UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

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, 20222023

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. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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 $18,000,000$19,016,000 as of June 30, 20222023 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter).

As of March 7, 2023,February 23, 2024, the registrant had 6,163,05010,294,603 shares of Class A Common Stock,common stock, $0.001 par value per share, and 14,871,08514,839,993 shares of Class B Common Stock,common stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. None

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K incorporates certain information from the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on June 2, 2023 (the “2023 Proxy Statement”).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

In this document, the terms “Longeveron,” “Company,” “Registrant,” “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 10-K, 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-lookingFactors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements contained in this 10-Kreport 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 10-K and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions described in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report.10-K. 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 file this 10-K, 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 10-K, 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 regenerative medicines to address unmet medical needs. The Company’s lead investigational product is Lomecel-B™ brand MSCs,, an allogeneic medicinal signaling cell (MSC) therapy product isolatedMesenchymal Stem Cell (“MSC”) formulation sourced from the bone marrow of young, healthy adult donors. Lomecel-B™ has multiple modespotential mechanisms of action that include pro-vascular, pro-regenerative, and anti-inflammatory mechanisms, promotingpromote tissue repair and healing with broad potential applications across a spectrum of disease areas. The underlying mechanism(s) of action that may lead to the tissue repair programs include the stimulation of new blood vessel formation, modulation of the immune system, reduction in tissue fibrosis, and the stimulation of endogenous cells to divide and increase the numbers of certain specialized cells in the body.

We are currently pursuing three pipeline indications: Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS)(“HLHS”), Aging-related Frailty, and Alzheimer’s disease (AD).(“AD”) and Aging-related Frailty. Our mission is to advance Lomecel-B™ and other cell-based product candidates into pivotal or Phase 3 trials, with the goal of achieving regulatory approvals, subsequent commercialization, and broad use by the healthcare community.

With respectIn November of 2023, Longeveron received notice from the World Health Organization (“WHO”) that “laromestrocel” has been selected as the proposed International Nonproprietary Name for Longeveron’s Lomecel-B™ product.  Assuming that there are no third-party objections to that name, the name will be recommended for adoption by the WHO.  Longeveron will adopt that name if it is recommended by the WHO. 

HLHS

Our HLHS we are exploringprogram is focused on the possibility thatpotential clinical benefits of Lomecel-B™ when administered directlyas an adjunct therapeutic to the myocardium of affected infants, can improve outcomes in this devastating rare pediatric disease. The standard of care instandard-of-care HLHS surgery. HLHS is a rare and devastating congenital heart defect in which the left ventricle is severely underdeveloped. As such, babies born with this condition die shortly after birth without undergoing a complex series of three reconstructive surgeries, typically at 10 days, 4 months, and approximately 4 yearsheart surgeries. Despite the availability of life. Despite these life-saving surgical interventions, it is estimatedclinical studies show that only 50 to 60 percent of affected individuals survive untilto adolescence. The pro-vascular, pro-regenerative and anti-inflammatory propertiesEarly clinical study data shows the potential survival benefit of Lomecel-B™ may improvefor HLHS patients and supports Longeveron’s belief that this data shows the function ofpotential to alter the right ventricle in these infants. A previously published Longeverontreatment landscape for patients with HLHS. We have completed a Phase 1 open-label study (ELPIS I)(“ELPIS I”)¹ indicated that such a benefit may existsupported the safety and tolerability of Lomecel-B™ for HLHS, when outcomes weredirectly injected into the functional right ventricle during the second-stage standard-of-care surgery (adding minimal additional time to the surgical procedure). Preliminary data revealed that several indices of right ventricular function show suggestions of either improvement or prevention of deterioration over one year following surgery. Heart transplant-free survival for patients who received Lomecel-B™ intracardiac injection is favorable as compared to historical controls.controls for survival. The improvement in HLHS survival following the Phase 1 ELPIS I clinical trial has resulted in acceptance by the American Heart Association (“AHA”) for a poster presentation at an AHA meeting in November 2023. The ELPIS I trial showed 100 percent survival in children up to 5 years of age after receiving Lomecel-B™, compared to a 20 percent mortality rate observed from historical control data. Based on these findings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) granted Lomecel-B™ both Rare Pediatric Disease (RPD”) Designation and Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) for treatment of infants with HLHS. Longeveron is currently conducting a controlled studyPhase 2b trial (“ELPIS II”) to determinecompare the actualeffects of Lomecel-B™ as an adjunct therapeutic versus standard-of-care (HLHS surgery alone). We hope that a positive outcome could add to the clinical data suggesting the functional and clinical benefit of Lomecel-B™ as part of standard-of-care treatment in theseHLHS patients.

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.

Summary of Clinical Development Strategy

Our core 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 a focus on HLHS. Key elements of our current business strategy are as follows.

Alzheimer’s Disease

In September 2023, we completed our Phase 2a AD clinical trial, known as the CLEAR MIND trial. This trial enrolled patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease and was designed as a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study across ten U.S. centers. Our primary objective was to assess safety, and we tested three distinct Lomecel-B^TM dosing regimens against placebo.

