OVERVIEW
We are a biotechnology company developing bioengineered organ implants
based on our novel technology. Our technology is comprised of a proprietary biocompatible scaffold, which is the foundation of our CellframeTM
technology, that is seeded with the patient’s own mesenchymal stromal cells to form our CellspanTM
implant, combining the clinically proven principles of tissue engineering, cell biology and materials science. Our platform technology
is being developed to treat life-threatening conditions of the esophagus, bronchus and trachea. By focusing on these underserved patients,
we hope to dramatically improve the treatment paradigm for these patients.
We believe our technology may provide surgeons a new paradigm to address
life-threatening conditions of the esophagus, bronchus, and trachea due to congenital abnormalities, diseases, infections and traumas.
Our novel technology harnesses the body’s response and modulates it toward the healing process to regenerate tissue and restore
the continuity and integrity of the organ. We are pursuing our Cellspan Esophageal Implant (CEI) technology as our first product candidate
to address both esophageal disease and pediatric esophageal atresia, and we are also developing our technology’s applications to
address conditions of the bronchus and trachea.
In collaboration with world-class institutions, such as Mayo Clinic
and Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, we are advancing our technology. Our product development program is based on the greatest
medical unmet needs, analysis of existing surgical options and physician validation.
In October 2019, we filed an Investigational New Drug (IND) application
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat patients with esophageal disease, absent of cancer, in adults that would require
a short segment esophageal implant following clinically indicated short segment resection of the thoracic esophagus with our CEI product
candidate. In November 2019, we received notice from the FDA placing our IND on clinical hold and providing a preliminary list of clinical
hold and non-clinical hold questions. In December 2019, we received the formal letter with clinical hold and non-clinical hold questions
and submitted our response to the clinical hold questions on February 18, 2020. On March 19, 2020, the FDA notified us that the IND for
our CEI product candidate had been removed from clinical hold and that we could proceed with our study. This FDA approval enables us to
start our transition to a clinical-stage biotechnology company, and start clinical planning, engaging with a clinical research organization
and site readiness in advance of starting the clinical trial for our CEI product candidate. On May 7, 2020, we submitted responses to
certain non-clinical hold questions and finalized a majority of the remaining non-clinical hold responses in the third quarter of 2020,
and submitted the remaining responses in the fourth quarter of 2020, except as it relates to our clinical trial details that we will submit
once a clinical research organization is selected. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could continue to adversely impact our business, including
planned clinical trials, as discussed elsewhere in this document.
We believe that receiving regulatory approval to treat pediatric esophageal
atresia with our CEI may provide a shorter time to a commercial product and the greater overall potential value in the U.S. market. In
addition to providing a novel solution for a great medical need, approval of our pediatric esophageal atresia product candidate may result
in receipt of a priority review voucher, which if achieved, could potentially provide significant value and non-dilutive funding to Biostage
in the future. We have continued to advance our CEI pediatric esophagus program and plan to file a protocol amendment with the FDA to
update our CEI esophageal disease clinical program after the initial adult patients are treated in the esophageal disease trial, subject
to FDA approval.
We have also
formed a subsidiary in Hong Kong, Harvard Apparatus Regenerative Technology Limited, as we continue to assess the market and regulatory
approval pathway in China as to our implant products. We are not certain at this time as to which market, including U.S. or China for
example, may provide the most viable initial pathway for regulatory approval to a commercial product. This will depend on a number of
factors, including the approval and development processes, related costs, ability to raise capital and the terms and conditions thereof,
as well as the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, among other factors. Any development and capital raising efforts in China may
include a joint venture in relation to our Hong Kong subsidiary, and would also involve a number of commercial variables, including rights
and obligations pertaining to licensing, development and financing, among others. Our failure to receive or obtain such clearances or
approvals on a timely basis or at all, whether that be in the U.S., China or otherwise, would have an adverse effect on our results of
operations.
Our Technology Platform: How It Works
Our Cellspan process begins with the collection of an adipose (fat)
tissue biopsy from the patient followed by the use of standard tissue culture techniques to isolate and expand the patient’s own
(autologous) mesenchymal (multipotent) stromal cells, or MSC. The cells are seeded onto a proprietary biocompatible, synthetic scaffold,
produced to mimic the dimensions of the organ to be regenerated, and incubated in a proprietary bioreactor. The scaffold is electrospun
from polyurethane to form a non-woven, hollow tube. The specific microstructures of the Cellspan implants are designed to allow the cultured
cells to attach to and cover the scaffold fibers.
We have conducted large-animal studies to investigate the use of the
Cellspan implants for the reconstitution of the continuity and integrity of tubular shape organs, such as the esophagus and the large
airways, following a full circumferential resection of a clinically relevant segment, just as would occur in a clinical setting. We announced
favorable preliminary preclinical results of large-animal studies for the esophagus, bronchus and trachea in November 2015. Based on the
results of those studies, we chose the esophagus to be the initial focus for our organ regeneration technology.
Illustration
of intersection of Cellspan esophageal implant and native
esophagus
at time of implant and proposed mechanism of action
In May 2016, we reported an update of results from additional, confirmatory
pre-clinical large-animal studies. We disclosed that the studies had demonstrated in a predictive large-animal model the ability of our
Cellspan implant to successfully stimulate the regeneration of a section of esophagus that had been surgically removed. CEIs, consisting
of a proprietary biocompatible synthetic scaffold seeded with the recipient animal’s own mesenchymal stromal cells, were surgically
implanted in place of the esophagus section that had been removed. After the surgical full circumferential resection of a portion of the
thoracic esophagus, the Cellspan implant stimulated the reconstitution of full esophageal structural integrity and continuity.
Illustration
of esophageal reconstitution over Cellspan esophageal
implant following
time of implant and proposed mechanism of action
Study animals were returned to a solid diet three weeks after the implantation
surgery. The scaffold portions of the Cellspan implants, which are intended to be in place only temporarily, were retrieved approximately
three weeks post-surgery via the animal’s mouth in a non-surgical endoscopic procedure. Within 2.5 to 3 months, a complete inner
epithelium layer and other specialized esophagus tissue layers were regenerated. Two animals in the study were kept in life for almost
two years to evaluate the long-term viability of the newly regenerated tubular conduit and were then sacrificed for histological data.
Prior to their sacrifice, these animals demonstrated normal weight gain, appeared healthy and free of any significant side effects and
received no specialized care.
Platform Technology in Life-threatening Orphan Indications
In November 2016, we were granted Orphan Drug Designation for our CEI
by the FDA to restore the structure and function of the esophagus subsequent to esophageal damage due to cancer, injury or congenital
abnormalities. Orphan Drug Designation provides a seven-year marketing exclusivity period against competition in the U.S. from the date
of a product’s approval for marketing. This exclusivity would be in addition to any exclusivity we may obtain from our patents.
Additionally, orphan designation provides certain incentives, including tax credits and a waiver of the Biologics License Application
(BLA) fee. We also plan to apply for Orphan Drug Designation for our CEI in Europe. Orphan Drug Designation in Europe provides market
exclusivity in Europe for ten years from the date of the product’s approval for marketing.
We have advanced the development of our technology, specifically a
CEI, in a series of preclinical studies, including large-animal studies with collaborators. In order to seek approval for the initiation
of clinical trials for our CEIs in humans, Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) studies to support the safety of the CEI are required to submit
an IND application with the FDA. We have now performed GLP studies to demonstrate that our technology, personnel, systems, processes and
practices are sufficient for advancing into human clinical trials. We have conducted a number of IND-enabling GLP studies demonstrating
safety and feasibility of the Cellspan implant. During 2018 we also performed additional non-GLP studies for the pediatric esophageal
atresia program to optimize that product candidate. Some of the results from these studies were included in the IND for our CEI that we
filed with the FDA in October 2019.
First-In-Human Use of Esophageal Implant Product
Candidate
On August 7, 2017, we announced the use of our CEI product candidate
in a patient at a major U.S. hospital via an FDA-approved single-use expanded access application. The surgery took place at Mayo Clinic,
but we were not allowed to identify the institution publicly at that time. The patient was a 75-year-old male with a life-threatening
cancerous mass in his chest that spanned his heart, a lung and his esophagus. The surgery was performed in May 2017 to remove the tumor,
repair the heart, part of one lung, and a section of the esophagus. The CEI was interpositioned into the gap in the esophagus created
by the removal of the tumor. The patient’s surgeon informed us at that time that the surgery was a success and the patient was later
discharged from the hospital. In February 2018 the surgeon informed us that the patient had died after living approximately eight months
after surgery. The surgeon stated that the cause of death was a stroke, and that the stroke was unrelated to the esophageal implant. The
surgeon also informed us that a preliminary autopsy had shown that the esophageal implant resulted in a regenerated esophageal tube in
the patient, except for a very small (approximately 5mm) hole outside the implant zone on the lateral wall that was right up against a
synthetic graft inserted as part of the patient’s heart repair on the vena cava in that same surgery. The synthetic graft on the
pericardium was not related to our esophageal implant product and may have acted as an irritant to esophageal tissue where it contacted
the esophageal implant. The surgeon also informed us that the esophageal regeneration in this patient was consistent with the regeneration
previously observed in our large-animal studies. In January 2019, the surgeon presented the case study publicly at a major U.S. medical
conference, including histological data supporting his earlier statements regarding successful regeneration. Mayo Clinic expects to publish
an article in a peer-reviewed journal and we expect to be in a position to release additional information on this landmark case at that
time. Some of the results of this expanded access case was included in the IND for our CEI that we filed with the FDA in October 2019.
Our product candidates are currently in development and have not yet
received regulatory approval for sale anywhere in the world.
Changing the Surgical Treatment of Esophageal
Disease
|
|
|
Illustration of esophageal disease site
|
|
Illustration of potential human application of Cellspan esophageal implant at site of esophageal disease (depicting implant prior to esophageal tissue reconstitution over implant)
|
We believe our technology may provide surgeons a new paradigm to address
life-threatening conditions of the esophagus due to infection, trauma, cancer or congenital abnormalities. Initially, our focus is to
treat patients with esophageal disease, absent of cancer, in adults that would require a short segment esophageal implant following clinically
indicated short segment resection of the thoracic esophagus with our CEI product candidate.
According to the World Health Organization’s International Agency
for Research on Cancer, there are approximately 572,000 new cases of esophageal cancer worldwide each year. A portion of all patients
diagnosed with esophageal cancer are treated via a surgical procedure known as an esophagectomy. The current standard of care for an esophagectomy
requires a complex surgical procedure that involves moving the patient’s stomach or a portion of their colon into the chest to replace
the portion of esophagus resected by the removal of the tumor. These current procedures have high rates of complications and can lead
to a severely diminished quality of life and require costly ongoing care. Our CEI product candidate aims to provide a simpler surgical
procedure, with reduced complications, that may result in a better quality of life after the operation and reduce the overall cost of
these patients to the healthcare system.
Focus on Pediatric Esophageal Atresia: a Congenital
Abnormality in Need of a Better Solution
Each year, several thousand children worldwide are born with a congenital
abnormality known as esophageal atresia, a condition where an infant is born with an esophagus that does not extend completely from the
mouth to the stomach. When a long segment of the esophagus is lacking, the current standard of care is a series of surgical procedures
where surgical sutures are applied to both ends of the esophagus in an attempt to stretch them and pull them together so they can be connected
at a later date. This process can take weeks and the procedure is plagued by serious complications and may carry high rates of failure.
Such approach also requires, in time, at least two separate surgical interventions. Other options include the use of the child’s
stomach or intestine that would be pulled up into the chest to allow a connection to the mouth. We are working to develop a CEI solution
to address the complications of esophageal atresia, that could potentially be life-changing, organ-sparing, or both.
Our Mission and Our Strategy
Our mission is to revolutionize regenerative medicine by bioengineering
patient-specific Cellspan implants that use the patient’s own mesenchymal stromal cells to stimulate organ regeneration and restore
an organ’s structure and continuity. Our business strategy to accomplish this mission includes:
Targeting life-threatening medical conditions. We are
focused on creating products to help physicians treat life-threatening conditions to the esophagus, central lung and trachea caused by
infection, trauma, cancer, or infection. We are also developing products for the treatment of congenital abnormalities of the esophagus
and airways. We are not targeting less severe conditions that have reasonable existing treatment options. Solutions for life-threatening
medical conditions present a favorable therapeutic index, or risk/benefit relationship, by providing the opportunity of a significant
medical benefit for patients who have poor or no treatment alternatives. We believe that product candidates targeting life-threatening
medical conditions may be eligible for review and approval by regulatory authorities under established expedited review programs, which
may result in savings of time in the regulatory approval process. Also, we believe that products targeting life-threatening medical conditions
may be more likely to receive favorable reimbursement compared with treatments for less critical medical conditions.
Developing products that have a relatively short time to market.
Since the number of patients diagnosed each year in the U.S. with a life-threatening esophageal condition that would require
a short segment esophageal implant following clinically indicated short segment resection of the thoracic esophagus is relatively small,
we expect the number of patients that we would likely need to enroll in a clinical trial will also be relatively small. We expect up
to 10 patients to be enrolled in our first clinical trial, which implies a relatively fast enrollment time, subject to milestone achievement
requirements on initial patient(s) imposed by the FDA prior to enrolling additional patients, and a less expensive clinical development
program. Therefore, we expect to be able to conduct a clinical trial in a relatively short period of time, subject to enrollment time
constraints, compared to clinical trials in indications with larger patient populations. We intend to work closely with regulatory agencies
and clinical experts to design and size the clinical studies appropriately based on the specific conditions our products are intended
to treat. We are evaluating the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our study timelines and costs.
Using our Cellframe and Cellspan technology as a platform to address
multiple organs. We believe that pre-clinical data we have produced to date may suggest that our technology is a novel and innovative
approach to restoring organ function that may provide an ability to develop products that would address life-threatening conditions impacting
organs like the esophagus, bronchus and trachea, and perhaps lower portions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. We believe that our technology
may allow physicians to treat certain life-threatening conditions in ways not currently possible, and in some combination, to save patients’
lives, avoid or reduce complications experienced in the current standard of care, and improve the patients’ quality of life, while
at the same time reducing the overall cost of patient care to the healthcare system.
Supplying the finished Cellspan esophageal implant to the surgeon.
