Longeveron (LGVN) Risk Factors

If we further expand our operations outside of the U.S., we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. Our business activities may be subject to the FCPA and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we operate. The FCPA generally prohibits companies and their employees and third-party intermediaries from offering, promising, giving or authorizing the provision of anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-U.S. government official in order to influence official action or otherwise obtain or retain business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, hospitals owned and operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees would be considered foreign officials under the FCPA. Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents or contractors, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers or our employees, disgorgement, and other sanctions and remedial measures, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our products in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international activities, our ability to attract and retain employees and our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. In addition, our products and technology may be subject to U.S. and foreign export controls, trade sanctions and import laws and regulations. Governmental regulation of the import or export of our products and technology, or our failure to obtain any required import or export authorization for our products, when applicable, could harm our international sales and adversely affect our revenue. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements regarding the export of our products may create delays in the introduction of our products in international markets or, in some cases, prevent the export of our products to some countries altogether. Furthermore, U.S. export control laws and economic sanctions prohibit the shipment of certain products and services to countries, governments, and persons targeted by U.S. sanctions. If we fail to comply with export and import regulations and such economic sanctions, penalties could be imposed, including fines and/or denial of certain export privileges. Moreover, any new export or import restrictions, new legislation or shifting approaches in the enforcement or scope of existing regulations, or in the countries, persons, or products targeted by such regulations, could result in decreased use of our products by, or in our decreased ability to export our products to existing or potential customers with international operations. Any decreased use of our products or limitation on our ability to export or sell access to our products would likely adversely affect our business.

We may in the future seek approval for one or more of our product candidates under one of the FDA's expedited review programs for serious conditions. These programs are available to sponsors of therapies that address an unmet medical need to treat a serious condition. The qualifying criteria and requirements vary for each expedited program. Prior to seeking review under one of these expedited programs for any of our product candidates, we intend to seek feedback from the FDA and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive marketing approval through an expedited review program. There can be no assurance that, after our evaluation of the FDA's feedback and other factors, we will decide to pursue one or more of these expedited review programs. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent FDA feedback we will continue to pursue one or more of these expedited programs, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, the FDA could decide not to grant our request to use one or more of the expedited review programs for a product candidate, even if the FDA's initial feedback is that the product candidate would qualify for such program(s). Moreover, the FDA can decide to stop reviewing a product candidate under one or more of these expedited review programs if, for example, the conditions that warranted expedited review no longer apply to that product candidate. Some of these expedited programs (e.g., accelerated approval) also require post-marketing clinical trials to be completed and, if any such required trial fails, the FDA could withdraw the approval of the product. If one of our product candidates does not qualify for any expedited review program, then this could result in a longer time period to approval and commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate, and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

If safe and effective use of any of our product candidates depends on the use of an in vitro diagnostic test that is not otherwise commercially available, then the FDA generally will require approval or clearance of that diagnostic, known as a companion diagnostic, at the same time that the FDA approves our product candidates if at all. According to FDA guidance, if the FDA determines that a companion diagnostic is essential to the safe and effective use of a novel therapeutic product or indication, then the FDA generally will not approve the therapeutic product or new therapeutic product indication if the companion diagnostic is not also approved or cleared for that indication. If a satisfactory companion diagnostic is not commercially available, we may be required to create or obtain one that would be subject to its own regulatory approval requirements. The process of obtaining or creating such a diagnostic is time consuming and costly. Companion diagnostics are developed in conjunction with clinical programs for the associated product and are subject to regulation as medical devices by the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities. The approval of a companion diagnostic as part of the therapeutic product labeling limits the use of the therapeutic product to only those patients who express the specific genetic alteration that the companion diagnostic was developed to detect. If the FDA, PMDA or a comparable regulatory authority requires approval of a companion diagnostic for any of our product candidates, whether before or after it obtains marketing approval, we, and/or future collaborators, may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for such product candidate. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of a companion diagnostic could delay or prevent approval of a product candidate or continued marketing of an approved product. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process for the companion diagnostic or in transferring that process to commercial partners or negotiating insurance reimbursement plans, all of which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials of a product candidate or commercializing an approved product on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