The study demonstrated positive results. Notably, all Lomecel-B™ treatment groups met the safety primary endpoint and showed slowing/prevention of disease worsening relative to placebo. There were statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint, composite Alzheimer’s disease score (“CADS”) for both the low-dose Lomecel-B^TM group and the pooled treatment groups compared to placebo. Other doses also showed promising results in slowing/prevention of disease worsening. Additionally, a statistically significant improvement versus placebo was observed in the cognitive assessment (“MoCA”) and in the activity of daily living observed by a caregiver and measured by Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living (“ADCS-ADL”). These findings support both the safety and potential therapeutic benefit of Lomecel-B^TM in managing mild Alzheimer’s disease, and we believe lays a strong groundwork for subsequent trials in this indication. 

Aging-related Frailty

Improvement of the quality of life for the aging population is one of the strategic directions of the Company. Life expectancy has substantially increased over the past century due to medical and public health advancements. However, this longevity increase has not been paralleled by health span – the period of time one can expect to live in relatively good health and independence. For many developed and developing countries, health span lags life-expectancy by over a decade. This has placed tremendous strain on healthcare systems in the management of aging-related ailments and presents additional socioeconomic consequences due to patient decreased independence and quality-of-life. Since these strains continue to increase with demographic shifts towards an increasingly older population, improving health span has become a priority for health agencies, such as the National Institute on Aging (“NIA”) of the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (“PMDA”), and the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”). 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 alterations that affect biological functioning. Our preliminary clinical data suggest that Lomecel-B™ may potentially address these problems through multiple potential mechanisms of action (“MOAs”) that simultaneously target key aging-related processes. We are using Lomecel-B™ in registry trials in The Bahamas as part of the real-world data generation for the aging population.

Summary of Clinical Development Strategy

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

Clinical Development Pipeline in 20232024

We are currently in clinical development of a single product, Lomecel-B™ for three potential indications (See Figure 1).indications:

Figure 1: Lomecel-B™ clinical development pipeline

Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS). The FDA granted Lomecel-B™ for the treatment of HLHS a Rare Pediatric Disease (“RPD”) Designation (on November 8, 2021), Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) (on December 2, 2021), and Fast Track Designation (on August 24, 2022). HLHS is being investigateda rare congenital heart condition affecting approximately 1,000 newborns in the US annually. HLHS is a birth defect that affects normal blood flow through the heart. As the baby develops during pregnancy, the left side of the heart does not form correctly. It is one type of congenital heart defect present at birth. Because a baby with this defect needs surgery or other procedures soon after birth, HLHS is considered a critical congenital heart defect. To prevent certain death shortly after birth, these babies undergo a series of three heart surgeries (staged surgical palliation) that converts the normally 4-chamber heart into a 3-chamber one with a single ventricle (the right ventricle) supporting systemic circulation. Despite these life-saving surgeries, HLHS patients nevertheless still have high early mortality and morbidity rates due primarily to heart failure.

We are currently conducting an ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial (ELPIS II) under FDA IND 017677. ELPIS II is a 38-subject,multi-center, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial designed to evaluate safety and efficacy of Lomecel-B™ in conjunction withas an adjunct therapy to the standard-of-care second-stage HLHS heart reconstructive surgery comparedwhich is typically performed at 4-6 months after birth. The primary objective is to evaluate change in right ventricular ejection fraction after Lomecel-B™ treatment versus standard-of-care surgery alone. Thealone (38 subjects total: 19 per arm). This trial is over 50% enrolled and is funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI, part ofNHLBI/NIH. While we cannot predict a specific time when the NIH). The trial is continuing to enroll patients in the study, and is being conducted as a investigator-initiated study led by Dr. Sunjay Kaushal through the auspices of the NHLBI at seven academic sites. This year it is anticipated that an eight site will be added to enhancefully enrolled, the current plan is that enrollment rate. We have not provided a projection for the date of completion of this study as enrollment to date has not been sufficient to provide such a projection.will be completed in 2024.

Previously, weELPIS II is a next-step trial to our completed a10-patient open-label Phase 1 studytrial (ELPIS I) under FDA investigational new drug application (IND) 017677the same IND. This Phase 1 trial was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of Lomecel-B™ as an adjunct to the second-stage HLHS surgery, and to obtain preliminary evidence of Lomecel-B™ aseffect to support a combinatorial therapy to surgery for this ultra-rare congenital heart defect. Babies born with this condition have an underdeveloped left ventricle and undergo a series of three surgeries to prevent certain death. Despite these life-saving surgeries, HLHS patients still have a high early mortality rate. We are investigating whether Lomecel-B™, directly injected into the heart during the second stage HLHS open-heart surgery, is safe and can improve short- and long-term outcomes in these vulnerable patients. These outcomes include heart function, and heart-transplant-free survival.next-phase trial. The Phase 1 study met the primary safety endpoint:endpoint was met: no major adverse cardiac events (MACE) nor any(“MACE”) or treatment-related infections during the first month post-treatment.post-treatment, and no triggering of stopping rules. Furthermore, fluid-based and imaging biomarker data supported multiple potentially relevant mechanisms-of-action of Lomecel-B™, and the potential to improve post-surgical heart function. In addition to the 12-month follow-up evaluation of outcomes from the original study,on ELPIS, we have continuedcontinue to follow these patients on an annual basis. As of February 2024, all 10 patients nonehave survived (100%), seven of whomthe patients have requiredreached the age of five and have successfully undergone the third-stage surgery, and two of them have reached the age of six years old, all without the need for a heart transplant nor died from their cardiac disease for 3.4 to 5.0 years since the time of treatment with Lomecel-B. Of these patients, five have already undergone their stage III palliation surgery.transplantation. Based on historical data, approximately 20%over 15% of patients who undergo stage II palliation surgery either requirewould be expected to have received a heart transplant or die from HLHShave died within 12 monthsthree years after their surgery. The apparent potentialthe second-stage surgery, rising to nearly 20% by five years. We intended to continue to follow-up with these patients for a mortality benefit in HLHS paitents treated with Lomecel-B is the reason the FDA granted Rare Pediatric Disease (RPD) Designation and Orphan Drug Designation (ODD). Most recently, on August 24, 2022, the FDA granted Fast Track Designation for the potential treatmentup to an additional five years, until all patients reach ten years of HLHS with Lomecel-B™.age.