Our technology includes our proprietary bioreactor, as well as our proprietary biocompatible scaffold that is seeded with the patient’s
own mesenchymal stromal cells. We believe there is considerable value in supplying the final cell-seeded scaffold implant to the surgeon
so that the hospital and surgeon may focus solely on performing the implantation.
Collaborating with leading medical and research institutions.
We have and will continue to collaborate with leading medical and research institutions. We have a co-development initiative with
Mayo Clinic for regenerative medicine organ implant products for the esophagus and airways based on our technology. We are also collaborating
with Connecticut Children’s Medical Center on a co-development project to translate our technology for pediatric esophageal atresia
from pre-clinical studies to clinical trials. We believe the use of our product candidates by leading surgeons and institutions will increase
the likelihood that other surgeons and institutions will use our products.
Our Technology
Our technology is comprised of our proprietary bioengineered scaffold,
which is the foundation of our Cellframe technology, that is seeded with the patient’s own mesenchymal stromal cells in our proprietary
bioreactor to form our Cellspan implant prior to implantation. We believe that our technology combines a highly-engineered, biocompatible
scaffold and a robust population of cells that, by tapping into the stem cell niche of the surrounding native tissue after implantation,
will stimulate a tubular organ to remodel or regenerate tissue to close the gap created by a surgical resection of a portion of that organ.
This unique combination of technologies, developed through our extensive testing performed during the last few years, may potentially
provide solutions to life-threatening conditions for patients with unmet medical needs.
We believe that our technology is unique, in that its mode of action
appears to be different from other tissue engineering scaffold products developed previously, of which we are aware. Prior to our development
of the technology, our approach attempted to implant a biocompatible scaffold that would be incorporated into the patient’s body
by the surrounding native tissue growing into the scaffold. To our knowledge, all previous research and development efforts by other investigators
were based on that same concept. Our technology appears to work very differently. We believe that the unique combination of our highly-engineered
biocompatible scaffold with a population of the patient’s own mesenchymal cells enables an organ to develop new native tissue around
our scaffold, but not into it, so the scaffold acts as a type of frame or staging for the new tissue. As a result, our scaffold is not
incorporated into the body. Instead, it is retrieved from the body via an endoscopic procedure, not surgically, after sufficient tissue
remodeling and regeneration has occurred.
Biocompatible Scaffold Component
Our proprietary biocompatible scaffold component of the CEI is constructed
primarily of polyurethane. This material was chosen based on extensive testing of various materials. The scaffold is made using a manufacturing
process known as electrospinning. The combination of the electrospinning process, which provides control over the desired microstructure
of the scaffold fabric, with the polyurethane results in a scaffold that we believe has favorable biocompatibility characteristics.
The Patient’s Cells
Based on current pre-clinical development efforts, the cells we seed
onto the scaffold are obtained from the patient’s adipose tissue (abdominal fat). This fat tissue is obtained from a standard biopsy
before the implant surgery. Mesenchymal stromal cells are extracted and isolated from the adipose tissue biopsy. The isolated cells are
then expanded, or grown, for a short period prior to surgery in order to derive a sufficient cell population to be seeded on the scaffold.
The cells are then seeded on the scaffold in our proprietary bioreactor and incubated there before the implant surgery.
We believe our CEI product candidate has the potential to provide a
major advance over the current therapeutic options for treating esophageal disease, damage from infection or trauma and congenital abnormalities.
We believe our CEI has the potential to overcome the major challenges in restoring organ function for a damaged esophagus. With our CEI
we are developing a surgical procedure that has the objective of reconstituting the continuity of the patient’s esophagus without
having to relocate another organ in its place. In addition, by reducing or eliminating complications that occur in the current standard
of care, we expect to reduce the costs of addressing and treating those additional complications. Because these substantial costs can
be reduced or even eliminated with our technology, we believe our products, if successfully developed, can help save lives, improve the
quality of life for patients and reduce overall healthcare costs.
Unmet Patient Needs and Cellspan Implant Solutions
Esophageal Disease
There are approximately 572,000 new diagnoses of esophageal cancer
globally each year, according to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. According to the American
Cancer Society, there are approximately 20,000 new diagnoses of esophageal cancer in the U.S. each year, and there are more than 16,000
deaths from esophageal cancer each year. Esophageal cancer is very deadly - the five-year survival rate for people with esophageal cancer
is 18% in the U.S. Approximately 5,000 esophagectomy surgeries occur in the U.S. annually to treat esophageal cancer, and approximately
10,000 esophagectomies occur in Europe annually. We believe that approximately one half of the world’s esophageal cancer cases occur
in China, which would represent the largest potential patient population for our adult esophageal product candidate. We believe that our
CEI, if approved, has the potential to provide a major advance over the current esophagectomy procedures for addressing esophageal disease,
which have high complication and morbidity rates.
The current standard of care for the esophagectomy requires either
(A) a gastric pull-up, where the stomach is cut and sutured into a tubular shape, then pulled up through the diaphragm to replace a portion
of the esophagus resected by the removal of the cancerous tumor; or (B) a colon interposition, where a portion of the colon is resected
and used to replace the portion of the esophagus resected by the removal of the cancerous tumor. Esophagectomies have 90-day mortality
rates of up to 19%. Serious complications, such as leakage at the anastomoses, which can lead to infections and sepsis, and pulmonary
complications, such as impaired pulmonary function or pneumonia, occur in up to 30% of esophagectomy cases. Other complications from esophagectomies,
such as a narrowing of the esophagus post-surgery, gastroesophageal reflux and dumping syndrome (repetitive nausea, dizziness and vomiting)
can also pose significant quality of life issues for patients.
We believe that our CEI has the potential to provide physicians a new,
simpler procedure to restore organ function while significantly reducing complication and morbidity rates compared with the current standard
of care, and without creating significant quality of life issues for patients. Our current CEI product candidate that was removed from
clinical hold by the FDA on March 19, 2020 will treat patients with esophageal disease, absent of cancer, in adults that would require
a short segment esophageal implant following clinically indicated short segment resection of the thoracic esophagus with our CEI product
candidate.
Pediatric Esophageal Atresia
Esophageal Atresia (EA) is a rare congenital abnormality in which an
infant is born without part of the esophagus. About 1 in 4,000 infants in the U.S. is born with EA. In some cases, the two sections can
be connected surgically. However, in cases where the gap is too great for a simple surgical reconnection, the current standard of care
is a gastric pull-up, a colon interposition, or a procedure known as the Foker process. In the Foker process, traction devices are surgically
attached to the two ends of the esophagus. Traction is then applied, usually for several weeks during which time the infant remains in
an Intensive Care Unit, to stimulate the ends of the esophagus to grow and narrow the gap. If the Foker process is successful in narrowing
the gap sufficiently, a second surgery is necessary to connect the two ends of the esophagus. In addition to the Foker process being complex,
it is also a very expensive procedure because the infant will normally be in the hospital for several months during the process.
We believe that a pediatric CEI may provide pediatric surgeons with
a better procedure to treat EA that would result in a connected esophagus with higher success rates, lower complications and lower overall
costs to the healthcare system.
Central Lung Cancer
Lung cancer is the most common form of cancer and the most common cause
of death from cancer worldwide. There are more than 450,000 new lung cancer diagnoses annually in the U.S. and Europe. In approximately
25% of all lung cancer cases, the cancerous tumor resides only in a bronchus and not in the lobes of the lungs, and is known as central
lung cancer. Approximately 33,000 central lung cancer cases diagnosed in the U.S. and Europe are Stage I and II and are considered eligible
for surgical resection, often with adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation. Approximately 5,000 of those patients are treated via pneumonectomy,
a surgical procedure involving the resection of the cancer tumor, the whole bronchus below the tumor and the entire lung to which it is
connected. It is a complex surgery and, due to the removal of a lung, results in a 50% reduction in the patient’s respiratory capacity.
The procedure has reported rates of post-surgical (in hospital) mortality of 8% to 15%. Complication rates associated with pneumonectomy
are reported as high as 50%, and include post-operative pneumonia, supraventricular arrhythmias and anastomotic leakage, placing patients
at significant mortality risk post-discharge.
We believe that a Cellspan bronchial implant, once developed and approved
for marketing, has the potential to provide physicians a treatment alternative superior to the sleeve pneumonectomy to address central
lung cancer, a simpler procedure to restore organ function of the bronchus without sacrificing one of the patient’s lungs, resulting
in fewer post-surgery complications, improved mortality rates and improved quality of life for the patient.
Life-threatening conditions of the Trachea
There are approximately 8,000 patients per year in the U.S. and Europe
who suffer from a condition of the trachea that put the patient at high risk of death. These conditions can be due to tracheal trauma,
tracheal stenosis or trachea cancer. There are approximately 40,000 tracheal trauma patients diagnosed each year in the U.S. Of those,
approximately 1,000 are severe enough to need surgical resection procedures. Tracheal stenosis is a rare complication from tracheostomies
but may have a devastating impact on respiratory function for patients. Approximately 2,000 patients are diagnosed with stenosis from
tracheostomy in the U.S. each year. Trachea cancer is a very rare but extremely deadly cancer. Trachea cancer patients in the U.S. have
a median survival of 10 months from diagnosis and a 5-year survival of only 27%. There were approximately 200 cases of primary trachea
cancer diagnosed in the U.S. in 2013. Based on these facts, we estimate that there are approximately 8,000 patients in the U.S. and Europe
with conditions of the trachea that put them at high risk of death, but for whom there is currently no clinically effective tracheal implant
or replacement method currently available.
We believe that a Cellspan tracheal implant may potentially provide
physicians a treatment to re-establish the structural integrity and function of a damaged or diseased trachea to address life-threatening
conditions due to tracheal trauma, stenosis or cancer.
Our History
We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on May
3, 2012 as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Harvard Bioscience, Inc. (Harvard Bioscience) to provide a means for separating its regenerative
medicine business from its other businesses. Harvard Bioscience decided to separate its regenerative medicine business into our company,
a separate corporate entity (the Separation), and it spun off its interest in our business to its stockholders in November 2013. Since
the Separation we have been a separately-traded public company and Harvard Bioscience has not been a stockholder of our common stock or
controlled our operations. Following the Separation, we continued to innovate our bioreactors based on our physiology expertise, we developed
our materials science capabilities and we investigated and developed a synthetic tracheal scaffold. By that time, we had built and staffed
cell biology laboratories at our Holliston facility, to give ourselves the ability to perform and control our scientific investigation
and developments internally. At that point, we began the second phase of our company’s development.
In mid-2014, we increased the pace of our scientifically-based internal
analysis and development of our first-generation tracheal implant product, the HART-Trachea. From large-animal studies conducted thereafter
we found that the product elicited an unfavorable inflammatory response after implantation, which required additional development and
testing. These requirements extended our expectations regarding our regulatory milestones and we announced the additional testing and
extended milestone expectations in January 2015. During 2015 we isolated and tested all major variables of the organ scaffold and the
cell source and protocols, examining the effects of alternatives against the then-existing product approach. Through extensive in vitro
preclinical studies, and small-animal and large-animal studies, we made dramatic improvements, and discovered that the mechanism of action
of our approach was very different from our hypothesis regarding that of the first-generation product. Our technology uses a different
scaffold material and microstructure, a different source and concentration of the patient’s cells and several other changes from
our earlier trachea initiative.
We believe that our technology, although built on learnings from our
earlier-generation product initiative, represents a new technology platform resulting from our rigorous science and development. We have
focused our development efforts on our Cellframe technology and Cellspan product candidates, which we have and will continue to develop
internally, and with our collaborators, via a rigorous scientific development process.
Clinical Trials
Our CEI has been designated by the FDA as a combination product. We
believe that this is a favorable designation as it allows for orphan designation and a more participatory path to approval. We have conducted
numerous pre-clinical studies in our esophageal implant programs and continue to see consistent regeneration. Additionally, our CEI product
candidate was used in an FDA-approved first-in-human compassionate use successfully in 2017. In October 2019, we filed an Investigational
New Drug (IND) application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat patients with esophageal disease in adults that would
require a short segment esophageal implant following clinically indicated short segment resection of the thoracic esophagus with our CEI
product candidate. In November 2019, we received notice from the FDA placing our IND on clinical hold and providing a preliminary list
of clinical hold and non-clinical hold questions. In December 2019, we received the formal letter with clinical hold and non-clinical
hold questions and submitted our response to the clinical hold questions on February 18, 2020. On March 19, 2020, the FDA notified us
that the IND for our CEI product candidate has been removed from clinical hold and that we can proceed with our study. This FDA approval
enables us to start the transition to a clinical-stage biotechnology company, and start clinical planning, engaging with a clinical research
organization and site readiness in advance of starting the clinical trial for our CEI product candidate.
We are also pursuing a pediatric program and plan to file a protocol
amendment to our CEI clinical program after the initial adult patients are treated in the esophageal disease trial, subject to FDA approval.
In order to market our product candidate for both esophageal disease and pediatric esophagus atresia, we will need to successfully complete
applicable clinical trial requirements.
We believe that we have excellent pre-clinical and clinical support
of the pediatric atresia program through our collaboration with Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and our primary investigator
Dr. Christine Finck, who is also a member of our Scientific Advisory Board. Essentially, we liken the pediatric atresia market to a rare
disease market. Accordingly, the clinical trial population should reflect the ultra-orphan nature of the disease state.
Because life-threatening conditions of the esophagus requiring a short
segment esophageal implant following clinically indicated short segment resection of the thoracic esophagus affects a small population
in the U.S., and based on our IND submission, we anticipate that our clinical trial using our CEI product candidate will involve up to
10 patients. Therefore, once commenced, we expect to be able to conduct a clinical trial in a relatively short period of time compared
to clinical trials in indications with larger patient populations. We intend to work closely with regulatory agencies and clinical experts
to design and size the clinical studies appropriately based on the specific conditions our products are intended to treat. We also intend
to request expedited review from the FDA for our CEI product. Receipt of expedited review would reduce the overall time through the regulatory
approval process. These expedited requests are submitted during the IND process.
We believe that receiving regulatory approval to treat pediatric esophageal
atresia with our CEI product candidate may provide a shorter time to a commercial product and the greater overall potential value in the
U.S. market. In addition to providing a novel solution for a great medical need, approval of our pediatric esophageal atresia product
candidate may result in receipt of a priority review voucher, which if achieved, could potentially provide significant value to our company
in the future. We have continued to advance our CEI pediatric esophagus program and plan to file a protocol amendment with the FDA to
our CEI esophageal disease clinical program after the initial adult patients are treated in the esophageal disease trial, subject to FDA
approval.