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

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of a product in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction. For example, even if the FDA or PMDA grants marketing approval of a product, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion and reimbursement of the product in those countries. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. Moreover, product types or regulatory classifications, as well as approval procedures, vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from those in the U.S., including different or additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the U.S., a product must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and establishing and maintaining compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we or any future collaborator fails to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets or fails to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

We are conducting several trials in the U.S., and previously entered into a sponsored clinical research agreement with the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology and Juntendo University Hospital in Japan to explore the safety and efficacy of Lomecel-B™ in older, frail Japanese subjects. This study in Japan has been discontinued by the Company in 2024. The acceptance of study data by the U.S. FDA, Japanese PMDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority from clinical trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdictions may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (1) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (2) the trials are performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to cGCP requirements; and (3) the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. The FDA may accept the use of some foreign data to support a marketing approval if the clinical trial meets certain requirements. Additionally, the FDA's clinical trial requirements, including the adequacy of the subject population studied and statistical powering, must be met. Furthermore, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, PMDA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of its respective jurisdiction. If the FDA, PMDA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

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.

Final marketing approval for our product candidates may be delayed, limited, or denied if, among other factors: - we are unable to satisfy the significant clinical testing required to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of our product candidates before marketing applications can be filed with the FDA;         - FDA does not agree with our interpretation of data obtained from preclinical and nonclinical animal testing or human clinical trials, even though the data can be interpreted in different ways;         - we fail at any stage of the development and testing of our product candidates, which may take years to complete;         - we receive negative or inconclusive results or reports of adverse side effects during a clinical trial; or         - the FDA requires us to expand the size and scope of the clinical trials or to conduct one or more additional trials. 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.

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.

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.

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: - restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of our products, withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;- fines, warning letters or holds on clinical trials;- refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or suspension or withdrawal of approvals;- product seizure or detention or refusal to permit the import or export of our therapeutic candidates; and - consent decrees or injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. 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.

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.

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 would depend on our subsequent interactions with FDA where we would discuss the size and scope of the 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. To 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.

Existing regulations and regulatory policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. For example, the ACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Other legislative changes have been adopted since the ACA was enacted, including mandatory sequestration (e.g., aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2%), which will remain in effect through fiscal year 2031 absent additional Congressional action. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and 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. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, signed into law by President Biden on August 16, 2022, contains several significant provisions regarding drug pricing, coverage, and reimbursement that could materially impact our business. Among the key provisions related to drug pricing, Title XI of the Social Security Act would be amended to direct the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to establish a Drug Price Negotiation Program to lower prescription drug costs for people with Medicare and reduce drug spending by the federal government for certain prescription drugs. Each year, under the Drug Price Negotiation Program, the Secretary would identify a small number of single-source brand name drugs or biologics, without generic or biosimilar competition, and for which certain periods of time have elapsed since drug approval, that are covered under Medicare Part D (starting in 2026) and Part B (starting in 2028). These selected drugs would be subject to negotiation to establish a maximum fair price charged to Medicare. Manufacturers that are noncompliant with the drug price negotiation program would be subject to an excise tax and other civil monetary penalties during noncompliance periods. Other important drug pricing provisions include a mandatory rebate for drug manufacturers of certain Medicare Part B and Part D drugs with prices increasing faster than inflation; caps on annual out-of-pocket spending for Medicare beneficiaries; ; and limits of $35 for monthly cost-sharing for insulin products under Medicare Part D and a cap of 20% of the Medicare-approved amount after reaching the Medicare Part B deductible. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. that could impact our future business and operations, including those that may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our product candidates, if approved, and accordingly, our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from third-party payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for biotechnology products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA's approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties. Although we maintain workers' compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses, we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or commercialization efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

We are an emerging growth company, or EGC, as defined in the JOBS Act, enacted in April 2012. For as long as we continue to be an EGC, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not EGCs, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding nonbinding advisory votes on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We could be an EGC for up to five years following the year in which we completed our initial public offering, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier. We will remain an EGC until the earlier of (i) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our initial public offering (i.e., December 31, 2026), (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which requires the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates to exceed $700.0 million as of the prior June 30th, and (ii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period. We may choose to take advantage of some, but not all, of the available exemptions. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we rely on certain or all of these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile. Under the JOBS Act, EGCs can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies, which may make our financial statements less comparable to companies that comply with new or revised accounting pronouncements as of public company effective dates.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that could depress the market price of our Class A common stock by acting to discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company or changes in our management that the stockholders of our company may deem advantageous. These provisions, among other things: - establish a classified board of directors so that not all members of our Board are elected at one time;- permit only the board of directors to establish the number of directors and fill vacancies on the Board;- provide that directors may only be removed "for cause" and only with the approval of two-thirds of our stockholders;- provide for a dual class common stock structure, which provides certain affiliates of ours, including our co-founder and members of our Board, individually or together, with the ability to significantly influence the outcome of matters requiring stockholder approval, even if they own significantly less than a majority of the shares of our outstanding common stock and Class B common stock;- authorize the issuance of "blank check" preferred stock that our Board could use to implement a stockholder rights plan (also known as a "poison pill");- eliminate the ability of our stockholders to call special meetings of stockholders;- prohibit stockholder action by written consent, which requires all stockholder actions to be taken at a meeting of our stockholders;- prohibit cumulative voting;- authorize our Board to amend our bylaws;- establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our board or for proposing matters that can be acted upon by stockholders at annual stockholder meetings; and - require a super-majority vote of stockholders to amend some of the provisions described above. In addition, Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware prohibits a publicly-held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder, generally a person which together with its affiliates owns, or within the last three years has owned, 15% of our voting stock, for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner. Any provision of our certificate of incorporation, bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our capital stock and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our Class A common stock.

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

As of February 16, 2024, two holders of our Class B common stock, Joshua M. Hare, co-founder, Chief Science Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Donald M. Soffer, co-founder and former member of our Board of Directors, control voting rights over approximately 84% of the combined voting power of our Class A common stock and Class B common stock. For so long as holders of Class B common stock continue to hold their shares, they will be able to significantly influence or effectively control the composition of our Board of Directors and the approval of actions requiring stockholder approval through their voting power. Accordingly, for such period of time, these holders will have significant influence with respect to our management, business plans and policies. In particular, for so long as the Class B common stock remains outstanding, the holders may be able to cause or prevent a change of control of our Company or a change in the composition of our Board of Directors and could preclude any unsolicited acquisition of our Company. The concentration of ownership could deprive stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for shares of Class A common stock as part of a sale of our Company and ultimately might affect the market price of our Class A common stock.

We cannot predict whether our dual class structure will result in a lower or more volatile market price of our Class A common stock or in adverse publicity or other adverse consequences. For example, certain index providers have announced restrictions on including companies with dual class or multi-class share structures in certain of their indexes. Our dual class capital structure could make us ineligible for inclusion in certain indices and mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and other investment vehicles that attempt to passively track these indices will not be investing in our stock. These policies are still fairly new, and it is as of yet unclear what effect, if any, they will have on the valuations of publicly traded companies excluded from the indices, but it is possible that they may depress these valuations compared to those of other similar companies that are included. Furthermore, we cannot assure you that other stock indices will not take a similar approach to S&P, Dow Jones or FTSE Russell in the future. Exclusion from indices could make our Class A common stock less attractive to investors and, as a result, the market price of our Class A common stock could be adversely affected.

As of February 23, 2024 our Class A common stock closing bid price was $0.518. In the event that our closing bid price falls below $1.00 per share (the "Minimum Bid Price Requirement") for more than thirty (30) days, as required for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2), we could receive a notification letter from the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Department, commencing delisting proceedings. The receipt of a Nasdaq letter does not result in the immediate delisting of the Company's Class A common stock from the Nasdaq Capital Market. In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A) (the "Compliance Period Rule"), a company is provided an initial period of 180 calendar days (the "Compliance Date") to regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement. If, at any time during this 180-day period, the bid price closes at $1.00 or more per share for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days, as required under the Compliance Period Rule, the Staff would provide written notification to the Company that it again complies with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement and the Class A common stock will continue to be eligible for listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market unless other eligibility deficiencies exist. If the Company were to not regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement by the Compliance Date, the Company may be eligible for an additional 180 calendar day compliance period. To qualify, the Company would be required to meet the continued listing requirement for the market value of publicly held shares and all other initial listing standards for the Nasdaq Capital Market, with the exception of the Minimum Bid Price Requirement, and would need to provide written notice to Nasdaq of its intention to cure the deficiency during the additional compliance period. If it appears to the Staff that the Company would not be able to cure the deficiency, the Staff will provide written notice to the Company that its Class A common stock will be subject to delisting. At that time, the Company may appeal the Staff's delisting determination to a Nasdaq Hearing Panel (the "Panel"). The Company expects that its Class A common stock would remain listed pending the Panel's decision, subject to the Company's ability to regain compliance with the Stockholders' Equity Requirement (as defined below). There can be no assurance that, if the Company does appeal the Staff's delisting determination to the Panel, such appeal would be successful. In the event of a delisting from the Nasdaq Capital Market, our Class A common stock would likely be traded in the over-the- counter inter-dealer quotation system, more commonly known as the OTC. OTC transactions involve risks in addition to those associated with transactions in securities traded on the securities exchanges, such as the Nasdaq Capital Market, or Exchange-listed stocks. Many OTC stocks trade less frequently and in smaller volumes than Exchange-listed stocks. Accordingly, our Class A common stock would be less liquid than it would be otherwise. Also, the prices of OTC stocks are often more volatile than Exchange-listed stocks. Additionally, many institutional investors are prohibited from investing in OTC stocks, and it might be more challenging to raise capital when needed.

We have experienced significant losses since inception and, at December 31, 2023 and 2022, had an accumulated deficit of approximately $85.0 million and $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.

As we advance the preclinical and clinical development of our programs, we expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses, for which we do not have offsetting revenue. We expect that our sales, research and development and general and administrative costs will increase in connection with conducting additional preclinical studies and clinical trials for our current and future programs and product candidates, contracting with contract research organizations ("CROs") to support preclinical studies and clinical trials, expanding our intellectual property portfolio, and providing general and administrative support for our operations. As a result, we will need additional capital to fund our operations, which we may obtain from additional equity or debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements, or other sources. As of December 31, 2023, we had $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.

The development of pharmaceutical drugs is capital intensive. We are currently advancing Lomecel-BTM into clinical development. Our current cash resources are insufficient to fund our planned operations or development plans beyond the beginning of the second quarter of 2024. We will require additional funds to advance further. If we are capital constrained, we may not be able to meet our obligations. If we are unable to meet our obligations, or we experience a disruption in our cash flows, it could limit or halt our ability to continue to develop our current product candidate or even to continue operations, either of which occurrence would have a material adverse effect on us. We expect our expenses to continue to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of, advance the preclinical and clinical activities of, and seek marketing approval for, our current product candidate. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our current or future product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. We may also need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to pursue additional indications and/or geographies for our current product candidate or otherwise expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur significant costs associated with operating as a public company. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, scale back or discontinue the development and commercialization of one or more of our therapeutic candidates, delay our pursuit of potential licenses or acquisitions, or significantly reduce our operations. We expect that the net proceeds from recent offerings, together with our existing cash, will be sufficient to fund our operations only for various amounts of time in 2024 depending on the amount of net proceeds we obtain. Our future capital requirements will depend on and could increase significantly as a result of many factors, including: - the scope, progress, results and costs of drug discovery, preclinical development, laboratory testing and clinical trials for our current or future therapeutic candidates;- the potential additional expenses attributable to adjusting our development plans (including any supply-related matters) to the COVID-19 pandemic;- the scope, prioritization and number of our research and development programs;- the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory review of our current or future therapeutic candidates;- our ability to establish and maintain collaborations on favorable terms, if at all;- the achievement of milestones or occurrence of other developments that trigger payments under any additional collaboration agreements we obtain;- the extent to which we are obligated to reimburse, or are entitled to reimbursement of, clinical trial costs under future collaboration agreements, if any;- the costs of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights and defending intellectual property-related claims;- the extent to which we acquire or license other current or future therapeutic candidates and technologies: - the costs of securing manufacturing arrangements for commercial production; and - the costs of establishing or contracting for sales and marketing capabilities if we obtain regulatory approvals to market our current or future therapeutic candidates. Identifying potential current or future product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve drug sales. In addition, our current or future product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of drugs that we do not expect to be commercially available for many years, if ever. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional funding to achieve our business objectives. Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our current or future therapeutic candidates. Disruptions in the financial markets in general have made equity and debt financing more difficult to obtain and may have a material adverse effect on our ability to meet our fundraising needs. We cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms favorable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our Class A common stock to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness could result in fixed payment obligations, and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or current or future therapeutic candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any therapeutic candidates or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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.

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.

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: - interruption of supply resulting from modifications to or discontinuation of a supplier's operations;         - failure of third-party manufacturers or suppliers to comply with their own legal and regulatory requirements;         - delays in product shipments resulting from uncorrected defects, reliability issues, or a supplier's variation in a component;- a lack of long-term supply arrangements for key components with our suppliers;         - inability to obtain adequate supply in a timely manner, or to obtain adequate supply on commercially reasonable terms;         - difficulty and cost associated with locating and qualifying alternative suppliers for components in a timely manner;         - production delays related to the evaluation and testing of products from alternative suppliers, and corresponding regulatory qualifications;         - delay in delivery due to suppliers prioritizing other customer orders over ours or those of our third-party manufacturers;- damage to our brand reputation caused by defective components produced by the suppliers; and         - fluctuation in delivery by the suppliers due to changes in demand from us, our third-party manufacturers or their other customers. 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 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.

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.

To produce our product candidates for use in clinical studies, and to produce any of our product candidates that may be approved for commercial sale, we require biologic media, reagents, and other highly specialized materials in addition to the bone marrow aspirate used in the manufacture of our product candidates. These items must be manufactured and supplied to us in sufficient quantities and in compliance with the regulations governing cGMP and Current Good Tissue Practice ("cGTP") promulgated by the FDA. To meet these requirements, we have entered into supply agreements with firms that manufacture these components to meet cGMP and cGTP standards. Our requirements for these items are expected to increase if and when we transition to the manufacture of commercial quantities of our product candidates. In addition, as we proceed with our clinical trial efforts, we must be able to demonstrate to the FDA that we can manufacture our product candidates with consistent characteristics. While we currently produce our product candidates in our own facility, scaling up the manufacturing process would require us to develop a larger facility, which could require significant time and capital investments to conform to applicable manufacturing standards. Alternatively, we may be required to outsource some or all of our manufacturing, which would cause us to be materially dependent on these suppliers for supply of cGMP- and cGTP-grade components of consistent quality. Our ability to complete ongoing clinical trials may be negatively affected in the event that we are forced to seek and validate a replacement source for any of these critical components. If we are not able to obtain adequate supplies of these items of consistent quality from our third-party suppliers, it will also be more difficult to manufacture commercial quantities of our product candidates that are approved for commercial sale. In addition, if one or more of our product candidates is approved for commercial sale, we intend to rely on third parties for their distribution. Proper shipping and distribution require compliance with specific storage and shipment procedures (e.g., prevention of damage to shipping materials and prevention of temperature excursions during shipment). Failure to comply with such procedures will necessitate return and replacement, potentially resulting in additional cost and causing us to fail to meet supply requirements.

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 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.

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.