We are prosecuting a number of patent applications relating to the administration of mesenchymal stem cells for treating HLHS in Canada, Japan, Taiwan, the United States and the Bahamas, with applications having also been ordered for filing in Australia, China, South Korea, and the European Patent Office.  

Alzheimer’s disease. AD, a devastating neurologic disease leading to cognitive decline, currently has very limited therapeutic options. An estimated 6.7 million Americans aged 65 and older have AD, and this number is projected to more than double by 2060. Lomecel-B™ treated patients showed an overall slowing/prevention of disease worsening compared to placebo in the completed Phase 2a study (CLEAR MIND) as previously detailed in this report, and met its primary endpoint of safety. These results are consistent with those of our earlier Phase I study².  As previously indicated, we are actively in pursuit of a partnership to propel our AD initiative forward.

Aging-related Frailty. Aging-related Frailty is a life-threatening geriatric condition that disproportionately increases some patients’ riskrisks for poor clinical outcomes from disease and injury. It is believed by geriatricians to be treatable, although no approved pharmaceutical or biologic treatments currently exist forWhile the condition. The definition of Aging-related Frailty lacks consensus, and would be a new indication from a regulatory standpoint. As such, any approvalstandpoint, and has no approved pharmaceutical or biologic treatments, there are a number of companies now working to develop potential therapeutics for this unmet medical need.

We have previously completed two U.S. clinical trials under FDA IND 016644. One is a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2b trial which showed that a single infusion of Lomecel-B™ forsignificantly improved 6-Minute Walk Test (“6MWT”) distance 9 months after infusion (although results were inconclusive at six months after infusion), and also showed a dose-dependent increase in 6MWT distance 6 months after infusion. The second is a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 1/2 trial (“HERA Trial”) intended primarily to evaluate safety, and explore the effect Lomecel-B™ may have on specific biomarkers of immune system function in older, frail individuals receiving the high dose influenza vaccine, as well as to evaluate the potential effects of Lomecel-B™ on signs and symptoms of Aging Frailty. Results from this study showed that Lomecel-B™ was generally safe and well tolerated in patients with Aging-related Frailty will therefore require additional clinical dataFrailty. Additionally, hemagglutinin inhibition (“HAI”) assay results in the Lomecel-B™ and continued discussion withplacebo groups to influenza were not statistically different, indicating Lomecel-B™ does not suppress the U.S. FDA and Japan’s PMDA.immune system.

Manufacturing

We are prosecuting or have sent filing instructions for a number of patent applications relating to the administration of MSC for Aging-related Frailty in Australia, Canada, China, the European Patent Office, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan, the Bahamas and United States. 

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,Florida, which supplies Lomecel-B™ for our clinical trials and also serves as our corporate headquarters. We have devoted and willplan to continue to devotedevoting 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 for commercialization at both a regional and global scale upon regulatory approvals.

Our cGMPcurrent good manufacturing process (“cGMP”) facility went online in early 2017 and consists of 4,150 ft² (385.5 m²) with approximately 3,000 ft² (279 m²) of cGMP space comprised of ISOeight International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) 7 cleanrooms, and ISO 8 ancillary areas and 1,150 ft² (107 m²) of warehouse, research and development and Quality Control space.space, including two research and development laboratories. The cGMP 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 the Code of Federal Regulations 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 adult 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.All Cells, with a potential third vendor in process. 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, as needed and appropriate, 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 cGMP 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

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 willplan to 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. All such commercialization will be undertaken in accordance with applicable federal and state law.

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)(“ARM”), an international advocacy organization. Regenerative medicine companies number over 1,3001,550 worldwide as of the first half of 2022.January 2024.

In some of our indications, we face competition from both cellular therapy companies, and pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies. In our most important indication, Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome, we were unable to find a competing company currently addressing the condition. The following table is a general, non-comprehensive list of cellular therapy companies that we believe could be considered our primary competition, either because they also develop MSCs as their primary mode of action, albeit for different indications in most cases or on the basis that these companies are addressing the same indications as Longeveron.

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 Frailty Competitive Intelligence Research Companies

To our knowledge, there are no other companies currently conducting clinical trials for Aging-related frailty using a regenerative medicine approach. However, this is likely to change as the emphasis on developing an effective treatment grows. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, as of February 2023,18, 2024, there were 107 clinical trials in Aging Frailty listed on the site including all stages (ongoing, completed, terminated, withdrawn) and all interventions. Of the 107 listed studies, there were 29 studies listed which are a few groups testing different types of MSCs forcurrently enrolling patients with aging frailty. This is notAmong those, allogeneic bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell were listed as an exhaustive list; moreover, only “applicable clinical trials” under U.S. law are required to be listedintervention in ClinicalTrials.gov:three studies:

Alzheimer’s Disease Competitive Intelligence Research

Per ClinicalTrials.gov, as of February 18, 2024, there were 3,334 studies listed on the site studying Alzheimer’s disease, including all stages (ongoing, completed, terminated, withdrawn) and all interventions. Among those, 401 studies were listed with Alzheimer’s disease as an indication and stem cells as an intervention. Seventeen of them were listed to conduct clinical studies with mesenchymal stem cells in all stages and only one of them is currently enrolling patients on the study:

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. Most interventional trials typically involve lifestyle intervention, specifically evaluating diet, dietary supplements, or exercise modifications, or a combination thereof. Several 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 (does not include studies that were withdrawn). In addition, there are some academic groups (not listed) also exploring the potential therapeutic effects of MSCs 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.

Intellectual Property

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.

By letter dated November 20, 2023, Longeveron was informed by the WHO that “laromestrocel” has been selected as the proposed International Nonproprietary Name for Longeveron’s Lomecel-B™ product.  Assuming that there are no third-party objections to that name, the name will be recommended for adoption by the WHO.  Longeveron will adopt that name if it is recommended by the WHO.

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 treat sexual dysfunction. 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-related 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)“(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 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 issuebe issued 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,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 was one of the research objectives of our Phase 1/2 HERA Trial. This research is relevant to Aging-related 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 MSCs in a subject that exhibits “inflammaging.” In this family we own and are continuing to prosecute and maintain one allowed U.S. patent application, one allowed application and one pending application in Japan, one pending application in Australia, and one pending application in the European Patent Office. Another European Patent Office application has been allowed, and pending conclusion of the opposition period is planned to be validated in Switzerland, Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Sweden. All of the patent applications are national or regional phase applications based on a Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) application filed in February 2017 and claiming priority to a U.S. provisional application filed in February 2016. If issued and assuming all maintenance and annuity fees are paid, patents arising from these applications are projected to expire in 2037. Longeveron has elected to take no further action and to allow to become abandoned, properties in this family in Canada, Hong Kong, Israel, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, and New Zealand.

Company-Owned Intellectual Property

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 cellMSC 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 pendingreceived a notice of allowance for our U.S. patent application, 12and 14 patent applications outside of the U.S. (in 12 jurisdictions),. The Chinese counterpart of the application has been allowed. Patents have issued in Japan and Taiwan, and a patent registration has issued 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.and we are continuing to prosecute or maintain applications in the United States and European Patent Office, and we own a patent application, 12 patent applications outside of the U.S. (in 12 jurisdictions)in Japan. We also won and are continuing to maintain a patent registration in South Africa. With two exceptions (The Bahamasthe Bahamas. The U.S., Japanese, and Taiwan), all of the applicationsEuropean properties are a national or regional phase applications based on a PCT application filed inon June 15, 2018 and claiming priority to a U.S. provisional application filed in June 2017. The applicationsregistration in Thethe Bahamas and Taiwan claimclaims priority to that same provisional application but werewas 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. Longeveron has elected to take no further action and to allow to become abandoned, properties in the family in Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, and New Zealand.

Potency Assay. This application family is directed towards assessing potency of MSCs to produce anti-inflammatory cytokines in response to a pro-inflammatory stimulus. In this family we own pending applications in Australia, the Bahamas, Canada, China, the European Patent Office, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, South Africa, and the United States. These applications have a filing date in April 2021 and claim priority to a U.S. provisional application filed in April 2020. If issued and assuming that all maintenance and annuity fees are paid, patents arising from these applications are projected to expire in April 2041.

Use of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Treatment of Juvenile Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome. This patent family is directed to treatment of hypoplastic left heart syndromeHLHS with allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells.MSCs. In this family we own pending applications in Taiwan, the Bahamas, and the PCT. These applications share a common priority date of July 2021. National and regional phase applications if any, that are based on thepending PCT application, musthave been filed or are expected to be filed as early as January 2024.in Australia, Canada, China, the European Patent Office, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States. If issued and assuming all maintenance and annuity fees are paid, patents arising from these applications are projected to expire in July 2042.

Administration of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Aging-related frailty. This patent family relates to administration of mesenchymal stem cellsMSCs for Aging-related frailty. In this family we own pending applications in Taiwan, the Bahamas, and the PCT. These applications share a common priority date of September 2021. National and regional phase applications, if any, that are based on the pending PCT application musthave been filed or are expected to be filed as early as March 2024.in Australia, Canada, China, the European Patent Office, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, and South Africa. If issued, and assuming that all maintenance and annuity fees are paid, patents arising from these applications are projected to expire in September 2042.

Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease with Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells. This patent family relates to administration of MSCs to treat AD. We own one PCTpending patent application and an applicationapplications in Australia, the Bahamas, related to treatment of AD with allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells.South Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Israel, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, China, Japan, the European Patent Office, and the United States. Those applications were filed in September 2021 and claim priority to three separate U.S. provisional applications, the earliest of which was filed in September 2020. National phaseIf issued, and assuming that all maintenance and annuity fees are paid, patents arising from these applications if any, that are relatedexpected to the PCT application are not required to be filed until March 2023 at the earliest.expire in September 2041.

License Agreements and Strategic Collaborations

The University of Miami (UM)(“UM”)

On November 20, 2014, we entered into an Exclusive License Agreement with UM (the “UM License”) for the use of certain Aging-related frailty-related MSC technology rights developed by our Chief Science Officer, Dr. Joshua Hare, 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 SOPsstandard operating procedures 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, payable on a country-by-country basis beginning on the date of first commercial sale through 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 of up to fifty thousand dollars, subject to offset. The agreement extends for up to 20 years from the last date a product or process is commercialized from the technology and was amended in 2017 to modify certain milestone completion dates as detailed belowbelow. In 2021 the license fee was increased by an additional $100,000, to defray patent costs. In addition, the Company issued 110,387 unregistered shares of Class A Common Stockcommon stock to UM.

The milestone payment amendments shifted the triggering payments to three payments of $500,000, to be paid within six months of: (a) the completion of the first Phase 3 clinical trial of the products (based upon the final data unblinding); (b) 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 (c) the first sale following product approval. “Approval” refers to Productproduct approval, licensure, or other marketing authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or any successor agency. The amendments 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. To date, the Company has made payments totaling $140,000$365,000 to UM, and as of December 31, 2022,2023, 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.UM.

JMH MD HoldingsCD271

On December 22, 2016, we entered into a worldwide exclusive license agreement with JMH MD Holdings (“JMHMD”), an affiliate of our Chief Science Officer, Dr. Joshua Hare, for the use of CD271+ technology, a subpopulation of bone marrow-derived MSCs.CD271 cellular therapy technology. 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. The Company to date has not incurred any royalty or sublicense related expense, but has paid $45,000 in license fees($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, 20222023 and 2021,2022, 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, Brazil, Canada, 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.U.S 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)(“BLA”) process under the jurisdiction of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)(“CBER”). We willintend to work with the 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, the FDA may disagree with us, in which case we will follow the FDA’s recommendation. For future product candidates we will also confirm the appropriate approval pathway (i.e., BLA or new drug application (NDA)(“NDA”)) and the appropriate FDA center with regulatory oversight (i.e., CBER or the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)(“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)(“PHS Act”) and the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)(“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)(“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 cGCPs, 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)(“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 cGMP 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”). 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)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 cGMP-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 ofa standard BLA is accepted for “filing” to review and act on the submission.submission, and six months from the date of filing of a priority BLA. 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 cGMPs 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)(“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)(“PMRs”) or post-marketing commitments (PMCs)(“PMCs”). These may include Phase 4 studies that are 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)(“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)(“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)(“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, FDA policies may change, or FDA may not achieve its PDUFA goal dates, 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 the products are intended to treat a serious condition and meet other requirements. These expedited programs are discussed below.

RMAT Designation.Designation. In 2017, the FDA established the regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT)(“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 accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints. Additionally, the RMAT designation does not require evidence to indicate that the drug may offer a substantial improvement over available therapies. Receiving an RMAT designation is not the same as receiving FDA product approval.

Fast-Track Designation.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. The 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. Receiving a fast-track designation is not the same as receiving FDA product approval.

Priority Review Designation.Designation. A product is eligible for priority review designation if it is for a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness of the treatment, prevention, or diagnosis of a serious condition. 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. Receiving a priority review designation is not the same as receiving FDA product approval.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation.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 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. Receiving a breakthrough therapy designation is not the same as receiving FDA product approval.

Accelerated Approval.Approval. A drug product intended to treat a serious condition may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies and 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. Accelerated approval is an approval pathway, not a designation like the other examples listed above.

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 the 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.

The 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. The 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, the 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 the 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 the FDA so that the 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, the 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 the 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. The FDA may grant an orphan drug designation (ODD)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, the 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)(“ODE”) that prevents the 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 the 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 the FDA’s interpretation of “same drug,” is continuing to evolve. Most notably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Becerra in September 2021 that significantly modified the FDA’s longstanding interpretation and application of the scope of ODE. In Becerra, the court held that ODE applied to all uses or indications within an orphan-designated disease, not only to the approved use or indication within the designated disease as stated in FDA regulations and as applied by FDA in practice. Although FDA announced in January 2023 that it would only apply the Becerra court’s decision to the specific parties involved in that case, it is possible that FDA could face additional administrative or legal challenges to its interpretation of the scope and applicability of ODD and ODE.

In addition to the potential award of a 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. Products with an ODD are also exempt from program fees otherwise required under the PDUFA. For fiscal year 2023,2024, the application fee for a new drug or biologic requiring clinical studies is $3,242,026.$4,048,695, and the program fee for approval of prescription drugs and biologics is $416,734.

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 penalties 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, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, False Claims Act, Consumer Fraud Act, and other federal laws and regulations, as well as similar foreign laws in jurisdictions outside the U.S., where applicable, involving fraud and abuse, price reporting, data privacy and security, and transparency. Similar state and local laws and regulations may also restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical industry, 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; requirements 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; requirements relating to pricing and marketing information; requirements to track and report 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; requirements regarding the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and other applicable 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,the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), thus complicating compliance efforts. Violation of any of such applicable laws or regulations may result in penalties, including, either separate or in combination and 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,There are two newprimary Acts were addedin Japan that regulate regenerative medicine development and offer two pathways to market for regenerative medicine therapeutic candidates: The ASRMAct pm the Safety of Regenerative Medicine (“ASRM”) and the PMDA.Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act (“PMDA”).

Japan’s Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine.

The ASRM route is intended to allowallows physicians to provide cellular therapies to patients through an application process that is regulated by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW)(“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 PMDA 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 and reimbursed by government payors (e.g., federal and state healthcare programs), third-party payors (e.g., commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations), and other payors (e.g., foreign government healthcare programs). Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any newly approved product. For example, there is no assurance that a product will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, will be considered cost-effective by payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be established even if coverage is available or that the payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect the ability for manufacturers to sell products profitably.

Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are generally made on a plan-by-plan basis, meaning one third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular product does not ensure that other payors will also provide similar coverage. As a result, the coverage determination process can require manufacturesmanufacturers to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of a product, and require providers to show medical necessity for use, to each payor separately. This process can be time-consuming, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or even obtained.

Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement for pharmaceutical or biological products will apply to companion diagnostics. For example, for products administered under the supervision of a physician, the difficulty in obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be increased because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement of the companion pharmaceutical or biological product. However, separate reimbursement for the product itself, the companion product, or the treatment or procedure for which the product is used may not be available, which, in turn, may also impact physician utilization.

Payors are also increasingly reducing reimbursements for pharmaceutical products and services through continued implementation of cost-containment programs, including price controls and value-based care initiatives, requirements for substitution of generic products and restrictions on coverage and reimbursement, which could further limit sales of any product. In addition, payors continue to question safety and efficacy while also challenging the prices charged, examining medical necessity, and reviewing the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical products. 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 of this nature surrounding reimbursement for any product or a decision by a government and third-party payor not to cover a product could result in reduced 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 forof 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 ACAPatient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (“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% of the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP)(“AMP”) or the difference between AMP and “best price,” whichever is greater; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on each covered entity engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs; 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 (often referred to as “5i drugs”); 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 and Medicaid 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 that would either 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 Cuts and Jobs Act, which eliminated, effective January 2019, 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 Consolidated Appropriations Act permanently eliminated, effective January 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 2021, also eliminated the health insurer tax. Other legislative changes have also been adopted since the ACA was enacted, including mandatory sequestration (e.g., aggregate reductions of certain Medicare payments of up to 2%), which will remain in effect through fiscal year 2031 absent Congressional action.

With these Congressional changes came continued yet unsuccessful attempts to repeal the ACA in its entirety through the judiciary. For example, 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. There were also three separate challenges in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, the latest on June 17, 2021, wherein a challenge to the ACA from 18 Republican state attorneys general and the Trump Administration was rejected and dismissed for lack of standing.

We expect such judicial and Congressional challenges to continue. 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 reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products and bring more transparency to product pricing and the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs.

Further, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew BeilinaBellina Right to Try Act of 2017, or the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, which amends the FFDCA, 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 Department of Health and Human Services to increase support for generic and biosimilar drugs, continue to improve the approval framework for generics and biosimilars, to issue a comprehensive plan to combat high prescription drug prices and price gouging, identify efforts to impeded generic and biosimilar competition, and to standardize plan options in the National Health Insurance Marketplace to improve competition and consumer choice. The Executive Order also encourages the FTC to ban unfair anticompetitive conduct or agreements such as “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, 2022,2023, we had 1923 full-time employees, twoone part-time employeesemployee and one full-time and one part-time consultant. Among those, fivefour had M.D. or Ph.D. degrees, one has an M.A. degree,two are Certified Public Accountants, and one has a J.D. degree. Of these full-time employees and consultants, 1418 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.

InformationSee Part III of this 10-K for information about our Executive Officers, non-employee Directors and other key employees is to be included in our 2023 Proxy Statement under the sections entitled “Executive Compensation,” “Non-Employee Director Compensation,” “The Board of Directors and its Committees—Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation” and is incorporated herein by reference.employees.

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.initial public offering (“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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), are filed with the SEC.Securities and Exchange Commission (“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 Class A common stock is traded on the NASDAQNasdaq 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.

Risks Relating to our Business

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Other Governmental Regulations

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Other Government Regulations

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

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

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

Risks Related to Employee Matters, Managing Our Growth and Other Risks Related to Our Business

Item 1A. Risk Factors

In addition to the other information in this 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 10-K 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 Stockcommon 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 Stockcommon stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. This 10-K 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 2129 of this 10-K.

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-related frailty, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), or other aging-related conditions, nor Hypoplastic Left Heart SyndromeHLHS 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-related frailty or our other indications. There are also no conventional drugs or therapies currently approved by the FDA with stated indications for Aging-related frailty, Aging, or Frailty.

According to the FDA, neither “Aging-related frailty” does not have a definition that areis 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 to the extent that the Company may continue to pursue these indications.

The FDA and the Japanese PMDA have both indicated that the concept of “Frailty” as an indication will require additional clinical data and discussion before future pivotal trials and marketing authorization. Because the condition of Frailty 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-related frailty” indication willwould depend on our Phase 2 clinical data and subsequent interactions with FDA where we would discuss the size and scope of a Phase 3the next 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-related frailty” 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. TheseTo the extent the Company decides to pursue these indications, 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),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 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 derived from human bone marrow and therefore have the potential for disease transmission and 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.

Further, 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)(“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. Although 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, which 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,AD, 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.

Sales of our products may involve a lengthy sales cycle.

Many factors are expected to influence the sales cycle for our approved product. These factors include the future state of the market, the perceived value of our product candidate(s), the evolution of competing technologies, insurance coverage or prior authorization requirements and changes in medical practices. Any of these may adversely affect our sales cycles and the rate of market acceptance of our approved products.

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)(“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.

As of December 31, 2022,2023, we had $19.7$5.4 million in cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities. 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 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 continuing 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 may not be able to raise additional capital necessary to continue as a going concern.

As of December 31, 2023, we had cash and cash equivalents of $4.9 million and marketable securities of $0.4 million. We have prepared a cash flow forecast which indicates that we will have sufficient cash to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2024. As a result, we will need to raise additional capital to continue as a going concern. Our recurring losses from operations and negative cash flow raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern without sufficient capital resources and we have included an explanatory paragraph in the notes to our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2023, with respect to this uncertainty. Our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on our available cash, how well we manage that cash, and our operating requirements. If we are unable to raise additional capital when needed, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our clinical trial programs, commercialization efforts and other business activities. 

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, 20222023 and 2021,2022, had an accumulated deficit of approximately $62.8$85.0 million and $43.9$62.8 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 6479 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 Stockcommon 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. As discussed, our ability to obtain one or more types of regulatory exclusivity upon product approval could impact the timing of approval of a competing biosimilar or interchangeable product.

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 Stockcommon 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 involveinvolves 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. 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.

In addition, we may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any future clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval for, or to commercialize, of our product candidates, including:

Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. If we do not achieve our product development goals in the time frames we announce and expect, the approval and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed or prevented entirely. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations. Any delays in our clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations significantly.

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 have only been two FDA-approved treatments. Aduhelm^® (aducanumab-avwa), an amyloid beta-directed antibody, was approved by FDA in 2021 under FDA’s accelerated approval pathway 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. Leqembi^™(lecanemab-irmb), also an amyloid beta-directed antibody, was approved in January 2023 under the accelerated approval pathway as well and will therefore likewise require confirmatory trials.

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)(“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.subjects and delays may occur which may result in our incurring additional costs. If we are unable to reach agreement with suitable research institutions on acceptable terms, or if any resulting agreement is breached or 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 (i.e., post-marketing) 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 or withdrawal of product approval. 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.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of Lomecel-B™ or any of our other product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. We may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our therapeutic candidates.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for Lomecel-B™ or another product-candidate may require post-marketing surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product and may require us to conduct post-approval clinical studies. The FDA may also require a REMS program in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements can include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP and Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”), for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval and applicable product tracking and tracing requirements. Compliance with ongoing and changing requirements takes substantial resources and, should we be unable to remain in compliance, our business could be materially and adversely affected.

Manufacturers and their facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any marketing application, and previous responses to inspection observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a REMS as a condition of approval of our therapeutic candidates, which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our therapeutic candidates, we will have to comply with requirements including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, or the making of unsupported claims, 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:

Products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is not inconsistent with the labeling. The policies of the FDA and of other regulatory authorities 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 United States 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.

Ongoing healthcare legislative and regulatory reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example, changes to our manufacturing arrangements; additions or modifications to product labeling; the recall or discontinuation of our products; or additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

Since the ACA was enacted, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013, and subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or BBA, will remain in effect through 2030, unless additional congressional action is taken. However, these Medicare sequester reductions were suspended from May 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The BBA also amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, by increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and closing the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our therapeutic candidates. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

At the federal level, the former Trump administration’s budget for fiscal year 2021 included a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the former Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. The former Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contained proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a final rule that would allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. On July 24, 2020, former President Trump signed four Executive Orders aimed at lowering drug prices. The Executive Orders direct the Secretary of HHS to: (1) eliminate protection under an AKS safe harbor for certain retrospective price reductions provided by drug manufacturers to sponsors of Medicare Part D plans or pharmacy benefit managers that are not applied at the point-of-sale; (2) allow the importation of certain drugs from other countries through individual waivers, permit the re-importation of insulin products, and prioritize finalization of the proposed rule to permit the importation of drugs from Canada; (3) ensure that payment by the Medicare program for certain Medicare Part B drugs is not higher than the payment by other comparable countries (depending on whether pharmaceutical manufacturers agree to other measures); and (4) require Federally Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs, participating in the 340B drug program to provide insulin and injectable epinephrine to certain low-income individuals at the discounted price paid by the FQHC, plus a minimal administrative fee. On October 1, 2020, the FDA issued the final rule allowing importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. On August 6, 2020, former President Trump signed an additional Executive Order directing U.S. government agencies to encourage the domestic procurement of Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs, which include among other things, active pharmaceutical ingredients and drugs intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of COVID-19. The FDA has been directed to release a full list of Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs affected by this Order by November 5, 2020. On September 13, 2020, former President Trump signed an Executive Order directing HHS to implement a rulemaking plan to test a payment model, pursuant to which Medicare would pay, for certain high-cost prescription drugs and biological products covered by Medicare Part B, no more than the most-favored-nation price (i.e., the lowest price) after adjustments, for a pharmaceutical product that the drug manufacturer sells in a member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that has a comparable per-capita gross domestic product. Although a number of these and other measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

Additionally, on July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order directing the FDA to, among other things, continue to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and identify and address any efforts to impede generic drug competition.

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biologic 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.

These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our therapeutic candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such therapeutic candidate is prescribed or used. Additionally, we expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any future approved therapeutic candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, cost containment initiatives and additional legislative changes.

Healthcare reform in the U.S. and other countries may materially and adversely affect us.

In the U.S. and in many foreign jurisdictions, the legislative landscape continues to evolve. Our revenue prospects could be affected by changes in healthcare spending and policies in our target markets. We operate in a highly regulated industry and new laws or judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws or decisions, related to healthcare availability, the method of delivery or payment for healthcare products and services could materially and adversely affect us.

There is significant interest in promoting healthcare reform, as evidenced by the enactment in the U.S. of the ACA in 2010. It is likely that many governments will continue to consider new healthcare legislation or changes to existing legislation. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future or whether initiatives that have been adopted will be repealed or modified, or how they may affect us. The continuing efforts of governments, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other third-party payors to contain or reduce healthcare costs may adversely affect:

Under the ACA, there are many programs and requirements for which details or consequences are still not fully understood. We are unable to predict what healthcare programs and regulations will ultimately be implemented at any level of government in or outside the U.S., but any changes that decrease reimbursement for our approved products, reduce volumes of medical procedures or impose new cost-containment measures could adversely affect us.

Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act

On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was passed, which among other things, allows for CMS to negotiate prices for certain single-source drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D, beginning with ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. The legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also caps Medicare beneficiaries’ annual out-of-pocket drug expenses at $2,000. The effect of Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely on third parties to serve as local representatives in foreign jurisdictions where we perform our clinical trials.

We rely on third parties to provide us with services related to our clinical trials conducted domestically and in foreign jurisdictions. In foreign jurisdictions, such third parties may serve as our local representative. Such local representative may perform services that include corresponding with the foreign regulatory authority on our behalf. If such third party fails to comply with applicable laws, misrepresents our intentions, fails to adequately provide the necessary services, or terminates its relationship with us, our clinical trial process may be delayed as we engage a new service provider, which would increase our anticipated development and commercialization costs. Any prolonged disruption could have a significant negative impact on our ability to effectively communicate with regulatory authorities, which could delay our pre-clinical and clinical trials.

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)(“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 reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party or termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us.

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, invocation of 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.

We rely on third parties to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize any potential therapeutic candidates.

We depend, or may depend in the future, upon third parties to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, under agreements with universities, medical institutions, CROs, strategic collaborators and others. We expect to have to negotiate budgets and contracts with such third parties, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs.

We will rely especially heavily on universities, medical institutions, CROs and other third parties for the conduct of our clinical trials. While we are obligated to ensure compliance by third-parties with clinical trial protocols and other aspects of our clinical trials, and to have mechanisms in place to monitor our clinical trials, the sites at which they are conducted, and the investigators and other personnel involved in our clinical trials, we have limited control over these entities and individuals and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to their compliance with the approved clinical protocol. Our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCP requirements, for therapeutic candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to suspend or terminate these trials or perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP requirements.

Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients meeting requirements for enrollment in the trial may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violate federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Any third parties conducting aspects of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will not be our employees and, except for remedies that may be available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our preclinical studies and clinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other therapeutic development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third-parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the preclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons or if, due to federal or state orders or absenteeism due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they are unable to meet their contractual and regulatory obligations, our development timelines, including clinical development timelines, may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our therapeutic candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our therapeutic candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO begins work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

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 approved 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, and price controls in foreign markets could adversely affect our future profitability.

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, medically 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 of great concern 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 pricing or reimbursement of our products. In addition, payors are continuing to limit reimbursements for newly approved health care products while also challenging the price and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services. In particular, payors may limit the indications for which they will reimburse patients who use any products that we may develop. Finally, cost control initiatives could decrease the price for products that we may develop, which could result in lower product revenues to us. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be adversely affected.

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: