Microbot Medical Inc. - Quarter Report: 2012 March (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarter ended: March 31, 2012

Commission File Number: 0-19871

STEMCELLS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

7707 Gateway Blvd

Newark, CA 94560

(Address of principal executive offices including zip code)

(510) 456-4000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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 twelve months (or for such shorter periods that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

    Yes  ¨    No  x

At May 8, 2012, there were 25,329,246 shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value, issued and outstanding.

Table of Contents

STEMCELLS, INC.

INDEX

NOTE REGARDING REFERENCES TO US AND OUR COMMON STOCK

Throughout this Form 10-Q, the words “we,” “us,” “our,” and “StemCells” refer to StemCells, Inc., including our directly and indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries. “Common stock” refers to the common stock, $.01 par value, of StemCells, Inc.

2

Table of Contents

PART I-FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

STEMCELLS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

3

Table of Contents

STEMCELLS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

4

Table of Contents

STEMCELLS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

5

Table of Contents

STEMCELLS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(unaudited)

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

6

Table of Contents

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)

March 31, 2012 and 2011

Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Nature of Business

StemCells, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a biopharmaceutical company that operates in one segment, the research, development, and commercialization of stem cell therapeutics and related technologies.

The accompanying financial data as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 have been prepared by us, without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (U.S. GAAP) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to these rules and regulations. The December 31, 2011 condensed consolidated balance sheet was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP. However, we believe that the disclosures are adequate to make the information presented not misleading. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception. We expect to incur additional operating losses over the foreseeable future. We have very limited liquidity and capital resources and must obtain significant additional capital and other resources in order to provide funding for our product development efforts, the acquisition of technologies, businesses and intellectual property rights, preclinical and clinical testing of our products, pursuit of regulatory approvals, acquisition of capital equipment, laboratory and office facilities, establishment of production capabilities, selling, general and administrative expenses and other working capital requirements. We rely on our cash reserves, proceeds from equity and debt offerings, proceeds from the transfer or sale of intellectual property rights, equipment, facilities or investments, government grants and funding from collaborative arrangements, to fund our operations. If we exhaust our cash reserves and are unable to obtain adequate financing, we may be unable to meet our operating obligations and we may be required to initiate bankruptcy proceedings. The financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Reverse Stock Split

We effected a 1-for-10 reverse stock split on July 6, 2011. As a result of the reverse stock split, the outstanding shares of common stock issued and outstanding were reduced from approximately 139 million to 13.9 million. Concurrent with the reverse stock split, we reduced the authorized number of common shares from 250 million to 75 million. The reverse stock split proportionately reduced all issued and outstanding shares of our common stock, as well as common stock underlying stock options, warrants and other common stock based equity grants outstanding immediately prior to the effectiveness of the reverse stock split. The exercise price on outstanding equity-based grants was proportionately increased, and the number of shares available under our equity-based plans was proportionately reduced. Share and per share data (except par value) for the periods presented reflect the effects of this reverse stock split. References to numbers of shares of common stock and per share data in the accompanying financial statements and notes thereto have been adjusted to reflect the reverse stock split on a retroactive basis.

Principles of Consolidation

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of StemCells, Inc., and our wholly-owned subsidiaries, including StemCells California, Inc., Stem Cell Sciences Holdings Ltd, and Stem Cell Sciences (UK) Ltd. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the amounts reported in our condensed consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates.

7

Table of Contents

Significant estimates include the following:

Financial Instruments

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash equivalents are money market accounts, money market funds and investments with maturities of 90 days or less from the date of purchase.

Marketable Securities

Our existing marketable securities are designated as available-for-sale securities. These securities are carried at fair value (see Note 2, “Financial Instruments”), with the unrealized gains and losses reported as a component of stockholders’ equity. Management determines the appropriate designation of its investments (current or non-current) in marketable securities at the time of purchase and reevaluates such designation as of each balance sheet date. The cost of securities sold is based upon the specific identification method.

If the estimated fair value of a security is below its carrying value, we evaluate whether we have the intent and ability to retain our investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery to the cost of the investment, and whether evidence indicating that the cost of the investment is recoverable within a reasonable period of time outweighs evidence to the contrary. Other-than-temporary declines in estimated fair value of all marketable securities are charged to “Other income (expense), net” in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations. No such impairment was recognized during the three months ended March 31, 2012 or 2011.

Trade and Other Receivables

Our receivables generally consist of interest income on our financial instruments, revenue from licensing agreements and grants, revenue from product sales, and rent from our sub-lease tenants.

Warrant Liability

We account for our warrants in accordance with U.S. GAAP which defines how freestanding contracts that are indexed to and potentially settled in a company’s own stock should be measured and classified. Authoritative accounting guidance prescribes that only warrants issued under contracts that cannot be net-cash settled, and are both indexed to and settled in the Company’s common stock, can be classified as equity. As part of both our November 2008 and November 2009 financings, we issued warrants with five year terms to purchase 1,034,483 and 400,000 shares of our common stock at $23.00 and $15.00 per share, respectively. As part of our December 2011 financing, we issued Series A Warrants with five year terms to purchase 8,000,000 shares at $1.40 per share and Series B Warrants with a ninety trading days term to purchase 8,000,000 units at $1.25 per unit. Each unit underlying the Series B Warrants consisted of one share of our common stock and one Series A Warrant. As the warrant agreements did not meet the specific conditions for equity classification, we are required to classify the fair value of the warrants issued as a liability, with subsequent changes in fair value to be recorded as income (loss) on change in fair value of warrant liability. The fair value of the warrants related to the 2008 and 2009 financing is determined using the Black-Scholes-Merton (Black-Scholes) option pricing model and the fair value of the warrants related to the 2011 financing is determined using the Monte Carlo simulation model (see Note 8, “Warrant Liability”). The fair value is affected by changes in inputs to these models including our stock price, expected stock price volatility, the contractual term, and the risk-free interest rate. The use of the Monte Carlo simulation model requires input of additional assumptions including the progress of our R&D programs and its affect on potential future financings. We will continue to classify the fair value of the warrants as a liability until the warrants are exercised, expire or are amended in a way that would no longer require these warrants to be classified as a liability.

