Our commercial success will also depend on successfully defending our patents against third-party challenges and operating without infringing on the proprietary rights of others. We are aware of several U.S. patents held by third parties covering potentially similar or related products, and their manufacture and use. Generally, conducting clinical trials and other acts relating to FDA approval are not considered acts of infringement in the U.S. If and when Lomecel-B MSCs are approved by the FDA, third parties may seek to enforce their patents by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. Our ability to deter and, if necessary, to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products or products that are similar to our products depends on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. We can neither be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our product candidates, discovery programs and processes. Unpublished third-party patent applications may exist that would have an effect on our freedom to operate. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most jurisdictions where we file, including the U.S., the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the U.S., a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in examining and granting a patent. Patent term in the U.S. may be shortened if a patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer over another patent. Delays on the part of a patentee may decrease patent term adjustment.

In the U.S., the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved “active ingredient” or methods of its use may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, or the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 permit a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the statutory term of a patent, including any patent term adjustment to which the patent is entitled. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the active ingredient or method is under regulatory review. Patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products. We plan to seek patent term extensions for any issued patents we may obtain in any jurisdiction where such patent term extensions are available. We are not assured that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the U.S., will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of those extensions. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

We may file patent applications directly with the USPTO as provisional applications. We may file U.S. non-provisional applications, direct foreign applications under the Paris Convention and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications. Those applications may claim the benefit of the priority date of one or more earlier filed provisional applications, when applicable. The PCT system allows a single application to be filed within 12 months of the original priority date of the patent application, and to designate all of the PCT member states in which national or regional patent applications can later be pursued based on the PCT application.

For all patent applications, we determine claim strategy on a case-by-case basis. Advice of counsel and our business model and needs are considered. We seek to file patents containing claims for protection of all useful applications of our proprietary technologies and any products, as well as all new applications and/or uses we discover for existing technologies and products, assuming these are strategically valuable. We routinely reassess the number and type of patent applications, as well as the pending and issued patent claims to pursue maximum coverage and value for our processes and compositions. Further, we may modify claims during patent prosecution to meet our intellectual property and business needs.

We recognize that the ability to obtain patent protection and the degree of such protection depends on a number of factors. These include the volume and scope of the prior art, the novelty, non-obviousness, and utility of the invention, and the ability to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of the patent laws. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly narrowed before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted or further altered even after patent issuance. Consequently, we may not obtain or maintain adequate patent protection for any of our future product candidates or for our technology platform. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from copying by competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. We cannot predict whether, in certain jurisdictions, a third-party will use a method confidentially that we later independently discover and patent, which may result in a limited grant to the third party of the ability to continue to practice that method despite our patent.

In addition to patent protection, we rely on trademark registration, trade secrets, know how, other proprietary information and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect and maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contracts with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets indefinitely.

We require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except under specific circumstances. Our agreements with employees also provide that all inventions conceived by the employee in the course of employment with us or from the employee’s use of our confidential information are our exclusive property. However, such confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting trade secrets, know-how and inventions. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

The patent positions of biotechnology companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. Third-party patents could require us to alter our development or commercial strategies or our products or processes, to obtain licenses or to cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or our failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights required to develop or commercialize our future products may have a material adverse impact on us. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the U.S. that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention. If third parties file requests for inter partes review of our patents, then we may have to defend those patents in the USPTO. For more information, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

When available to expand market exclusivity, our strategy is to obtain, or license additional intellectual property related to current or contemplated development platforms, core elements of technology and/or clinical candidates.

Company-Owned Intellectual Property

Mesenchymal Stem Cells as Vaccine Adjuvants and Methods for Using the Same. The claims within this patent application family are currently directed to methods of enhancing the immune response to vaccination, which is one of the research objectives of our Phase 1/2 HERA Trial. This research is relevant to Aging Frailty subjects, who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of viral contagion, such as influenza or COVID-19, and who may be lacking in immunoprotection. Certain claims address the ability to enhance a subject’s immune response to a vaccine through the administration of a therapeutically effective amount of allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells in a subject that exhibits “Inflammaging.” In this family we own one pending U.S. patent application, 9 patent applications outside of the U.S. (in nine jurisdictions), and two patent registrations in South Africa. All of the patent applications are national or regional phase applications based on a PCT application filed in February 2017 and claiming priority to a U.S. provisional application filed in February 2016. National or regional phase applications were filed in the U.S., Australia, Canada, the European Patent Organization, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Africa. If issued and assuming all maintenance and annuity fees are paid, patents arising from these applications are projected to expire in 2037.

Methods of Using Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells to Effect Cellular and Humoral Immunity. Certain claims in this family of patent applications relate to the ability for mesenchymal stem cell therapy to improve the immune system function in patients with chronic systemic inflammation, a hallmark of frailty. It is believed that raising or lowering specific biomarkers after therapeutic intervention by a minimum amount may provide broad protection from an intellectual property standpoint and reflects clinical goals of treatment and treatment response.

In this family we own one pending U.S. patent application, 12 patent applications outside of the U.S. (in 12 jurisdictions), and a patent registration in South Africa. With two exceptions (The Bahamas and Taiwan), all of the applications are national or regional phase applications based on a PCT application filed in November 2017 and claiming priority to a U.S. provisional application filed in November 2016. The applications in The Bahamas and Taiwan claim priority to that same provisional application but were not filed using the PCT. In addition to the applications in Taiwan and The Bahamas, PCT national or regional phase applications were filed in the U.S., Australia, Canada, China, the European Patent Organization, Israel, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, and Hong Kong. If issued and assuming all maintenance and annuity fees are paid, patents arising from these applications are projected to expire in 2037.

Treatment of Sexual Dysfunction and Improvement in Sexual Quality of Life. This application family is directed towards increasing libido and improving sexual function and satisfaction in a female patient through the use of allogeneic or autologous MSC therapy, whether derived from bone marrow, adipose tissue or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). In this family we own one pending U.S. patent application, 12 patent applications outside of the U.S. (in 12 jurisdictions), and a patent registration in South Africa. With two exceptions (The Bahamas and Taiwan), all of the applications are national or regional phase applications based on a PCT application filed in June 15, 2018 and claiming priority to a U.S. provisional application filed in June 2017. The applications in The Bahamas and Taiwan claim priority to that same provisional application but were not filed using the PCT. In addition to the applications in Taiwan and The Bahamas, PCT national or regional phase applications were filed in Australia, Canada, China, the European Patent Organization, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, and the U.S. If issued and assuming all maintenance and annuity fees are paid, patents arising from these applications are projected to expire in June 2038.

Potency Assay. We own one PCT patent application relating to examination of protein production by human mesenchymal stem cells in response to stimuli. That application was filed in April 2021 and claims priority to a U.S. provisional application filed in April 2020. National phase applications, if any, are not required to be filed until October 2022 at the earliest.

Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease with Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells. We own one PCT patent application related to treatment of AD with allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells. That application was filed in September 2021 and claims priority to three separate U.S. provisional applications, the earliest of which was filed in September 2020. National phase applications, if any, are not required to be filed until March 2023 at the earliest.

Use of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Treatment of Juvenile Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome. We own one U.S. provisional patent application related to treatment of hypoplastic left heart syndrome with allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells. That application was filed in July 2021. Related applications, if any, are not required to be filed until July 2022.

Administration of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Aging Frailty. We own one U.S. provisional patent application related to administration of mesenchymal stem cells for aging frailty. That application was filed in September 2021. Related applications, if any, are not required to be filed until September 2022.

License Agreements and Strategic Collaborations

The University of Miami (UM)

On November 20, 2014, we entered into an Exclusive License Agreement with UM (the “UM License”) for the use of certain Aging Frailty-related MSC technology rights developed by our Chief Science Officer at UM. The UM License is a worldwide, exclusive license, with right to sublicense, with respect to any and all know-how specifically related to the development of the culture-expanded MSCs for aging-related frailty used at the Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute of UM (“IMSCs”), all SOPs used to create the IMSCs, and all data supporting isolation, culture, expansion, processing, cryopreservation and management of the IMSCs. We are required to pay UM (i) a license issue fee of $5,000, (ii) a running royalty in an amount equal to three percent of annual net sales on products or services developed from the technology, which amounts are payable on a country-by-country basis beginning on the date of first commercial sale and ending on the expiration or termination of the UM License Agreement, and which may be reduced to the extent we are required to pay royalties to a third party for the same product or process, (iii) escalating annual cash payments on the anniversary date of the agreement of ten, fifteen, twenty-five, forty and fifty thousand dollars, which amounts may be offset by other consideration paid. UM also received a one percent (1%) equity grant, which is subject to certain anti-dilution provisions.

The agreement extends for up to 20 years from the last date a product or process is commercialized from the technology. This agreement was amended on December 11, 2017. The 2017 amendment modified the dates of the milestone completions under the original UM License. To date, the Company has made payments totaling $140,000 to UM, and as of December 31, 2021, we had accrued $50,000 in milestone fees payable to UM and $100,000 for patent related reimbursements based on the estimated progress to date.

The agreement was further amended on March 3, 2021 to increase the license fee due to UM. The Company agreed to pay UM an additional fee of $100,000, to defray patent costs, with $70,000 due within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the amendment, and the remainder to be paid in equal installments of $7,500 on the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 5^th year anniversaries of the effective date. The Company also agreed to issue an additional 110,387 unregistered shares of Class A Common Stock shares to UM. The Company and UM agreed to the following modification of the milestone payments: (a) No payment will be due upon the completion of Phase 2 clinical trials for the product; (b) a one-time payment of $500,000, payable within six months of the completion of the first Phase 3 clinical trial of the products (based upon the final data unblinding); (c) a one-time payment of $500,000 payable within six months of the receipt by the Company of approval for the first new drug application (“NDA”), biologics application (“BLA”), or other marketing or licensing application for the product; and (d) a one-time payment of $500,000 payable within six months of the first sale following product approval. “Approval” refers to Product approval, licensure, or other marketing authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or any successor agency. The amendment also provided for the Company’s license of additional technology, to the extent not previously included in the UM License, and granted the Company an exclusive option to obtain an exclusive license for (a) the HLHS IND with ckit+ cells; and (b) UMP-438 titled “Method of Determining Responsiveness to Cell Therapy in Dilated Cardiomyopathy.”

We have the right to terminate the UM License upon 60 days’ prior written notice, and either party has the right to terminate upon a breach of the UM License.

JMH MD Holdings

On December 22, 2016, we entered into a worldwide exclusive license agreement with JMH MD Holdings (“JMHMD”), an affiliate of our Chief Science Officer, for the use of CD271+ technology, a subpopulation of bone marrow-derived MSCs. We are required to pay JMHMD a running royalty in an amount equal to one percent of the annual net sales of the licensed product(s) used, leased, or sold by or for us by any sub-licensees, which amounts are payable on a country-by-country basis beginning on the date of first commercial sale and ending on the latter of expiration of the last to expire patent rights in such country or ten years from the first commercial sale in such country (provided that if all claims within the patent rights have expired or been finally deemed invalid then the royalty will be reduced by 50%), and which may also be reduced to the extent we are required to pay royalties to a third party for the same product or process. We are also required to pay an initial fee and, by the first day of each anniversary of the Agreement, starting with the second anniversary, a minimum royalty of ten thousand dollars. JMHMD also received an equity grant equal to one-half of one percent of the then outstanding units of the Company on a fully-diluted basis. If we sublicense the technology, we are also required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the net sales of the sub-licensees.

Under the agreement, the Company is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve the following milestones: (i) submit an investigational new drug application to FDA (or international equivalent) within one year of effective date of agreement, (ii) initiate a clinical trial utilizing bone marrow derived CD271+ Precursor Cells within three years of the effective date; provided, that any of the milestones may be extended for up to six months for a total of three times by notice and payment of a five thousand dollar extension fee. Failure to achieve these milestones within five years of the effective date triggers a right of termination by JMHMD. Otherwise, the agreement is to remain in effect until either the date all issued patents and filed patent applications have expired or been abandoned, or 20 years after the date of FDA approval of the last commercialized product or process arising from the patent rights whichever comes later. Further, each party has the right to terminate upon sixty days’ prior written notice, or in the event of breach. If the Company sublicenses the technology, it is also required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the net sales of the sub-licensees. In addition, on December 23, 2016, as required by the license agreement the Company paid an initial fee of $250,000 to JMHMD, and issued to it 10,000 Series C Units, valued at $250,000. The $500,000 of value provided to JMHMD for the license agreement, along with professional fees of approximately $27,000, were recorded as an intangible asset that is amortized over the life of the license agreement which was defined as 20 years. The Company to date has not incurred any royalty or sublicense related expense, but has paid $45,000 in license fees($10,000 per year for 2021, 2020 and 2019) and for a $15,000 extension fee. In addition, the Company paid legal fees of approximately, $25,000 for each of the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, in connection with the patent prosecution, issuance, and maintenance fees related to CD271+ technology.

In-licensed Patents and Applications

Bone Marrow Derived CD271+ Precursor Cells for Cardiac Repair. We have in-licensed the exclusive right to use CD271+ MSC precursors from bone marrow to treat certain aging-related conditions and diseases, such as frailty, Metabolic Syndrome, loss of muscle due to aging or frailty and neurocognitive disorders. That patent has issued in Australia, China, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Germany, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, and Singapore. The patent application remains pending in U.S. (where there are two pending utility applications), Canada, and Brazil. The Canadian and Brazilian applications have both been allowed. One of the U.S. applications is currently under appeal with the USPTO. While method of use claims may relate to the use of CD271+ cells for cardiac repair, our license terms exclude our use of CD271+ cells for preventing and treating cardiovascular diseases or disorders, including congenital cardiovascular defects. Assuming that all maintenance and annuity fees are paid, patents in this family are expected to expire in August 2031.

Trademarks

We have registered trademarks or applied for registered trademarks for “Longeveron” in the following jurisdictions. We have begun to phase out the registrations and applications for “LMSC” in favor of registrations for “LOMECEL-B”. In some jurisdictions multiple registrations and/or applications exist so that multiple goods and/or services may be listed:

Government Regulation and Biologic Drug Approval

Government authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. We believe that the FDA will regulate Lomecel-B as a biologic drug (i.e., a biologic) through the biologics license application (BLA) process under the jurisdiction of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). We will work with FDA to confirm that a BLA is the most appropriate pathway and that CBER will be the FDA center responsible for review and licensure (i.e., approval). However, FDA may disagree with us, in which case we will follow FDA’s recommendation. For future product candidates we will also confirm the appropriate approval pathway (i.e., BLA or new drug application (NDA)) and the appropriate FDA center with regulatory oversight (i.e., CBER or the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)).

U.S. Biologic Drug Development Process

In the U.S., biologic drugs—or simply “biologics”—are regulated under two statutes: The Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and their implementing regulations. However, approval of only one application—typically either a BLA or an NDA—is required prior to marketing. Numerous FDA “Guidance Documents” and other materials address specific aspects of development for specific types of product candidates (e.g., cells, tissues, gene therapies, or vaccines). The process of obtaining approval and complying with applicable statutes and regulations requires substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements before, during, or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold on ongoing clinical trials, issuance of warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

The process required by the FDA before a biologic may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following steps:

The specific preclinical studies and clinical testing that is required for a BLA varies widely depending upon the specific type of product candidate under development. Prior to beginning a human clinical trial with either a biologic or drug product candidate in the U.S., we must submit an IND that must become effective. The focus of an IND is the general investigational plan and protocol for the proposed clinical study. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical hold is lifted and the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, including that all research subjects provide their informed consent to participate. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the study objectives, safety monitoring, and effectiveness criteria. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development. Other submissions to an IND include protocol amendments, information amendments, IND safety reports and annual reports. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each clinical trial site (or a single “commercial IRB” must review and approve the protocol and informed consent form before the clinical trial may begin. The IRB also monitors the clinical trial until completed.

Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some clinical trials also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data monitoring committee (DMC). A DMC authorizes whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. The DMC may halt the clinical trial based on an unacceptable safety risk or on other grounds, such as a failure to demonstrate efficacy. Related reporting requirements for the sponsor, clinical investigator, and/or IRB also include IND safety reports and updating clinical trial results in public registries (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov).

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

Concurrent with clinical trials, sponsors usually complete additional animal studies, develop information about the chemical and physical characteristics of the biologic and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with GMP requirements. The manufacturing process must consistently produce quality batches of the product candidate. Furthermore, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final biologic. In addition, the sponsor must develop and test appropriate packaging, and conduct stability studies to demonstrate that it does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. 

During the development of a new biologic, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA. These meetings typically occur prior to submission of an IND (i.e., pre-IND meeting), at the end of Phase 2 (i.e., EOP2 meeting), and before a BLA is submitted (i.e., pre-BLA meeting). Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use EOP2 meetings to discuss Phase 2 clinical results and present plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the new biologic.

U.S. Review and Approval Process for Biologic Drugs

Assuming successful completion of all required testing, the sponsor submits a BLA containing the results of product development, preclinical and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical testing, proposed labeling and other relevant information. The submission of a BLA is subject to the payment of a substantial application fee under the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments (PDUFA). PDUFA fees apply to both drugs and biologics. Sponsors may seek a waiver of these fees in certain limited circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first BLA or NDA submitted by a small business. Product candidates with an orphan drug designation (ODD) are not subject to the BLA application fee unless the product application also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a biologic is safe, pure, and potent (i.e., effective) for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is GMP-compliant to assure the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under PDUFA, the FDA has a goal date of ten months from the date of “filing” to review and act on the submission. However, the time between submission and filing can add an additional two months as FDA conducts a preliminary review to ensure that the BLA is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Formal FDA review of the BLA does not begin until FDA has accepted it for filing. The FDA may refer an application in some cases to an advisory committee for its independent review. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation to FDA as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by advisory committee recommendations, but it considers them carefully when making decisions.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the locations where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with GMPs, and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. An important part of a BLA is a lot release protocol that the sponsor will use to test each lot of product made after BLA approval, as well as the FDA’s own test plan that will be used for confirmatory testing of each post-approval product lot that is made before it is released to the public. If the FDA determines that the data and information in the application, are not acceptable, then the FDA will outline the deficiencies and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA, it will either issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter (CRL). The approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic with approved prescribing information for specific approved indications. On the other hand, a CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete but the BLA cannot be approved in its present form. A CRL usually describes the specific deficiencies and the actions the sponsor must take to correct those deficiencies. A sponsor that receives a CRL must resubmit the BLA after addressing the deficiencies, withdraw the application, or request a hearing. Even if such additional data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide the resubmitted BLA still does not satisfy the approval criteria.

Following marketing approval, a sponsor may need to fulfill certain post-marketing requirements (PMRs) or post-marketing commitments (PMCs). These may include Phase 4 studies that used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients for the intended therapeutic indication. The trials may be agreed upon prior to approval, or the FDA may require them if new safety issues emerge. A deferred pediatric study, if required (and not waived) under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), may also be conducted post-approval if the product includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration.

BLA approval may also include a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) that requires sponsor post-marketing regulatory efforts. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a drug or biologic and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use. A REMS may include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use (ETASU) such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools.

FDA may withdraw the product approval if the sponsor does not comply with PMRs, PMCs, a REMS program, or other post-marketing requirements. The FDA may also request that a product be recalled for an identified safety issue. Finally, new legislative or regulatory requirements may be enacted or established, or FDA policies may change, all of which could impact the timeline for development programs and regulatory approval.

FDA Expedited Review Programs for Serious Conditions

Under various statutory and regulatory authorities, the FDA has authority to review and approve certain products on an expedited basis if they are intended to treat a serious condition and meet other requirements. These expedited programs are discussed below.

RMAT Designation. In 2017, the FDA established the regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT) designation as part of its implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act. Regenerative medicine therapies to treat, modify, reverse, or cure serious conditions and that meet the appropriate criteria may be eligible for RMAT designation as well as FDA’s other expedited programs (i.e., fast track, breakthrough therapy, or priority review designations or accelerated approval). Regenerative medicine therapies receiving RMAT designation must meet the same standards for approval as any other biological product, including demonstrating the product’s safety and effectiveness. As described in Section 3033 of the 21st Century Cures Act, an investigational product is eligible for RMAT designation if:

A request for an RMAT designation can be included in a new IND, or submitted as an amendment to an existing IND. As with other expedited programs, the FDA can withdraw an RMAT designation that has been granted if the designation criteria are no longer met. Benefits of the designation include, among others, early FDA interactions, and the RMAT designation does not require evidence to indicate that the drug may offer a substantial improvement over available therapies.

Fast-Track Designation. The fast-track designation is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drug and biologic drug products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, products are eligible for this designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. FDA may review sections of the marketing applications on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the application sections, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section.

Priority Review Designation. A product is eligible for priority review designation if it has the potential to provide a safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a priority review-designated product in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to the standard ten months for review.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation. A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the features of a fast-track designation, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. If a product receives this designation, then the FDA will work to expedite the development and review of that product.

Accelerated Approval. Drug products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the standard for approval (i.e., safety and effectiveness) does not change. We may explore one or more of these opportunities for Longeveron product candidates as appropriate, as the programs are not mutually exclusive.

Marketing Exclusivity

In the case of biologic drugs, several types of marketing exclusivity may apply:

Reference Product Exclusivity

We believe that FDA will regulate Lomecel-B as a new biologic and will require submission and approval of a BLA under the PHS Act. The PHS Act includes a framework for determining when a biologic is a “reference product” and therefore eligible for marketing exclusivity. The reference product is the single biological product against which a biosimilar (a product that is highly similar to and has no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product) or an interchangeable biosimilar (a product that is both biosimilar to, and will produce the same clinical result as, the reference product) is evaluated.

FDA must determine the date of “first licensure” (i.e., approval) of a biologic which will, in turn, determine whether that biologic qualifies as a reference product that will be eligible for statutory exclusivity (and when such exclusivity will expire). Typically (but not always) the date of approval is the date of first licensure. FDA will not approve a biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar until the date that is 12 years after the date on which the reference product was first approved. However, FDA may receive an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar four years after the date on which the reference product was first approved. These 12- and four-year terms are each extended by six months if the product has been awarded pediatric exclusivity.

Legal uncertainties remain about FDA’s application of the date of first licensure and statutory exclusivity provisions to cell therapy products. At the appropriate time, we intend to provide information to FDA so that FDA can determine the date of first licensure of Lomecel-B (or any other product candidate that will be regulated as a biologic) and the date from which statutory exclusivity will begin to run. However, FDA may not make an immediate decision about the date of first licensure at the time it approves a new biologic. Furthermore, there is currently no precedent showing how FDA will apply this statutory framework to a cell therapy product. The law in this area will likely continue to evolve.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity.

Congress enacted the Orphan Drug Act in 1983 to spur development of drugs and biologics to treat diseases or conditions affecting few U.S. patients. FDA may grant an orphan drug designation (ODD) for a drug or biologic drug being developed to treat a “rare disease or condition,” defined as affecting fewer than 200,000 persons in the U.S., or affecting more than 200,000 persons in the U.S. but for which there is no reasonable expectation that development costs will be recovered from U.S. sales of the product. A request for ODD must be submitted to the FDA before a marketing application is submitted (i.e., BLA or NDA), but there is no assurance that FDA will award an ODD if requested. In the fourth quarter of 2021, FDA granted ODD to Longeveron’s Lomecel-B for the treatment of HLHS.

An ODD does not change the regulatory review standards of safety and effectiveness and does not shorten the length of the FDA review or approval process. If an investigational product with an ODD subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, then the approved product may be eligible to receive orphan drug exclusivity (ODE) that prevents FDA from approving any other applications to market the same drug or biologic for the same rare disease or indication for seven years, except in several specific circumstances including, among others, demonstrating clinical superiority of a new product vs. the product with ODE because of greater safety, greater effectiveness, or making a major contribution to patient care. Even if an investigational product has an ODD, there is no guarantee that FDA will award ODE upon approval.

Competitors may receive approval of either a different product for the same use or indication, or the same product for a different use or indication. Approved drugs and biologics can also be used by physicians off-label, which is within the scope of their practice of medicine. Accordingly, ODE is not an absolute protection against potentially competing products. Moreover, an ODE awarded to another sponsor could block FDA approval of one of Longeveron’s product candidates for seven years. The law involving ODDs and ODEs, including FDA’s interpretation of “same drug,” is continuing to evolve.

In addition to the potential award of seven-year ODE upon product approval, the benefits of an ODD also include eligibility for certain research tax credits and a waiver of the marketing application fee otherwise required under PDUFA. An application for a prescription product with an ODD is not subject to an application fee unless the application also includes an indication for a non-rare disease or condition as well. For fiscal year 2022, the application fee for a new drug or biologic requiring clinical studies is $3,117,218.

Pediatric Exclusivity.

Pediatric exclusivity provides for an additional six months of marketing exclusivity attached to another period of exclusivity (e.g., ODE) if a sponsor conducts clinical trials in children in response to a written request from the FDA. The issuance of a written request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described clinical trials.

Post-approval Requirements.

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. There also are continuing, annual program fees under PDUFA for any marketed products. Establishment registration of drug and biologic drug manufacturers and their subcontractors with FDA and certain state agencies subjects those entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPs, imposing certain procedural and documentation requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort for production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs and other regulatory requirements.

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

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of approved products. A company can make only those claims that were approved by the FDA in the application for marketing approval and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties.

Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for certain patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of approved treatments, as the practice of medicine is outside the scope of FDA’s authority. However, the FDA restricts manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labeling.

Other Healthcare Laws

Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation, U.S. federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, consumer fraud, pricing reporting, data privacy and security, and transparency laws and regulations as well as similar foreign laws in the jurisdictions outside the U.S. Similar state and local laws and regulations may also restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical industry, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or by patients themselves; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing and marketing information; state and local laws which require tracking gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to physicians, other healthcare providers and entities or that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and local laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. Violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply may result in penalties, including, without limitation, significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in governmental healthcare programs and imprisonment.

Japanese Laws and Regulations

Under the 2014 law passed by the Japanese government, two new Acts were added that regulate regenerative medicine development and offer two pathways to market for regenerative medicine therapeutic candidates: The Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine (ASRM) and the Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Act (PMD Act).

Japan’s Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine. The ASRM route is intended to allow physicians to provide cellular therapies to patients through an application process that is regulated by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW). Manufacturers of cell and gene therapy products wishing to utilize this pathway must identify and work with a partner clinic or hospital which enables the clinic to act as the distributor, with the manufacturer receiving a fee or a royalty, for example. The ASRM route may require a clinical trial or other clinical data in order to seek approval from the MHLW. Treatments under the ASRM route must be provided by a medical institution for the purpose of either “medical research” or as a “medical treatment at one’s own expense.” Therapies provided under this framework are not covered by Japan’s National Health Insurance.

Japan’s Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Act. The PMD Act includes special treatment for regenerative medicine products and identifies them as a stand-alone medical category with a novel “conditional approval” system. Sponsors seeking manufacturing approval need to provide clinical data to show that the product does not have any major safety concerns, clinical data to demonstrate “probable” efficacy, and satisfy established chemistry, manufacturing and controls criteria. A conditional approval can therefore occur after a Phase 2 trial. The conditional approval period lasts for a maximum of seven years. Sponsors that receive conditional approval must re-apply, with additional satisfactory safety and efficacy data, for a full unconditional approval within the timeframe provided to them under the conditional approval. A conditional approval allows the product to be marketed and partially reimbursed through Japan’s National Health Insurance.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any pharmaceutical product depend, in part, on the extent to which the product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and their level of reimbursement for the product. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any newly approved product. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular product does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. As a result, the coverage determination process can require manufactures to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of a product to each payor separately and can be time-consuming, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. In addition, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to companion diagnostics.

In addition, third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for pharmaceutical products and services. The U.S. government and state legislatures have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Third-party payors are more and more challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical products, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product.

In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Pharmaceutical products may face competition from lower-priced products in foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products and may also compete with imported foreign products. Furthermore, there is no assurance that a product will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be established even if coverage is available or that the third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect the ability for manufacturers to sell products profitably.

Healthcare Reform

In the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system. In March 2010, the ACA was signed into law, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the U.S. By way of example, the ACA increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs, implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have passed. For example, in 2017, Congress enacted the Tax Act, which eliminated the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” In addition, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA were invalid as well. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that challenge to the ACA, holding that plaintiffs in that case lacked standing to challenge the individual mandate or the remainder of the ACA, and that the challenge to the ACA should be dismissed.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year and reduced payments to several types of Medicare providers, which will remain in effect through 2029 absent additional congressional action. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products.

Further, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Beilina Right to Try Act of 2017, or the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new product candidates that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed the “Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” which is focused on increasing competition in several industries, including the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Among other things, the Executive Order directs the Health and Human Services Administration to increase support for generic and biosimilar drugs, to issue a comprehensive plan to combat high prescription drug prices and price gouging, and to standardize plan options in the National Health Insurance Marketplace so that consumers can compare plans more easily. The Executive Order also encourages the FTC to ban “pay for delay” and similar agreements, in which brand-name drug manufacturers pay generic drug manufacturers to stay out of the market, resulting in an estimated $3.5 billion increase in drug prices per year.

Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2021, we had 18 full-time employees, two part-time employees and one full-time and part-time consultants. Among those, four had M.D. or Ph.D. degrees, one has an M.B.A. degree, and one has a J.D. degree. Of these full-time employees and consultants, 12 are engaged in research and development activities. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Information about our Executive Officers and other key employees is included in Part III, Item 10 of this 10-K, and incorporated by reference herein.

Available Information

The Company was formed as a Delaware limited liability company in October 2014 and converted into a Delaware corporation in February 2021 in connection with our IPO. Our principal executive offices are located at 1951 NW 7^th Avenue, Suite 520 Miami, Florida 33136 and our telephone number is (305) 909-0840.

Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to reports filed pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act, are filed with the SEC. We are subject to the informational requirements of the Exchange Act, and we file or furnish reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Such reports and other information we file with the SEC are available free of charge at our website www.longeveron.com when such reports are available on the SEC’s website. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. Longeveron periodically provides other information for investors on our corporate website, including press releases and other information about financial performance, information on corporate governance and presentations. Our website address is www.longeveron.com, and we make our filings with the SEC available on the Investor Relations page of our website. Our references to website URLs are intended to be inactive textual references only. The information found on, or that can be accessed from or that is hyperlinked to, our website does not constitute part of, and is not incorporated into, this Form 10-K. Our common stock is traded on the NASDAQ under the symbol “LGVN”.

Risk Factors Summary

The following is a summary of the principal risks that could adversely affect our business, operations and financial results. Please refer to Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Form 10-K below for additional discussion of the risks summarized in this Risk Factors Summary.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

In addition to the other information in this annual report on Form 10-K, the following risk factors should be considered carefully in evaluating us. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below and the other information in this report, including our financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this report and in the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” before deciding whether to invest in our Class A Common Stock or to maintain or change your investment. Our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be materially and adversely affected if any of these risks occurs, and as a result, the market price of our Class A Common Stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. This report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” Our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including those set forth below. For a summary of these risk factors, please see “Risk Factors Summary” beginning on page 31 of this report.

Risks Related to our Business

We have a limited operating history and have no products approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate our current business and predict our future success and viability.

We are a clinical stage biotechnology company with a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any material revenue from product sales. To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources and efforts to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, building and equipping our research and development laboratories, building and equipping our manufacturing suites, raising capital, acquiring raw materials for manufacturing, product candidate development and manufacturing, securing related intellectual property rights and conducting clinical trials of Lomecel-B. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. As a result, it may be more difficult for you to accurately predict our future success or viability than if we had a longer operating history.

In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and risks frequently experienced by clinical stage biotechnology companies in rapidly evolving fields, including but not limited to changes in FDA or foreign body regulatory oversight of products. We also may need to transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. Such a transition may involve substantial additional capital requirements in order to launch and market a product, changes in the use of proceeds, and significant adjustment to personnel, compared to a clinical-stage development company. If we do not adequately address these risks and difficulties or successfully make such a transition, our business will suffer.

If the potential of our product candidates to treat diseases is not realized, the value of our technology and our development programs could be significantly reduced.

Our team is currently exploring the potential of our product candidates to treat diseases. We have not yet proven in clinical trials that our product candidates will be a safe and effective treatment for any disease or condition. Our product candidates are susceptible to various risks, including undesirable and unintended side effects, unintended immune system responses, inadequate therapeutic efficacy, or other characteristics that may prevent or limit their marketing approval or commercial use. We have not yet completed all of the testing necessary to allow us to make a determination that serious unintended consequences will not occur. If the potential of our product candidates to treat disease is not realized, the value of our technology and our development programs could be significantly reduced. Because our product candidates are based on MSCs, any negative developments regarding the therapeutic potential or side effects of our MSCs, or regarding scientific and medical knowledge about MSCs in general, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our product development programs are based on novel technologies and are inherently risky.

We are subject to the risks of failure inherent in the development of product candidates based on new technologies. The novel nature of our product candidates creates significant challenges in regards to product development and optimization, manufacturing, government regulation, third-party reimbursement, and market acceptance. For example, although the FDA has approved several cell therapy products, the FDA has relatively limited experience with regulating these kinds of therapies, and its regulations and policies are still evolving. As a result, the pathway to regulatory approval for our product candidates may be more complex and lengthier.

Additionally, stem cells that are taken from one person and transplanted into a different individual may pose additional risks. For example, stem cells that are not autologous (i.e., taken from, and given to, the same individual) but are instead allogeneic (i.e., taken from one individual and given to a different person) are subject to donor-to-donor variability, which can make standardization more difficult. As a result of these factors, the development and commercialization pathway for our therapies may be more complex and lengthier, and subject to increased uncertainty, as compared to the pathway for new conventional (i.e., new chemical entity) drugs.

There are no FDA-approved allogeneic, cell-based therapies for Aging Frailty, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the Metabolic Syndrome or other aging-related conditions, nor Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome, or other cardiac-related indications. This could complicate and delay FDA approval of our product candidate for these indications, or other indications we study or will study.

Although FDA has approved several cell therapy products, there are no allogeneic cell-based or stem cell therapies currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of Aging Frailty or our other indications. There are also no conventional drugs or therapies currently approved by the FDA with stated indications for Aging Frailty, Aging, or Frailty.

According to the FDA, neither “Aging Frailty” or simply “Frailty,” nor the Metabolic Syndrome, presently have definitions that are acceptable for characterizing the conditions for regulatory purposes, and there are no precedents for regulatory approvals in these indications. This could prevent, complicate and/or delay regulatory approval of our product candidate for these indications.

The FDA and the Japanese PMDA have both indicated that the concept of “Frailty” or the Metabolic Syndrome as an indication will require additional clinical data and discussion before future pivotal trials and marketing authorization. Because the condition of Frailty or the Metabolic Syndrome lacks consensus, there is no guarantee that PMDA, FDA or any regulatory agency will agree to an approvable indication, that there will be consensus regarding the definition of the condition, or will agree on clinical endpoints that would be considered acceptable for demonstrating clinically meaningful benefit. More specifically, our ability to begin Phase 3 (i.e., pivotal) trials in a “Frailty” or “Aging Frailty” indication will depend on our Phase 2 clinical data and subsequent interactions with FDA where we would discuss the size and scope of a Phase 3 program, the appropriate target patient population (i.e., defining the indication), and agreement on one or more primary endpoints that demonstrate clinically meaningful outcome.

It is possible that the FDA may never recognize “aging” as a disease, and may never agree to a definition of “Aging Frailty,” “Frailty” or the Metabolic Syndrome, primarily due to a lack of consensus on the definitions amongst clinicians, researchers and regulators, an insufficient understanding of the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms that cause any or all of the manifestations, or both. To obtain FDA approval for any indication for the disease states we are studying, we will have to demonstrate, among other things, that our product candidates are safe and effective for that indication in the target population. The results of our clinical trials must be statistically significant, meaning that there must be sufficient data to indicate that it is unlikely the outcome occurred by chance. The FDA will also require us to demonstrate an appropriate dose (i.e., number of cells) and dosing interval for our product candidates, and to identify and define treatment responders, which may require additional clinical trials. As a result, the clinical endpoints, the criteria to measure the intended results of treatment, and the correct dosing for our cell-based therapeutic approaches for these indications may be difficult to determine. These challenges may prevent us from developing and commercializing products on a timely or profitable basis, or at all.

If we are not able to recruit and retain qualified management and scientific personnel, we may fail in developing our technologies and product candidates.

Our future success depends to a significant extent on the skills, experience, and efforts of the principal members of our scientific and management personnel. These members include Joshua M. Hare, M.D. and our staff of scientific consultants. Our co-founder, Dr. Hare, remains employed by the University of Miami (UM), and provides services to us as a consultant on a limited basis. The loss of Dr. Hare or any or all of these individuals could harm our business and might significantly delay or prevent the achievement of research, development or business objectives. Competition for regulatory, clinical manufacturing and management personnel in the pharmaceutical industry is intense. We may be unable to recruit or retain personnel with sufficient management skills in the area of cell therapeutics or attract or integrate other qualified management and scientific personnel in the future.

Our product candidates represent new classes of therapy that the marketplace may not understand or accept.

Even if we successfully develop and obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, the market may not understand or accept them. We are developing product candidates that represent novel treatment approaches and will compete with a number of more conventional products and therapies manufactured and marketed by others, including major pharmaceutical companies. The degree of market acceptance of any of our future developed and potential products will depend on a number of factors, including:

If the health care community does not accept our product candidates or future approved products for any of the foregoing reasons, or for any other reason, it could affect our sales or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our dependence upon a limited supply of bone marrow donors and biologic growth media may impact our ability to produce sufficient quantities of our product candidates as needed to complete our clinical trials, and if our trials are successful, to meet product demand.

The population of acceptable bone marrow donors is limited to volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45. In addition, potential donors are prescreened for a variety of health conditions and are only allowed to donate bone marrow a total of six times in their lifetime, further limiting the total number of potential donors. The amount of bone marrow donated may be insufficient for us to mass produce our product candidates at a scale sufficient to meet our clinical trial needs or to produce a product to meet future commercial demand at an acceptable cost. In addition, the expansion of MSCs through our proprietary manufacturing methods utilizes biologic growth media that may be in limited supply. Our product candidates will be inherently more difficult to manufacture at commercial-scale than conventional pharmaceuticals, which are manufactured using precise chemical formulations and operational methods. Cost-effective production at clinical trial or commercial scale quantities may not be achievable.

Future government regulation or health concerns, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, may also reduce the number of donors or otherwise limit the amount of bone marrow available to us. If we cannot secure quantities of bone marrow or biologic growth media sufficient to meet the manufacturing demands for our clinical trials, we might not be able to complete our clinical trials and obtain marketing approval for our product candidates. Moreover, even if our clinical trials are successful and we obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, our inability to secure enough bone marrow or biologic growth media to meet product demand could limit our potential revenues.

MSCs are biological entities obtained from living humans that can pose risks to the recipient.

MSC therapies require many manufacturing steps. Cells must be harvested from donor tissue, isolated, and expanded in cell culture to produce a sufficient number of cells for use. Each step carries risks for contamination by other cells, microbes, or adventitious agents. The transfer of cells into a recipient can also carry risks and complications associated with the procedure itself, and a recipient may reject the transplanted cells.

Our product candidates are derived from human bone marrow and therefore have the potential for disease transmission.

The utilization of donated bone marrow creates the potential for transmission of cancer and communicable disease, including but not limited to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), viral hepatitis, syphilis, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and other viral, fungal, or bacterial pathogens. Although we and our suppliers are required to comply with federal and state regulations intended to prevent communicable disease transmission, we or our suppliers may fail to comply with such regulations. Further, even with compliance, our products might nevertheless be viewed by the public as being associated with transmission of disease, and a clinical trial subject or patient who contracts an infectious disease might assert that the use of our product candidate or products resulted in disease transmission, even if the individual became infected through another source.

Any actual or alleged transmission of communicable disease could result in clinical trial subject or patient claims, litigation, distraction of management’s attention, increased expenses, and adverse regulatory authority action. Further, any failure in screening, whether by us or other manufacturers of similar products, could adversely affect our reputation, the support we receive from the medical community, and overall demand for our products. As a result, such actions or claims, whether or not directed at us, could have a material adverse effect on our reputation with our customers and our ability to market our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If our processing and storage facility or our clinical manufacturing facilities are damaged or destroyed, our business and prospects could be negatively affected.

Our processing and storage facility is located in a region which experiences severe weather, notably hurricanes, from time to time. If this facility in Miami, Florida or the equipment in the facility were to be significantly damaged or destroyed, we could suffer a loss of some or all of the stored units of our product candidates and it could force us to halt our clinical trial processes. The risk of tropical storm and hurricane activity historically rises on or about June 1^st each year, and subsides on or about November 30^th each year. We have not undertaken a systematic analysis of the potential consequences to our business and financial results from a major hurricane or tornado, flood, fire, earthquake, power loss, terrorist activity or other disasters and do not currently have a recovery plan for such disasters. If we underestimate our insurance needs, we will not have sufficient insurance to cover losses above and beyond the limits on our policies. In addition, we do not carry sufficient insurance to compensate us for actual losses from interruption of our business that may occur, and any losses or damages incurred by us could harm our business. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Ethical and other concerns surrounding the use of stem cell therapy or human tissue may negatively affect public perception of us or our future products or product candidates, or may negatively affect regulatory approval of our future products or product candidates, thereby reducing demand for our future products.

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on general public acceptance of the use of MSC therapy for the prevention or treatment of human diseases. The use of embryonic cells and fetal tissue for research and MSC therapy has been the subject of substantial national and international debate regarding related ethical, legal, and social issues. In the U.S., for example, until March 2009, federal government funding of embryonic stem cell research was limited to specifically identified cell lines and was not otherwise available. We do not use embryonic stem cells or fetal tissue, but the public may not be able to, or may fail to, differentiate our use of adult MSCs from the use of embryonic stem cells or fetal tissue by others. This could result in a negative perception of our company or our future products or product candidates, thereby reducing demand, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may obtain MSCs from volunteer adult bone marrow donors from non-profit organizations that collect and process tissue donations. Bone marrow donors receive payment, but ethical concerns have been raised by some about the use of donated human tissue in a for-profit setting, as we are doing. Future adverse events in the field of stem cell therapy, changes in public policy, or changes to the FDA’s regulatory approval framework for these products could also result in greater governmental regulation of our product candidates or products, and potential regulatory delays relating to their testing or approval.

We may eventually compete for product sales with other companies, many of which will have greater resources or capabilities than we have, or may succeed in developing better products or in developing products more quickly than we do, and we may not compete successfully with them.

We compete or may eventually compete with other companies and organizations that are marketing or developing therapies for our targeted disease indications, based on traditional pharmaceutical, medical device, or other non-cellular therapy and technologies. In addition, we have other potential competitors developing a variety of therapeutics, and in some cases, such as with Alzheimer’s disease, there may be tens or hundreds of companies seeking to commercialize therapeutics.

We also face competition in the cell therapy field from academic institutions and governmental agencies. Many of our current and potential competitors have greater financial and human resources than we have, including more experience in research and development and more established sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities.

We anticipate that competition in our industry will increase. In addition, the health care industry is characterized by rapid technological change, resulting in new product introductions and other technological advancements. Our competitors may develop and market products that render product candidates under development by us now or in the future, or any products manufactured or marketed by us, non-competitive or otherwise obsolete.

We have ongoing challenges with respect to our liquidity and access to capital.

As we advance the preclinical and clinical development of our programs, we expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses, for which we do not have offsetting revenue. We expect that our sales, research and development and general and administrative costs will increase in connection with conducting additional preclinical studies and clinical trials for our current and future programs and product candidates, contracting with contract research organizations (CROs) to support preclinical studies and clinical trials, expanding our intellectual property portfolio, and providing general and administrative support for our operations. As a result, we will need additional capital to fund our operations, which we may obtain from additional equity or debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements, or other sources.

Since 2015, we have raised approximately $76.6 million in gross proceeds from the sale of shares of our equity securities (including the $20.5 million raised on December 3, 2021 from a private placement of public equity (the “2021 PIPE Offering”), and $26.6 million raised on February 12, 2021 and $2.5 million raised on March 15, 2021, from our IPO). As of December 31, 2021, we had $35.0 million in cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments. We had $0.5 million of indebtedness as of December 31, 2020 from loans provided by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). However, on March 4, 2021, $0.3 million of the indebtedness for PPP loan was forgiven and the remaining $0.2 million balance was paid in full. According to the rules of the SBA, we are required to retain PPP Loan documentation for six years after the date the loan is forgiven or repaid in full, and permit authorized representatives of the SBA, including representatives of its Office of Inspector General, to access such files upon request. Should the SBA conduct such a review and reject all or some of our judgments pertaining to satisfying PPP Loan eligibility or forgiveness conditions, we may be required to adjust previously reported amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through public and private equity financings, grant awards, and fees generated from clinical trial revenue and contract manufacturing services. There are no assurances that we will be able to continue to finance operations through these means, and our inability to generate sufficient revenue in the near term may have an adverse impact on our business, operations and prospects.

We face risks related to the current COVID-19 pandemic and other health epidemics and outbreaks.

The global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to impact countries, communities, supply chains and markets. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted and continues to impact our Bahamas Registry Trial business. It is also possible that the COVID-19 pandemic or other public health risks could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity in the future. For example, they could impact the timing and enrollment of our collaborators’ planned or ongoing clinical trials, delaying clinical site initiation, regulatory review and the potential receipt of regulatory approvals, payment of milestones under our license agreements and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates, if approved. The COVID-19 pandemic and other public health risks could also disrupt the production capabilities of our contract manufacturing facility. Further, the outbreak of COVID-19 has heightened the risk that a significant portion of our workforce will suffer illness or otherwise be unable to work. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is fluid and continues to evolve, and therefore, we cannot currently predict the extent to which our business, clinical trials, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity will ultimately be impacted. In addition, COVID-19 or other public health risks could materially and adversely impact our operations due to, among other factors:

Adverse global conditions, including macroeconomic uncertainty, may negatively impact our financial results.

Global conditions, dislocations in the financial markets, or inflation could adversely impact our business. In addition, the global macroeconomic environment has been and may continue to be negatively affected by, among other things, instability in global economic markets, increased U.S. trade tariffs and trade disputes with other countries, instability in the global credit markets, supply chain weaknesses, instability in the geopolitical environment as a result of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and other political tensions, and foreign governmental debt concerns. Such challenges have caused, and may continue to cause, uncertainty and instability in local economies and in global financial markets, which may adversely affect our business.

We have a history of losses and may not be able to achieve profitability going forward.

We have experienced significant losses since inception and, at December 31, 2021 and 2020, had an accumulated deficit of approximately $43.9 million and $26.9 million, respectively. We expect to incur additional losses in the future and expect the cumulative losses to increase. We expect our operating expenses to increase and it is not likely that our grant revenues will fully fund our clinical programs. In such event, we will not have sufficient cash flow to meet our obligations or make progress in our clinical programs, and will need to raise additional capital.

We have been funded in part by government and non-profit association grant awards, which is not a guaranteed source of future funding.

The funding of government programs is dependent on budgetary limitations, congressional appropriations and administrative allotment of funds, and changes in national health and welfare priorities, all of which are inherently uncertain and may be affected by changes in U.S. government policies resulting from various political and military developments. Our continued receipt of government and non-profit association funding is also dependent on the ability to adhere to the terms and provisions of the original grant and contract documents and other regulations. We can provide no assurance that we will receive or continue to receive funding for the grants and contracts we have been awarded. The loss of government funds or non-profit association grant awards, could have a material adverse effect on our clinical programs and on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. For additional detail regarding the grant awards, we have received from governmental and non-profit associations, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations- Grant Awards” on page 73 of this report.

The use of our product candidates or future products in individuals may expose us to product liability claims, and we may not be able to obtain adequate product liability insurance.

Because of the nature of our products, we face an inherent risk of product liability claims. None of our product candidates have been widely used over an extended period of time, and therefore our safety data are limited. We derive the raw materials for our product candidates from human donor sources, the manufacturing process is complex, and the handling requirements are specific, all of which increase the likelihood of quality failures and subsequent product liability claims. We will need to increase our insurance coverage if and when we receive approval for and begin commercializing our product candidates. We may not be able to obtain or maintain product liability insurance on acceptable terms with adequate coverage or at all. If we are unable to obtain insurance, or if claims against us substantially exceed our coverage, then our business could be adversely impacted. Whether or not we are ultimately successful in any product liability litigation, such litigation either before or after product approval and marketing could consume substantial amounts of our financial and managerial resources and could result in, among other things:

Any of these results could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If our trade secret and patent position does not adequately protect our product candidates and their uses, others could compete against us more directly, which could harm our business and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our product candidates. The patent position of biotechnology companies is generally highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and continues to be the subject of much litigation. Our trade secrets attempt to bridge the gap that threatens patent exclusivity for the protection of products derived from MSCs. Our trade secrets also remain valid and enforceable without regard to limitations such as term restrictions that are imposed on patents. Our trade secrets and know-how are the subject of various license agreements and confidentiality agreements as further discussed below.

The claims of existing U.S. and foreign patent applications and patents, and those patents that may issue in the future, or those to be licensed to us, that are owned by the Company or under an obligation of assignment to the Company, may not confer on us significant commercial protection against competing products. Furthermore, to the extent that the Company owns or is assigned or licenses patent rights covering its business, third parties may challenge or design around those patent rights, such as by asserting that the patents are invalid or arguing that the patent claims should be narrowly construed, and thereby avoid successful infringement actions.

Our patent applications on MSC technology, in particular, include claims directed to therapeutic uses and kits comprising MSCs. Patents with such claims tend to be more vulnerable to challenge by other parties than patents with extremely narrow claims. Also, our pending patent applications may not issue, may issue with substantially narrower claims than currently pending claims, or we may not receive any additional patents. Further, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as do the laws of the U.S. Our patents might not contain claims that are sufficiently broad to prevent others from practicing our technologies or from competing with us with their own technology in the fields of interest to us.

Although the Company has obligations of assignment and has been assigned patents and patent applications concerning stem cell products and their uses, none of those patents or presently pending applications has granted claims or pending claims that, if granted, would prevent a third party from commercializing their own allogeneic stem cell therapy for those indications that we are studying. Consequently, our competitors may independently develop competing products that do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property.

Control over patented technology requires the Company to obtain formal assignment of patents and applications from third parties. Although the Company believes it has contracts requiring formal assignment of the patent properties in its patent portfolio, there is risk that the inventors and research partners now of record as owning these patent properties will refuse to execute documents confirming assignment of their rights to the Company or that litigation will be required to compel the execution of those documents. In the meantime, those inventors and research partners may claim to be co-owners of some of the patent portfolio.

Because of the extensive time required for development, testing, and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantages of the patent. To the extent our product candidates based on that technology are not commercialized ahead of this patent expiration, to the extent we have no other patent protection on such products, or to the extent that regulatory or patent extensions are not granted, those products might not have the robust protection we currently expect to enjoy. The background technologies used in the development of our product candidates are known in the scientific community, and it may be possible to duplicate the methods we use to create our product candidates, which makes us vulnerable to competition, without the ability to exclude others from potentially commercializing a similar product.

If certain license agreements are terminated, our ability to continue clinical trials and commercially market products could be adversely affected.

We are a party to various agreements that give us rights to use specified technologies applicable to research, development, and commercialization of our product candidates. If these agreements are voided or terminated, our product development, research, and commercialization efforts may be altered or delayed. Certain aspects of our technology rely on inventions developed using university or other third-party resources. The universities or third parties may have certain rights, as defined by law or applicable agreements, and may choose to exercise such rights. If we fail to comply with any terms or provisions of these agreements, our rights and our access to the universities’ or third parties’ resources could be terminated. The Exclusive License Agreement with the University of Miami dated November 20, 2014, as amended on December 11, 2017, and on March 3, 2021, requires the Company to pay fees and royalties and to make commercially reasonable efforts to achieve milestones. The University of Miami may terminate the Exclusive License Agreement for material breach if the fees and royalties are not paid, or if the milestones are not met and an extension to achieve the milestones is not agreed upon.

Some of our employees, including but not limited to Dr. Hare, are employed by third party employers in addition to being employed or engaged as a consultant by the Company. Such employees and consultants may owe obligations to the third-party employers related to that employment. Those third-party employers may assert that they are entitled to assignment of some or all rights of new inventions made by such employees or consultants. If we are unable to conclusively prove that we are entitled to assignment of those rights, we may be required to negotiate co-ownership to or a license of those rights, if such an arrangement is available at all.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information, trade secrets, and know-how, our competitive position could be impaired and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be adversely affected.

As disclosed above, some aspects of our technology, especially regarding manufacturing processes, are unpatented and maintained by us as trade secrets. In an effort to protect these trade secrets, we require our employees, consultants, collaborators, and advisors to execute confidential disclosure agreements before the commencement of their relationships with us. These agreements require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. These agreements, however, may not provide us with adequate protection against improper use or disclosure of confidential information, and these agreements may be breached. A breach of confidentiality could affect our competitive position. In addition, in some situations, these agreements may conflict with, or be subject to, the rights of third parties with whom our employees, consultants, collaborators, or advisors have previous employment or consulting relationships. Also, others may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets.

Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our confidential information. The disclosure of our trade secrets could impair our competitive position and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our product development efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates, methods of making product candidates, and methods of using product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others.

Third parties may assert that we infringe their patents or are otherwise employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may sue us. We are aware of several U.S. patents held by third parties covering potentially similar or related products and their manufacture and use. Generally, conducting clinical trials and other acts relating to FDA approval are not considered acts of infringement in the U.S. If and when Lomecel-B MSCs are approved by the FDA, third parties may seek to enforce their patents by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. Patents issued in the U.S. by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. We may not be able to prove in litigation that any patent enforced against us is invalid.

Additionally, there may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. Some of those patent applications may not yet be available for public inspection. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, constructs or molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidates unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held not infringed, unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held not infringed, unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

Parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. They might seek an exclusion order from the International Trade Commission to prevent import of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business and may impact our reputation. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our collaborators or licensors, which could be expensive and time consuming.

Litigation may be necessary to enforce patents issued or licensed to us, to protect trade secrets or know-how, or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights. Litigation, opposition, or other patent office proceedings could result in substantial additional costs and diversion of management focus. If we are ultimately unable to protect our technology, trade secrets, or know-how, we may be unable to operate profitably. Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our collaborators or licensors. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to protect our proprietary rights, which can be expensive and time-consuming, particularly for a company of our size. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to enjoin the other party from using the technology at issue. An adverse determination of any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. Litigation or other patent office proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our collaborators and licensors, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the U.S.

Furthermore, though we could seek protective orders where appropriate, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our Class A Common Stock could be significantly harmed.

Our industry is highly competitive and subject to significant or rapid technological change.

The biotechnology industry, including our fields of therapeutic interest, is highly competitive and subject to significant and rapid technological change. Accordingly, our success may depend, in part, on our ability to respond quickly to such change through the development and introduction of new products. Our ability to compete successfully against currently existing and future alternatives to our product candidates and systems and competitors who compete directly with us in the biopharmaceutical industry may depend, in part, on our ability to attract and retain skilled scientific and research personnel, develop technologically superior products, develop competitively priced products, obtain patent or other required regulatory approvals for our products, be an early entrant to the market and manufacture, market, and sell our products, independently or through collaborations. If a third party were to commercialize a competitive product, there is no assurance that we would have a basis for initiating patent infringement proceedings or that, if initiated, we would prevail in such proceedings.

If our product candidates are approved by the FDA, then potential competitors who seek to introduce generic versions of our product candidates may seek to take advantage of the abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with our product candidates. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 might permit these potential competitors to enter the market using a shorter and less costly development program for a biosimilar product that competes with our products.

If all of the Company’s intellectual property has not been properly assigned to the Company, our business, financial condition, results of operation, and prospects could be adversely affected.

While the Company believes that each patent application or patent has already been assigned or, if it has not yet been formally assigned, is under an obligation to be assigned to the Company either through direct employment agreements between the Company and the inventors, or through research agreements with a third party and the Company, if such is not the case, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be adversely affected.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

Should any of these events occur, it could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation and causes the market price of our common shares to decline.

During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the initiation of the litigation as well as results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our existing products, programs or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of shares of our Class A Common Stock may decline. Such announcements could also harm our reputation or the market for our future products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

In September 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the U.S. transitioned in March 2013 to a “first inventor to file” system in which, assuming that other requirements of patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent regardless of whether a third party was first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013 but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of that we also made even if we had made the invention before the invention was made independently by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Since patent applications in the U.S. and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (1) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (2) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications.

The Leahy-Smith Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review (PGR), inter partes review (IPR), and derivation proceedings. An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position.

Because of a lower evidentiary standard necessary to invalidate a patent claim in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a patent claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any resulting issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Changes in U.S. patent law, or laws in other countries, could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve a high degree of technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the U.S. and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property and may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents. In addition, Congress or other foreign legislative bodies may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our or our licensors’ ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO, or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our or our licensors’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the term of a patent, and the protection it affords, are limited. Even if patents directed to our product candidates are obtained, once the patent term has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of product candidates, patents directed to our product candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we or our licensors do not obtain patent term extension for our product candidates and/or methods of their use, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates and their methods of use, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, or the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. These laws permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. A maximum of one patent may be extended per FDA-approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended.

Patent term extension may also be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. However, we or our licensors may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Patent term extension may also not be granted because the product candidates and/or methods of use are determined not to be the first permitted marketing or use of those drug candidates in the jurisdiction in question, or patent term extension may not be granted because the product candidates and/or methods of use are determined not to constitute an “active ingredient” or use of an “active ingredient” that is eligible for patent term extension. Moreover, if patent term extension is granted then the additional time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we or our licensors are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Although we have in-licensed issued patents and pending patent applications in the U.S. and certain other countries, filing, prosecuting and defending patents in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our in-licensed inventions in all countries outside the U.S. or from selling or importing products made using our in-licensed inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our in-licensed technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we or our licensors have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our or our licensors patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of many foreign countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our or our licensors’ patents or the marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights. Proceedings to enforce our or our licensors’ patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our or our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our or our licensors’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We or our licensors may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our or our licensors’ efforts to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patents. If we or our licensors are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, documentary, fee payment and other requirements imposed by regulations and governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to the USPTO and various foreign patent offices at various points over the lifetime of our patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on third parties to pay these fees when due. Additionally, the USPTO and various foreign patent office’s require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process and after a patent has been granted. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with rules applicable to the particular jurisdiction. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Other Government Regulations

If we are not able to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates and obtain the necessary regulatory approvals, we may not generate sufficient revenues to continue our business operations.

To generate sales revenue from our product candidates, we must conduct extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective and we must obtain required regulatory approvals. Our early-stage product candidates may fail to perform as we expect. Moreover, our product candidates in later stages of development may fail to show the required safety and effectiveness for approval despite having progressed successfully through preclinical or initial clinical testing. We may need to devote significant additional research and development, financial resources, and personnel to develop commercially viable products. If our product candidates do not prove to be safe and efficacious in clinical trials, we will not obtain the required regulatory approvals. If we fail to obtain such approvals, we may not generate sufficient revenues to continue our business operations.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate, that approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which it may be marketed. Even after granting regulatory approval, the FDA and regulatory agencies in other countries continue to review and inspect marketed products, manufacturers, and manufacturing facilities, which may create additional regulatory burdens. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, manufacturer, or facility may result in restrictions on the product or manufacturer, including a withdrawal of the product from the market or a withdrawal of the approved application by the FDA. Furthermore, FDA may require post-approval studies or other post-approval commitments. Failure to comply with or meet those requirements or commitments could result in withdrawal of the approved application by FDA. Regulatory agencies may also establish additional regulations, policies, or guidance that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We cannot market and sell our product candidates in the U.S. or in other countries if we fail to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals.

We cannot sell our product candidates until regulatory agencies grant marketing approval. The process of obtaining regulatory approval is lengthy, expensive, and uncertain, and the legal requirements for obtaining approval may change. It is likely to take several years to obtain the required regulatory approvals for our lead signaling cell product candidates, or we may never gain the necessary approvals. Any difficulties that we encounter in obtaining regulatory approval may have a substantial adverse impact on our operations. Moreover, because our product candidates are all based on only three platform technologies, any adverse events in any of our clinical trials for one of our product candidates could negatively impact the clinical trials and approval process for our other product candidates.

The pathway to regulatory approval for MSCs may be more complex and lengthier than for approval of a new conventional drug. Similarly, to obtain approval to market our cell products outside of the U.S., we, together with our collaborative partners, will need to file appropriate applications and submit clinical data concerning our product candidates and receive regulatory approval from governmental agencies, which in certain countries includes approval of the price we intend to charge for our product. We may encounter delays or rejections if changes occur in regulatory agency regulations, policies or guidance during the period in which we develop a product candidate or during the period required for review of any application for regulatory agency approval. If we are not able to obtain regulatory approvals for use of our product candidates under development, we will not be able to commercialize such products, and therefore may not be able to generate sufficient revenues to support our business.

If we are not able to conduct our clinical trials properly and on schedule, marketing approval by FDA and other regulatory authorities may be delayed or denied.

The completion of our clinical trials may be delayed or terminated for many reasons, including, but not limited to, if:

Our development costs will increase if we have material delays in our clinical trials, or if we are required to modify, suspend, terminate, or repeat a clinical trial. If we are unable to conduct our clinical trials properly and on schedule, marketing approval may be delayed or denied by the FDA.

Final marketing approval of our product candidates by the FDA or other regulatory authorities for commercial use may be delayed, limited, or denied, any of which could adversely affect our ability to generate operating revenues.

Final marketing approval for our product candidates may be delayed, limited, or denied if, among other factors:

If marketing approval for our product candidates is delayed, limited, or denied, our ability to market products, and our ability to generate product sales, could be adversely affected.

There has been very little success in gaining FDA approval for an Alzheimer’s disease drug, and we have not had success to date in developing Alzheimer’s disease therapeutics.

Despite billions of dollars invested by the biopharmaceutical industry in research programs to develop novel therapeutics for AD, there has only been one FDA-approved treatment. Aduhelm (aducanumab), an amyloid beta-directed antibody, was approved by FDA in 2021 based upon the drug’s effect on a surrogate endpoint. FDA has required confirmatory trials of clinical benefit, and there is ongoing public discussion of the drug’s clinical benefit. Many new types and classes of drugs have been developed and tested in AD, including monoclonal antibodies, g-secretase modulators and inhibitors, β-site amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme (BACE) inhibitors, receptor for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE) inhibitors, nicotinic agonists, serotonin subtype receptor (5HT6) antagonists, and others. The vast majority of these scientific programs have failed in clinical testing. Moreover, we have not had any success to date in developing therapeutics for AD, and may never do so.

We may not be able to secure and maintain research institutions to conduct our clinical trials.

We rely on research institutions to conduct our clinical trials. Specifically, the limited number of bone marrow transplant centers further heightens our dependence on such research institutions for our future Phase 3 clinical trials. Our reliance upon research institutions, including hospitals and clinics, provides us with less control over the timing and cost of clinical trials and the ability to recruit subjects. If we are unable to reach agreement with suitable research institutions on acceptable terms, or if any resulting agreement is terminated, we may be unable to quickly replace the research institution with another qualified institution on acceptable terms. Even if we do replace the institution, we may incur additional costs to conduct the trial at the new institution. We may not be able to secure and maintain suitable research institutions to conduct our clinical trials.

Producing and marketing an approved drug or other medical product is subject to significant and costly post-approval regulation.

Even if approved for commercial sale, we may be required to conduct Phase 4 clinical trials or comply with other post-marketing requirements or commitments for the products. Even if we obtain approval of a product, we can only market the product for the approved indications. After granting marketing approval, the FDA and regulatory agencies in other countries continue to review and inspect marketed products, manufacturers, and manufacturing facilities, creating additional regulatory burdens. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, manufacturer, or facility may result in restrictions on the product or manufacturer, including a withdrawal of the product from the market. Further, regulatory agencies may establish different or additional regulations that could impact the post-marketing status of our products.

Our business involves the use of hazardous materials that could expose us to environmental and other liability.

We have contract facilities in Florida that are subject to various local, state, and federal laws and regulations relating to safe working conditions, laboratory and manufacturing practices, the experimental use of animals, and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances, including chemicals, micro-organisms, and various radioactive compounds used in connection with our research and development activities. In the U.S., these laws include the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Toxic Test Substances Control Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We cannot guarantee that accidental contamination or injury to our employees and third parties from hazardous materials will not occur. We do not have insurance to cover claims arising from our use and disposal of these hazardous substances other than limited clean-up expense coverage for environmental contamination due to an otherwise insured peril, such as fire.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely on third parties to provide us with supplies to produce our product candidates. Any problems experienced by these third parties could result in a delay or interruption in the supply of our product candidates for our clinical trials and future approved products to our customers, which could have a material negative effect on our business.

We rely on third parties to provide us with supplies to produce our product candidates. If the operations of these third parties are interrupted or if they are unable to meet our delivery requirements due to capacity limitations or other constraints, we may be limited in our ability to fulfill our supply of product candidates. Any prolonged disruption in the operations of third parties could have a significant negative impact on our ability to produce our product candidates for pre-clinical and clinical trials or sell our future approved products, could harm our reputation and could cause us to seek other third-party contracts, thereby increasing our anticipated development and commercialization costs. In addition, if we are required to change third parties for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new third parties maintain facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards required by the FDA and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the qualification of a new third party could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or receive approval for any product candidates in a timely manner.

We currently depend upon third parties for services and raw materials needed for the manufacture of our product candidates, and if these products are successfully commercialized, we may become dependent upon third parties for product distribution. If any of these third parties fail or are unable to perform in a timely manner, our ability to manufacture and deliver could be compromised.

To produce our product candidates for use in clinical studies, and to produce any of our product candidates that may be approved for commercial sale, we require biologic media, reagents, and other highly specialized materials in addition to the bone marrow aspirate used in the manufacture of our product candidates. These items must be manufactured and supplied to us in sufficient quantities and in compliance with the regulations governing cGMP and Current Good Tissue Practice (cGTP) promulgated by the FDA. To meet these requirements, we have entered into supply agreements with firms that manufacture these components to meet cGMP and cGTP standards. Our requirements for these items are expected to increase if and when we transition to the manufacture of commercial quantities of our product candidates.

In addition, as we proceed with our clinical trial efforts, we must be able to demonstrate to the FDA that we can manufacture our product candidates with consistent characteristics. While we currently produce our product candidates in our own facility, scaling up the manufacturing process would require us to develop a larger facility, which could require significant time and capital investments to conform to applicable manufacturing standards. Alternatively, we may be required to outsource some or all of our manufacturing, which would cause us to be materially dependent on these suppliers for supply of cGMP- and cGTP-grade components of consistent quality. Our ability to complete ongoing clinical trials may be negatively affected in the event that we are forced to seek and validate a replacement source for any of these critical components. If we are not able to obtain adequate supplies of these items of consistent quality from our third-party suppliers, it will also be more difficult to manufacture commercial quantities of our product candidates that are approved for commercial sale.

In addition, if one or more of our product candidates is approved for commercial sale, we intend to rely on third parties for their distribution. Proper shipping and distribution require compliance with specific storage and shipment procedures (e.g., prevention of damage to shipping materials and prevention of temperature excursions during shipment). Failure to comply with such procedures will necessitate return and replacement, potentially resulting in additional cost and causing us to fail to meet supply requirements.

Use of third-party manufacturers may increase the risk that we will not have adequate quantities of our product candidates.

We may use a third-party manufacturer to supply our product candidates for clinical trials or other uses at some point. Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured such components ourselves, including:

Future contract manufacturers are or will be subject to all of the risks and uncertainties that we would be subject to if we manufactured the product candidates on our own. Similar to us, third-party manufacturers are subject to ongoing, periodic, and unannounced inspection by the FDA and corresponding state and foreign agencies or their designees to ensure strict compliance with cGMP and cGTP regulations and other governmental regulations and corresponding foreign standards. Although we do not control compliance by our contract manufacturers with these regulations and standards, we—as the manufacturer—assume the liabilities for our contract manufacturers’ non-compliance. Our future contract manufacturers might not be able to comply with these regulatory requirements. If our third-party manufacturers fail to comply with applicable regulations, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could impose penalties on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, consent decrees, compliance with FDA’s Application Integrity Policy, issuance of warning or untitled letters, denial of marketing approval of our product candidates, delays, suspensions, or withdrawals of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or our other products, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecutions. Any of these actions could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates or other products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

If we decide to use third-party manufacturers in the future, they will likely be dependent upon their own third-party suppliers, making us vulnerable to supply shortages and price fluctuations, which could harm our business.

The operations of any future third-party manufacturers will likely be dependent upon their own third-party suppliers. A supply interruption or an increase in demand beyond a supplier’s capabilities could harm the ability of any future manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates or intended products until the manufacturer identifies and qualifies new sources of supply. Reliance on these third-party manufacturers and their suppliers could subject us to a number of risks that could harm our business, including:

Any interruption in the supply of components of our product candidates or future products or materials, or our inability to obtain substitute components or materials from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner, could impair our ability to meet the demands of our clinical trials or of our future customers, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

We will depend on third-party distributors in the future to market and sell our future products which will subject us to a number of risks.

We will depend on third-party distributors to sell, market, and service our future products in our intended markets. We are subject to a number of risks associated with reliance upon third-party distributors including:

If we fail to establish and maintain satisfactory relationships with our future third-party distributors, our revenues and market share may not grow as anticipated, and we could be subject to unexpected costs which could harm our results of operations and financial condition.

The successful commercialization of our current or future product candidates will depend on obtaining reimbursement from government and third-party payors.

If we successfully develop and obtain necessary regulatory approvals, we intend to sell our product candidates in countries such as the U.S. and Japan. In the U.S., the market for any pharmaceutical product is affected by the availability of reimbursement from government and third-party payors, such as government health administration authorities, private health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and pharmacy benefit management companies. MSC therapies may be expensive compared with conventional pharmaceuticals, due to the higher cost and complexity associated with the research, development, and production of product candidates, the small size and large geographic diversity of the target patient population for some indications, and the complexity associated with distribution of signaling cell therapies which require special handling, storage, and shipment procedures and protocols. This, in turn, may make it more difficult for us to obtain adequate reimbursement from government and third-party payors, particularly if we cannot demonstrate a favorable cost-benefit relationship. Government and third-party payors may also deny coverage or offer inadequate levels of reimbursement for our potential products if they determine that the product has not received appropriate clearances from the FDA or other government regulators or is experimental, unnecessary or inappropriate.

In some other countries where we may seek to market our products, such as Japan, the pricing of prescription pharmaceutical products and services and the level of government reimbursement are subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take six to twelve months or longer after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we or our potential future collaborators may be required to conduct one or more clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of our product candidates or products to other available therapies. Conducting one or more additional clinical trials would be expensive and could result in delays in commercialization of our product candidates.

Managing and reducing health care costs has been a general concern of federal and state governments in the U.S. and various foreign governments. Although we do not believe that any recently enacted or presently proposed legislation in any jurisdictions in which we currently operate should impact our business based on our current model, we might be subject to future regulations or other cost-control initiatives that materially restrict the price we would receive for our products. In addition, government and third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, and many limit reimbursements for newly approved health care products. In particular, government and third-party payors may limit the indications for which they will reimburse patients who use any products that we may develop. Cost control initiatives could decrease the price for products that we may develop, which could result in lower product revenues to us.

We may enter into arrangements with third-party collaborators to help us develop our product candidates and commercialize our products, and our ability to commercialize such products may be impaired or delayed if collaborations are unsuccessful.

We are parties to various collaborations with third parties, and may enter into additional collaborations in the future. We are dependent upon the success of our current and any future collaborators in performing their responsibilities in connection with the relevant collaboration. If we fail to maintain these collaborative relationships for any reason, we would need to perform the activities that we currently anticipate would be performed by our collaborators on our own at our sole expense. This could substantially increase our capital needs, and we may not have the capability or financial capacity to undertake these activities on our own, or we may not be able to find other collaborators on acceptable terms, or at all. This may limit the programs we are able to pursue and result in significant delays in the development, sale, and manufacture of our product candidates and products, and may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our dependence upon our current and potential future collaborations exposes us to a number of risks, including that our collaborators (i) may fail to cooperate or perform their contractual obligations, including financial obligations, (ii) may choose to undertake differing business strategies or pursue alternative technologies, or (iii) may take an opposing view regarding ownership of clinical trial results or intellectual property.

Due to these factors and other possible events, we could suffer delays in the research, development, or commercialization of our product candidates and future products or we may become involved in litigation or arbitration, which could be time consuming and expensive. We additionally may be compelled to split revenue with our collaborators, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

If we engage in future acquisitions or strategic partnerships, this may increase our capital requirements, dilute our stockholders, cause us to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities, and subject us to other risks.

From time to time, we may evaluate various acquisition opportunities and strategic partnerships, including licensing or acquiring complementary products or product candidates, intellectual property rights, technologies or businesses. Any potential acquisition or strategic partnership may entail numerous risks, including:

In addition, if we undertake acquisitions or pursue partnerships in the future, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expense. Moreover, we may not be able to locate suitable acquisition opportunities, and this inability could impair our ability to grow or obtain access to technology or products that may be important to the development of our business.

Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Interim, “topline” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data. These results and related findings and conclusions are based on assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions, and are subject to change following the generation of additional data or a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. As a result, the topline or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, topline and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials. For example, we have reported interim data from our ongoing clinical trials elsewhere in this report. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as subject enrollment continues and more subject data become available or as subjects from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our Class A Common Stock.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and the value of our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure.

If the interim, topline, or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on other product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other therapeutic platforms or product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs, therapeutic platforms and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights.

The U.S. FDA, Japanese PMDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from trials conducted in locations outside of their jurisdiction.

We are conducting several trials in the U.S., and we recently entered into a sponsored clinical research agreement with the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology and Juntendo University Hospital in Japan to explore the safety and efficacy of Lomecel-B in older, frail Japanese subjects. The acceptance of study data by the U.S. FDA, Japanese PMDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority from clinical trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdictions may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (1) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (2) the trials are performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to cGCP requirements; and (3) the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. The FDA may accept the use of some foreign data to support a marketing approval if the clinical trial meets certain requirements. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including the adequacy of the subject population studied and statistical powering, must be met. Furthermore, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. In Japan, the PMDA is requiring us to conduct our Japanese Phase 2 trial in a Japanese population in order to demonstrate safety and efficacy in Japanese subjects. There can be no assurance that the FDA, PMDA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of its respective jurisdiction. If the FDA, PMDA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

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

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

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and establishing and maintaining compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we or any future collaborator fails to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets or fails to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

If any of our product candidates are approved and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of those products, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as our product candidates, if approved. In particular, an approved product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for a product candidate, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label, which is within their purview as part of their practice of medicine. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, however, we may become subject to significant liability. The U.S. federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. The FDA may also issue a public warning letter or untitled letter to the company. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our future approved products, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

If we are required by the FDA to obtain approval of a companion diagnostic test in connection with approval of any of our product candidates, and we do not obtain or face delays in obtaining FDA approval of a diagnostic test, we will not be able to commercialize such future approved product and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

If safe and effective use of any of our product candidates depends on the use of an in vitro diagnostic test that is not otherwise commercially available, then the FDA generally will require approval or clearance of that diagnostic, known as a companion diagnostic, at the same time that the FDA approves our product candidates if at all. According to FDA guidance, if the FDA determines that a companion diagnostic is essential to the safe and effective use of a novel therapeutic product or indication, then the FDA generally will not approve the therapeutic product or new therapeutic product indication if the companion diagnostic is not also approved or cleared for that indication. If a satisfactory companion diagnostic is not commercially available, we may be required to create or obtain one that would be subject to its own regulatory approval requirements. The process of obtaining or creating such a diagnostic is time consuming and costly.

Companion diagnostics are developed in conjunction with clinical programs for the associated product and are subject to regulation as medical devices by the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities. The approval of a companion diagnostic as part of the therapeutic product labeling limits the use of the therapeutic product to only those patients who express the specific genetic alteration that the companion diagnostic was developed to detect.

If the FDA, PMDA or a comparable regulatory authority requires approval of a companion diagnostic for any of our product candidates, whether before or after it obtains marketing approval, we, and/or future collaborators, may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for such product candidate. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of a companion diagnostic could delay or prevent approval of a product candidate or continued marketing of an approved product.

We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process for the companion diagnostic or in transferring that process to commercial partners or negotiating insurance reimbursement plans, all of which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials of a product candidate or commercializing an approved product on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

We may attempt to secure approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities through an expedited review program, and if we are unable to do so, then we could face increased expense to obtain, and delays in the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals.

We may in the future seek approval for one or more of our product candidates under one of the FDA’s expedited review programs for serious conditions. These programs are available to sponsors of therapies that address an unmet medical need to treat a serious condition. The qualifying criteria and requirements vary for each expedited program. Prior to seeking review under one of these expedited programs for any of our product candidates, we intend to seek feedback from the FDA and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive marketing approval through an expedited review program.

There can be no assurance that, after our evaluation of the FDA’s feedback and other factors, we will decide to pursue one or more of these expedited review programs. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent FDA feedback we will continue to pursue one or more of these expedited programs, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, FDA could decide not to grant our request to use one or more of the expedited review programs for a product candidate, even if the FDA’s initial feedback is that the product candidate would qualify for such program(s). Moreover, FDA can decide to stop reviewing a product candidate under one or more of these expedited review programs if, for example, the conditions that warranted expedited review no longer apply to that product candidate.

Some of these expedited programs (e.g., accelerated approval) also require post-marketing clinical trials to be completed and, if any such required trial fails, the FDA could withdraw the approval of the product. If one of our product candidates does not qualify for any expedited review program, then this could result in a longer time period to approval and commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate, and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

The FDA’s Rare Pediatric Disease designation for Lomecel-B for HLHS does not guarantee that we will receive a priority review voucher if the product is approved for this indication, nor does the receipt of Orphan Drug Designation for Lomecel-B for HLHS guarantee that we will receive seven years of market exclusivity if the product is approved for this indication.

As noted elsewhere in this report, FDA has granted both Rare Pediatric Disease designation and Orphan Drug Designation status for the use of Lomecel-B to treat Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS), a rare and life-threatening congenital heart defect in infants. These designations were granted following our Phase 1 safety-focused ELPIS trial, where HLHS infants receiving Lomecel-B during Stage II cardiac reconstruction surgery (bidirectional Glenn procedure) had 100% transplant-free survival between 2-3.5 years post-surgery (as of August 31, 2021). However, even though FDA has granted Lomecel-B Rare Pediatric Disease designation for the treatment of HLHS, receipt of Rare Pediatric Disease designation does not provide any guarantee that we would or will receive a priority review voucher upon approval for this indication. If we do receive a priority review voucher upon approval of Lomecel-B for this indication, then that voucher permits a future application to be treated as a priority review application by FDA. FDA does not guarantee that the future application will be reviewed in a particular period of time. Vouchers may be transferred, including by sale; accordingly, there is a market for these vouchers at prices that have historically fluctuated. If we receive a voucher, we cannot guarantee that we will use it or that there will be a market to transfer or sell the voucher. Further, receipt of Orphan Drug Designation does not guarantee that we will receive seven years of market exclusivity upon approval for this indication unless all appropriate statutory and regulatory criteria are met.

We may face difficulties from changes to current regulations and future legislation, both in the U.S. as well as in other foreign jurisdictions where we may be operating.

Existing regulations and regulatory policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year and reduced payments to several types of Medicare providers, which will remain in effect through 2029 absent additional congressional action. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products.

The currently pending “Build Back Better Act,” if enacted, would make several significant changes to drug pricing, coverage, and reimbursement that could materially impact our business. Among the key provisions related to drug pricing, Title XI of the Social Security Act would be amended to direct the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to establish a Drug Negotiation Program to reduce spending on, and out-of-pocket costs for, prescription drugs. Each year, the Secretary would identify 100 brand-name drugs lacking price competition and for which certain periods of time have elapsed since drug approval, and would select a proscribed number of drugs on that list for price negotiations with manufacturers to establish a maximum fair price. Manufacturers that are noncompliant with the fair price negotiation program would be subject to an excise tax during noncompliance periods. Other important drug pricing provisions include a mandatory rebate for drug manufacturers of certain Medicare Part B and Part D drugs with prices increasing faster than inflation beginning in 2023; cap setting on the costs for prescription drugs by setting annual out-of-pocket limits and lowering beneficiary coinsurance in the initial coverage phase; and allowing cost-sharing for insulin products under Medicare Part D.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. that could impact our future business and operations, including those that may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our product candidates, if approved, and accordingly, our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for biotechnology products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Our relationships with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, CROs and third-party payors in connection with our current and future business activities may be subject to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, transparency laws, government price reporting, and health information privacy and security laws, which could expose us to, among other things, criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, exclusion from governmental healthcare programs, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain future marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, CROs, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Some state laws require biotechnology companies to comply with the biotechnology industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. Some state laws require biotechnology companies to report information on the pricing of certain drug products. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. For instance, the collection and use of health data in the European Union is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which extends the geographical scope of European Union data protection law to non-European Union entities under certain conditions, tightens existing European Union data protection principles, creates new obligations for companies and new rights for individuals. Failure to comply with the GDPR may result in substantial fines and other administrative penalties. In addition, on June 28, 2018, the State of California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which took effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA creates individual privacy rights for California consumers and increases the privacy and security obligations of entities handling certain personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability, and similar laws have been proposed at the federal level and in other states.

Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve on-going substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, temporary or permanent debarment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. Further, if any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Inadequate funding for the FDA and other government agencies, future government shutdown or furlough of government employees, or public health emergencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being reviewed or approved in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel, the availability of industry-paid user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times for product approvals at the FDA have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies, including those resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, may also slow the time necessary for new products to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, if a prolonged government shutdown and/or government employee furloughs were to occur, or if FDA’s response to a global pandemic such as COVID-19 diverts FDA resources and attention to other regulatory efforts, then the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, or inspect our or others’ manufacturing facilities, could be significantly impacted, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns, furloughs or public health emergencies could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses, we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or commercialization efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Our research and development activities could be affected or delayed as a result of possible restrictions on animal testing.

Certain laws and regulations require us to test our product candidates on animals before initiating clinical trials involving humans. Animal testing activities have been the subject of controversy and adverse publicity. Animal rights groups and other organizations and individuals have attempted to stop animal testing activities by pressing for legislation and regulation in these areas and by disrupting these activities through protests and other means. To the extent the activities of these groups are successful, or if the laws and regulations regarding animal testing otherwise change, our research and development activities may be interrupted, delayed or become more expensive.

Our business activities may be subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA, and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws of other countries in which we operate, as well as U.S. and certain foreign export controls, trade sanctions, and import laws and regulations. Compliance with these legal requirements could limit our ability to compete in foreign markets and subject us to liability if we violate them.

If we further expand our operations outside of the U.S., we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. Our business activities may be subject to the FCPA and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we operate. The FCPA generally prohibits companies and their employees and third-party intermediaries from offering, promising, giving or authorizing the provision of anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-U.S. government official in order to influence official action or otherwise obtain or retain business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, hospitals owned and operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees would be considered foreign officials under the FCPA. Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents or contractors, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers or our employees, disgorgement, and other sanctions and remedial measures, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our products in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international activities, our ability to attract and retain employees and our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

In addition, our products and technology may be subject to U.S. and foreign export controls, trade sanctions and import laws and regulations. Governmental regulation of the import or export of our products and technology, or our failure to obtain any required import or export authorization for our products, when applicable, could harm our international sales and adversely affect our revenue. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements regarding the export of our products may create delays in the introduction of our products in international markets or, in some cases, prevent the export of our products to some countries altogether. Furthermore, U.S. export control laws and economic sanctions prohibit the shipment of certain products and services to countries, governments, and persons targeted by U.S. sanctions. If we fail to comply with export and import regulations and such economic sanctions, penalties could be imposed, including fines and/or denial of certain export privileges. Moreover, any new export or import restrictions, new legislation or shifting approaches in the enforcement or scope of existing regulations, or in the countries, persons, or products targeted by such regulations, could result in decreased use of our products by, or in our decreased ability to export our products to existing or potential customers with international operations. Any decreased use of our products or limitation on our ability to export or sell access to our products would likely adversely affect our business.

Risks Related to Our Class A Common Stock and the Securities Market

The price of our stock has been, and may continue to be, volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

The trading price of our Class A Common Stock has been, and may continue to be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which we cannot control. The stock market in general, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies.

Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our Class A Common Stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this report, these factors include:

The realization of any of the above risks or any of a broad range of other risks, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, could have a dramatic and adverse impact on the market price of our Class A Common Stock.

Our ability to raise capital in the future may be limited.

To date, our principal sources of capital used to fund our programs and other operations have been grant funding and the net proceeds we received from sales of equity securities. We have and will continue to use significant capital for the development and commercialization of our product candidates, and, as such, we expect to seek additional capital from future issuance(s) of our securities, which may consist of issuances of equity and/or debt securities, to fund our planned operations. Additional financing may not be available on favorable terms or at all. If adequate funds are not available on acceptable terms, we may be unable to fund our capital requirements. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, you bear the risk of our future securities offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting your interest.

In December 2021, we raised approximately $20.5 million in gross proceeds through the sale of our equity securities under a Form S-1 registration statement. As of February 14, 2022, we are eligible to sell equity securities under a Form S-3 “shelf” registration statement. Using a shelf registration statement to raise capital generally takes less time and is less expensive than other means, such as conducting an offering under a Form S-1 registration statement. However, under current SEC rules and regulations, we must meet certain requirements to use a Form S-3 registration statement to raise capital without restriction as to the amount of the market value of securities sold thereunder. One such requirement is that we periodically evaluate the market value of our outstanding shares of common stock held by non-affiliates, or public float, and if, at an evaluation date, our public float is less than $75.0 million, then the aggregate market value of securities sold by us or on our behalf under the Form S-3 in any 12-month period is limited to an aggregate of one-third of our public float. Our public float is currently approximately $30.0 million and therefore we are currently subject to the one-third of our public float limitation. If our ability to use our Form S-3 shelf registration statement for a primary offering of our securities is limited to one-third of our public float, we may conduct such an offering pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 or under a Form S-1 registration statement, and we would expect either of those alternatives to increase the cost of raising additional capital relative to using our Form S-3 shelf registration statement.

In addition, under current SEC rules and regulations, our common stock must be listed and registered on a national securities exchange in order to use a Form S-3 registration statement (i) for a primary offering, if our public float is not at least $75.0 million as of a date within 60 days prior to the date of filing the Form S-3 or a re-evaluation date, whichever is later, and (ii) to register the resale of our securities by persons other than us (i.e., a resale offering). While currently our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain such listing.

Our ability to timely raise sufficient additional capital also may be limited by Nasdaq's stockholder approval requirements for transactions involving the issuance of our common stock or securities convertible into our common stock in an offering other than a public offering (as defined in Nasdaq listing rules). For instance, generally, stockholder approval is required prior to the issuance or potential issuance of common stock (or securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock) which (together with sales by our officers, directors and substantial shareholders (as defined in Nasdaq listing rules)) equals 20% or more of our common stock outstanding before the issuance at a price that is less than the lower of the closing price of our common stock or the five trading day average closing price of our common stock, in each case, immediately preceding the signing of the binding agreement (the "Minimum Price"). A public offering under Nasdaq rules typically involves broadly announcing the proposed transaction, which often times has the effect of depressing the company's stock price. Accordingly, the price at which we could sell our securities in a public offering may be less, and the dilution existing stockholders experience may in turn be greater, than if we were able to raise capital through other means.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our product candidates on unfavorable terms to us.

In order to meet our operational goals, we will need to obtain additional capital, which we will likely obtain through a variety of means, including through public or private equity financings, debt financings or other sources, including up-front payments and milestone payments from strategic collaborations. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of convertible debt or equity securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Any such financing may result in dilution to stockholders, imposition of debt covenants, increased fixed payment obligations or other restrictions that may affect our business.

In addition, we currently have warrants issued that are subject to downward exercise price adjustments that may be triggered in a future financing, and which, if exercised, would also result in dilution. If we raise additional funds through up-front payments or milestone payments pursuant to strategic collaborations with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

Information available in public media that is published by third parties, including blogs, articles, message boards and social and other media may include statements not attributable to the Company and may not be reliable or accurate.

We are aware of a large volume of information being disseminated by third parties relating to our operations, including in blogs, message boards and social and other media. Such information as reported by third parties may not be accurate, may lead to significant volatility in our securities and may ultimately result in our common stock or other securities declining in value.

There may not be sufficient liquidity in the market for our securities in order for investors to sell their shares.

We are a small company that is relatively unknown to stock analysts, stock brokers, institutional investors and others in the investment community that generate or influence sales volume, and even if we came to the attention of such persons, they tend to be risk-averse and may be reluctant to follow an unproven company such as ours or purchase or recommend the purchase of our shares until such time as we became more seasoned and viable. There may be periods of several days or more when trading activity in our shares is minimal as compared to a mature issuer which has a large and steady volume of trading activity that will generally support continuous sales without an adverse effect on share price. It is possible that a broader or more active public trading market for our common stock will not develop or be sustained, or that trading levels will not continue. These factors may materially adversely affect the market price of our Class A Common Stock, regardless of our performance. In addition, the public stock markets have experienced extreme price and trading volume volatility. This volatility has significantly affected the market prices of securities of many companies for reasons frequently unrelated to the operating performance of the specific companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our Class A Common Stock.

The dual class structure of our common stock may adversely affect the trading market for our Class A Common Stock.

We cannot predict whether our dual class structure will result in a lower or more volatile market price of our Class A Common Stock or in adverse publicity or other adverse consequences. For example, certain index providers have announced restrictions on including companies with dual class or multi-class share structures in certain of their indexes. In July 2017, S&P Dow Jones and FTSE Russell announced changes to their eligibility criteria for the inclusion of shares of public companies on certain indices, including the Russell 2000, the S&P 500, the S&P MidCap 400 and the S&P SmallCap 600, to exclude companies with multiple classes of shares of common stock from being added to these indices. Beginning in 2017, MSCI, a leading stock index provider, opened public consultations on their treatment of no-vote and multi-class structures and temporarily barred new multi-class listings from certain of its indices. However, in October 2018, MSCI announced its decision to include equity securities “with unequal voting structures” in its indices and to launch a new index that specifically includes voting rights in its eligibility criteria. As a result, our dual class capital structure would make us ineligible for inclusion in any of these indices, and mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and other investment vehicles that attempt to passively track these indices will not be investing in our stock. These policies are still fairly new and it is as of yet unclear what effect, if any, they will have on the valuations of publicly traded companies excluded from the indices, but it is possible that they may depress these valuations compared to those of other similar companies that are included. Furthermore, we cannot assure you that other stock indices will not take a similar approach to S&P Dow Jones or FTSE Russell in the future. Exclusion from indices could make our Class A Common Stock less attractive to investors and, as a result, the market price of our Class A Common Stock could be adversely affected.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports, or if they publish adverse or misleading research or reports, regarding us, our business or our market, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our Class A Common Stock will be influenced by the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us, our business or our market. We do not currently have and may never obtain research coverage by securities or industry analysts. If no or few securities or industry analysts commence coverage of us, the stock price would be negatively impacted. In the event we obtain securities or industry analyst coverage, if any of the analysts who cover us issue adverse or misleading research or reports regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property, our stock performance or our market, or if our operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly or may fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, each of which may cause our stock price to fluctuate or decline.

We expect our operating results to be subject to quarterly fluctuations. Our net loss and other operating results will be affected by numerous factors, including:

If our quarterly operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our Class A Common Stock could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our stock to fluctuate substantially. We believe that quarterly comparisons of our financial results are not necessarily meaningful and should not be relied upon as an indication of our future performance.

Holders of our Class B Common Stock will control the direction of our business and their ownership of our common stock will prevent you and other stockholders from influencing significant decisions.

As of December 31, 2021, two holders of our Class B Common Stock, Dr. Joshua Hare, our co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer, and DS MED LLC, a limited liability company controlled by a member of our Board, Don Soffer, own approximately 93% of the combined voting power of our Class A and Class B Common Stock. For so long as holders of Class B Common Stock continue to hold their shares, they will be able to significantly influence or effectively control the composition of our board of directors and the approval of actions requiring stockholder approval through their voting power. Accordingly, for such period of time, these holders will have significant influence with respect to our management, business plans and policies. In particular, for so long as the Class B Common Stock remains outstanding, the holders may be able to cause or prevent a change of control of our Company or a change in the composition of our board of directors, and could preclude any unsolicited acquisition of our Company. The concentration of ownership could deprive you of an opportunity to receive a premium for your shares of Class A Common Stock as part of a sale of our Company and ultimately might affect the market price of our Class A Common Stock.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our Class A Common Stock.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Substandard internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures on a quarterly basis and our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an emerging growth company, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting could lead to restatements of our financial statements, require us to incur the expense of remediation, and result in a decline in the trading price of our stock.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our Class A Common Stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including:

We cannot predict if investors will find our Class A Common Stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our Class A Common Stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our Class A Common Stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest to occur of: (1) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have more than $1.07 billion in annual revenue; (2) the date we qualify as a “large accelerated filer,” with at least $700 million of equity securities held by non-affiliates; (3) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period; and (4) the last day of the fiscal year ending after the fifth anniversary of our IPO.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to take advantage of the extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, our financial statements may not be comparable to other public companies that comply with public company effective dates. As a result, changes in rules of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles or their interpretation, the adoption of new guidance or the application of existing guidance to changes in our business could significantly affect our financial position and results of operations.

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, result in more litigation and divert management’s attention.

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, the listing requirements of Nasdaq and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Complying with these rules and regulations results in legal and financial compliance costs, makes some activities more difficult, time consuming or costly and increases demand on our systems and resources, including management. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could adversely affect our business and operating results. We may also need to hire additional employees or engage outside consultants to comply with these requirements, which will increase our costs and expenses.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be adversely affected.

These new rules and regulations may make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and, in the future, we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee and compensation committee, and qualified executive officers.

By disclosing information in this report and in future filings required of a public company, our business and financial condition will become more visible, which we believe may result in threatened or actual litigation, including by competitors and other third parties. If those claims are successful, our business could be seriously harmed. Even if the claims do not result in litigation or are resolved in our favor, the time and resources needed to resolve them could divert our management’s resources and seriously harm our business.