We intend to initially pursue regulatory approval for our CEI product
candidate in the U.S., however as described above we are assessing the regulatory approval pathway in China and it is possible that this
pathway may end up being the initial pathway. We believe that approximately one half of the world’s esophageal disease cases occur
in China, which would represent the largest potential patient population for our adult esophageal implant product candidate, and we are
consequently preparing to address that market. Following clinical trials in other foreign markets, we expect to pursue regulatory approval
for our CEI in those foreign markets.
Research and Development
Our primary research and development activities are focused in three
areas: materials science, cell biology and engineering. In materials science, we focus on designing and testing biocompatible organ scaffolds,
testing the structural integrity and the cellularization capacities of the scaffolds. In cell biology, we focus on developing and testing
isolation and expansion protocols, cell characterization and fate studies, investigating the effects of various cell types and concentrations,
evaluating the biocompatibility of scaffolds, experimenting with different cell seeding methodologies, and developing protocols for implantation
experiments. Our engineering group supports the materials science and cell biology groups across an array of their activities, i.e. designing,
engineering and making our proprietary bioreactors and autoseeders. All three of our R&D groups combine to plan and execute our in
vitro studies. A fundamental part of our R&D effort in developing our technology has been dedicated to the discovery and development
of small and large-animal model studies. The large-animal model employs the use of Yucatan mini-pigs. Our Cellspan scaffolds were implanted
in the cervical portion as well as the thoracic portion of the esophagus and the airways in studies to date.
In addition to our in-house engineering and scientific development
team, we collaborate with leaders in the field of regenerative medicine who are performing the fundamental research and surgeries in this
field to develop and test new products that will advance and improve the procedures being performed. We will work with our collaborators
to further enhance our products to make them more efficient and easier to use by surgeons. In the U.S., our principal collaborations have
been with Mayo Clinic and Connecticut Children’s Medical Center. Collaboration typically involves us developing new technologies
specifically to address issues these researchers and clinicians encounter, and then working together to translate our technology from
pre-clinical studies to clinical trials. In certain instances, we have entered into agreements that govern the ownership of the technologies
developed in connection with these collaborations.
We incurred approximately $2.1 million and $4.9 million of research
and development expenses in 2020 and 2019, respectively. As we have not yet applied for or received regulatory approval to market any
clinical products, no amount of these research and development costs have been passed on to our customers.
On March 28, 2018, we were awarded a Fast-Track Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) grant by the Eunice Kennedy National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to support testing of pediatric
Cellspan™ Esophageal Implants (CEIs). The award for Phase I provided for the reimbursement of approximately $0.2 million of qualified
research and development costs which was received and recognized as grant income during 2018.
On October 26, 2018, we were awarded the Phase II Fast-Track SBIR grant
from the Eunice Kennedy NICHD grant aggregating $1.1 million to support development, testing, and translation to the clinic through September
2019 and represented years one and two of the Phase II portion of the award. On August 3, 2020, we were awarded a third year of the Phase
II grant totaling $0.5 million for support of development, testing, and translation to the clinic covering qualified expenses incurred
from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020. In September of 2020, we filed and were granted a one year, no-cost extension for the
Phase II grant period extending through September 30, 2021.
For the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, we recognized $0.4
million and $0.5 million of grant income, respectively, from Phase II of the SBIR grant. The aggregate SBIR grant to date provides us
with a total award of $1.8 million, of which, approximately $1.3 million has been recognized through December 31, 2020.
In March 2021, we received additional cash proceeds of $0.2 million
from the Phase II grant.
Manufacturing and Resources
Biostage has developed a comprehensive manufacturing process for our
product candidates, including cell biology, scaffold production, cell isolation and expansion, seeding of cells on the scaffold, incubation
and expansion processes in the bioreactor and product transportation. We currently perform certain manufacturing steps in-house and subcontract
certain processes and activities, primarily those related to cell expansion, seeding and incubation, to experienced partners.
For our scaffolds we use a process called electrospinning to
create the fabric part of the scaffold. Electrospinning is a well-known fabrication process. It is useful for cell culture
applications as it can create extremely thin fibers (much thinner than a human hair) that can make a fabric with pores approximately
the same size as a cell. The electrospinning process parameters can be tuned to create a structure that is very similar to the
natural structure of the collagen fibers in human extracellular matrix. Our process and end product have been developed over many
years and involve many trade secrets and proprietary know-how. Our Cellspan scaffolds are made from polyurethane, an inert polymer
that is not bioresorbable. However, we also perform studies on the use of scaffolds made from bioresorbable materials. While we do
not manufacture the cells, as they will come from the patient’s adipose tissue, for regulatory purposes we are responsible for
the quality control of the cells and the seeding of the cells onto the scaffold in the bioreactor. For this we have, in
collaboration with our partners, developed standard operating procedures for the seeding of cells on the scaffold. For U.S. clinical
trials we anticipate that the seeding will be performed using our Cellspan automatic cell seeder with our bioreactor at a pre-
qualified third-party contract manufacturer using current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) using our proprietary protocol and
under the supervision of our staff.
For our scaffolds, our primary materials are medical-grade plastic
resins and solvents used to liquefy the resins in our manufacturing process. These materials are readily available from a variety of suppliers
and do not currently represent a large proportion of our total costs. For our autoseeders and bioreactors, we perform final assembly and
testing of components that we buy from third parties like machine shops, parts distributors, molding facilities and printed circuit board
manufacturers. These manufacturing operations are performed primarily at our Holliston, MA headquarters.
Sales and Marketing
We expect that most surgeries using our CEI product will be performed
at a relatively small number of major hospitals in the U.S., China and other countries that will establish themselves as specialized centers
of excellence based on countries that we receive regulatory approval in. We believe that a relatively small number of centers of excellence
in each country would be able to treat a large percentage of that country’s patients annually, given the expected number of patients
to be treated each year. So, we expect our markets to be served by a concentrated number of treatment centers. Further, our technology
platform is for the esophagus, the bronchi and the trachea, three organs all treated by thoracic surgeons. Therefore, all of those product
candidates, once approved, would be marketed primarily to physicians practicing in a single surgical specialty, so we expect that the
total number of physicians using our products will be a much smaller population than if our products were to be used by physicians in
multiple areas of surgical specialties. Due to our expectation of a population of physicians in one surgical specialty being the primary
users of our products in a concentrated number of centers of excellence in each national market, we expect to be able to support our markets
with a fairly small field sales force.
We expect to price the product commensurate with the medical value
created for the patient and the costs avoided with the use of our product. We further expect to be paid by the hospital that buys the
product from us. Finally, we expect that the hospital would seek reimbursement from payers for the entire transplant procedure, including
the use of our products.
Harvard Bioscience will be the exclusive distributor for the research
versions of our bioreactors. Harvard Bioscience can only sell those products to the research markets in accordance with the terms of a
distribution agreement we entered into with Harvard Bioscience. We retain all rights to manufacture and sell all our products for clinical
use.
Intellectual Property and Related Agreements
We actively seek to protect our products and proprietary information
by means of U.S. and foreign patents, trademarks and contractual arrangements. Our success will depend in part on our ability to obtain
and enforce patents on our products, processes and technologies to preserve our trade secrets and other proprietary information and to
avoid infringing on the patents or proprietary rights of others.
We anticipate that we will sell products in various markets in the
U.S. and various jurisdictions under brand name, logo and product design trademarks and service marks and that these marks will attain
material importance in the future.
We also own select U.S. Patents as well as certain patents in Germany.
These patents cover aspects of device and processes currently under development by our company. Patents for various processes and devices
extend for varying periods according to the date of patent filing or grant and the legal term of patents in the country or countries in
which the patent was obtained. The actual protection afforded by a patent can vary from country to country and depends on factors such
as the type of patent, scope of protection and available legal remedies.
In addition to issued patents, we have several pending patent applications
in the U.S. and key target jurisdictions. We believe that one or more of these pending patent applications may be of importance to material
position depending upon factors such as the relevant patent jurisdiction, type of patent granted, and scope of patent claims ultimately
allowed in a given jurisdiction. Depending upon factors such as the type of grant and the date on which the patent application was filed,
we anticipate that the term of certain pending patents may extend to 2036.
We also rely on unpatented proprietary technologies in the development
and commercialization of our products, and we depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel,
and those of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how that may not be patentable, and
our inventions for which patents may be difficult to enforce, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect
our interests. To this end, we require employees, consultants and advisors to enter into agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential
information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions that
arise from their activities for us. Additionally, these confidentiality agreements require that our employees, consultants and advisors
do not bring to us, or use without proper authorization, any third party’s proprietary technology.
Sublicense Agreement with Harvard Bioscience
We have entered into a sublicense agreement with Harvard Bioscience
pursuant to which Harvard Bioscience has granted us a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, exclusive, except as to Harvard Bioscience and
its subsidiaries, license to use the mark “Harvard Apparatus” in the name Harvard Apparatus Regenerative Technology. The mark
“Harvard Apparatus” is used under a license agreement between Harvard Bioscience and Harvard University, and we have agreed
to be bound by such license agreement in accordance with our sublicense agreement. We currently have no affiliation with Harvard University.
Separation Agreements with Harvard Bioscience
On November 1, 2013, to effect the Separation, Harvard Bioscience distributed
all of the shares of our common stock to the Harvard Bioscience stockholders (or the Distribution). Prior to the Distribution, Harvard
Bioscience contributed the assets of its regenerative medicine business, and approximately $15 million in cash, to our company to fund
our operations following the Distribution.
In connection with the Separation and immediately prior to the Distribution,
we entered into a Separation and Distribution Agreement, Intellectual Property Matters Agreement, Product Distribution Agreement, Tax
Sharing Agreement, Transition Services Agreement, and Sublicense Agreement with Harvard Bioscience to effect the Separation and Distribution
and provide a framework for our relationship with Harvard Bioscience after the Separation. These agreements govern the current relationships
among us and Harvard Bioscience and provided for the allocation among us and Harvard Bioscience of Harvard Bioscience’s assets,
liabilities and obligations (including employee benefits and tax-related assets and liabilities) attributable to periods prior to the
Separation.
Government Regulation
Any product that we may develop based on our technology, and any other
clinical products that we may develop, will be subject to considerable regulation by governments. We were informed by the FDA that our
previous-generation tracheal product candidate would be regulated under the BLA pathway in the U.S. and we were informed by the European
Medicines Agency (EMA) that the previous generation tracheal product would be regulated under the Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products
(ATMP), pathway in the European Union (E.U.). On October 18, 2016, we also received written confirmation from FDA’s Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER), that the FDA intends to regulate our CEI as a combination product under the primary jurisdiction of CBER.
We further understand that CBER may choose to consult or collaborate with the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH),
with respect to the characteristics of the synthetic scaffold component of our product based on CBER’s determination of need for
such assistance. Although our current technology differs in design and performance from the first-generation product candidate, we expect
that cellframe-based products will be regulated by the FDA and EMA under the same pathways as the first-generation tracheal product candidate.
This expectation is based on the fact that the cellframe-based technology is centered on the delivery of the patient’s own cells
seeded on an implanted synthetic scaffold in order to restore organ function and our belief that the cells provide the primary mode of
action. Of course, it is possible that some of our current and future products may use alternative regulatory pathways.
Regulatory Strategy
Domestic Regulation of Our Products and Business
The testing, manufacturing, and potential labeling, advertising, promotion,
distribution, importing and marketing of our products are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the U.S. and
in other countries. In the U.S., the FDA, under the Public Health Service Act, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and its implementing
regulations, regulates biologics and medical device products.
The labeling, advertising, promotion, marketing and distribution of
biopharmaceuticals, or biologics and medical devices also must be in compliance with the FDA and U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC),
requirements which include, among others, standards and regulations for off-label promotion, industry sponsored scientific and educational
activities, promotional activities involving the internet, and direct-to-consumer advertising. The FDA and FTC have very broad enforcement
authority, and failure to abide by these regulations can result in penalties, including the issuance of a warning letter directing us
to correct deviations from regulatory standards and enforcement actions that can include seizures, injunctions and criminal prosecution.
Further, we are required to meet regulatory requirements in countries outside the U.S., which can change rapidly with relatively short
notice.
We have been informed by the FDA that our CEI product candidates are
combination biologic/device products. Biological products must satisfy the requirements of the Public Health Services Act and the Food,
Drug and Cosmetics Act and their implementing regulations. In order for a biologic product to be legally marketed in the U.S., the product
must have a BLA approved by the FDA.
The BLA Approval Process
The steps for obtaining FDA approval of a BLA to market a biopharmaceutical,
or biologic product in the U.S. include:
|
·
|
completion of pre-clinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies under the FDA’s GLP regulations;
|
|
·
|
submission to the FDA of an IND application, for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin and which must include Institutional Review Board (IRB), approval at each clinical site before the trials may be initiated;
|
|
·
|
performance of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials in accordance with Good Clinical Practices (GCP), to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each indication;
|
|
·
|
submission to the FDA of a BLA, which contains detailed information about the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product, extensive pre-clinical information, reports of the outcomes of the clinical trials, and proposed labeling and packaging for the product;
|
|
·
|
the FDA’s acceptance of the BLA for filing;
|
|
·
|
satisfactory review of the contents of the BLA by the FDA, including the satisfactory resolution of any questions raised during the review or by the advisory committee, if applicable;
|
|
·
|
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP regulations, to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to ensure the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity; and
|
|
·
|
FDA approval of the BLA.
|
Based on discussions with the FDA, we expect clinical trials for our
esophageal implant product candidates to be conducted in two sequential phases:
|
·
|
A Phase 1, or Pilot Trial, where our product would be tested on a small
number of patients, up to 10, to demonstrate the product’s safety. In addition, a protocol amendment could be submitted to the phase
1 trial after the treatment of a to be determined number of patients to add the treatment of patients with pediatric esophageal atresia.
|
|
·
|
If successful, the Phase 1 (or Pilot) Trial would be followed by a Phase II Registration, or Pivotal Trial, to test the product’s efficacy. We believe that the nature of our esophageal products and the sizes of their targeted patient populations would lead to a small number of patients in this trial, relative to most biotechnology clinical trials.
|
Clinical testing may not be completed successfully within any specified
time period, if at all. The FDA closely monitors the progress of each phase of clinical trials that are conducted under an IND and may,
at its discretion, reevaluate, alter, suspend, or terminate the testing based upon the data accumulated to that point and the FDA’s
assessment of the risk/benefit ratio to the patient. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate clinical trials at any time for various
reasons, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. The FDA can also request
that additional pre-clinical studies or clinical trials be conducted as a condition to product approval.
Companies also may seek Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation
for their products. Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy products are those that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening
condition and that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a condition. If awarded, the Fast Track or Breakthrough
Therapy designation applies to the product only for the indication for which the designation was received.
If the FDA determines after review of preliminary clinical data submitted
by the sponsor that a Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy product may be effective, it may begin review of portions of a BLA before the
sponsor submits the complete BLA (rolling review), thereby accelerating the date on which review of a portion of the BLA can begin. There
can be no assurance that any of our products will be granted Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation. And even if they are designated
as Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy products, we cannot ensure our products will be reviewed or approved more expeditiously for their
Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy indications than would otherwise have been the case or will be approved promptly, or at all. Furthermore,
the FDA can revoke Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation at any time.
In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in
treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive Accelerated
Approval and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product has an effect
on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other
than survival or irreversible morbidity. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a product receiving Accelerated
Approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-approval clinical trials to verify and further define the product’s clinical
benefit and safety profile. There can be no assurance that any of our products will receive Accelerated Approval. Even if Accelerated
Approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw such approval if the sponsor fails to conduct the required post-approval clinical trials, or
if the post-approval clinical trials fail to confirm the early benefits seen during the Accelerated Approval Process.
Priority Review Voucher
Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation and Accelerated Approval
should be distinguished from Priority Review designation although products awarded Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation may
also be eligible for Priority Review designation.
Products regulated by the CBER may receive Priority Review designation
if they provide significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious or life-threatening
disease. The agency has agreed to the performance goal of reviewing products awarded Priority Review designation within six months, whereas
products under standard review receive a ten-month target. The review process, however, can be significantly extended by FDA requests
for additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission. Priority Review designation is requested
at the time the BLA is submitted, and the FDA makes a decision as part of the agency’s review of the application for filing.
Separately, but somewhat related, is a product’s ability to qualify
its sponsor to receive a Priority Review Voucher (PRV). For a product aimed at prevention or treatment of a “rare pediatric disease”
as defined in the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, and that also meets certain other qualifying attributes, the product’s sponsor may
qualify, apply for and receive a PRV, from the FDA. A PRV entitles its holder to Priority Review for a drug application, and the PRV is
transferable. Some companies who have received PRV’s have sold their PRV’s to other companies who have then used the PRV to
receive Priority Review for a drug application with the FDA. Recent transfers of PRV’s from one company to another have occurred
at prices in the $80 – 125 million range. We intend to apply for rare pediatric disease designation for our pediatric esophageal
implant product candidate as a first step in pursuit of a PRV. A PRV is earned only upon marketing approval of the product. There is no
certainty that our pediatric esophageal product will achieve marketing approval from the FDA, or that if it does, that FDA would award
us a PRV. Further, if received, there is no certainty that the value of a PRV at that future date will compare favorably with the values
reflected in recent transfers of PRVs.
Orphan Drug Designations
The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives to manufacturers to develop
and market drugs and biologics for rare diseases and conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 persons in the U.S. at the time of application
for Orphan Drug Designation. In September 2014 the FDA granted orphan designation to our HART-Trachea product in the U.S. In November
2016, we were granted Orphan Drug Designation for our CEI by the FDA to restore the structure and function of the esophagus subsequent
to esophageal damage due to injury congenital abnormalities, or cancer. The first developer to receive FDA marketing approval for an orphan
biologic is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the U.S. for that product. The marketing exclusivity prevents FDA approval
of another application for the same product for the same indication for a period of seven years. Orphan status also entitles the product’s
sponsor to certain other benefits, such as a waiver of the BLA user fee, which is currently a $2 million value. Orphan product designation
does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.
International
We plan to seek required regulatory approvals and comply with extensive
regulations governing product safety, quality, manufacturing and reimbursement processes in order to market our products in other major
foreign markets. The regulation of our products in the Asian and European markets, and in other foreign markets varies significantly from
one jurisdiction to another. The classification of the particular products and related approval or CE marking procedures can involve additional
product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain these foreign approvals or to CE mark our products
may be longer or shorter than that required in the U.S., and requirements for approval may differ from the FDA requirements. Regulatory
approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one
country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.
Legislation similar to the Orphan Drug Act has been enacted in other
jurisdictions, including the E.U. The orphan legislation in the E.U. is available for therapies addressing conditions that affect five
or fewer out of 10,000 persons. The marketing exclusivity period is for ten years, although that period can be reduced to six years if,
at the end of the fifth year, available evidence establishes that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of
market exclusivity.
Employees and Human Capital Resources
As of December 31, 2020, we had 7 employees working in our business,
of whom 6 were full-time and one was part-time. At that date, all of our employees were based in the U.S. None of our employees are unionized.
In general, we consider our relations with our employees to be good. Our employees are highly skilled, and many hold advanced degrees.
Our future performance depends significantly upon the continued service of our key scientific, technical and senior management personnel
and our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. We have taken proactive steps throughout the COVID-19 pandemic
to protect the health and safety of our employees. We expect to continue to implement these measures until we determine that the COVID-19
pandemic is adequately contained for purposes of our business. We may take further actions, in compliance with all appropriate government
regulations, that we determine to be in the best interest of our employees.
Competition
We are not aware of any companies whose products are directly competitive
with our cell-seeded biocompatible synthetic scaffold system. However, in our key markets we may in the future compete with multiple pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and medical device companies, including, among others, Aldagen, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Athersys, BioTime, Caladrius
Biosciences, Cytori Therapeutics, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, InVivo Therapeutics, Mesoblast, Miramatrix Medical, Nanofiber
Solutions, Neuralstem, Orgagen, Organovo, Osiris Therapeutics, Pluristem, Smiths Medical, Tissue Genesis, Inc., Tissue Growth Technologies,
United Therapeutics, Vericel Corporation and W.L. Gore and Associates. In addition, there are many academic and clinical centers that
are developing regenerative technologies that may one day become competitors of ours.
Many of our potential competitors have substantially greater financial,
technological, research and development, marketing, and personnel resources than we do. We cannot forecast if or when these or other companies
may develop competitive products.
We expect that other products will compete with our products and potential
products based on efficacy, safety, cost, and intellectual property positions. While we believe that these will be the primary competitive
factors, other factors include, in certain instances, obtaining marketing exclusivity under the Orphan Drug Act, availability of supply,
manufacturing, marketing and sales expertise and capability, and reimbursement coverage.
JOBS Act
Effective December 31, 2020, we are no longer considered an “emerging
growth company” under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012.
Information about our Executive Officers
The following table shows information about our executive officers:
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position(s)
|
Hong Yu
|
|
48
|
|
President
|
Dr. William Fodor
|
|
62
|
|
Chief Scientific Officer
|
Peter Pellegrino
|
|
46
|
|
Interim Vice President of Finance
|
Hong Yu – President
Mr. Yu has served as our President since May 31, 2018. Mr. Yu is a
seasoned executive with extensive knowledge in strategic analytics, wealth management, and investment research. Prior to Biostage, Mr.
Yu was most recently a Senior Vice President responsible for strategic analytics at Bank of America, where he was employed for nearly
20 years. During his career, Mr. Yu has built strong business connections in various industries, including biotech/healthcare, financial
services, and robotics/artificial intelligence. He developed an expertise in matching emerging companies with cross-border investors,
often providing U.S. companies with market access to the vast capital supply in China. Mr. Yu graduated from Huanggang High School (Hubei,
China) in 1990 and obtained a B.S. in biophysics from Peking University (Beijing, China), and M.S. in biostatistics from School of Public
Health, University of Illinois (Chicago, IL). Mr. Yu is a charterholder of Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA).
Dr. William Fodor - Chief Scientific Officer
Dr. William Fodor has served as our Chief Scientific Officer since
July 2017. On July 2, 2018, Dr. Fodor became an employee of Biostage after serving via a consulting arrangement. Dr. Fodor was a founding
scientist at Alexion Pharmaceuticals, where he served as an executive management team member and Senior Director of the Cell/Tissue Engineering,
Transgenic Animal and Transplant Programs. He has also served as an Associate Professor at the University of Connecticut Department of
Molecular Cell Biology and the Center for Regenerative Biology, extending research areas into cells and cell engineering. Dr. Fodor was
Senior Director of Product Development at ViaCell Inc., leading programs in hematopoietic stem cell process development and manufacturing,
mesenchymal stem cell basic research and manufacturing for cardiac repair and pancreatic stem cell research. He was a consultant for the
biotechnology industry, serving clients in stem cell research, gene therapy, stem cell manufacturing and stem cell genome engineering.
Dr. Fodor has expertise in programs targeting transplant immunology, hematopoiesis, cardiac repair, stem cell potency, gene therapy for
liver diseases, tissue engineering, design and oversight of pre-clinical non-GLP and GLP animal models and IND Applications (Pre-clinical
and CMC Modules). Dr. Fodor earned a PhD. in genetics from Ohio State University. He completed post-doctoral work at Yale University School
of Medicine in the department of immunobiology, investigating the regulation of MHC class I and MHC class II genes in the histocompatibility
complex.
Peter Pellegrino – Interim Vice President of Finance
Mr. Pellegrino
has been working as a consultant for the Company since March 1, 2020 pursuant to our engagement of Point Providence Consulting, a financial
consultancy firm that specializes in working with life sciences companies. Mr. Pellegrino was appointed as our Interim Vice President
of Finance prior to the filing of this Form 10-K and is currently President of Point Providence Consulting. In his tenure at Point
Providence, Mr. Pellegrino serves in a variety of financial roles to a number of public and private companies in various stages of research,
clinical development and commercialization. Immediately prior to forming Point Providence Consulting, Mr. Pellegrino served as Vice President,
Corporate Controller and Treasurer of Verastem, Inc., a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company, from 2018 to 2019. From 2017 to 2018,
Mr. Pellegrino was employed by Merus, Inc., a publicly traded oncology company, as Vice President, Corporate Controller. Previously, Mr.
Pellegrino was Corporate Controller of Aspen Aerogels, Inc., a publicly traded designer, developer, and manufacturer of insulation products
from 2009 to 2017. Prior to 2009, he served in various managerial positions in the areas of accounting and financial reporting. Mr. Pellegrino
holds a B.S. in business administration from Bryant University.
Available Information and Website
Our website address is www.biostage.com. Our Quarterly Reports
on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and exhibits and amendments to those reports filed or furnished with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act are available for review on our website and the SEC website at www.sec.gov.
Any such materials that we file with, or furnish to, the SEC in the future will be available on our website as soon as reasonably practicable
after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Summary of Risk Factors
Below is a summary of the principal factors
that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional
discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below under the heading “Risk
Factors” and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other filings
with the SEC before making an investment decision regarding our common stock.
|
·
|
Our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2020 contain a going concern qualification. Our financial status
creates doubt whether we will continue as a going concern. We will need additional funds in the near future and our operations will be
adversely affected if we are unable to obtain needed funding.
|
|
·
|
We have generated insignificant revenue to date and have an accumulated deficit. We anticipate that we will incur losses for the foreseeable
future. We may never achieve or sustain profitability.
|
|
·
|
We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. Our ability to remediate this, our discovery of additional weaknesses, and our inability to achieve and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting,
could adversely affect our results of operations, our stock price and investor confidence in our company.
|
|
·
|
The COVID-19 pandemic could continue to adversely impact our business, including clinical trials.
|
|
·
|
Our products are in an early stage of development. If we are unable to develop or market any of our products, our financial condition
will be negatively affected, and we may have to curtail or cease our operations.
|
|
·
|
Our products will subject us to liability exposure.
|
|
·
|
The results of our clinical trials or pre-clinical development efforts may not support our product claims
or may result in the discovery of adverse side effects.
|
|
·
|
If we fail to obtain, or experience significant delays in obtaining, regulatory approvals in the U.S.,
China or the E.U. for our products, including those for the esophagus and airways, or are unable to maintain such clearances or approvals
for our products, our ability to commercially distribute and market these products would be adversely impacted.
|
|
·
|
Even if our products are cleared or approved by regulatory authorities, if we or our suppliers fail to comply with ongoing FDA or
other foreign regulatory authority requirements, or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, these products could be
subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market.
|
|
·
|
Our principal stockholders hold a majority of voting power and will be able to exert significant control over us.
|
|
·
|
We do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock.
|
Risk Factors
The following factors should be reviewed carefully, in conjunction
with the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. As previously discussed, our actual results could differ materially
from our forward-looking statements. Our business faces a variety of risks. We describe below what we believe are currently the material
risks and uncertainties we face, but they are not the only risks and uncertainties we face. Additional risks and uncertainties of which
we are unaware, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that adversely affect our business. In
addition, past financial performance may not be a reliable indicator of future performance and historical trends should not be used to
anticipate results or trends in future periods. If any of the following risks and uncertainties develops into actual events, these events
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In such case, the trading price of
our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment in our securities. The risk factors generally have been
separated into three groups: (i) risks relating to our business, (ii) risks relating to the Separation and (iii) risks relating to our
common stock. These risk factors should be read in conjunction with the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Risks Relating to Our Financial Position,
Need for Capital and Operating Risks
Our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2020 contain a going concern qualification. Our financial status creates doubt whether we will continue as a going concern. We will need
additional funds in the near future and our operations will be adversely affected if we are unable to obtain needed funding.
We ended December 31, 2020 with approximately $1.0 million of operating
cash on-hand and will need to raise additional capital in the second quarter and beyond to fund operations. If we do not raise additional
capital from outside sources before or during early June 2021, we will be forced to further curtail or cease our operations. Based on
these circumstances, our ability to continue as a going concern is at risk and our independent registered public accounting firm included
a “going concern” qualification as to our ability to continue as a going concern in their audit report dated April 13, 2021,
included in this Form 10-K. Our cash requirements and cash resources will vary significantly depending upon the timing, and the financial
and other resources that will be required to complete ongoing development and pre-clinical and clinical testing of our products as well
as regulatory efforts and collaborative arrangements necessary for our products that are currently under development. In addition to development
and other costs, we expect to incur capital expenditures from time to time. These capital expenditures will be influenced by our regulatory
compliance efforts, our success, if any, at developing collaborative arrangements with strategic partners, our needs for additional facilities
and capital equipment and the growth, if any, of our business in general. We will require additional funding to continue our anticipated
operations and support our capital and operating needs. We are currently seeking and will continue to seek financings from other existing
and/or new investors to raise necessary funds through a combination of public or private equity offerings. We may also pursue debt financings,
other financing mechanisms, strategic collaborations and licensing arrangements. We may not be able to obtain additional financing on
terms favorable to us, if at all. In addition, general market conditions, including the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on financial markets,
as well as the effects of laws and regulations on foreign investment in the United States under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and other agencies and related regulations, including the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization
Act (FIRRMA), adopted in August 2018, may make it difficult for us to seek financing from the capital markets.
Any additional equity financings could result in significant dilution
to our stockholders and possible restrictions on subsequent financings. Debt financing, if available, could result in agreements that
include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures
or paying dividends. Other financing mechanisms may involve selling intellectual property rights, payment of royalties or participation
in our revenue or cash flow. In addition, in order to raise additional funds through strategic collaborations or licensing arrangements,
we may be required to relinquish certain rights to some or all of our technologies or products. If we cannot raise funds or engage strategic
partners on acceptable terms when needed, we may not be able to continue our research and development activities, develop or enhance our
products, take advantage of future opportunities, grow our business, respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated requirements, or
at worst may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
We have generated insignificant revenue to date and have an accumulated
deficit. We anticipate that we will incur losses for the foreseeable future. We may never achieve or sustain profitability.
We have generated insignificant revenues to date, and we have
generated no revenues from sales of any clinical products, and, as of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately
$69.0 million. We expect to continue to experience losses in the foreseeable future due to our limited anticipated revenues and significant
anticipated expenses. We do not anticipate that we will achieve meaningful revenues for the foreseeable future. In addition, we expect
that we will continue to incur significant operating expenses as we continue to focus on additional research and development, preclinical
testing, clinical testing and regulatory review and/or approvals of our products and technologies. As a result, we cannot predict when,
if ever, we might achieve profitability and cannot be certain that we will be able to sustain profitability, if achieved.
Our products are in an early stage of development. If we are unable
to develop or market any of our products, our financial condition will be negatively affected, and we may have to curtail or cease our
operations.
We are in the early stage of product development. One must evaluate
us in light of the uncertainties and complexities affecting an early-stage biotechnology company. Our products require additional research
and development, preclinical testing, clinical testing and regulatory review and/or approvals or clearances before marketing. In addition,
we may not succeed in developing new products as an alternative to our existing portfolio of products. If we fail to successfully develop
and commercialize our products, including our esophageal or airway products, our financial condition may be negatively affected, and we
may have to curtail or cease our operations.
We have a limited operating history and it is difficult to predict
our future growth and operating results.
We have a limited operating history and limited operations and assets.
Accordingly, one should consider our prospects in light of the costs, uncertainties, delays and difficulties encountered by companies
in the early stage of development, particularly companies in new and evolving markets, such as bioengineered organ implants, and regenerative
medicine. These risks include, but are not limited to, unforeseen capital requirements, delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, failure
to gain market acceptance and competition from foreseen and unforeseen sources. As such, our development timelines have been and may continue
to be subject to delay that could negatively affect our cash flow and our ability to develop or bring products to market, if at all. Our
estimates of patient population are based on published data and analysis of external databases by third parties and are subject to uncertainty
and possible future revision as they often require inference or extrapolations from one country to another or one patient condition to
another.
If we fail to retain key personnel and/or attract satisfactory replacements,
we may not be able to compete effectively, which would have an adverse effect on our operations.
Our success is highly dependent on the continued services of key management,
technical and scientific personnel and collaborators. Our management and other employees may voluntarily terminate their employment at
any time upon short notice. In February 2020 our Chief Executive Officer, James McGorry resigned; and in July 2019 our Chief Financial
Officer, Thomas McNaughton, resigned; and in October 2020, we determined that Peter Chakoutis, our former Vice President of Finance, who
had been on a temporary leave of absence for personal reasons, would not be returning to us. The loss of the services of any member of
our senior management team, including our President, Hong Yu, our Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. William Fodor, our interim Vice President
of Finance, Peter Pellegrino, and our other key scientific, technical and management personnel, may significantly delay or prevent the
achievement of product development and other business objectives. We can give no assurance that we could find satisfactory replacements
for our current and future key scientific and management employees, including recently terminated executives, on terms that would not
be unduly expensive or burdensome to us.
If our collaborators do not devote sufficient time and resources
to successfully carry out their duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to advance our products in a timely manner or at
all.
We are currently collaborating with multiple academic researchers and
clinicians at a variety of research and clinical institutions. Our success depends in part on the performance of our collaborators. Some
collaborators may not be successful in their research and clinical trials or may not perform their obligations in a timely fashion or
in a manner satisfactory to us. Typically, we have limited ability to control the amount of resources or time our collaborators may devote
to our programs or potential products that may be developed in collaboration with us. Our collaborators frequently depend on outside sources
of funding to conduct or complete research and development, such as grants or other awards. In addition, our academic collaborators may
depend on graduate students, medical students, or research assistants to conduct certain work, and such individuals may not be fully trained
or experienced in certain areas, or they may elect to discontinue their participation in a particular research program, creating an inability
to complete ongoing research in a timely and efficient manner. As a result of these uncertainties, we are unable to control the precise
timing and execution of any experiments that may be conducted.
Although we have co-development collaboration arrangements with Mayo
Clinic and Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, we do not have formal agreements in place with other collaborators, and most of
our collaborators retain the ability to pursue other research, product development or commercial opportunities that may be directly competitive
with our programs. If any of our collaborators elect to prioritize or pursue other programs in lieu of ours, we may not be able to advance
product development programs in an efficient or effective manner, if at all. If a collaborator is pursuing a competitive program and encounters
unexpected financial or capability limitations, they may be motivated to reduce the priority placed on our programs or delay certain activities
related to our programs. Any of these developments could harm or slow our product and technology development efforts.
We have identified a material weakness in our
internal control over financial reporting. Our ability to remediate this, our discovery of additional weaknesses, and our inability to
achieve and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, could adversely affect our results of operations, our stock
price and investor confidence in our company.
Section
404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires that companies evaluate and report on their systems of internal control over financial
reporting. As disclosed in more detail under "Controls and Procedures" in Part II, Item 9A of this Report, we have identified
a material weakness as of December 31, 2020 in our internal control over financial reporting resulting from our failure to design
or maintain effective internal controls over the timely identification and recording of financial statement adjustments. Specifically,
we did not identify, analyze, record, and disclose certain non-routine accounting matters, such as a lease extension and a grant contract,
timely and accurately.
Our management has taken immediate action to begin
remediating this material weakness. Additional details regarding the initial remediation efforts are disclosed in more detail under "Controls
and Procedures" in Part II, Item 9A of this Report. In addition, we may in the future identify additional internal control deficiencies
that could rise to the level of a material weakness or uncover errors in financial reporting. During the course of our evaluation, we
may identify areas requiring improvement and may be required to design additional enhanced processes and controls to address issues identified
through this review. In addition, there can be no assurance that such remediation efforts will be successful, that our internal control
over financial reporting will be effective as a result of these efforts or that any such future deficiencies identified may not be material
weaknesses that would be required to be reported in future periods.
If, as a result of deficiencies in our internal
control over financial reporting we cannot provide reliable financial statements, our business decision processes may be adversely affected,
our business and results of operations could be harmed, investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information and our
ability to obtain additional financing, or additional financing on favorable terms, could be adversely affected. In addition, if we fail
to remediate this material weakness and maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able
to rely on the integrity of our financial results, which could result in inaccurate or late reporting of our financial results, as well
as delays or the inability to meet our reporting obligations or to comply with SEC rules and regulations. Any of these could result in
delisting actions, result in investigation and sanctions by regulatory authorities, impair our ability to produce accurate financial
statements on a timely basis, lead to a restatement of our financial statements and adversely affect our business and the trading price
of our common stock.
Public perception of ethical and social issues surrounding the use
of cell technology may limit or discourage the use of our technologies, which may reduce the demand for our products and technologies
and reduce our revenues.
Our success will depend in part upon our collaborators’ ability
to develop therapeutic approaches incorporating, or discovered through, the use of cells. If either bioengineered organ implant technology
is perceived negatively by the public for social, ethical, medical or other reasons, governmental authorities in the U.S. and other countries
may call for prohibition of, or limits on, cell-based technologies and other approaches to bioengineering and tissue engineering. Although
the surgeons using our products have not, to date, used the more controversial stem cells derived from human embryos or fetuses in the
human transplant surgeries using our products, claims that human-derived stem cell technologies are ineffective or unethical may influence
public attitudes. The subject of cell and stem cell technologies in general has at times received negative publicity and aroused public
debate in the U.S. and some other countries. Ethical and other concerns about such cells could materially harm the market acceptance of
our products.
Our products will subject us to liability exposure.
We face an inherent risk of product liability claims, especially with
respect to our products that will be used within the human body, including the scaffolds we manufacture. Product liability coverage is
expensive and sometimes difficult to obtain. We may not be able to obtain or maintain insurance at a reasonable cost. We may be subject
to claims for liabilities for unsuccessful outcomes of surgeries involving our products, which may include claims relating to patient
death. We may also be subject to claims for liabilities relating to patients that suffer serious complications or death during or following
implantations involving our products, including the patients who had surgeries utilizing our first-generation scaffold device or our bioreactor
technology or our esophageal implant, or patients that may have surgeries utilizing any of our products in the future. Our current product
liability coverage is $10 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. We will need to increase our insurance coverage if and when we
begin commercializing any of our products. There can be no assurance that existing insurance coverage will extend to other products in
the future. Any product liability insurance coverage may not be sufficient to satisfy all liabilities resulting from product liability
claims. A successful claim may prevent us from obtaining adequate product liability insurance in the future on commercially desirable
items, if at all. If claims against us substantially exceed our coverage, then our business could be adversely impacted. Regardless of
whether we are ultimately successful in any product liability litigation, such litigation could consume substantial amounts of our financial
and managerial resources and could result in, among others:
|
•
|
significant awards or judgments against us;
|
|
•
|
substantial litigation costs;
|
|
•
|
injury to our reputation and the reputation of our products;
|
|
•
|
withdrawal of clinical trial participants; and
|
|
•
|
adverse regulatory action.
|
Any of these results would substantially harm our business.
If restrictions on reimbursements or other conditions imposed by
payers limit our customers’ actual or potential financial returns on our products, our customers may not purchase our products or
may reduce their purchases.
Our customers’ willingness to use our products will depend in
part on the extent to which coverage for these products is available from government payers, private health insurers and other third-party
payers. These payers are increasingly challenging the price of medical products and services. Significant uncertainty exists as to the
reimbursement status of newly approved treatments and products in the fields of biotechnology and regenerative medicine, and coverage
and adequate payments may not be available for these treatments and products. In addition, third-party payers may require additional clinical
trial data to establish or continue reimbursement coverage. These clinical trials, if required, could take years to complete and could
be expensive. There can be no assurance that the payers will agree to continue reimbursement or provide additional coverage based upon
these clinical trials. Failure to obtain adequate reimbursement would result in reduced sales of our products.
We depend upon single-source suppliers for the hardware used for
our proprietary automatic cell seeder, bioreactor control and acquisition system. The loss of a single source supplier, or future single-source
suppliers we may rely on, or their failure to provide us with an adequate supply of their products or services on a timely basis, could
adversely affect our business.
We currently have single-source suppliers for
certain components that we use for our proprietary automatic cell seeder, bioreactor control and acquisition systems as well as materials
used in scaffolds. We may also rely on other single-source suppliers for critical components of our products in the future. If we were
unable to acquire hardware or other products or services from applicable single-source suppliers, we could experience a delay in developing
and manufacturing our products.
We use and generate hazardous materials in our business and must
comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive.
Our research, development and manufacturing involve the controlled
use of hazardous chemicals, and we may incur significant costs as a result of the need to comply with numerous laws and regulations. For
example, certain volatile organic laboratory chemicals we use, such as fluorinated hydrocarbons, must be disposed of as hazardous waste.
We are subject to laws and regulations enforced by the FDA, foreign health authorities and other regulatory requirements, including the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and other current and potential federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations governing the use, manufacturing,
storage, handling and disposal of our products, materials used to develop and manufacture our products, and resulting waste products.
Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of such materials comply with the standards prescribed by state
and federal regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event
of such an accident, our operations could be interrupted. Further, we could be held liable for any damages that result and any such liability
could exceed our resources.
Our products are novel and will require market acceptance.
Even if we receive regulatory approvals for the commercial use of our
products, their commercial success will depend upon acceptance by physicians, patients, third party payers such as health insurance companies
and other members of the medical community. Market acceptance of our products is also dependent upon our ability to provide acceptable
evidence and the perception of the positive characteristics of our products relative to existing or future treatment methods, including
their safety, efficacy and/or other positive advantages. If our products fail to gain market acceptance, we may be unable to earn sufficient
revenue to continue our business. Market acceptance of, and demand for, any product that we may develop and commercialize will depend
on many factors, both within and outside of our control. If our products receive only limited market acceptance, our business, financial
condition and results of operations would be materially and adversely affected.
Our long-term growth depends on our ability to develop products
for other organs.
Our growth strategy includes expanding the use of our products in treatments
pertaining to organs other than the esophagus and airways, such as the lungs, GI tract, among others. These other organs are more complex
than the esophagus and airways. There is no assurance that we will be able to successfully apply our technologies to these other more
complex organs, which might limit our expected growth.
Our success will depend partly on our ability to operate without
infringing on, or misappropriating, the intellectual property or confidentiality rights of others.
We may be sued for infringing on the intellectual property or confidentiality
rights of others, including the patent rights, trademarks and trade names and confidential information of third parties. To the extent
that any of such claims are valid, if we had utilized, or were to utilize, such patent applications or patents without an agreement from
the owner thereof, it could result in infringement of the intellectual property rights of the respective owner. Intellectual property
and related litigation is costly and the outcome is uncertain. If we do not prevail in any such intellectual property or related litigation,
in addition to any damages we might have to pay, we could be required to stop the infringing activity, or obtain a license to or design
around the intellectual property or confidential information in question. If we are unable to obtain a required license on acceptable
terms or are unable to design around any third-party patent, we may be unable to sell some of our products and services, which could result
in reduced revenue.
We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents
that would be expensive and time consuming.
In order to protect or enforce our patent rights, we may initiate patent
litigation against third parties. We may also become subject to interference proceedings conducted in the patent and trademark offices
of various countries to determine the priority of inventions. The defense and prosecution, if necessary, of intellectual property suits,
interference proceedings and related legal and administrative proceedings would be costly and may divert our technical and management
personnel from their normal responsibilities. We may not prevail in any of these suits should they occur. An adverse determination of
any litigation or defense proceedings could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent
applications at risk of being rejected and patents not being issued.
Furthermore, 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. For example, 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 in the litigation. Securities analysts or investors may
perceive these announcements to be negative, which could cause the market price of our stock to decline.
If we are unable to effectively protect our intellectual property,
third parties may use our technology, which would impair our ability to compete in our markets.
Our continued success will depend significantly on our ability to obtain
and maintain meaningful patent protection for certain of our products throughout the world. Patent law relating to the scope of claims
in the biotechnology, regenerative medicine, and medical device fields in which we operate is still evolving. The degree of future protection
for our proprietary rights is uncertain. We may rely on patents to protect a significant part of our intellectual property and to enhance
our competitive position. However, our presently pending or future patent applications may not be accepted and patents might not be issued,
and any patent previously issued to us may be challenged, invalidated, held unenforceable or circumvented. Furthermore, the claims in
patents which have been issued or which may be issued to us in the future may not be sufficiently broad to prevent third parties from
producing competing products similar to our products. We may also operate in countries where we do not have patent rights and in those
countries we would not have patent protection. We also rely on trademarks and trade names in our business. The laws of various foreign
countries in which we compete may not protect our intellectual property to the same extent as do the laws of the U.S. If we fail to obtain
adequate patent protection for our proprietary technology, our ability to be commercially competitive could be materially impaired. It
is also possible that our intellectual property may be stolen via cyber-attacks or similar methods.
In addition to patent protection, we also rely on protection of trade
secrets, know-how and confidential and proprietary information. To maintain the confidentiality of trade-secrets and proprietary information,
we generally seek to enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants and strategic partners upon the commencement
of a relationship. However, we may not be able to obtain these agreements in all circumstances in part due to local regulations. In the
event of unauthorized use or disclosure of this information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection
for our trade-secrets or other confidential information. In addition, adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use
or disclosure of this information. The loss or exposure of our trade secrets and other proprietary information would impair our competitive
advantages and could have a materially adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and future growth prospects.
Our competitors and potential competitors may have greater resources
than we have and may develop products and technologies that are more effective or commercially attractive than our products and technologies
or may develop competing relationships with our key collaborators.
We expect to compete with multiple pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical
device and scientific research product companies. In addition, there are many academic and clinical centers that are developing bioengineered
or regenerative organ technologies that may one day become competitors for us. Many of our competitors and potential competitors have
substantially greater financial, technological, research and development, marketing, and personnel resources than we do. We cannot, with
any accuracy, forecast when or if these companies are likely to bring bioengineered organ or regenerative medicine products to market
for indications that we are also pursuing. Many of these potential competitors may be further along in the process of product development
and also operate large, company-funded research and development programs.
We expect that other products will compete with our current and future
products based on efficacy, safety, cost, and intellectual property positions. While we believe that these will be the primary competitive
factors, other factors include obtaining marketing exclusivity under certain regulations, availability of supply, manufacturing, marketing
and sales expertise and capability, and reimbursement coverage. Our competitors may develop or market products that are more effective
or commercially attractive than our current or future products and may also develop competing relationships with our key collaborators.
In addition, we may face competition from new entrants into the field. We may not have the financial resources, technical expertise or
marketing, distribution or support capabilities to compete successfully in the future. The effects of any such actions of our competitors
may have a materially adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.
If we do not successfully manage our growth, our business goals
may not be achieved.
To manage growth, we will be required to continue to improve existing,
and implement additional, operational and financial systems, procedures and controls, and hire, train and manage additional employees.
Our current and planned personnel, systems, procedures and controls may not be adequate to support our anticipated growth and we may not
be able to hire, train, retain, motivate and manage required personnel. Competition for qualified personnel in the biotechnology and regenerative
medicine area is intense, and we operate or plan to operate in geographic locations where labor markets are particularly competitive,
including Boston, Massachusetts, where demand for personnel with these skills is extremely high and is likely to remain high. As a result,
competition for qualified personnel is intense and the process of hiring suitably qualified personnel is often lengthy and expensive,
and may become more expensive in the future. If we are unable to hire and retain a sufficient number of qualified employees or otherwise
manage our growth effectively, our ability to conduct and expand our business could be seriously reduced.
All or a portion of the PPP Loan may not be forgivable and our application
for the PPP Loan could in the future be determined to have been impermissible which could adversely impact our business and reputation.
On May 4, 2020, we obtained a loan (the “Loan”) from the
Bank of America (the “Lender”) in the aggregate amount of $404,221, pursuant to the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”),
established as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). Our application for the
PPP Loan could in the future be determined to have been impermissible which could adversely impact our business and reputation. Under
the CARES Act, we may be eligible to apply for forgiveness of all loan proceeds used to pay payroll costs, rent, utilities and other qualifying
expenses, provided that we retain a certain number of employees and maintain compensation within certain regulatory parameters of the
PPP. However, we cannot provide any assurance that we will be eligible for loan forgiveness or that any amount of the PPP Loan will ultimately
be forgiven.
In applying for the PPP Loan, we were required to certify, among other
things, that the then current economic uncertainty made the PPP Loan necessary to support our ongoing operations. We made these certifications
in good faith after analyzing, among other things, the requirements of the PPP loan, our current business activity and our ability to
access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support our ongoing operations in a manner that would not be significantly detrimental
to our business. We believe that we satisfied all eligibility criteria for the PPP Loan, and that our receipt of the PPP Loan was consistent
with the broad objectives of the PPP of the CARES Act. The certification regarding necessity described above did not at the time contain
any objective criteria and continues to be subject to interpretation. If, despite our good-faith belief that we satisfied all eligibility
requirements for the PPP Loan, we are later determined to have violated any of the laws or governmental regulations that apply to us in
connection with the PPP Loan, or it is otherwise determined that we were ineligible to receive the PPP Loan, we may be subject to civil,
criminal and administrative penalties. Any violations or alleged violations may result in adverse publicity and damage to our reputation,
a review or audit by the SBA or other government entity or claims under the False Claims Act. These events could consume significant financial
and management resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Risks Associated with Clinical Trials and Pre-Clinical Development
The results of our clinical trials or pre-clinical
development efforts may not support our product claims or may result in the discovery of adverse side effects.
Even if our pre-clinical development efforts or clinical trials
are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our product claims or that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), foreign regulatory authorities or notified bodies will agree with our conclusions regarding them. Although we
have obtained some positive results from the use of our scaffolds and bioreactors for esophageal and trachea implants performed to
date, we also discovered that our first-generation trachea product design encountered certain body response issues that we have
sought to resolve with our ongoing development of our Cellframe implant design. We cannot be certain that our Cellframe implant
design or any future modifications or improvements with respect thereto will support our claims, and any such developments may
result in the discovery of further adverse side effects. We also may not see positive results when our products undergo clinical
testing in humans in the future. Success in pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical
trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the later trials will replicate the results of prior trials and pre-clinical
studies. Our pre-clinical development efforts and any clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our products are safe and
effective for the proposed indicated uses, which could cause us to abandon a product and may delay development of others. Also,
patients receiving surgeries using our products under compassionate use or in clinical trials may experience significant adverse
events following the surgeries, including serious health complications or death, which may or may not be related to materials
provided by us. In 2017, our Cellspan Esophageal Implant (CEI) product candidate was used in a human surgery at Mayo Clinic via an
FDA-approved single-use expanded access application. In 2013 and 2014 we had provided a previous generation trachea scaffold device
that was used in implants in human patients under compassionate use. To date, we believe that at least four of the six patients who
received those tracheal implants have died. While we believe that none of those patients died because of a failure of the applicable
device, these and any other such adverse events have and may cause or contribute to the delay or termination of our clinical trials
or pre-clinical development efforts. Any delay or termination of our pre-clinical development efforts or clinical trials will delay
the filing of our product submissions and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our products and generate revenues. It is also
possible that patients enrolled in clinical trials will experience adverse side effects that are not currently part of the
product’s profile.
Clinical trials necessary to support a biological
product license or other marketing authorization for our products will be expensive and will require the enrollment of sufficient patients
to adequately demonstrate safety and efficacy for the product’s target populations. Suitable patients may be difficult to identify
and recruit. Delays or failures in our clinical trials will prevent us from commercializing any products and will adversely affect our
business, operating results and prospects.
In the U.S., initiating and completing clinical trials necessary to
support Biological License Applications (BLAs), will be time consuming, expensive and the outcome uncertain. Moreover, the FDA may not
agree that clinical trial results support an application for the indications sought in the application for the product. In other jurisdictions
such as the E.U., the conduct of extensive and expensive clinical trials may also be required in order to demonstrate the quality, safety
and efficacy of our products, depending on each specific product, the claims being studied, and the target condition or disease. The outcome
of these clinical trials, which can be expensive and are heavily regulated, will also be uncertain. Moreover, the results of early clinical
trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, and any product we advance into clinical trials following initial positive results
in early clinical trials may not have favorable results in later clinical trials.
Conducting successful clinical trials will require the enrollment of
a sufficient number of patients to support each trial’s claims, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit.
Patient enrollment in clinical trials and completion of patient participation and follow-up depends on many factors, including the size
of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the attractiveness of, or the discomfort and risks associated with, the treatments
received by enrolled subjects, the availability of appropriate clinical trial investigators, support staff, and proximity of patients
to clinical sites and ability to comply with the eligibility and exclusion criteria for participation in the clinical trial and patient
compliance. For example, patients may be discouraged from enrolling in our clinical trials if the trial protocol requires them to undergo
extensive post-treatment procedures or follow-up to assess the safety and effectiveness of our products, or if they determine that the
treatments received under the trial protocols are not attractive or involve unacceptable risks or discomfort. Also, patients may not participate
in our clinical trials if they choose to participate in contemporaneous clinical trials of competitive products. In addition, patients
participating in clinical trials may die before completion of the trial or suffer adverse medical events unrelated to investigational
products.
Development of sufficient and appropriate clinical protocols to demonstrate
safety and efficacy are required and we may not adequately develop such protocols to support clearance and approval. Further, the FDA
and foreign regulatory authorities may require us to submit data on a greater number of patients than we originally anticipated and/or
for a longer follow-up period or change the data collection requirements or data analysis applicable to our clinical trials. Delays in
patient enrollment or failure of patients to continue to participate in a clinical trial may cause an increase in costs and delays in
the approval and attempted commercialization of our products or result in the failure of the clinical trial. In addition, despite considerable
time and expense invested in our clinical trials, the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities may not consider our data adequate to demonstrate
safety and efficacy. Although FDA regulations allow submission of data from clinical trials outside the U.S., there can be no assurance
that such data will be accepted or that the FDA will not apply closer scrutiny to such data. Increased costs and delays necessary to generate
appropriate data, or failures in clinical trials could adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects. In the U.S., clinical
studies for our products will be reviewed through the Investigational New Drug (IND), pathway for biologics or combination products.
If the third parties on which we rely to conduct
our clinical trials and to assist us with pre-clinical development do not perform as contractually-required or expected, we may not be
able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our products.
We do not have the ability to independently conduct our pre-clinical
and clinical trials for our products and we must rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, medical institutions,
clinical investigators and contract laboratories to conduct, or assist us in conducting, such trials, including data collection and analysis.
We do not have direct control over such third parties’ personnel or operations. If these third parties do not successfully carry
out their contractual duties or regulatory obligations or meet expected deadlines, if these third parties need to be replaced, or if the
quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or any regulatory requirements,
or for other reasons, our pre-clinical development activities or clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated, and
we may not be able to seek or obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize, our products on a timely basis, if at all.
Our business, operating results and prospects may also be adversely affected. Furthermore, any third-party clinical trial investigators
pertaining to our products may be delayed in conducting our clinical trials for reasons outside of their control.
Risks Associated with Regulatory Approvals
If we fail to obtain, or experience significant
delays in obtaining, regulatory approvals in the U.S., China or the E.U. for our products, including those for the esophagus and airways,
or are unable to maintain such clearances or approvals for our products, our ability to commercially distribute and market these products
would be adversely impacted.
We currently do not have regulatory approval to market any of our implant
products, including those for the esophagus and airways (trachea and bronchus). Our products are subject to rigorous regulation by the
FDA, and numerous other federal and state governmental authorities in the U.S., as well as foreign governmental authorities. In the U.S.,
the FDA permits commercial distribution of new medical products only after approval of a Premarket Approval (PMA), New Drug Application
(NDA) or BLA, unless the product is specifically exempt from those requirements. A PMA, NDA or BLA must be supported by extensive data,
including, but not limited to, technical, pre-clinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s
satisfaction the safety and efficacy of the product for its intended use. There are similar approval processes in China, the E.U. and
other foreign jurisdictions. Our failure to receive or obtain such clearances or approvals on a timely basis or at all would have an adverse
effect on our results of operations.
The first bioengineered trachea implant approved in the U.S. using
our first-generation trachea scaffold in an implant was approved under the IND pathway through the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research (CBER) for a single compassionate use. Such initial U.S. surgery was led by Professor Paolo Macchiarini, M.D., a surgeon
pioneering tracheal replacement techniques. Dr. Macchiarini was not employed or affiliated with our company, and we did not pay him any
compensation or consulting fees. In June 2014, shortly after our Chief Medical Officer joined our company, we ceased support of any human
surgeries with Dr. Macchiarini. Since the time we withdrew from involvement with Dr. Macchiarini, allegations that Dr. Macchiarini had
failed to obtain informed consent and accurately report patient conditions, among other things, for surgeries performed at the Karolinska
Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, were made public.
The Karolinska Institutet investigated the allegations and concluded
that while in some instances Dr. Macchiarini did act without due care, his actions did not qualify as scientific misconduct. Subsequent
to this investigation, further negative publicity and claims continued to be released questioning the conduct of Dr. Macchiarini, the
Karolinska Institutet, the Krasnodar Regional Hospital in Krasnodar, Russia as well as our company relating to surgeries performed by
Dr. Macchiarini and other surgeons at such facilities. In February 2015, the Karolinska Institutet announced that it would conduct an
additional investigation into the allegations made about Dr. Macchiarini and the Karolinska Institutet’s response and actions in
the earlier investigation. In March 2015, the Karolinska Institutet announced that it was terminating Dr. Macchiarini’s employment,
and in December 2016 the Karolinska Institutet found Dr. Macchiarini, along with three co-authors, guilty of scientific misconduct. These
allegations, the results of the investigation and any further actions that may be taken in connection with these matters, have and may
continue to harm the perception of our product candidates or company and make it difficult to recruit patients for any clinical trials.
The FDA has informed us that our CEI would be viewed by the FDA
as a combination product comprised of a biologic (cells) and a medical device component. Nevertheless, we cannot be certain how the FDA
will regulate our products. The FDA may require us to obtain marketing clearance and approval from multiple FDA centers. The review of
combination products is often more complex and more time consuming than the review of products under the jurisdiction of only one center
within the FDA.
While the FDA has informed us that our CEI would be regulated by the
FDA as a combination product, we cannot be certain that any of our other products would also be regulated by the FDA as a combination
product. For a combination product, the Office of Combination Products (OCP) within FDA can determine which center or centers within the
FDA will review the product and under what legal authority the product will be reviewed. Generally, the center within the FDA that has
the primary role in regulating a combination product is determined based on the primary mode of action of the product. Generally, if the
primary mode of action is as a device, the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) takes the lead. Alternatively,
if the primary mode of action is cellular, then the CBER takes the lead. On October 18, 2016, we also received written confirmation from
the CBER that the FDA intends to regulate our CEI as a combination product under the primary jurisdiction of CBER. We further understand
that CBER may choose to consult or collaborate with CDRH with respect to the characteristics of the synthetic scaffold component of our
product based on CBER’s determination of need for such assistance.
The process of obtaining FDA marketing approval is lengthy, expensive,
and uncertain, and we cannot be certain that our products, including products pertaining to the esophagus, airways, or otherwise, will
be cleared or approved in a timely fashion, or at all. In addition, the review of combination products is often more complex and can be
more time consuming than the review of a product under the jurisdiction of only one center within the FDA.
We cannot be certain that the FDA will not elect to have our combination
products reviewed and regulated by only one FDA center and/or different legal authority, in which case the path to regulatory approval
would be different and could be more lengthy and costly.
If the FDA does not approve or clear our products in a timely fashion,
or at all, our business and financial condition will be adversely affected.
In the E.U., our esophagus product will likely be regulated as a
combined advanced therapy medicinal product and our other products, including for the trachea or bronchus, may also be viewed as advanced
therapy medicinal products, which could delay approvals and clearances and increase costs of obtaining such approvals and clearances.
On May 28, 2014, we received notice from the European Medicines Agency
(EMA) that our first-generation trachea product would be regulated as a combined advanced therapy medicinal product. While we have not
had any formal interaction with the EMA with respect to our Cellframe implant technology, including pertaining to the esophagus, we believe
that such implant technology would likely be regulated as a combined advanced therapy medicinal product. In the event of such classification,
it would be necessary to seek a marketing authorization for these products granted by the European Commission before being marketed in
the E.U.
Other products we may develop, including any products pertaining to
the airways or otherwise, may similarly be regulated as advanced therapy medicinal products or combined advanced therapy medicinal products.
The regulatory procedures leading to marketing approval of our products vary among jurisdictions and can involve substantial additional
testing. Compliance with the FDA requirements does not ensure clearance or approval in other jurisdictions, and the ability to legally
market our products in any one foreign country does not ensure clearance, or approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign jurisdictions.
The foreign regulatory process leading to the marketing of the products may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval
in addition to other risks. In addition, the time required to comply with foreign regulations and market products may differ from that
required to obtain FDA approval, and we may not obtain foreign approval or clearance on a timely basis, if at all.
Risk Associated with Product Marketing
Even if our products are cleared or approved by regulatory authorities,
if we or our suppliers fail to comply with ongoing FDA or other foreign regulatory authority requirements, or if we experience unanticipated
problems with our products, these products could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market.
Any product for which we obtain clearance or approval in the U.S.,
China, or Europe, and the manufacturing processes, reporting requirements, post-approval clinical data and promotional activities for
such product, will be subject to continued regulatory review, oversight and periodic inspections by the FDA and other domestic and foreign
regulatory authorities or notified bodies. In particular, we and our suppliers are required to comply with the FDA’s Quality System
Regulations (QSR), and current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP), for our medical products, and International Standards Organization
(ISO), regulations for the manufacture of our products and other regulations which cover the methods and documentation of the design,
testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, storage and shipping of any product for which we obtain clearance
or approval. Manufacturing may also be subject to controls by the FDA for parts of the system or combination products that the FDA may
find are controlled by the biologics regulations. Equivalent regulatory obligations apply in foreign jurisdictions. Regulatory authorities,
such as the FDA, China’s National Medical Products Administration, the competent authorities of the E.U. Member States, the EMA
and notified bodies, enforce the QSR, cGMP and other applicable regulations in the U.S. and in foreign jurisdictions through periodic
inspections. The failure by us or one of our suppliers to comply with applicable statutes and regulations administered by the FDA and
other regulatory authorities or notified bodies in the U.S. or in foreign jurisdictions, or the failure to timely and adequately respond
to any adverse inspectional observations or product safety issues, could result in, among other things, any of the following enforcement
actions:
|
•
|
untitled letters, warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties;
|
|
•
|
unanticipated expenditures to address or defend such actions;
|
|
•
|
customer notifications for repair, replacement, or refunds;
|
|
•
|
recall, detention or seizure of our products;
|
|
•
|
operating restrictions or partial suspension or total shutdown of production;
|
|
•
|
withdrawing BLA or NDA approvals that have already been granted;
|
|
•
|
withdrawal of the marketing authorization granted by the European Commission or delay in obtaining such marketing authorization;
|
|
•
|
withdrawal of the CE Certificates of Conformity granted by the notified body or delay in obtaining these certificates;
|
|
•
|
refusal to grant export approval for our products; and
|
Post-market enforcement actions can generate
adverse commercial consequences.
Even if regulatory approval of a product is granted, such clearance
or approval may be subject to limitations on the intended uses for which the product may be marketed and reduce our potential to successfully
commercialize the product and generate revenue from the product. If the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority determines that our promotional
materials, labeling, training or other marketing or educational activities constitute promotion of an unapproved use, it could request
that we cease or modify our training or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory enforcement actions. It is also possible that
other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our training or other promotional materials
to constitute promotion of an unapproved use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under other statutory authorities,
such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. In addition, we may be required to conduct costly post-market testing and surveillance
to monitor the safety or effectiveness of our products, and we must comply with medical products reporting requirements, including the
reporting of adverse events and malfunctions related to our products. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products,
including unanticipated adverse events or adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, manufacturing problems, or failure to
comply with regulatory requirements such as QSR, may result in changes to labeling, restrictions on such products or manufacturing processes,
withdrawal of the products from the market, voluntary or mandatory recalls, a requirement to repair, replace or refund the cost of any
medical device we manufacture or distribute, fines, suspension of regulatory approvals, product seizures, injunctions or the imposition
of civil or criminal penalties which would adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects.
Risks Related to Our Separation from Harvard Bioscience
We may have received better terms from unaffiliated third parties
than the terms we received in our agreements with Harvard Bioscience.
The agreements related to the Separation, including the separation
and distribution agreement, tax sharing agreement, transition services agreement and the other agreements, were negotiated in the context
of the Separation while we were still part of Harvard Bioscience and, accordingly, may not reflect terms that would have resulted from
arm’s-length negotiations among unaffiliated third parties. The terms of the agreements we negotiated in the context of the Separation
related to, among other things, allocation of assets, liabilities, rights, indemnifications and other obligations among Harvard Bioscience
and us. We may have received better terms from third parties because third parties may have competed with each other to win our business.
Third parties may seek to hold us responsible for liabilities of
Harvard Bioscience that we did not assume in our agreements.
In connection with the Separation, Harvard Bioscience has generally
agreed to retain all liabilities that did not historically arise from our business. Third parties may seek to hold us responsible for
Harvard Bioscience’s retained liabilities. Under our agreements with Harvard Bioscience, Harvard Bioscience has agreed to indemnify
us for claims and losses relating to these retained liabilities. However, if those liabilities are significant and we are ultimately liable
for them, we cannot assure you that we will be able to recover the full amount of our losses from Harvard Bioscience.
Any disputes that arise between us and Harvard Bioscience with respect
to our past and ongoing relationships could harm our business operations.
Disputes may arise between Harvard Bioscience and us in a number of
areas relating to our past and ongoing relationships, including:
|
•
|
intellectual property, technology and business matters, including failure to make required technology transfers and failure to comply with non-compete provisions applicable to Harvard Bioscience and us;
|
|
•
|
labor, tax, employee benefit, indemnification and other matters arising from the Separation;
|
|
•
|
distribution and supply obligations;
|
|
•
|
employee retention and recruiting;
|
|
•
|
business combinations involving us;
|
|
•
|
sales or distributions by Harvard Bioscience of all or any portion of its ownership interest in us; and
|
|
•
|
business opportunities that may be attractive to both Harvard Bioscience and us.
|
We may not be able to resolve any potential conflicts, and even if
we do, the resolution may be less favorable than if we were dealing with a different party.
Risks Relating to Our Common Stock
Our principal stockholders hold a majority of voting power and will
be able to exert significant control over us.
The stockholders
who purchased shares of our common stock and related warrants pursuant to a Securities Purchase Agreement dated December 27, 2017 collectively
hold shares of common stock that represent approximately 37% of all outstanding voting power, and as such may significantly influence
the results of matters voted on by our shareholders. The interests of these stockholders may conflict with your interests. These stockholders
have the right to nominate a majority of our Board of Directors and, therefore, effectively could control many other major decisions regarding
our operations. This significant concentration of share ownership may adversely affect the trading price for our common
stock because investors may perceive disadvantages in owning stock in companies with controlling stockholders.
A trading market that will provide you with adequate liquidity may
not develop for our common stock.
The current public market for our common stock has limited trading
volume and liquidity. We cannot predict the extent to which investor interest in our company will lead to the development of a more active
trading market in our common stock, or how liquid that market might be.
Our revenues, operating results and cash flows may fluctuate in
future periods and we may fail to meet investor expectations, which may cause the price of our common stock to decline.
Variations in our quarterly and year-end operating results are difficult
to predict and may fluctuate significantly from period to period. If our revenues or operating results fall below the expectations of
investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. In addition to the other factors discussed
under these “Risk Factors,” specific factors that may cause fluctuations in our operating results include:
|
•
|
demand and pricing for our products;
|
|
•
|
government or private healthcare reimbursement policies;
|
|
•
|
adverse events or publicity related to our products, our research or investigations, or our collaborators or other partners;
|
|
•
|
physician and patient acceptance of any of our current or future products;
|
|
•
|
manufacturing stoppages or delays;
|
|
•
|
introduction of competing products or technologies;
|
|
•
|
our operating expenses which fluctuate due to growth of our business; and
|
|
•
|
timing and size of any new product or technology acquisitions we may complete.
|
Any issuance of preferred stock in the future may dilute the rights
of our common stockholders.
Our Board of Directors has the authority to issue up to 2,000,000 shares
of preferred stock and to determine the price, privileges and other terms of these shares. Our Board of Directors is empowered to exercise
this authority without any further approval of stockholders. The rights of the holders of common stock may be adversely affected by the
rights of future holders of preferred stock.
We have in the past issued, and we may at any time in the future issue,
additional shares of authorized preferred stock. For example, in our December 2017 private placement transaction, we authorized 12,000
shares of Series D convertible preferred stock, of which we issued 3,108 shares, all of which have been converted into shares of common
stock.
We do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock.
Currently, we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends to holders
of our common stock. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be a stockholder’s sole source of gain.
Our common stock has been delisted on the NASDAQ Capital Market,
which may negatively impact the trading price of our common stock and the levels of liquidity available to our stockholders.
Our common stock was suspended from trading on the NASDAQ Capital Market,
prior to the opening of the market on October 6, 2017 and began quotation on the OTCQB Venture Market on that date, retaining the symbol
“BSTG”. On December 7, 2017, the NASDAQ Capital Market filed a Form 25-NSE with the SEC to complete the delisting process.
The trading of our common stock on the OTCQB Venture Market rather than The NASDAQ Capital Market may negatively impact the trading price
of our common stock and the levels of liquidity available to our stockholders.
Upon such delisting, our common stock became subject to the regulations
of the SEC relating to the market for penny stocks. A penny stock is any equity security not traded on a national securities exchange
that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share. The regulations applicable to penny stocks may severely affect the market liquidity
for our common stock and could limit the ability of shareholders to sell securities in the secondary market. Accordingly, investors in
our common stock may find it more difficult to dispose of or obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of our common stock, and
there can be no assurance that our common stock will continue to be eligible for trading or quotation on the OTCQB Venture Market or any
other alternative exchanges or markets.
The delisting of our common stock from the NASDAQ Capital Market may
adversely affect our ability to raise additional financing through public or private sales of equity securities, may significantly affect
the ability of investors to trade our securities, and may negatively affect the value and liquidity of our common stock. Such delisting
may also have other negative results, including the potential loss of confidence by employees, the loss of institutional investor interest
and fewer business development opportunities. Furthermore, because of the limited market and low volume of trading in our common stock
that could occur, the share price of our common stock could more likely be affected by broad market fluctuations, general market conditions,
fluctuations in our operating results, changes in the market’s perception of our business, and announcements made by us, our competitors,
parties with whom we have business relationships or third parties.
General Risk Factors
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has and may continue to affect our
ability to initiate, resume and complete current or future preclinical studies or clinical trials, disrupt regulatory activities or have
other adverse effects on our business and operations. In addition, this pandemic may continue to adversely impact economies worldwide,
which could result in adverse effects on our business and operations.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused many governments to implement
measures to slow the spread of the outbreak through quarantines, travel restrictions, heightened border scrutiny, and other measures.
The outbreak and government measures taken in response have also had a significant impact, both direct and indirect, on businesses and
commerce, as worker shortages have occurred; supply chains have been disrupted; facilities and production have been suspended; and demand
for certain goods and services, such as medical services and supplies, has spiked, while demand for other goods and services, such as
travel, has fallen. The future progression of the outbreak and its effects on our business and operations are uncertain.
We and our third-party manufacturers and prospective contract research
organizations, or CROs, may face disruptions that may affect our ability to initiate, resume and complete preclinical studies or clinical
trials, including disruptions in procuring items that are essential for our research and development activities, including, for example,
raw materials used in the manufacturing of our product candidates, and laboratory supplies for our current and future preclinical studies
and clinical trials, in each case, for which there may be shortages because of ongoing efforts to address the outbreak. We and our third-party
manufacturers and prospective CROs, may face disruptions or future clinical trials arising from delays in IND-enabling studies, manufacturing
disruptions, and the ability to obtain necessary institutional review board or other necessary site approvals, as well as other delays
at clinical trial sites.
We may also face difficulties recruiting or enrolling patients for
future clinical trials if patients are affected by the COVID-19 virus or are fearful of visiting or traveling to clinical trial sites
because of the outbreak.
The response to the COVID-19 pandemic may redirect resources with respect
to regulatory and intellectual property matters in a way that would adversely impact our ability to progress regulatory approvals and
protect our intellectual property. For example, the FDA has announced that in order to bring new therapies to patients sick with COVID-19
as quickly as possible, it has redeployed medical and regulatory staff from other areas to work on COVID-19 therapies. In addition, we
may face impediments to regulatory meetings and approvals due to measures intended to limit in-person interactions.
We have modified our business practices, including implementing a work
from home policy for all employees who are able to perform their duties remotely and restricting all nonessential travel, and we expect
to continue to take actions as may be required or recommended by government authorities or as we determine are in the best interests of
our employees, and other business partners in light of COVID-19. In the event of a continuation of shelter-in-place orders and/or other
mandated local travel restrictions, our employees conducting research and development activities may not be able to access our research
space, and our core activities may be significant limited or curtailed, possibly for an extended period of time.
The pandemic has already caused significant disruptions in the financial
markets, and may continue to cause such disruptions, which could impact our ability to raise additional funds through public offerings
and may also impact the volatility of our stock price and trading in our stock. Moreover, it is possible the pandemic will significantly
impact economies worldwide, which could result in adverse effects on our business and operations. We cannot be certain what the overall
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will be on our business and it has the potential to adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
We are subject to new U.S. foreign investment regulations, which
may impose additional burdens on or may limit certain investors’ ability to purchase our common stock, potentially making our common
stock less attractive to investors, and may also impact our ability to generate revenues outside of the U.S.
In October 2018, the U.S. Department of Treasury
announced a pilot program to implement part of the FIRRMA, effective November 10, 2018. The pilot program expands the jurisdiction
of CFIUS to include certain direct or indirect foreign investments in a defined category of U.S. companies, which may include companies
such as Biostage in the biotechnology industry. Among other things, FIRRMA empowers CFIUS to require certain foreign investors to
make mandatory filings and permits CFIUS to charge filing fees related to such filings. Such filings are subject to review by CFIUS. Any
such restrictions on the ability to purchase shares of our common stock may have the effect of delaying or deterring any particular investment
and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock. In addition, such restrictions could also
limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock in relation to any potential change
in control.
We intend to generate significant revenues outside
the U.S., including in China. Restrictions, such as those related to CFIUS, not only affect foreign ownership and investments, but also
the transfer or licensing of technology from the U.S. into certain foreign markets, including China. Such restrictions, including to the
extent they block strategic transactions that might otherwise be in shareholders’ interests, may materially and adversely affect
our ability to generate revenues in those foreign markets and the results of our operations.
If we incur higher costs as a result of trade policies, treaties,
government regulations or tariffs, it could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
There is currently significant uncertainty about the future relationship
between the United States and China, including with respect to trade policies, treaties, government regulations and tariffs. The current
U.S. administration has called for substantial changes to U.S. foreign trade policy including greater restrictions on international trade
and significant increases in tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. Under the current status, we do not expect that this tariff will
significantly impact any Biostage products and thus the tariff should not have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial
condition or results of operations. We are unable to predict whether or when additional tariffs will be imposed or the impact of any such
future tariff increases.
We are exposed to a variety of risks relating to our international
sales and operations, including fluctuations in exchange rates, local economic conditions and delays in collection of accounts receivable.
We intend to generate significant revenues outside the U.S. in multiple
foreign currencies including Chinese Renminbi, Euros, British pounds, and in U.S. dollar-denominated transactions conducted with customers
who generate revenue in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. For those foreign customers who purchase our products in U.S. dollars,
currency fluctuations between the U.S. dollar and the currencies in which those customers do business may have a negative impact on the
demand for our products in foreign countries where the U.S. dollar has increased in value compared to the local currency.
Since we may have vendors and customers outside the U.S. and we may
generate revenues and incur operating expenses in multiple foreign currencies, we will experience currency exchange risk with respect
to any foreign currency-denominated revenues and expenses. We cannot predict the consolidated effects of exchange rate fluctuations upon
our future operating results because of the number of currencies involved, the variability of currency exposure and the potential volatility
of currency exchange rates. Our international activities subject us to laws regarding sanctioned countries, entities and persons, customs,
import-export, laws regarding transactions in foreign countries, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and local anti-bribery and other
laws regarding interactions with healthcare professionals. Among other things, these laws restrict, and in some cases prohibit, U.S. companies
from directly or indirectly selling goods, technology or services to people or entities in certain countries. In addition, these laws
require that we exercise care in structuring our sales and marketing practices in foreign countries.
Local economic conditions, legal, regulatory or political considerations,
disruptions from strikes, the effectiveness of our sales representatives and distributors, local competition and changes in local medical
practice could also affect our sales to foreign markets. Relationships with customers and effective terms of sale frequently vary by country,
often with longer-term receivables than are typical in the U.S.
Comprehensive tax reform legislation could adversely affect our
business and financial condition.
In December 2017, the U.S. government enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act of 2017 (TCJA), which significantly reforms the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The TCJA, among other things, contains
significant changes to corporate taxation, including reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate
of 21%, effective January 1, 2018; limitation of the tax deduction for interest expense; limitation of the deduction for net operating
losses and elimination of net operating loss carrybacks, in each case, for losses arising in taxable years beginning after December 31,
2017 (though any such tax losses may be carried forward indefinitely); and modifying or repealing many business deductions and credits,
including reducing the business tax credit for certain clinical testing expenses incurred in the testing of certain drugs for rare diseases
or conditions generally referred to as “orphan drugs”. The tax rate change resulted in (i) a reduction in the gross amount
of our deferred tax assets recorded as of December 31, 2017, without an impact on the net amount of our deferred tax assets, which are
recorded with a full valuation allowance. We continue to examine the impact this tax reform legislation may have on our business. However,
the effect of the TCJA on us and our affiliates, whether adverse or favorable, is uncertain and may not become evident for some period
of time. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of the TCJA on an investment in our
common stock.
Changes in the European regulatory environment regarding privacy
and data protection regulations could have a materially adverse impact on our results of operations.
The European Union (E.U.) has adopted a comprehensive overhaul of its
data protection regime in the form of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into effect in May 2018. GDPR extends
the scope of the existing E.U. data protection law to foreign companies processing personal data of E.U. residents. The regulation imposes
a strict data protection compliance regime with severe penalties of 4% of worldwide turnover or €20 million, whichever is greater,
and includes new rights such as the right of erasure of personal data. Although the GDPR will apply across the E.U., as has been the case
under the current data protection regime, E.U. Member States have some national derogations and local data protection authorities that
will still have the ability to interpret the GDPR, which has the potential to create inconsistencies on a country-by-country basis. Implementation
of, and compliance with the GDPR could increase our cost of doing business and/or force us to change our business practices in a manner
adverse to our business. In addition, violations of the GDPR may result in significant fines, penalties and damage to our brand and business
which could, individually or in the aggregate, materially harm our business and reputation.
Healthcare legislative reform measures may
have a materially adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of
legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed, which substantially
changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.
The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses 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, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends
the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers
of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree
to offer 50% (70% commencing January 1, 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries
during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D. Some
of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be fully implemented, while certain provisions have been subject to Judicial and Congressional
challenges, as well as efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, President
Trump has signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some
of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA.
Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal
or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the
implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The TCJA includes a provision repealing, effective January 1,
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.” Additionally, on January 22, 2018, former
President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA-mandated
fees, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax, an annual fee on certain high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual
fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the Medical Device Excise Tax (MDET) on non-exempt medical
devices. Since then, The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 H.R. 1865, signed into law on December 20, 2019, repealed the MDET.
Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amends the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to reduce the coverage
gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” The effect that the ACA and its possible repeal
and replacement may have on our business remains unclear.
Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United
States since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, 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. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year.
These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect
through 2027 unless additional congressional action is taken. 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.
Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare
legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 required that the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency responsible for administering the Medicare program, reduce the Medicare clinical
laboratory fee schedule by 2% in 2013, which served as a base for 2014 and subsequent years. In addition, effective January 1, 2014, CMS
also began bundling the Medicare payments for certain laboratory tests ordered while a patient received services in a hospital outpatient
setting. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit
the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for
any product candidate we develop or complementary diagnostics or companion diagnostics or additional pricing pressures.
Additionally, 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.
Any of these regulatory changes and events could limit our ability
to form collaborations and our ability to commercialize our products, and if we fail to comply with any such new or modified regulations
and requirements it could adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects.
If we fail to complete the required IRS forms
for exemptions, make timely semi-monthly payments of collected excise taxes, or submit quarterly reports as required by the MDET, we may
be subject to penalties, such as Section 6656 penalties for any failure to make timely deposits.
Section 4191 of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted by Section 1405
of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152 (124 Stat. 1029 (2010)), in conjunction with the Patient
Protection and the ACA, Public Law 111-148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), imposed as of January 1, 2013, an excise tax on the sale of certain
medical devices. The MDET imposed by Section 4191 is 2.3% of the price for which a taxable medical device is sold within the U.S.
Substantial sales of common stock have and may continue to occur,
or may be anticipated, which have and could continue to cause our stock price to decline.
We expect that we will seek to raise additional capital from time to
time in the future, which may involve the issuance of additional shares of common stock, or securities convertible or exercisable into
common stock. The purchasers of the shares of common stock and warrants to purchase shares of common stock from our public offerings and
private placements= may sell significant quantities of our common stock in the market, which may cause a decline in the price of our common
stock. Further, we cannot predict the effect, if any, that any additional market sales of common stock, or anticipation of such sales,
or the availability of those shares of common stock for sale will have on the market price of our common stock. Any future sales of significant
amounts of our common stock, or the perception in the market that this will occur, may result in a decline in the price of our common
stock.
The market price of our shares may fluctuate widely.
The market price of our common stock may fluctuate widely, depending
upon many factors, some of which may be beyond our control, including:
·
|
the success and costs of preclinical and clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approvals or clearances for our products;
|
·
|
the success or failure of surgeries and procedures involving the use our products;
|
·
|
a shift in our investor base;
|
·
|
our quarterly or annual results of operations, or those of other companies in our industry;
|
·
|
actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results due to factors related to our business;
|
·
|
changes in accounting standards, policies, guidance, interpretations or principles;
|
·
|
announcements by us or our competitors of significant acquisitions, dispositions or intellectual property developments or issuances;
|
·
|
the failure of securities analysts to cover our common stock;
|
·
|
changes in earnings estimates by securities analysts or our ability to meet those estimates;
|
·
|
the operating and stock price performance of other comparable companies; our issuance of equity, debt or other financing instruments;
|
·
|
overall market fluctuations; and
|
·
|
general macroeconomic conditions.
|
Stock markets in general have experienced volatility that has often
been unrelated to the operating performance of a particular company. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading
price of our common stock.
Your percentage ownership will be diluted in the future.
Your percentage ownership will be diluted in the future because of
equity awards that we expect will be granted to our directors, officers and employees, as well as shares of common stock, or securities
convertible into common stock, we issue in connection with future capital raising or strategic transactions. Our Amended and Restated
Equity Incentive Plan provides for the grant of equity-based awards, including restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock options,
stock appreciation rights and other equity-based awards to our directors, officers and other employees, advisors and consultants. The
issuance of any shares of our stock would dilute the proportionate ownership and voting power of existing security holders.
Provisions of Delaware law, of our amended and restated charter
and amended and restated bylaws may make a takeover more difficult, which could cause our stock price to decline.
Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation
and amended and restated bylaws and in the Delaware corporate law may make it difficult and expensive for a third party to pursue a tender
offer, change in control or takeover attempt, which is opposed by management and the Board of Directors. Public stockholders who might
desire to participate in such a transaction may not have an opportunity to do so. We have a staggered Board of Directors that makes it
difficult for stockholders to change the composition of the Board of Directors in any one year. Any removal of directors will require
a super-majority vote of the holders of at least 75% of the outstanding shares entitled to be cast on the election of directors which
may discourage a third party from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us. These anti-takeover provisions
could substantially impede the ability of public stockholders to change our management and Board of Directors. Such provisions may also
limit the price that investors might be willing to pay for shares of our common stock in the future.
We are a smaller reporting company and the
reduced disclosure requirements applicable to smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.
We are a smaller reporting company (“SRC”) and a non-accelerated
filer, which allows us to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies
that are not SRCs or non-accelerated filers, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section
404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, reduced disclosure obligations, including disclosures regarding executive compensation,
in our Annual Report and our periodic reports and proxy statements and providing only two years of audited financial statements in our
Annual Report and our periodic reports. We will remain an SRC until (a) the aggregate market value of our outstanding common stock held
by non-affiliates as of the last business day our most recently completed second fiscal quarter exceeds $250 million or (b) in the event
we have over $100 million in annual revenues, the aggregate market value of our outstanding common stock held by non-affiliates as of
the last business day our most recently completed second fiscal quarter exceeds $700 million. 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 and may decline.
We incur increased costs as a result of operating
as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance
practices.
As a public company, we incur significant legal,
accounting, and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, FINRA rules and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies,
including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management
and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations
increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly.
We continue to evaluate these rules and regulations
and cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur or the timing of such costs. These rules and regulations are
often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice
may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding
compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.