8

Table of Contents

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

Goodwill and intangible assets deemed to have indefinite lives are not amortized but are subject to annual impairment tests. If the assumptions and estimates used to allocate the purchase price are not correct, or if business conditions change, purchase price adjustments or future asset impairment charges could be required. We test goodwill for impairment on an annual basis or more frequently if we believe indicators of impairment exist. Impairment evaluations involve management estimates of asset useful lives and future cash flows. Significant management judgment is required in the forecasts of future operating results that are used in the evaluations, and it is possible, even likely, that the plans and estimates used may be incorrect. If our actual results, or the plans and estimates used in future impairment analysis are lower than the original estimates used to assess the recoverability of these assets, we could incur additional impairment charges in a future period. We completed our annual impairment testing during the fourth quarter of 2011, and determined that there was no impairment of goodwill.

Prior to fiscal year 2001, we capitalized certain patent costs, which are being amortized over the estimated life of the patent and would be expensed at the time such patents are deemed to have no continuing value. Since 2001, all patent costs are expensed as incurred. License costs are capitalized and amortized over the estimated life of the license agreement.

Revenue Recognition

We currently recognize revenue resulting from the licensing and use of our technology and intellectual property, from government grants, and from product sales. Licensing agreements may contain multiple elements, such as upfront fees, payments related to the achievement of particular milestones and royalties. Revenue from upfront fees for licensing agreements that contain multiple elements are generally deferred and recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the agreement. Fees associated with substantive at risk performance-based milestones are recognized as revenue upon completion of the scientific or regulatory event specified in the agreement, and royalties received are recognized as earned. Revenue from licensing agreements is recognized net of a fixed percentage due to licensors as royalties. Grant revenue from government agencies are funds received to cover specific expenses and are recognized as earned upon either the incurring of reimbursable expenses directly related to the particular research plan or the completion of certain development milestones as defined within the terms of the relevant collaborative agreement or grant. Revenue from product sales are recognized when the product is shipped and the order fulfilled.

Stock-Based Compensation

Compensation expense for stock-based payment awards to employees is based on their grant date fair value as calculated and amortized over their vesting period. See Note 5, “Stock-Based Compensation” for further information.

We use the Black-Scholes model to calculate the fair value of stock-based awards.

Net Loss per Share

Basic net loss per share is computed by dividing net loss by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted net loss per share is computed based on the weighted average number of shares of common stock and other dilutive securities. To the extent these securities are anti-dilutive; they are excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per share. Share and per share amounts have been adjusted to reflect the one-for-ten reverse stock split effected in July 2011.

The following is a reconciliation of the numerators and denominators of the basic and diluted earnings per share computations:

9

Table of Contents

The following outstanding potentially dilutive common stock equivalents were excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share because the effect would have been anti-dilutive as of March 31:

Comprehensive Loss

Comprehensive loss is comprised of net losses and other comprehensive loss or income (OCL). OCL includes certain changes in stockholders’ equity that are excluded from net losses. Specifically, we include in OCL changes in unrealized gains and losses on our marketable securities and unrealized gains and losses on foreign currency translations. Accumulated other comprehensive income was $139,352, as of March 31, 2012, and $40,713, as of December 31, 2011.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In June 2011, the FASB issued new accounting guidance which eliminates the current option to present other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of changes in equity. However, under the new guidance, comprehensive income and its components must still be presented under one of two new alternatives. Under the first alternative, the components of other comprehensive income and the components of net income may be presented in one continuous statement referred to as the statement of comprehensive income. Under the second alternative, a statement of other comprehensive income would immediately follow the statement of net income and must be shown with equal prominence as the other primary financial statements. Under either alternative, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. For public entities, these new requirements will become effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011 and should be applied retrospectively to all prior periods presented. These new requirements are applicable to our fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012. We adopted this standard in the first quarter of 2012 with the inclusion of a new separate statement labeled “Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.”

We have reviewed and considered all recent accounting pronouncements and believe there are none that could potentially have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or disclosures.

Note 2. Financial Instruments

The following table summarizes the fair value of our cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale marketable securities held in our current investment portfolio:

10

Table of Contents

Gross unrealized gains and losses on cash equivalents were not significant at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. At March 31, 2012, our investment in money market accounts are composed primarily of U.S. Treasury debt securities, which are classified as cash equivalents in our Consolidated Balance Sheet due to their short maturities. Our investment in short-term marketable debt securities are composed primarily of commercial paper and corporate debt securities.

Note 3. Fair Value Measurement

The following tables present our assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis and are categorized using the fair value hierarchy. The fair value hierarchy has three levels based on the reliability of the inputs used to determine fair value.

Level 1 — Observable inputs that reflect quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active markets.

Level 2 — Directly or indirectly observable inputs other than in Level 1, that include quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets or quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active.

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs which are supported by little or no market activity that reflects the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability.

The fair value hierarchy also requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value.

Our cash equivalents, marketable securities and bonds payable are classified within Level 1 or Level 2. This is because our cash equivalents and marketable securities are valued primarily using quoted market prices and our bonds payable are valued using alternative pricing sources and models utilizing market observable inputs. Our warrant liability is valued using pricing models that include the Monte Carlo simulation model. In addition to using observable inputs such as risk-free interest rates that are derived from the yield on U.S. Treasury debt securities, and volatility and price based on our common stock as traded on NASDAQ, the use of the Monte Carlo simulation model requires the input of additional subjective assumptions including the progress of our R&D programs and its affect on potential future financings.

The following table presents financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value:

11

Table of Contents

Level 3 Reconciliation

The following table presents a roll forward for liabilities measured at fair value using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) for 2012.

Note 4. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

On April 1, 2009, we acquired the operations of Stem Cell Sciences Plc (SCS) for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $5,135,000. The acquired operations includes proprietary cell technologies relating to embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, and tissue-derived (adult) stem cells; expertise and infrastructure for providing cell-based assays for drug discovery; a cell culture products business; and an intellectual property portfolio with claims relevant to cell processing, reprogramming and manipulation, as well as to gene targeting and insertion.

The purchase price was allocated as follows:

In-process research and development assets relate to: 1) the acquisition of certain intellectual property rights not expected to expire until 2027 related to our program focused on developing genetically engineered rat models of human disease (our “Transgenic Rat Program”); and 2) the acquisition of certain technology related to the commercialization of our SC Proven cell culture products and the development and commercialization of cell-based assay platforms for use in drug discovery and development (our “Assay Development Program”).

At the time of valuation (April 2009), the technology related to our Transgenic Rat Program was in its nascent stage and we expected to achieve proof of concept by 2012 for our Assay Development Program. These technologies were not expected to begin generating revenue until 2011-2012. In December 2011, in part because of management’s decision to focus on our therapeutic product development programs and not to allocate time and resources to the assays technology, we determined that we could not predict the future cash flows from the intangible IPR&D asset related to the assays technology. Therefore, at December 31, 2011, we determined that the intangible asset was impaired and wrote off the approximately $655,000 carrying value of the asset.

Trade name relates to the “SC Proven” trademark of our cell culture products which we expect to market for 15 years from the date of acquisition, based on which, we estimated a remaining useful life of 15 years from the valuation date.

The following table presents changes in goodwill:

12

Table of Contents

The components of our other intangible assets at March 31, 2012 are summarized below:

Amortization expense was approximately $92,000 in the first quarter of 2012.

The expected future annual amortization expense for each of the next five years based on current balances of our intangible assets is as follows:

Note 5. Stock-Based Compensation

We currently grant stock-based awards under two equity incentive plans. As of March 31, 2012, we had 618,314 shares authorized to be granted under the two plans. Under these plans we may grant various types of equity awards to our employees, directors and consultants, at prices determined by our Board of Directors, including incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, and performance-based shares. Incentive stock options may only be granted to employees under these plans with a grant price not less than the fair market value of the stock on the date of grant. We also use these plans to grant shares to employees for the employer match of employee 401(k) plan contributions. Share numbers and exercise prices have been adjusted for the 1-for-10 reverse stock split effected in July 2011.

Our stock-based compensation expense for the three months ended March 31 was as follows:

As of March 31, 2012, we had approximately $4,094,000 of total unrecognized compensation expense related to unvested awards of stock options and restricted stock units granted under our various equity incentive plans that we expect to recognize over a weighted-average vesting period of 2.1 years.

Stock Options

Generally, stock options granted to employees have a maximum term of ten years, and vest over a four year period from the date of grant; 25% vest at the end of one year, and 75% vest monthly over the remaining three-year service period. We may grant options with different vesting terms from time to time. Upon employee termination of service, any unexercised vested option will be forfeited three months following termination or the expiration of the option, whichever is earlier. Unvested options are forfeited on termination.

13

Table of Contents

A summary of our stock option activity for the three months ended March 31, 2012 is as follows:

A summary of changes in unvested options for the three months ended March 31, 2012 is as follows:

The estimated fair value of options vested was approximately $185,000 in the three months ended March 31, 2012.

Restricted Stock Units

We have granted restricted stock units (RSUs) to certain employees and members of the Board of Directors which entitle the holders to receive shares of our common stock upon vesting of the RSUs. The fair value of restricted stock units granted is based upon the market price of the underlying common stock as if it were vested and issued on the date of grant.

A summary of changes in unvested restricted stock units for the three months ended March 31, 2012 is as follows:

Stock Appreciation Rights

In July 2006, we granted cash-settled Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) to certain employees that give the holder the right, upon exercise, to the difference between the price per share of our common stock at the time of exercise and the exercise price of the SARs.

The SARs have a maximum term of ten years with an exercise price of $20.00, which is equal to the market price of our common stock at the date of grant. The SARs vest 25% on the first anniversary of the grant date and 75% vest monthly over the remaining three-year service period. All of the outstanding SARs as of March 31, 2012 are fully vested. Compensation expense is based on the fair value of SARs which is calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model.

14

Table of Contents

The stock-based compensation expense and liability are re-measured at each reporting date through the earlier of date of settlement or forfeiture of the SARs.

A summary of the changes in SARs for the three months ended March 31, 2012 is as follows:

For the three months ended March 31, 2012, the re-measured liability and expense for the period related to the SARs were not significant. For the same period in 2011, we reduced compensation expense by approximately $189,000.

The compensation expense recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2012 may not be representative of compensation expense for future periods and its resulting effect on net loss and net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, due to changes in the fair value calculation which is dependent on the stock price, volatility, interest and forfeiture rates, additional grants and subsequent periods of vesting. We will continue to recognize compensation cost each period, which will be the change in fair value from the previous period through the earlier date of settlement or forfeiture of the SARs.

Note 6. Wind-Down Expenses

Rhode Island

In October 1999, we relocated to California from Rhode Island and established a wind down reserve for the estimated lease payments and operating costs of our scientific and administrative facility in Rhode Island. Even though we intend to dispose of the facility at the earliest possible time, we cannot determine with certainty a fixed date by which such disposal will occur. In light of this uncertainty, we periodically re-evaluate and adjust the reserve. We consider various factors such as our lease payments through to the end of the lease, operating expenses, the current real estate market in Rhode Island, and estimated subtenant income based on actual and projected occupancy.

The summary of the changes to our wind-down reserve related to this facility for 2012 and 2011 were as follows:

15

Table of Contents

Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

Capital Leases

We entered into direct financing transactions with the State of Rhode Island and received proceeds from the issuance of industrial revenue bonds totaling $5,000,000 to finance the construction of our pilot manufacturing facility in Rhode Island. The related lease agreements are structured such that lease payments fully fund all semiannual interest payments and annual principal payments through maturity in August 2014. The interest rate for the remaining bond series is 9.5%. The bond contains certain restrictive covenants which limit, among other things, the payment of cash dividends and the sale of the related assets. The outstanding principal was approximately $476,000 at March 31, 2012 and $523,000 at December 31, 2011.

Operating Leases

We lease various real properties under operating leases that generally require us to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance, and minimum lease payments. Some of our leases have options to renew.

Operating Leases — California

In September 2010, we entered into a two-year sublease agreement with Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., for approximately 13,200 square feet in a facility located in Mountain View, California. We will pay approximately $695,000 in aggregate as rent over the term of the lease. The lease contains escalating rent payments, which we recognize as operating lease expense on a straight-line basis. Deferred rent was approximately $1,600, as of March 31, 2012, and approximately $2,600, as of December 31, 2011.

In December 2010, we entered into a commercial lease agreement with BMR-Gateway Boulevard LLC (“BMR”), as landlord, for approximately 43,000 square feet of office and research space at BMR’s Pacific Research Center in Newark, California. The initial term of the lease is approximately eleven and one-half years, and we relocated our corporate headquarters and core research activities from a facility located at the Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto, California, to this facility in July 2011. The lease for the Palo Alto facility expired on August 31, 2011. We will pay approximately $17,869,000 in aggregate as rent over the term of the lease, which we recognize as operating lease expense on a straight-line basis. Deferred rent was approximately $1,321,000 as of March 31, 2012, and approximately $1,301,000 as of December 31, 2011. We constructed laboratories, offices and related infrastructure within the leased space during the first several months of the lease. As part of the lease, BMR has agreed to provide various financial allowances so that we can build initial and future laboratories, offices and other improvements, subject to customary terms and conditions relating to landlord-funded tenant improvements. As part of the lease, we have, until January 2013, an option to lease up to an additional 30,000 square feet in the building.

Operating Leases — Rhode Island

We entered into a fifteen-year lease agreement for a scientific and administrative facility (SAF) in Rhode Island in connection with a sale and leaseback arrangement in 1997. The lease term expires June 30, 2013 and includes escalating rent payments which we recognize on a straight-line basis. Deferred rent expense for this facility was approximately $401,000 at March 31, 2012 and $452,000 at December 31, 2011, and is included as part of the wind-down accrual on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. For the year 2012, we expect to pay approximately $1,172,000 in operating lease payments and estimated operating expenses of approximately $690,000, before receipt of sub-tenant income and we expect to receive, in aggregate, approximately $435,000 in sub-tenant rent and operating expenses. As a result of the above transactions, our estimated cash outlay net of sub-tenant rent for the SAF will be approximately $1,427,000 for 2012.

Operating Leases — United Kingdom

In January 2011, we amended the existing lease agreements of our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd, effectively reducing our leased space from approximately 5,000 square feet to approximately 1,900 square feet of office and lab space. We expect to pay approximately 40,000 GBP as rental payments for 2012. StemCells, Inc. is the guarantor of Stem Cell Sciences (U.K.) Ltd’s obligations under the existing lease.

16

Table of Contents

With the exception of the operating leases discussed above, we have not entered into any off balance sheet financial arrangements and have not established any special purpose entities. We have not guaranteed any debts or commitments of other entities or entered into any options on non-financial assets.

Contingencies

In July 2006, we filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that Neuralstem’s activities violate claims in four of the patents we exclusively licensed from NeuroSpheres, specifically U.S. Patent No. 6,294,346 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for drug screening), U.S. Patent No. 7,101,709 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for screening biological agents), U.S. Patent No. 5,851,832 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells), and U.S. Patent No. 6,497,872 (claiming methods for transplanting human neural stem cells). In May 2008, we filed a second patent infringement suit against Neuralstem and its two founders, Karl Johe and Richard Garr. In this suit, which we filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, we allege that Neuralstem’s activities infringe claims in two patents we exclusively license from NeuroSpheres, specifically U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505 (claiming composition of matter of human neural stem cells derived from any source material) and U.S. Patent No. 7,115,418 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells). In addition, we allege various state law causes of action against Neuralstem arising out of its repeated derogatory statements to the public about our patent portfolio. Also in May 2008, Neuralstem filed suit against us and NeuroSpheres in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking a declaratory judgment that the ‘505 and ‘418 patents are either invalid or are not infringed by Neuralstem and that Neuralstem has not violated California state law. In August 2008, the California court transferred our lawsuit against Neuralstem to Maryland for resolution on the merits. In July 2009, the Maryland District Court granted our motion to consolidate these two cases with the litigation we initiated against Neuralstem in 2006. Discovery is ongoing in these cases and we anticipate a trial date in 2013.

In addition to the actions described above, in April 2008, we filed an opposition to Neuralstem’s European Patent No. 0 915 968 (methods of isolating, propagating and differentiating CNS stem cells), because the claimed invention is believed by us to be unpatentable over prior art, including the patents exclusively licensed by us from NeuroSpheres. In December 2010, the European Patent Office ruled that all composition claims in Neuralstem’s ‘968 European patent were invalid and unpatentable over prior art including several of the NeuroSpheres patents licensed to us. Neuralstem has appealed this decision.

Effective 2008, as part of an indemnification agreement with NeuroSpheres, we are entitled to offset all litigation costs incurred in this patent infringement suit, against amounts that would otherwise be owed to NeuroSpheres under our exclusive license agreements with NeuroSpheres, such as annual maintenance fees, milestones and royalty payments. Under the terms of our license agreements, we are required to make annual payments of $50,000 to NeuroSpheres, and we expect to make these annual payments through the remaining life of the patent which, at December 31, 2010, was approximately 14 years. We have therefore capitalized $700,000 (14 years at $50,000 per year) to offset litigation costs. The amount capitalized is not dependent on the achievement of any milestones or related to any other contingent payments which may become due under the arrangement. We will reduce this asset by $50,000 per year in lieu of the cash payments due to NeuroSpheres. As the $50,000 annual payments are fully creditable against royalties due to NeuroSpheres, we have classified the capitalized amount as prepaid royalties under “Other assets, non-current” on our accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. We have concluded that the estimated balance of $650,000, as of March 31, 2012, is a fair estimate and realizable against future milestone and royalty payments to NeuroSpheres, and that litigation costs incurred above this amount will be expensed as incurred. Management will reevaluate this estimate on a quarterly basis based on actual costs and other relevant factors.

Note 8. Warrant Liability

We use various option pricing models, such as the Black-Scholes option pricing model and the Monte Carlo simulation model, to estimate fair value of warrants issued. In using these models, we make certain assumptions about risk-free interest rates, dividend yields, volatility, expected term of the warrants and other assumptions. Risk-free interest rates are derived from the yield on U.S. Treasury debt securities. Dividend yields are based on our historical dividend payments, which have been zero to date. Volatility is estimated from the historical volatility of our common stock as traded on NASDAQ. The expected term of the warrants is based on the time to expiration of the warrants from the date of measurement. Share numbers and exercise prices have been adjusted for the 1-for-10 reverse stock split.

In November 2008, we sold 1,379,310 units to institutional investors at a price of $14.50 per unit, for gross proceeds of $20,000,000. The units, each of which consisted of one share of common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.75 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $23.00 per share, were offered as a registered direct offering under a shelf registration

17

Table of Contents

statement previously filed with, and declared effective by, the SEC. We received total proceeds, net of offering expenses and placement agency fees, of approximately $18,637,000. We recorded the fair value of the warrants to purchase 1,034,483 shares of our common stock as a liability. The fair value of the warrant liability will be revalued at the end of each reporting period, with the change in fair value of the warrant liability recorded as a gain or loss in our condensed consolidated statements of operations. The fair value of the warrants will continue to be classified as a liability until such time as the warrants are exercised, expire or an amendment of the warrant agreement renders these warrants to be no longer classified as a liability.

The assumptions used for the Black-Scholes option pricing model are as follows:

In November 2009, we sold 1,000,000 units to institutional investors at a price of $12.50 per unit, for gross proceeds of $12,500,000. The units, each of which consisted of one share of common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.40 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $15.00 per share, were offered as a registered direct offering under a shelf registration statement previously filed with, and declared effective by, the SEC. We received total proceeds, net of offering expenses and placement agency fees, of approximately $11,985,000. We recorded the fair value of the warrants to purchase 400,000 shares of our common stock as a liability. The fair value of the warrant liability will be revalued at the end of each reporting period, with the change in fair value of the warrant liability recorded as a gain or loss in our condensed consolidated statements of operations. The fair value of the warrants will continue to be classified as a liability until such time as the warrants are exercised, expire or an amendment of the warrant agreement renders these warrants to be no longer classified as a liability.

The assumptions used for the Black-Scholes option pricing model are as follows:

In December 2011, we raised gross proceeds of $10,000,000 through a public offering of 8,000,000 units and 8,000,000 Series B Warrants. The combination of units and Series B Warrants were sold at a public offering price of $1.25 per unit. Each Series B Warrant gives the holder the right to purchase one unit at an exercise price of $1.25 per unit and is exercisable until May 2, 2012, the 90th trading day after the date of issuance. Each unit consists of one share of our common stock and one Series A Warrant. Each Series A Warrant gives the holder the right to purchase one share of our common stock at an initial exercise price of $1.40 per share. The Series A Warrants are immediately exercisable upon issuance and will expire on the fifth anniversary of the closing date of the initial financing transaction in December 2011. The shares were offered under our effective shelf registration statement previously filed with the SEC.

18

Table of Contents

In the first quarter of 2012, an aggregate of 900,000 Series B Warrants were exercised. For the exercise of these warrants, we issued 900,000 shares of our common stock and 900,000 Series A Warrants with an exercise price of $1.40 per share and received gross proceeds of approximately $813,000 in the first quarter of 2012 and $313,000 in April 2012.

The assumptions used for the Monte Carlo simulation model to value the Series A and Series B Warrants at March 31, 2012 are as follows:

The use of the Monte Carlo simulation model requires the input of additional subjective assumptions including the progress of our R&D programs and its affect on potential future financings.

The following table is a summary of the changes in fair value of warrant liability for the Series A and Series B Warrants for the three-month period ended March 31, 2012:

The following table is a summary of our outstanding warrants and fair value of our warrant liability as of March 31, 2012:

The fair value of the warrant liability will be revalued at the end of each reporting period, with the change in fair value of the warrant liability recorded as a gain or loss in our condensed consolidated statements of operations. The fair value of the warrants will continue to be classified as a liability until such time as the warrants are exercised, expire or an amendment of the warrant agreement renders these warrants to be no longer classified as a liability.

Note 9. Common Stock

In the first quarter of 2012, an aggregate of 900,000 Series B Warrants were exercised and we received gross proceeds of approximately $813,000 in the first quarter of 2012 and $313,000 in April 2012. These warrants were issued as part of our December 2011 financing. For the exercise of these warrants, we issued 900,000 shares of our common stock and 900,000 Series A Warrants. The Series A Warrants have an initial exercise price of $1.40 per share and will expire on the fifth anniversary of the closing date of the initial financing transaction in December 2011.

Note 10. Subsequent Events

In April and May 2012, an additional 1,800,000 Series B Warrants were exercised and we received gross proceeds of $2,250,000. For the exercise of these warrants, we issued 1,800,000 shares of our common stock and 1,800,000 Series A Warrants. The Series A Warrants have an initial exercise price of $1.40 per share and will expire on the fifth anniversary of the closing date of the initial financing transaction in December 2011.

19

Table of Contents

Of the 8,000,000 Series B Warrants issued as part of our December 2011 financing, an aggregate of 2,700,000 were exercised since the financing and the unexercised warrants all expired by their terms on May 2, 2012.

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

This report contains forward looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. Such statements include, without limitation, all statements as to expectation or belief and statements as to our future results of operations; the progress of our research, product development and clinical programs; the need for, and timing of, additional capital and capital expenditures; partnering prospects; costs of manufacture of products; the protection of, and the need for, additional intellectual property rights; effects of regulations; the need for additional facilities; and potential market opportunities. Our actual results may vary materially from those contained in such forward-looking statements because of risks to which we are subject, including the fact that additional trials will be required to confirm the safety and demonstrate the efficacy of our HuCNS-SC cells for the treatment of Pelizeaus-Merzbacher disease (PMD), spinal cord injury, age-related macular degeneration or any other disease; uncertainty as to whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Swissmedic, or other regulatory authorities will permit us to proceed with clinical testing of proposed products despite the novel and unproven nature of our technologies; the risk that our clinical trials or studies could be substantially delayed beyond their expected dates or cause us to incur substantial unanticipated costs; uncertainties in our ability to obtain the capital resources needed to continue our current research and development operations and to conduct the research, preclinical development and clinical trials necessary for regulatory approvals; the uncertainty regarding our ability to obtain a corporate partner or partners, if needed, to support the development and commercialization of our potential cell-based therapeutics products; the uncertainty regarding the outcome of our clinical trials or studies we may conduct in the future; the uncertainty regarding the validity and enforceability of our issued patents; the risk that we may not be able to manufacture additional master and working cell banks when needed; the uncertainty whether any products that may be generated in our cell-based therapeutics programs will prove clinically safe and effective; the uncertainty whether we will achieve significant revenue from product sales or become profitable; uncertainties regarding our obligations with respect to our former facilities in Rhode Island; obsolescence of our technologies; competition from third parties; intellectual property rights of third parties; litigation risks; and other risks to which we are subject. All forward-looking statements attributable to us or to persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements and risk factors set forth in “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Overview

The Company

We are engaged in researching, developing, and commercializing stem cell therapeutics and enabling tools and technologies for stem cell-based research and drug discovery and development. Our research and development (R&D) programs are primarily focused on identifying and developing potential cell-based therapeutics which can either restore or support organ function. In particular, since we relocated our corporate headquarters to California in 1999, our R&D efforts have been directed at refining our methods for identifying, isolating, culturing, and purifying the human neural stem cell and developing this cell as potential cell-based therapeutics for the central nervous system (CNS). In our CNS Program, our HuCNS-SC^® product candidate (purified human neural stem cells) is currently in clinical development for several indications— Pelizeaus-Merzbacher Disease (PMD), which is a myelination disorder in the brain, chronic spinal cord injury and dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD). In February 2012, we completed our four-patient Phase I clinical trial in PMD. Results from this trial were reported in March 2012 and showed preliminary evidence of durable and progressive donor-derived myelination in all four patients. In addition, there were measurable gains in neurological and/or motor function in three of the four patients, with the fourth patient clinically stable. We are conducting a Phase I/II clinical trial in Switzerland for the treatment of chronic spinal cord injury. This trial was authorized by Swissmedic and we completed the enrollment and dosing of the first patient cohort of this trial in December 2011. In January 2012, we received authorization from the FDA to conduct a Phase I/II clinical trial in dry AMD, and we expect to initiate this trial later in 2012. We previously completed a Phase I clinical trial in infantile and late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL), and the data from that trial showed that our HuCNS-SC cells were well tolerated and non-tumorigenic, and that there was evidence of engraftment and long-term survival of the transplanted HuCNS-SC cells. In October 2011, we formed a wholly-owned subsidiary to focus on both the therapeutic and research tool applications of our human liver engrafting cells (hLEC) technologies and to serve as an investment vehicle for those interested in a “pure play” liver cell company. For a brief description of our significant therapeutic research and development programs see Overview “Research and Development Programs” in the Business Section of Part I, Item 1 of our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

20

Table of Contents

We are also engaged in developing and commercializing applications of our technologies to enable research, which we believe represent current and nearer-term commercial opportunities. Our portfolio of technologies includes cell technologies relating to embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, and tissue-derived (adult) stem cells; expertise and infrastructure for providing cell-based assays for drug discovery; a cell culture products and antibody reagents business; and an intellectual property portfolio with claims relevant to cell processing, reprogramming and manipulation, as well as to gene targeting and insertion. Many of these enabling technologies were acquired in April 2009 as part of our acquisition of the operations of Stem Cell Sciences Plc (SCS).

We have not derived any revenue or cash flows from the sale or commercialization of any products except for license revenue for certain of our patented technologies and sales of cell culture products for use in research. As a result, we have incurred annual operating losses since inception and expect to incur substantial operating losses in the future. Therefore, we are dependent upon external financing from equity and debt offerings and revenue from collaborative research arrangements with corporate sponsors to finance our operations. We have no such collaborative research arrangements at this time and there can be no assurance that such financing or partnering revenue will be available when needed or on terms acceptable to us.

Before we can derive revenue or cash inflows from the commercialization of any of our therapeutic product candidates, we will need to: (i) conduct substantial in vitro testing and characterization of our proprietary cell types, (ii) undertake preclinical and clinical testing for specific disease indications; (iii) develop, validate and scale-up manufacturing processes to produce these cell-based therapeutics, and (iv) obtain required regulatory approvals. These steps are risky, expensive and time consuming.

Overall, we expect our R&D expenses to be substantial and to increase for the foreseeable future as we continue the development and clinical investigation of our current and future product candidates. However, expenditures on R&D programs are subject to many uncertainties, including whether we develop our product candidates with a partner or independently. We cannot forecast with any degree of certainty which of our current product candidates will be subject to future collaboration, when such collaboration agreements will be secured, if at all, and to what degree such arrangements would affect our development plans and capital requirements. In addition, there are numerous factors associated with the successful commercialization of any of our cell-based therapeutics, including future trial design and regulatory requirements, many of which cannot be determined with accuracy at this time given the stage of our development and the novel nature of stem cell technologies. The regulatory pathways, both in the United States and internationally, are complex and fluid given the novel and, in general, clinically unproven nature of stem cell technologies. At this time, due to such uncertainties and inherent risks, we cannot estimate in a meaningful way the duration of, or the costs to complete, our R&D programs or whether, when or to what extent we will generate revenues or cash inflows from the commercialization and sale of any of our therapeutic product candidates. While we are currently focused on advancing each of our product development programs, our future R&D expenses will depend on the determinations we make as to the scientific and clinical prospects of each product candidate, as well as our ongoing assessment of the regulatory requirements and each product candidate’s commercial potential.

Given the early stage of development of our therapeutic product candidates, any estimates of when we may be able to commercialize one or more of these products would not be meaningful. Moreover, any estimate of the time and investment required to develop potential products based upon our proprietary HuCNS-SC and hLEC technologies will change depending on the ultimate approach or approaches we take to pursue them, the results of preclinical and clinical studies, and the content and timing of decisions made by the FDA, Swissmedic and other regulatory authorities. There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop any product successfully, or that we will be able to recover our development costs, whether upon commercialization of a developed product or otherwise. We cannot provide assurance that any of these programs will result in products that can be marketed or marketed profitably. If certain of our development-stage programs do not result in commercially viable products, our results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

The research markets served by our tools and technologies products are highly competitive, complex and dynamic. Technological advances and scientific discoveries have accelerated the pace of change in biological research, and stem cell technologies have been evolving particularly fast. We compete mainly by focusing on specialty media and antibody reagent products and cell-based assays, which are custom designed for use in stem cell-based research, where we believe our expertise, intellectual property and reputation give us competitive advantage. We believe that, in this particular market niche, our products and technologies offer customers specific advantages over those offered by our competitors. We compete by offering innovative, quality-controlled products, consistently made and designed to produce reproducible results. We continue to make investments in research and development, quality management, quality improvement, and product innovation. We cannot assure you that we will have sufficient resources to continue to make such investments. For the three month period ended March 31, 2012, we generated revenues from the sale of specialty cell culture products of approximately $271,000. We can give no assurances that we will be able to continue to generate such revenues in the future.

21

Table of Contents

Significant Events

In January 2012, we published preclinical data demonstrating that our proprietary HuCNS-SC cells protect host photoreceptors and preserve vision in a well-established animal model of retinal disease. Moreover, the number of cone photoreceptors, which are responsible for central vision, remained constant over an extended period. The preclinical results are highly relevant to human disorders of vision loss, the most notable of which is dry AMD. The data was featured as the cover article in the international peer-reviewed European Journal of Neuroscience.

In January 2012, the FDA authorized the initiation of a Phase I/II clinical trial of our proprietary HuCNS-SC cells in dry AMD, the most common form of AMD. AMD is the leading cause of vision loss and blindness in people over 55 years of age, and approximately 30 million people worldwide are afflicted with the disease. There are no approved treatments for dry AMD.

In March 2012, a summary of the results of our Phase I PMD trial were reported at the European Leukodystrophy Association Families/Scientists Meeting held in Paris, France. Data from the trial provided preliminary evidence of durable and progressive donor-derived myelination in all four patients enrolled and transplanted with our HuCNS-SC cells. In addition, there were measurable gains in neurological and/or motor function in three of the four patients.

In March 2012, we entered into a license agreement under which we granted genOway a worldwide, exclusive license to our Internal Ribosome Entry Site (IRES) technology for use in the development and commercialization of genetically engineered mice. We received an upfront license fee and could receive royalties on product sales.

Critical Accounting Policies and the Use of Estimates

The accompanying discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our condensed consolidated financial statements and the related disclosures, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of these condensed consolidated financial statements requires management to make estimates, assumptions, and judgments that affect the reported amounts in our condensed consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. These estimates form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities. We base our estimates and judgments on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, and we have established internal controls related to the preparation of these estimates. Actual results and the timing of the results could differ materially from these estimates.

Stock-Based Compensation

U.S. GAAP requires us to recognize expense related to the fair value of our stock-based payment awards, including employee stock options and restricted stock units. Under the provisions of U.S. GAAP, employee stock-based payment is estimated at the date of grant based on the award’s fair value using the Black-Scholes-Merton (Black-Scholes) option-pricing model and is recognized as expense ratably over the requisite service period. The Black-Scholes option-pricing model requires the use of certain assumptions, the most significant of which are our estimates of the expected volatility of the market price of our stock and the expected term of the award. Our estimate of the expected volatility is based on historical volatility. The expected term represents our estimated period during which our stock-based awards remain outstanding. We estimate the expected term based on historical experience of similar awards, giving consideration to the contractual terms of the awards, vesting requirements, and expectation of future employee behavior, including post-vesting terminations.

We review our valuation assumptions at each grant date and, as a result, our assumptions in future periods may change. As of March 31, 2012, we expect to recognize approximately $4,094,000 of compensation expense related to unvested stock-based awards over a weighted-average period of 2.1 years. See also Note 5, “Stock-Based Compensation,” in the notes to condensed consolidated financial statements of Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q for further information.

Wind-down expenses — Rhode Island

In connection with exiting our research and manufacturing operations in Lincoln, Rhode Island, and the relocation of our corporate headquarters and remaining research laboratories to California in October 1999, we provided a reserve for our estimate of the exit cost obligation. The reserve reflects estimates of the ongoing costs of our former scientific and administrative facility in Lincoln, which we hold on a lease that terminates on June 30, 2013. We are seeking to sublease, assign, sell, or otherwise divest ourselves of our interest in the facility at the earliest possible time, but we cannot determine with certainty a fixed date by which such events will occur, if at all.

22

Table of Contents

In determining the facility exit cost reserve amount, we are required to consider our lease payments through to the end of the lease term and estimate other relevant factors such as facility operating expenses, real estate market conditions in Rhode Island for similar facilities, occupancy rates, and sublease rental rates projected over the course of the leasehold. We re-evaluate the estimate each quarter, taking account of changes, if any, in each underlying factor. The process is inherently subjective because it involves projections over time — from the date of the estimate through the end of the lease — and it is not possible to determine any of the factors, except the lease payments, with certainty over that period.

Management forms its best estimate on a quarterly basis, after considering actual sublease activity, reports from our broker/realtor about current and predicted real estate market conditions in Rhode Island, the likelihood of new subleases in the foreseeable future for the specific facility and significant changes in the actual or projected operating expenses of the property. We discount the projected net outflow over the term of the leasehold to arrive at the present value, and adjust the reserve to that figure. The estimated vacancy rate for the facility is an important assumption in determining the reserve because changes in this assumption have the greatest effect on estimated sublease income. In addition, the vacancy rate estimate is the variable most subject to change, while at the same time it involves the greatest judgment and uncertainty due to the absence of highly predictive information concerning the future of the local economy and future demand for specialized laboratory and office space in that area. The average vacancy rate of the facility over the last nine years (2003 through 2011) was approximately 73%, varying from 62% to 89%. As of March 31, 2012, based on current information available to management, the vacancy rate is projected to be approximately 69% from 2012 through the end of the lease. These estimates are based on actual occupancy as of March 31, 2012, predicted lead time for acquiring new subtenants, historical vacancy rates for the area, and assessments by our broker/realtor of future real estate market conditions. Due to the short time remaining on the lease period, the reserve assumes no additional tenants from 2012 to the end of the lease. If the assumed operating expenses for the remainder of the lease had been 5% higher or lower at March 31, 2012, then the reserve would have increased or decreased by approximately $41,000. Management does not wait for specific events to change its estimate, but instead uses its best efforts to anticipate them on a quarterly basis. See Note 6 “Wind-Down Expenses,” in the notes to condensed consolidated financial statements of Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q for further information.

Business Combinations

The operating results of acquired companies or operations are included in our consolidated financial statements starting on the date of acquisition. Goodwill is recorded at the time of an acquisition and is calculated as the difference between the aggregate consideration paid for an acquisition and the fair value of the net tangible and intangible assets acquired. Accounting for acquisitions requires extensive use of accounting estimates and judgments to allocate the purchase price to the fair value of the net tangible and intangible assets acquired, including in-process research and development. Goodwill and intangible assets deemed to have indefinite lives are not amortized but are subject to annual impairment tests. If the assumptions and estimates used to allocate the purchase price are not correct, or if business conditions change, purchase price adjustments or future asset impairment charges could be required. We test goodwill for impairment on an annual basis or more frequently if we believe indicators of impairment exist. Impairment evaluations involve management estimates of asset useful lives and future cash flows. Significant management judgment is required in the forecasts of future operating results that are used in the evaluations. It is possible, however, that the plans and estimates used may be incorrect. If our actual results, or the plans and estimates used in future impairment analysis, are lower than the original estimates used to assess the recoverability of these assets, we could incur impairment charges in a future period.

Warrant Liability

We account for our warrants in accordance with U.S. GAAP which defines how freestanding contracts that are indexed to and potentially settled in a company’s own stock should be measured and classified. Authoritative accounting guidance prescribes that only warrants issued under contracts that cannot be net-cash settled, and are both indexed to and settled in the Company’s common stock, can be classified as equity. As part of both our November 2008 and November 2009 financings, we issued warrants with five year terms to purchase 1,034,483 and 400,000 shares of our common stock at $23.00 and $15.00 per share, respectively. As part of our December 2011 financing, we issued Series A Warrants with five year terms to purchase 8,000,000 shares at $1.40 per share and Series B Warrants with a ninety trading days term to purchase 8,000,000 units at $1.25 per unit. Each unit underlying the Series B Warrants consisted of one share of our common stock and one Series A warrant. As the warrant agreements did not meet the specific conditions for equity classification, we are required to classify the fair value of the warrants issued as a liability, with subsequent changes in fair value to be recorded as income (loss) on change in fair value of warrant liability. The fair value of the warrants related to the 2008 and 2009 financing is determined using the Black-Scholes-Merton (Black-Scholes) option pricing model and the fair value of the warrants related to the 2011 financing is determined using the Monte Carlo simulation model (see Note 8, “Warrant

23

Table of Contents

Liability”). The fair value is affected by changes in inputs to these models including our stock price, expected stock price volatility, the contractual term, and the risk-free interest rate. The use of the Monte Carlo simulation model requires input of additional assumptions including the progress of our R&D programs and its affect on potential future financings. We will continue to classify the fair value of the warrants as a liability until the warrants are exercised, expire or are amended in a way that would no longer require these warrants to be classified as a liability.

Revenue Recognition

We currently recognize revenue resulting from the licensing and use of our technology and intellectual property, from government grants, and from product sales. Licensing agreements may contain multiple elements, such as upfront fees, payments related to the achievement of particular milestones and royalties. Revenue from upfront fees for licensing agreements that contain multiple elements are generally deferred and recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the agreement. Fees associated with substantive at risk performance-based milestones are recognized as revenue upon completion of the scientific or regulatory event specified in the agreement, and royalties received are recognized as earned. Revenue from licensing agreements are recognized net of a fixed percentage due to licensors as royalties. Grant revenue from government agencies are funds received to cover specific expenses and are recognized as earned upon either the incurring of reimbursable expenses directly related to the particular research plan or the completion of certain development milestones as defined within the terms of the relevant collaborative agreement or grant. Revenue from product sales are recognized when the product is shipped and the order fulfilled.

Results of Operations

Our results of operations have varied significantly from year to year and quarter to quarter and may vary significantly in the future due to the occurrence of material recurring and nonrecurring events, including without limitation the receipt and payment of recurring and nonrecurring licensing payments, the initiation or termination of clinical studies, research collaborations and development programs for both cell-based therapeutic products and research tools, unpredictable or unanticipated manufacturing and supply costs, unanticipated capital expenditures necessary to support our business, expenses arising out of the integration of the acquired SCS operations, developments in on-going patent prosecution and litigation, the on-going expenses to lease and maintain our Rhode Island facilities, and the costs associated with operating our California and Cambridge, U.K. facilities.

We acquired the operations of SCS on April 1, 2009, and have consolidated such operations since that date.

We effected a 1-for-10 reverse stock split on July 6, 2011. References to numbers of shares of common stock and per share data have been adjusted to reflect the reverse stock split on a retroactive basis. See Note 1 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” in the notes to condensed consolidated financial statements of Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q for further information.

Revenue and Cost of Product Sales

Revenue for the three month period ended March 31, 2012, as compared with the same period in 2011, is summarized in the table below:

24

Table of Contents

First quarter ended March 31, 2012 versus first quarter ended March 31, 2011. Total revenue in the first quarter of 2012 was approximately $644,000, which was 191% higher than total revenue of approximately $221,000 in the first quarter of 2011. In the first quarter of 2012, revenue from product sales was approximately $271,000, which was 82% higher, compared to the same period in 2011. This increase was primarily attributable to increased unit volumes in our SC Proven line of media and reagents. Licensing and grant revenue in the first quarter of 2012 totaled approximately $373,000, compared to approximately $72,000 in 2011. This increase which was primarily attributable to licensing fees from a license agreement with genOway, under which we granted genOway a worldwide, exclusive license to our IRES technology for use in the development and commercialization of genetically engineered mice.

Operating Expenses

Operating expenses for the three month period ended March 31, 2012, as compared with the same period in 2011, is summarized in the table below: