vcel-20211231

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

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

for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

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

Commission File Number 001-35280

VERICEL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

64 Sidney Street

Cambridge, MA02139

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 588-5555

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

Title of Class Trading Symbol(s) Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered

Common Stock (No par value) VCEL NASDAQ

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes oNox

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

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

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

Large accelerated filer ☒ Accelerated filer ☐

Non-accelerated filer ☐ Smaller reporting company ☐

Emerging growth company ☐

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s Common Stock, no par value per share (“Common Stock”), held by non-affiliates of the registrant (based on the closing sales price of the Common Stock as reported on the NASDAQ Capital Market) on June 30, 2021 was approximately $2,430,875,370. This computation excludes shares of Common Stock held by each executive officer and director who may be deemed to be affiliates of the registrant. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of February 18, 2022, 46,967,681 shares of Common Stock, no par value per share, were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Document Form 10-K Reference

Table of Contents

VERICEL CORPORATION

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I

Item 1. Business 5

Item 1A. Risk Factors 24

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 54

Item 2. Properties 54

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 54

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 54

PART II

Item 6. Reserved 56

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 66

Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 67

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 93

Item 9B. Other Information 93

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 93

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 94

Item 11. Executive Compensation 94

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 94

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 95

Exhibit Index 96

Table of Contents

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the documents incorporated by reference herein, contains certain statements that describe our management’s beliefs concerning future business conditions, plans and prospects, growth opportunities and the outlook for our business based upon information currently available. Such statements are “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Wherever possible, we have identified these forward-looking statements by words such as “will,” “may,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “intends,” “estimates,” “expects,” “plans,” “projects,” “trends,” “opportunity,” “current,” “intention,” “position,” “assume,” “potential,” “outlook,” “remain,” “continue,” “maintain,” “sustain,” “seek,” “target,” “achieve,” “continuing,” “ongoing,” and similar words or phrases, or future or conditional verbs such as “would,” “should,” “could,” “may,” or similar expressions. These forward-looking statements are based upon assumptions our management believes are reasonable. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties which could cause our actual results, performance and achievements to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, these statements, including, among others, the risks and uncertainties listed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K under “Part I, Item 1A Risk Factors.”

Because our forward-looking statements are based on estimates and assumptions that are subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control or are subject to change, actual results could be materially different and any or all of our forward-looking statements may turn out to be wrong. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made and can be affected by assumptions we might make or by known or unknown risks and uncertainties. Many factors mentioned in our discussion in this Annual Report on Form 10-K will be important in determining future results. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict which factors will arise. Consequently, we cannot assure you that our expectations or forecasts expressed in such forward-looking statements will be achieved. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to publicly update any of our forward-looking or other statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Except for the historical information presented, the matters discussed in this Annual Report, including our product development and commercialization goals and expectations, our plans and anticipated timing and results of clinical and regulatory development activities, potential market opportunities, revenue expectations and the potential advantages and applications of our products and product candidates under development, include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ significantly from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed under the caption “Risk Factors.” Unless the context requires otherwise, references to “Vericel,” “the Company,” “our company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Vericel Corporation.

We own various trademark registrations and applications, and unregistered trademarks, including Vericel Corporation, Epicel, MACI and our corporate logo. All other trade names, trademarks and service marks of other companies appearing in this Form 10-K are the property of their respective holders, including NexoBrid, which is a registered trademark of MediWound Ltd. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this document may be referred to without the ® and TM symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. We do not intend to use or display other companies’ trademarks and trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

SUMMARY OF THE MATERIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BUSINESS

•We have incurred losses and may not achieve consistent profitability for some time or at all.

•Future sales of shares of common stock could have an adverse effect on the market price of such shares.

•We may not be able to raise the required capital to develop and commercialize our future product candidates and otherwise grow and expand our business.

•Our operating results will be harmed if we are unable to effectively manage and sustain our future growth or scale our operations.

•Seasonal sales patterns and other variations related to our revenue recognition may cause significant fluctuations in our results of operations and cash flows and may prevent us from achieving our quarterly or annual forecasts, which may cause our stock price to decline.

•Current financial market conditions may exacerbate certain risks affecting our business.

Table of Contents

•We are dependent on our key manufacturing, quality and other management personnel and the loss of any of these individuals could harm our business.

•Failure to obtain and/or maintain required regulatory approvals would severely limit our ability to sell our products.

•Any changes in the regulatory requirements that affect our products and/or future product candidates could prevent, limit or delay our ability to market or develop new product candidates.

•The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the potential future outbreak of other highly infectious or contagious diseases, could seriously harm our research, development, commercialization and sales efforts, increase our costs and expenses and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including delaying regulatory authorities’ ability to review and/or inspect required facilities or submissions.

•The Federal Government may, in the future, commandeer materials or manufacturing facilities for the production of COVID-19 vaccines or therapeutics, making it more difficult for us to obtain materials or manufacturing supplies needed for our preclinical studies or clinical trials or for our commercial product, which could lead to delays in studies, trials, or our commercial supply.

•If our manufacturing facility is destroyed or we experience any manufacturing difficulties, disruptions or delays, this could limit supply of our products or adversely affect our ability to conduct clinical trials and our business would be adversely impacted.

•If we do not manage inventory in an effective and efficient manner, it could adversely affect our results of operations.

•Failure of third parties, including for example Matricel GmbH (“Matricel”), to manufacture or supply certain components, equipment, disposable devices and other materials used in our MACI® or Epicel® cell manufacturing processes would impair our cell product development and commercialization.

•Because our manufacturing and supply chain are subject to significant regulations, failure by our third-party manufacturers, including Matricel, to comply with the regulatory requirements set forth by the FDA with respect to our products could limit our ability to manufacture commercial products and/or result in the products being subject to restrictions or withdrawn from the market.

•Changes to our products or future product candidates may require regulatory approvals which could result in the delay of the change being made or, if not approved, prevent any changes from being made.

•Failure to obtain adequate reimbursement and reimbursement rates for our products could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results.

•NexoBrid® may not be approved for treatment of severe burns in the U.S. and other North American markets, or its approval may be materially delayed, and there is no guarantee that NexoBrid will be accepted in the market, even if regulatory approval is received.

•Our licensor MediWound Ltd. is dependent on a contract with the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (“BARDA”) to fund clinical trials and other development activities of NexoBrid in the U.S. and these contracts may be terminated by BARDA at any time.

•If any federal or state agency determines that we have promoted the off-label use of our products and/or we have violated anti-kickback or other anti-bribery laws, we may be subject to various penalties, including civil or criminal penalties, and the off-label use of our products may result in injuries that lead to product liability lawsuits, which could be costly to our business.

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

General Information

Vericel Corporation is a fully-integrated, commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company and is a leader in advanced therapies for sports medicine and severe burn care markets. We currently market two FDA-approved autologous cell therapy products in the U.S. MACI® (autologous cultured chondrocytes on porcine collagen membrane) is an autologous cellularized scaffold product indicated for the repair of symptomatic, single or multiple full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee with or without bone involvement in adults. Epicel® (cultured epidermal autografts) is a permanent skin replacement Humanitarian Use Device (“HUD”) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with deep-dermal or full-thickness burns comprising greater than or equal to 30 percent of total body surface area (“TBSA”). We also hold an exclusive license from MediWound Ltd. (“MediWound”) for North American rights to NexoBrid® (concentrate of proteolytic enzymes enriched in bromelain), a registration-stage biological orphan product for debridement of severe thermal burns. In 2020, MediWound submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) seeking the approval of NexoBrid for eschar removal (debridement) in adults with deep partial-thickness and/or full-thickness thermal burns. The FDA accepted the BLA for filing and assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) target date of June 29, 2021. Thereafter, on June 29, 2021, MediWound received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding the BLA, through which the FDA communicated to MediWound that it had completed its review of the BLA, as amended, and had determined that it could not approve the BLA in its present form. We continue to work with MediWound, BARDA and the FDA to address the issues identified by the FDA, to prepare and submit a BLA resubmission to the FDA, and to seek the potential approval of NexoBrid.

Our Strategy

Our objective is to become the leading developer in advanced therapies for the sports medicine and severe burn care markets. To achieve this objective, we intend to:

•Increase MACI revenue by increasing the number of surgeons implanting MACI and the average number of implants per surgeon, seek to expand the clinical indications for which the MACI procedure is approved, and optimizing the ease of use of the MACI procedure for surgeons;

•Increase Epicel revenue by expanding the number of burn centers and surgeons consistently using Epicel;

•Commercialize and market NexoBrid for burn patients requiring debridement, should the FDA approve the NexoBrid BLA; and

•Generate operating income by keeping the growth in commercial expense lower than the growth in revenue.

COVID-19

The ongoing pandemic caused by the spread of a novel strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) has created significant disruptions to the U.S. and global economy and has contributed to significant volatility in financial markets. The global impact of the pandemic has fluctuated since early 2020. At times, many state, local and national governments – including those in Massachusetts and Michigan, where our operations are located – have responded by issuing, extending and supplementing orders requiring quarantines, restrictions on travel, and the mandatory closure of certain non-essential businesses, among other actions. In the U.S., the status and application of these orders have varied on a state-by-state basis since the early days of the pandemic. Many of the restrictions have been periodically updated as infection rates in the U.S. have risen and fallen, as new virus variants have emerged, as vaccines have been distributed and administered, and as world health leaders learn more about the virus, its transmission pathway and who is most at risk. Because Vericel is deemed an essential business, we were exempted from government orders requiring the closure of workplaces and the cessation of business operations.

Notwithstanding being an essential business, our business and operations at times have been adversely impacted by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, as a result of periodic restrictions placed on the performance of elective surgical procedures, we experienced a significant increase in cancellations of scheduled MACI procedures, as well as a slowdown in new MACI orders during March and April of 2020. The widespread suspension of surgical procedures impacted our business and operations during the first and second quarters of 2020. The level and degree of restrictions on elective surgeries, on the ability of patients to seek treatment and on U.S. business operations generally fluctuated throughout 2020 as COVID-19 infection rates rose and fell during the summer months and into the autumn. By the first quarter of 2021, the pandemic’s effects on our MACI business had largely dissipated. During the summer of 2021, however, the pandemic’s direct

Table of Contents

and ancillary effects again began to cause some disruption to our MACI business. Following the cessation of COVID-19-related travel restrictions in many parts of the U.S. and the availability of vaccinations in May and June 2021, some MACI patients postponed or delayed treatment – opting instead to take vacation and/or travel. Further, surges of new COVID-19 cases during the second half of 2021 caused by the spread of the “Delta” and “Omicron” variants again caused disruptions to health care networks including restrictions on the performance of elective surgical procedures, the availability of physicians and/or their treatment prioritizations, the level of healthcare facility staffing and, in some instances, the willingness or ability of patients to seek treatment. Consequently, and notwithstanding the widespread distribution of vaccines, these factors contributed to a slowdown of MACI procedures during the third and fourth quarters of 2021. Although hospitals are now better prepared for subsequent surges in COVID-19 patients, the risk remains that regional or local restrictions could again be placed on the performance of elective surgical procedures if the number of COVID-19 infections in the U.S. were to rise, or if new or existing COVID-19 variants render current vaccine treatments ineffective or less effective.

Because Epicel is used almost exclusively in an emergent setting by burn centers and surgeons throughout the country, Epicel revenue and procedure volumes have been less affected by the pandemic. Nevertheless, large burns and burn admissions can be affected by restrictions on human activity resulting from more severe government lockdown orders.

At the outset of the pandemic, we put in place a comprehensive workplace protection plan, which instituted protective measures in response to COVID-19. Our workplace protection plan has closely followed guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and has complied with applicable federal and state law. To date, we have been successful in sustaining our operations and providing MACI and Epicel to patients in need. We continue to review our policies and procedures regularly, including our workplace protection plan, as the pandemic evolves and we may take additional actions to the extent required.

We continue to manufacture MACI and Epicel and we are maintaining a significant safety stock of all key raw materials. We do not expect current supply chain interruptions will impact our ongoing manufacturing operations. With respect to customer delivery, MACI final product has an established shelf life of six (6) days and an established shipping shelf life of three (3) days. Currently, MACI is picked up by courier and shipped by commercial air or ground transportation to customer surgical sites. Epicel final product has an established shelf life of 48 hours and is hand carried to customer hospitals by courier. Transportation is primarily by commercial or charter airline. Although we have not experienced material shipping delays or materially increased costs to date, significant disruption of air travel could result in the inability to deliver MACI or Epicel final products to customer sites within appropriate timeframes, which could further adversely impact our business. At this time, we are not aware of COVID-19 related impacts on our distributors, operations or third-party service providers’ ability to manage patient cases.

We believe it is possible that we could continue to experience variable impacts on our business, should the current resurgence of COVID-19 in various areas of the U.S. continue for an extended period, or should a new resurgence occur in the future. Measures taken to limit the impact of COVID-19 at the international, national and local levels, including the availability and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, shelter-in-place orders, social distancing measures, travel bans and restrictions, and business and government shutdowns, may again create significant negative economic impacts on a global basis. Given that uncertainty, we cannot reliably estimate the extent to which the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may continue to impact utilization and revenue of our products in 2022 and beyond.

For a discussion of additional risks associated with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, please see Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors”.

Product Portfolio

Our marketed products include two FDA-approved autologous cell therapies: MACI, a third-generation autologous cellularized scaffold product indicated for the repair of symptomatic, single or multiple full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee with or without bone involvement in adults, and Epicel, a permanent skin replacement for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with deep-dermal or full-thickness burns comprising greater than or equal to 30 percent of TBSA. Both products are currently marketed in the U.S. In addition, we have entered into exclusive license and supply agreements with MediWound to commercialize NexoBrid in North America, following potential regulatory approval. As previously mentioned, MediWound submitted a BLA to the FDA, seeking commercial approval of NexoBrid. On June 29, 2021, we announced that MediWound had received a complete response letter from the FDA in response to the BLA and that we are committed to working with both MediWound and the FDA to address the items raised by the agency and seek the potential approval of NexoBrid through a BLA resubmission.

Table of Contents

MACI

Background of Cartilage Defects

Damage to cartilage in the knee can occur from acute or repetitive trauma from playing sports, exercising, work-related physical demands, or performing everyday activities. When damaged, cartilage in the knee does not usually heal on its own. If left untreated, cartilage defects can progress and lead to degenerative joint disease, osteoarthritis and potentially require total knee replacement, which is a poor option for younger and more active patients.

For patients diagnosed with cartilage defects, there are several treatment options, including arthroscopic debridement/chondroplasty, marrow stimulation techniques such as microfracture (a minimally invasive procedure that can be performed arthroscopically), osteochondral autografts for smaller cartilage injuries, osteochondral allografts, and autologous chondrocyte implantation (“ACI”). Allogeneic tissue-derived products are also used to treat cartilage defects. These products, which are subject to human tissue regulation, include DeNovo® NT (marketed by Zimmer Holdings, Inc. (“Zimmer Biomet”)), Cartiform® (manufactured and distributed by Osiris (recently acquired by Smith & Nephew) and marketed by Arthrex) and Prochondrix® (marketed by Stryker). Products subject only to FDA human tissue regulations are not required to obtain a Biologics License prior to being marketed. Products, like MACI, which must meet the requirements for a BLA before being marketed, are required to demonstrate clinical efficacy equal or superior to a standard of care.

Carticel was the first FDA-approved autologous cartilage repair product for the repair of symptomatic cartilage defects and was indicated for the repair of symptomatic cartilage defects of the femoral condyle (medial, lateral or trochlea) caused by acute or repetitive trauma, in patients who have had an inadequate response to a prior arthroscopic or other surgical repair procedure such as debridement (the removal of damaged or defective cartilage), microfracture (the creation of tiny fractures in the bone to encourage new cartilage), drilling/abrasion arthroplasty, or osteochondral allograft/autograft. Carticel received a BLA approval in 1997, and was marketed in the U.S. until the second quarter of 2017. The FDA approved MACI on December 13, 2016.

MACI is an autologous cellular scaffold product consisting of autologous cultured chondrocytes seeded onto a resorbable Type I/III porcine-derived collagen membrane. Autologous cultured chondrocytes are human-derived cells which are obtained from a sample of the patient’s own cartilage for the manufacture of MACI.An orthopedic surgeon obtains the sample by taking a cartilage biopsy during an initial arthroscopic procedure. We isolate the patient’s chondrocytes (the cells that produce cartilage) from the biopsy and expand those cells in a manufacturing process compliant with current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”). The expanded cells are then uniformly seeded onto a resorbable collagen membrane using a proprietary process prior to shipment. After receipt by the surgeon, MACI is implanted into the cartilage defect(s). A key driver of ACI’s therapeutic advantage relative to other approaches, such as microfracture, is that autologous chondrocytes have the potential to produce the hyaline-like cartilage that is naturally present in the knee, rather than fibrous cartilage, which lacks the durability and wear characteristics of hyaline cartilage. Unlike Carticel, which was a cell suspension and required a membrane to be sutured in place to confine the cell suspension to the defect area, MACI is comprised of cells uniformly seeded on a collagen membrane resulting in a surgery that is simpler than that with Carticel. MACI may be implanted through a smaller incision or mini arthrotomy for focal defects. By using specialized instruments, MACI is simply trimmed by the surgeon to the size of the defect, allowing for a precise fit, and fixed to the bone with an off-the-shelf surgical fibrin sealant. MACI has expanded the ACI market since MACI shares the efficacy advantages of Carticel, while being less invasive, having a shorter procedure time, and eliminating the need for a periosteal harvest and suture fixation of the periosteal patch. In addition, MACI is indicated for a broader range of cartilage defects of the knee, ensures more uniform distribution of the cells in the cartilage defect, and is supported by Phase 3 clinical data demonstrating a statistically significant improvement in pain and function scores compared to microfracture.

The pivotal clinical trial supporting MACI registration in Europe and approval in the U.S., the Superiority of MACI Implant versus Microfracture Treatment in patients with symptomatic articular cartilage defects in the knee (“SUMMIT”) trial, was completed in 2012. Analysis of this 144 patient study demonstrated at Week 104 a statistically significant greater improvement in the co-primary endpoint of pain and function for those patients treated with MACI compared to microfracture.

MACI became commercially available in the European Union (the “EU”) in 2001 and in Australia in 2002, prior to promulgation of regulations requiring marketing authorizations for cell therapies in those markets. MACI received marketing authorization in Europe in June 2013, by meeting the requirements of the Advanced Therapy and Medicinal Product (“ATMP”) guidelines based on the results of the SUMMIT trial in which MACI was manufactured at, and supplied from, our Cambridge, Massachusetts site. We suspended the marketing of MACI in Europe in September 2014, primarily due to an unfavorable pricing environment. Lifting of the suspension would have required the registration of a new manufacturing facility in Europe

Table of Contents

prior to the five year renewal deadline of June 2018, which was not feasible. Consequently, the European manufacturing authorization for MACI expired by its terms at the end of June 2018. Australian operations and the commercialization of MACI in that country was discontinued prior to our acquisition of the product in 2014.

Market Opportunity for MACI

According to a 2018 external market study, approximately 750,000 patients undergo cartilage repair procedures of the knee annually in the U.S. Of these, approximately 315,000 patients are consistent with the current MACI label. Based on defect characteristics, doctors that have implanted MACI consider approximately 125,000 of these patients clinically appropriate for MACI. Approximately 60,000 of these eligible patients have larger lesions and are likely to secure insurance authorization for MACI.

In the U.S., the target audience of physicians that repair cartilage defects consists of approximately 5,000 orthopedic surgeons and is divided into two segments - a group of orthopedic surgeons who self-identify and/or have a formal specialty as sports medicine physicians, and a sub-population of general orthopedic surgeons who perform a high volume of cartilage repair procedures. Over the past 13 months, we have increased the number of MACI sales representatives to 76 Clinical Account Specialists and expanded their reach to over nine geographical regions to enable the sales force to call on 2,000 of the general orthopedic surgeons. Most private payers have a medical policy that covers treatment with MACI, with the top 30 largest commercial payers having a formal medical policy for MACI or ACI in general. Even for private payers that have not yet approved a medical policy for MACI, for medically appropriate cases, we often obtain approval on a case-by-case basis.

The effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the normal seasonality of our MACI business. These effects included, among others, the temporary limitation of elective surgical procedures throughout the country, staffing shortages throughout the healthcare industry, the inability of our Clinical Account Specialists to call on surgeon customers and temporary fluctuations in the number of patients seeking treatment for cartilage damage. In previous years, the volume of our MACI business has varied significantly by quarter due to several factors including insurance deductible limits and the time of year patients prefer to start rehabilitation. Over the last five years, ACI (MACI and Carticel prior to its replacement) sales volumes from the first through the fourth quarter have on average represented 19% (16%-21% range), 22% (16%-25% range), 23% (21%-26% range) and 36% (33%-38% range) respectively, of total annual volumes. The widespread effects of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the seasonality in 2021 and 2020.

Seasonal sales patterns and other variations related to our revenue recognition may cause significant fluctuations in our results of operations and cash flows. We expect to continue to experience this seasonality effect in subsequent years.

As discussed more fully above, MACI is currently implanted into the patient’s cartilage defect through an open surgical procedure. We are currently evaluating the potential for the arthroscopic delivery of MACI to the cartilage defect – a procedure in which a surgeon can evaluate, prepare and treat the defect under direct vision using specialized instruments delivered through a number of smaller incisions or portals. The arthroscopic delivery of MACI could increase the ease of MACI’s use for physicians and reduce both the length of the procedure and a patient’s post-operative pain and recovery. We are currently developing specialized instruments to be used in such a procedure and intend to discuss with regulators the clinical and regulatory requirements in connection with potential inclusion of arthroscopic delivery in MACI’s approved labeling. We also are evaluating the feasibility and potential market opportunity involved in delivering MACI treatment to patients suffering from cartilage damage in the ankle. We believe that this potential lifecycle enhancement and indication expansion for MACI will require the conduct of an additional randomized clinical trial concerning the product’s use for this indication and we intend to discuss this with FDA in due course.

Epicel

Epicel (cultured epidermal autografts) is a permanent skin replacement for deep-dermal or full-thickness burns greater than or equal to 30% of TBSA. The extent of the skin surface that the burn affects is usually referred to as a percent of TBSA. Epicel is currently the only FDA approved cultured epidermal autograft product available for large total surface area burns in both adult and pediatric patients.

Epicel is produced by isolating and expanding keratinocytes, which are the predominant cell type in the epidermis or outer layer of the skin, and which are originally obtained by taking of a small biopsy of a patient’s healthy skin. Epicel is an important treatment option for patients with severe burns because these patients are generally understood to need a keratinocyte-based epithelium, and because of the severity and extent of their burns, these patients generally have very little healthy skin remaining on their bodies from which to obtain keratinocyte-based epithelium for autografting.

Table of Contents

Epicel is a cell-based product that is regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) under medical device authorities. Epicel was designated as a HUD in 1998 and a Humanitarian Device Exemption (“HDE”) application for the product was submitted in 1999. HUDs are devices that are intended for diseases or conditions that affect not more than 8,000 individuals annually in the U.S. Under an HDE approval, a HUD cannot be sold for an amount that exceeds the cost of research and development, fabrication and distribution unless certain conditions are met. A HUD is eligible to be sold for profit after receiving HDE approval if the device meets certain eligibility criteria, including where the device is intended for the treatment of a disease or condition that occurs in pediatric patients and such device is labeled for use in pediatric patients.

On February 18, 2016, the FDA approved our HDE supplement to revise the labeled indications of use for Epicel to specifically include pediatric patients. The revised product label now specifies that the probable benefit of Epicel, mainly related to survival, was demonstrated in two Epicel clinical experience databases and a physician-sponsored study comparing outcomes in patients with massive burns treated with Epicel, relative to standard care. Because of the change in the label to specifically include use in pediatric patients, Epicel is no longer subject to the HDE profit restrictions. In conjunction with adding the pediatric labeling and meeting pediatric eligibility criteria, the FDA has determined the Annual Distribution Number, or ADN, for Epicel to be 360,400 which is approximately 30 times larger than the volume of grafts sold in 2021. Currently, over 100 patients are treated with Epicel in the U.S. each year.

Market Opportunity for Epicel

Each year in the U.S., more than 40,000 people are hospitalized for burns. Approximately 1,500 of these patients are treated for burns covering more than 30% of their TBSA, the labeled indication for Epicel. Currently, the mortality rate for this group is approximately 34%, partially due to the inability to quickly close wounds because of the lack of remaining healthy tissue from which to harvest autografts. Although age can vary, the typical Epicel patient is young and has suffered full-thickness burns due to a wide variety of occupational, household or auto accidents. Many of the most severely burned patients are medivac transported to one of the approximately 140 specialized burn centers across the U.S. While the average acute care hospital has less than 3 admissions for burns annually, these specialized burn centers average over 200 admissions per year.

Relative to clinical need, we believe Epicel has been underutilized by burn centers due to the lack of a consistent promotional effort prior to 2015. Since the acquisition of Epicel we have expanded our sales force from a single representative to thirteen sales and clinical personnel. We expect Epicel’s utility to continue to grow as commercial and medical efforts are appropriately dedicated to the product and the burn centers that use it to treat patients.

Due to the low incidence and sporadic nature of severe burns, Epicel revenue has inherent variability from quarter to quarter and does not exhibit significant seasonality. Over the past four years, a single quarter has ranged from as high as 37% to as low as 17% of annual volumes. Seasonal sales patterns and other variations related to our revenue recognition may cause significant fluctuations in our results of operations and cash flows.

NexoBrid

Our development portfolio also includes NexoBrid, a registration-stage, topically-administered biological product that enzymatically removes nonviable burn tissue, or eschar, in patients with deep partial and full-thickness thermal burns. We have entered into exclusive license and supply agreements with MediWound to commercialize NexoBrid and any improvements to the product in North America. On September 16, 2020, we announced the acceptance of MediWound’s submission of a BLA for review by the FDA to seek marketing approval for NexoBrid in the U.S. for the treatment of severe burns, and the FDA’s assignment of a PDUFA target date for the product of June 29, 2021. Subsequently, on June 29, 2021, we announced that MediWound had received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding the BLA, through which the FDA communicated to MediWound that it had completed its review of the BLA, as amended, and had determined that it could not approve the BLA in its present form. We continue to work with MediWound, BARDA and the FDA to address the issues identified in the agency’s complete response letter, to prepare and submit a BLA re-submission to the FDA and to seek the potential approval of NexoBrid.

NexoBrid is approved in the EU and other international markets and has been designated as an orphan biologic in the U.S., EU and other international markets. Pursuant to the terms of our existing license agreement, if the BLA is approved, MediWound will transfer the BLA to us and we will market NexoBrid in the U.S. Both MediWound and Vericel, under the supervision of a Central Steering Committee comprised of members of both companies, will continue to guide the development of NexoBrid in North America. Under our license agreement with MediWound, NexoBrid is being manufactured for BARDA prior to approval by the FDA under an emergency use authorization.

Table of Contents

Production

Cell Manufacturing and Cell Production Components

Our cell-manufacturing facility is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is used for the U.S. manufacturing and distribution of MACI and Epicel. The Cambridge facility also houses our research and development function, which is responsible for process development, release assay development, and technology transfers between sites and departments.

Research & Development

The bulk of our ongoing research and development activities are focused on exploring methods that improve our ability to efficiently manufacture high quality cell therapy products for patients. We have performed an in-depth analysis of the cell culture processes used in the manufacturing of Epicel and MACI and have identified several areas for potential improvement. Therefore, our research and development program is focused on the many facets of process development for all of our products including, but not limited to, tissue procurement and processing, cell culture surface and media modification, and other process efficiencies.

Patents and Proprietary Rights

Our success depends in part on our ability, and the ability of our future licensors, to obtain patent protection for our products and processes.

As part of the acquisition of the Cell Therapy and Regenerative Medicine (“CTRM”) business from Sanofi, we acquired a multinational intellectual property estate, which includes patents and patent applications directed to chondrocyte implants and technologies related to the determination of the presence of chondrocytes in the cell cultures used to produce the chondrocyte implants. Although we do not own any patents or patent applications relating to Epicel, many of the processes and techniques are trade secrets, and would be difficult to replicate without significant investment and time. We own issued patents directed to methods of determining the presence of chondrocytes in cell cultures used to produce both MACI and Carticel, which are scheduled to expire October 2029 in the U.S. and in April 2028 abroad. We have one issued patent in the U.S. directed to a device related to MACI that is set to expire in November 2033, and one issued patent in the EU set to expire in November 2034.

As a biologic, MACI is entitled to twelve years of data exclusivity until December 13, 2028, calculated from its date of approval. When these patents and data exclusivity expire, our opportunity to establish or maintain product revenue could be substantially reduced. In the future, we may also rely on certain licenses granted by third parties for certain patent rights, including for future product candidates, such as the license from MediWound for North American commercial rights to NexoBrid. We will need to comply with the terms of such agreements in order to maintain our rights to such patents.

Our efforts to secure our proprietary rights also include our reliance on trade secrets and know-how, which we seek to protect, in part, by confidentiality agreements. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, contractors, manufacturers, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific limited circumstances. We also require signed confidentiality or material transfer agreements from any company that is to receive our confidential information. In the case of employees, consultants and contractors, the agreements generally provide that all inventions conceived by the individual while rendering services to us shall be assigned to us as the exclusive property of Vericel.

See “Government Regulation - Product Approval” and “Risk Factors - Risks Related to Intellectual Property,”below, for additional information.

We also own a broadly filed trademark portfolio with registrations for MACI and Epicel.

Sales and Marketing

Both our marketed and development stage products are specialty products with focused physician and institutional call points. The MACI sales organization is comprised of approximately 76 Clinical Account Specialists in nine geographical regions. Those Clinical Account Specialists are managed by nine area sales directors and ultimately overseen by a National

Table of Contents

Sales Director. The current target audience is a concentrated (approximately 5,000) set of sports medicine and general orthopedic surgeons and their staffs.

Most private payers have a medical policy that covers treatment with MACI with the top 30 largest commercial payers having a formal medical policy for MACI or ACI in general. Even for private payers that have not yet approved a medical policy for MACI, for medically appropriate cases, we often obtain approval on a case-by-case basis.

We contract with two specialty pharmacies, Orsini Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (“Orsini”) and AllCare Plus Pharmacy, Inc. (“AllCare”) to distribute MACI in a manner in which we retain the credit and collection risk from the end customer. Pursuant to these agreements, both Orsini and AllCare act as non-exclusive specialty pharmacy providers of MACI, and we pay both specialty pharmacies a fee for each patient to whom MACI is dispensed. In addition, we sell MACI directly to DMS Pharmaceutical (“DMS”) for military patients treated at military treatment facilities, or direct to facilities based on contracted rates.

The field force supporting our burn care franchise is currently comprised of seven account managers and six burn clinical specialists who are led by a regional and a national sales director. There are approximately 140 specialized burn centers in the U.S., and a subset of these institutions regularly treat patients suffering from large TBSA burns. As a result, reaching target centers is feasible with a relatively small sales team. The burn sales team for Epicel has been increased to support the anticipated NexoBrid launch, following potential BLA approval by the FDA.

Government Regulation

Our research and development activities and the manufacturing and marketing of our products are subject to the laws and regulations of governmental authorities in the U.S. and other countries in which our products may be marketed. Specifically, in the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs, biologics and medical devices and requires new product approvals or clearances to assure safety and effectiveness of these products. Governments in other countries have similar requirements for testing and marketing. In the U.S., in addition to meeting FDA regulations, we are also subject to other federal laws, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Environmental Protection Act, as well as certain state laws.

Some human cell or tissue products that are intended for implantation, transplantation, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient are regulated solely as human cell, tissue, and cellular and tissue-based products (“HCT/Ps”) and do not require the FDA’s premarket review. If these cell or tissue products do not meet the FDA’s requirements for regulation solely as an HCT/P, they require FDA premarket review and marketing authorization. The types of marketing authorizations required for non HCT/P cell therapy products have evolved since cell therapy products were initially introduced. Epicel was approved by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, as an HDE medical device in 2007, but now is regulated by CBER under the same medical device regulations. MACI, approved in 2016, is regulated by CBER as a combination cell therapy/device product and required an approved BLA to be marketed in the U.S. NexoBrid, a product licensed in North America from MediWound, is currently in clinical development in North America. In the U.S., NexoBrid is regulated as a botanical protein biologic and requires an approved BLA to be marketed in the U.S. Commercial production of these products needs to occur in FDA-registered facilities in compliance with cGMP requirements for biologics.

Regulatory Process

The FDA regulates biologics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”) and the Public Health Service Act, and their implementing regulations. Obtaining approval of a BLA for a new biological product is a lengthy process, leading from the development of a new product through preclinical and clinical testing. This process takes several years and requires expenditure of significant resources. There can be no assurance that our current or future product candidates will ultimately receive approval.

The FFDCA and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern the research, testing, manufacture, safety, labeling, storage, record-keeping, approval, distribution, use, adverse event reporting, advertising and promotion of our products. Noncompliance with applicable requirements can result in civil penalties, recalls, injunctions or seizures of products, refusal of the government to approve our product approval applications or to allow us to enter into government supply contracts, withdrawal of previously approved applications and criminal prosecution.

Table of Contents

Product Approval

In order to obtain an FDA license for, or approval of, a new biological product, sponsors must submit proof of safety, purity and potency, or effectiveness. In most cases, such proof entails extensive nonclinical, also known as preclinical, studies in animal models and well-controlled clinical trials in human subjects. The testing, preparation of necessary applications and processing of those applications by the FDA is expensive, can take several years to complete and could have uncertain outcomes. The FDA regulatory review and approval process is complex and can result in requests for additional data, increased development costs, time to market delays, or preclude us from bringing to market new products. The FDA may also require post-marketing studies and risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (“REMS”) as conditions to approval. These requirements will add to the cost of regulatory compliance and the cost to sell our products, due to complex distribution and restricted commercial operations. Product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with applicable regulations is not maintained or if safety issues are identified during routine safety monitoring following commercialization.

Adequate and well-controlled clinical studies are required by the FDA for approval of a BLA. To conduct a clinical trial in the U.S., the study sponsor is required to submit an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application, including the study protocol, prior to commencing human clinical trials. The submission must be supported by data, typically including the results of nonclinical, manufacturing and laboratory testing. The conduct of the nonclinical tests must comply with Good Laboratory Practice, and applicable cGMP requirements. Long-term nonclinical testing, such as animal reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, is conducted if warranted, and its results are submitted in connection with the IND to support a future BLA. Following the initial submission of the IND, the FDA has 30 days to review the application and raise safety and other clinical trial issues. If questions or objections are not raised within that period, the clinical trial may commence according to the investigational protocol submitted to the FDA and following Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) approvals for each of the clinical sites where the study will be conducted. Protocol amendments need to be submitted and approved by the FDA prior to implementation. We have submitted an IND for MACI, and we conducted clinical investigations under that IND. Clinical studies can also be conducted outside of the U.S. with or without a U.S. IND. However, a clinical trial application (“CTA”) or IND is required to be submitted to the local competent regulatory authority to begin conducting human clinical trials. The CTA has similar data requirements to those of an IND.

MACI and NexoBrid are regulated by the FDA as biologics. For products that are regulated as biologics, the FDA requires: (i) nonclinical animal testing to establish a safety profile and/or a starting dose for initiation of clinical trials in humans; (ii) submission to the FDA of an IND application, which must become effective prior to the initiation of human clinical trials; (iii) adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency, or effectiveness of the product for its intended use; (iv) submission to the FDA of a BLA; and (v) review and approval of the BLA as well as pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facility by the FDA.

For purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may sometimes overlap:

•Phase 1—The biological product is initially tested for safety and tolerability. In the case of biological products and those for severe or life-threatening diseases, the initial human testing is generally conducted in healthy patients. These trials may also provide early evidence of effectiveness.

•Phase 2—These trials are conducted in a limited number of subjects in the target population to determine a safe and effective dosage to evaluate in Phase 3 and to identify possibly related adverse effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials.

•Phase 3—Phase 3 trials are undertaken to provide evidence of clinical efficacy and to further evaluate dosage, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population at multiple clinical trial sites. Phase 3 studies are performed after preliminary evidence suggesting effectiveness of the product has been obtained, and are intended to establish the overall benefit-risk relationship of the investigational product, and to provide an adequate basis for product approval and labeling.

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials may be required by the FDA as a condition of approval and are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. The FDA has express statutory authority to require post-market clinical trials to address safety issues. All of these trials must be conducted in

Table of Contents

accordance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements in order protect the health and safety of human subjects and for the data to be considered reliable for regulatory purposes.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the IND. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events; any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects; or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully or within any specified period, or at all. Regulatory authorities, a data safety monitoring board or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

A drug being studied in clinical trials may be made available to individual patients in certain circumstances. Pursuant to the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, which was signed into law in December 2016, the manufacturer of an investigational drug for a serious disease or condition is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for individual patient access to such investigational drug. This requirement applies on the later of 60 calendar days after the date of enactment of the Cures Act or the first initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial of the investigational drug.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with the use of biological products, the Public Health Service Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency, and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

After completion of the required clinical testing, a BLA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA review and approval of the BLA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the U.S. The BLA must include the results of all nonclinical, clinical, and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the quality and manufacture of the product, including, chemistry, manufacture, and controls, to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency, or efficacy, of the product based on these results. The cost of preparing and submitting a BLA is substantial. Under federal law, the submission of most BLAs is subject to an application user fee, as well as an annual prescription drug product program user fee, which may total several million dollars and are increased annually.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of a BLA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of BLAs, including to review 90 percent of standard BLAs within 10 months from the date the application is accepted for filing. Although the FDA often meets its user fee performance goals, the FDA can extend these timelines as warranted. The FDA usually refers applications for novel biologics, or biologics which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee-typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts-for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one, or more, clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the biologic is manufactured as part of a pre-approval inspection. The FDA will not approve the product unless it verifies that compliance with requirements for cGMP is satisfactory and the BLA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the biologic is safe, pure and potent, or effective, for the intended use.

Table of Contents

For certain products, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the Good Tissue Practices (“GTP”). These are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. To assure cGMP, GTP and GCP compliance, an applicant must expend significant time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.

After the FDA evaluates the BLA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter means that the BLA will not be approved in its present form and generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission. Complete responses may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The agency will review such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. The FDA’s approval is never guaranteed, and the FDA may refuse to approve a BLA if the regulatory requirements are not satisfied.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. The approval for a biologic may be significantly more limited than requested in the application, including limitations on the specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. The FDA may also require that certain contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, as a condition of BLA approval, the FDA may require a REMS to help ensure that the benefits of the biologic outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS or use of a companion diagnostic with a biologic can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the biologic. Moreover, product approval may require, as a condition of approval, substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the biologic’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Under current requirements, facilities manufacturing biological products for commercial distribution must be registered with the FDA. In addition to the preclinical studies and clinical trials, the BLA includes a description of the facilities, equipment and personnel involved in the manufacturing process. A biologics license, which is the product’s approval, is granted on the basis of inspections of the applicant’s facilities in which the primary focus is on compliance with cGMP and the ability to consistently manufacture the product in the facility in accordance with the BLA. If the FDA finds the results of the inspection unsatisfactory, it may decline to approve the BLA, resulting in a delay in production and commercialization of products.

Regulation of Combination Products in the U.S.

Certain products may be comprised of components that would normally be regulated under different types of regulatory authorities and frequently by different centers at the FDA. These products are known as combination products. Specifically, under regulations issued by the FDA, a combination product may be:

•A product comprised of two or more regulated components that are physically, chemically, or otherwise combined or mixed and produced as a single entity;

•Two or more separate products packaged together in a single package or as a unit and comprised of drug and device products, device and biological products, or biological and drug products;

•A drug, or device, or biological product packaged separately that according to its investigational plan or proposed labeling is intended for use only with an approved individually specified drug, or device, or biological product where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect and where upon approval of the proposed product the labeling of the approved product would need to be changed, e.g., to reflect a change in intended use, dosage form, strength, route of administration, or significant change in dose; or

•Any investigational drug, device, or biological product packaged separately that according to its proposed labeling is for use only with another individually specified investigational drug, device, or biological product where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect.

Table of Contents

Under the FFDCA, the FDA is charged with assigning a center with primary jurisdiction, or a lead center, for review of a combination product. That determination is based on the “primary mode of action” of the combination product. Thus, if the primary mode of action of a device-biologic combination product is attributable to the biologic product, the FDA center responsible for premarket review of the biologic product would have primary jurisdiction for the combination product. The FDA has also established an Office of Combination Products to address issues surrounding combination products and provide more certainty to the regulatory review process. That office serves as a focal point for combination product issues for agency reviewers and industry. It is also responsible for developing guidance and regulations to clarify the regulation of combination products, and for assignment of the FDA center that has primary jurisdiction for review of combination products where the jurisdiction is unclear or in dispute.

Accelerated Approval for Regenerative Advanced Therapies

As part of the Cures Act, Congress amended the FFDCA to create an accelerated approval pathway for regenerative advanced therapies, which include cell therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Regenerative advanced therapies do not include those human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products regulated solely under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and 21 CFR Part 1271. The new program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative advanced therapies, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A sponsor may request that the FDA designate a drug as a regenerative advanced therapy concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. The FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the drug meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A new drug application or BLA for a regenerative advanced therapy may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Therapies with a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (“RMAT”) designation will be eligible for accelerated approval through, as appropriate:

(i) Surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit; or

(ii) Reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites, as appropriate.

Another benefit of RMAT designation is that it creates the option to meet post-approval requirements beyond the standard, controlled clinical trial. Post-approval requirements can be met through:

•Clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real-world evidence, such as electronic health records;

•The collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or

•Post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy.

Finally, the designation also includes early interactions with the FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval.

Humanitarian Device Exemption

Unless an exemption applies, each medical device commercially distributed in the U.S. requires either a substantial equivalence determination under a premarket notification submission pursuant to Section 510(k) of the FFDCA, or an approval of a premarket approval application (“PMA”). The FDA provides an incentive for the development of certain devices intended to benefit patients by treating or diagnosing a disease or condition that affects or is manifested in not more than 8,000 individuals in the U.S. per year. These devices receive a HUD designation and may be eligible for marketing approval under an HDE application. An HDE application is a premarket approval application that seeks an exemption from the effectiveness requirement that would otherwise apply to the application. FDA approval of an HDE application authorizes the applicant to market the device.

To obtain approval for a HUD, an HDE application is submitted to the FDA. An HDE application is similar in both form and content to a PMA application in that the applicant must demonstrate a reasonable assurance of safety, but in an HDE application, the applicant seeks an exemption from the PMA requirement of demonstrating a reasonable assurance of effectiveness. An HDE application is not required to contain the results of scientifically valid clinical investigations

Table of Contents

demonstrating that the device is effective for its intended purpose. The application, however, must contain sufficient information for the FDA to determine that the device does not pose an unreasonable or significant risk of illness or injury, and that the probable benefit to health outweighs the risk of injury or illness from its use, taking into account the probable risks and benefits of currently available devices or alternative forms of treatment. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that no comparable devices are available to treat or diagnose the disease or condition, and that they could not otherwise bring the device to market.

Except in certain circumstances, HUDs approved under an HDE cannot be sold for an amount that exceeds the costs of research and development, fabrication, and distribution of the device (i.e., for profit). Under the current HDE provision, as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (the “FDASIA”), a device is eligible to be sold for profit after receiving HDE approval if the device is intended for the treatment or diagnosis of a disease or condition that occurs in pediatric patients or in a pediatric subpopulation, and such device is labeled for use in pediatric patients or in a pediatric subpopulation in which the disease or condition occurs; or is intended for the treatment or diagnosis of a disease or condition that does not occur in pediatric patients or that occurs in pediatric patients in such numbers that the development of the device for such patients is impossible, highly impracticable, or unsafe. If the FDA makes a determination that a HUD meets the eligibility criteria, the HUD is permitted to be sold for profit after receiving HDE approval as long as the number of devices distributed in any calendar year does not exceed the ADN for the device. The holder of the HDE must immediately notify the FDA if the number of devices distributed during a calendar year exceeds the ADN. The ADN is determined by the FDA when the agency approves the original HDE application; or when the agency approves an HDE supplement for an HDE approved before the enactment of FDASIA if the HDE holder seeks a determination for the HUD in an HDE supplement based upon the profit-making eligibility criteria, and the FDA determines that the HUD meets the eligibility criteria.

FDA Post-Approval Requirements

Maintaining substantial compliance with applicable federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products and devices continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP. We will rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to manufacture or supply certain components, equipment, disposable devices, testing and other materials used in our manufacturing process for any products that we commercialize or may commercialize. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. We cannot be certain that we or our present or future suppliers will be able to comply with the cGMP and other FDA regulatory requirements. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products include reporting of cGMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements, monitoring and reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, periodic reporting requirements and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. Similarly, there are a number of post-marketing requirements for devices, including medical device reporting regulations that require manufacturers to report to the FDA if a device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if it were to recur; and corrections and removal reporting regulations that require manufacturers to report to the FDA field corrections and product recalls or removals if undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FFDCA that may present a risk to health. Additionally, devices must comply with the cGMP requirements that are set forth in the FDA’s Quality System Regulation (QSR), including complaint handling and corrective and preventative actions.

After a BLA is approved, the biological product also may be subject to official lot release. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products. After approval of biologics, manufacturers must address any safety issues that arise, are subject to recalls or a halt in manufacturing, and are subject to periodic inspection after approval.

Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements, by us or our suppliers, may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, license revocation, withdrawal of an approval, clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective

Table of Contents

advertising or communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Biological product and medical device manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biological products and devices are required to register their facilities with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval, with certain exceptions.

Pediatric Research Equity Act

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), a BLA or BLA supplement claiming a new indication must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, for a new product, new indication or dosage form. The intent of PREA is to compel sponsors whose products have pediatric applicability to study those products in pediatric populations, rather than ignoring pediatric indications for adult indications that could be more economically desirable. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. By its terms, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted, unless the FDA issues regulations saying otherwise. Because the FDA has not issued any such regulations, submission of a pediatric assessment is not required for an application to market a product for an orphan-designated indication, and waivers are not needed at this time. However, if only one indication for a product has orphan designation, a pediatric assessment may still be required for any applications to market that same product for the non-orphan indication(s).

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration, and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our current or future product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Patent term restoration can compensate for time lost during product development and the regulatory review process by returning up to five years of patent life for a patent that covers a new product or its use. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The period of patent term restoration is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND (falling after issuance of the patent) and the submission date of a BLA, plus the time between the submission date of the BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The application for patent term extension is subject to approval by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, in consultation with the FDA.

A biological product can obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the U.S. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

Biosimilars

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or the Affordable Care Act, includes the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That Act created an approval pathway authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. Biosimilars are biological products which are “highly similar” to a previously approved biologic product or “reference product” and for which there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency as shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical study or studies. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biosimilar and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. A reference biologic is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product.

Table of Contents

Advertising and Promotion

The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of biologics and devices including regulating through standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising and promotional activities involving the internet. The agency also prohibits the off-label promotion of biologics and devices, and provides guidance on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities to ensure that these activities are not promotional. Any claims we make for our products in advertising or promotion must be appropriately balanced with important safety information and otherwise adequately substantiated. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity and significant penalties, including the issuance of untitled or warning letters directing a company to correct deviations from FDA standards, corrective advertising, a requirement that future advertising and promotional materials be pre-cleared by the FDA, injunctions, and federal and state civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions.

While doctors are free to prescribe any product approved by the FDA for use, a company can only make claims relating to safety and effectiveness of a biological product or device that are consistent with the FDA approval or clearance, and the company is allowed to actively market and promote a biological product or device only for the particular use and treatment approved or cleared by the FDA. For BLAs, changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented. A BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing BLA supplements as it does in reviewing BLAs. Similarly, changes to approved or cleared devices may require FDA’s premarket review.

Orphan Drug

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to drugs or biologics intended to treat a rare disease or condition, generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or affects more than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the U.S. for such disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the U.S. of such drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested to and granted by the FDA before submitting a BLA. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application user fee.After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the biologic and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not necessarily convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The first BLA applicant to receive FDA approval for a particular product to treat a particular disease with FDA orphan drug designation is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the U.S. for that product, for that indication. During the seven-year exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan product to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the biologic was designated. Orphan drug exclusivity, which would most likely run concurrently with the exclusivity, if any, received from the time of first licensure of a reference product, does not prevent the FDA from approving a different biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same biologic for a different disease or condition.

Other Healthcare Laws

In the U.S., the research, manufacturing, distribution, sale and promotion of biological products and devices are subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the U.S. Department of Justice, state Attorneys General, and other federal, state and local government agencies. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the FFDCA, Anti-Kickback Statute, as amended, the False Claims Act, as amended, the privacy regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, and similar state laws. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. All of these activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

As noted above, in the U.S., we are subject to complex laws and regulations pertaining to healthcare “fraud and abuse,” including, but not limited to, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, and other state and federal laws

Table of Contents

and regulations. The Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a biological product manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf) to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase or order of an item for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, many states have adopted laws similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any insurer, not just federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Due to the breadth of these federal and state anti-kickback laws and the potential for additional legal or regulatory change in this area, it is possible that our sales and marketing practices and/or our relationships with physicians might be challenged under anti-kickback laws, which could harm us. Because we commercialize products that could be reimbursed under a federal healthcare program and other governmental healthcare programs, we have developed and maintained a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal controls to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to which we are subject.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including biological products, that are false or fraudulent. Although we would not submit claims directly to payers, manufacturers can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. In addition, our activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state, and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products, are subject to scrutiny under this law. For example, pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under the federal False Claims Act in connection with their off-label promotion of drugs. Penalties for a False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties of between $11,803 and $23,607 for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. If the government were to allege that we were, or convict us of, violating these false claims laws, we could be subject to a substantial fine and may suffer a decline in our stock price. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions under the federal False Claims Act and certain states have enacted laws modeled after the federal False Claims Act.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit a person from knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters; similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, which impose requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities, that perform services for them that involve the creation, maintenance, receipt, use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, there may be additional federal, state and non-U.S. laws which govern the privacy and security of health and other personal information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

There are also an increasing number of state laws that require manufacturers to make reports to states on pricing and marketing information. Many of these laws contain ambiguities as to what is required to comply with the laws. In addition, a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, referred to as the Sunshine Act, requires biological product manufacturers to track and report to the federal government certain payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals in the previous calendar year. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and

Table of Contents

anesthesiologist assistants, and certified-nurse midwives). These laws may affect our sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us. In addition, given the lack of clarity with respect to these laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent state and federal authorities.

International Regulation

In addition to regulations in the U.S., a variety of foreign regulations govern clinical trials, commercial sales, and distribution of product candidates. The marketing authorization approval process and requirements vary from country to country, and the review timelines may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

EU pharmaceutical legislation requires Marketing Authorization Holders (“MAH”) in the EU to comply with the Pediatric Investigational Plan (“PIP”) that is in place as a post-authorization commitment agreed with the Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”) within the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) to undergo an initial license renewal procedure within five years after initial market authorization. In the case of MACI which has a suspended license due to a European manufacturing facility closure, this would require the registration, qualification and approval of an EU compliant cGMP manufacturing facility before the end of the applicable renewal period in June 2018. However, we did not take such actions prior to expiration, and therefore the EU marketing authorization for MACI expired in June 2018.

Pharmaceutical Coverage and Reimbursement

In the U.S. and other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payers, including government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers, and other organizations. Third-party payers are increasingly examining the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of medical products and services in addition to safety and efficacy and, accordingly, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Factors that payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is (i) a covered benefit under its health plan; (ii) safe, effective and medically necessary; (iii) appropriate for the specific patient; (iv) cost-effective; and (v) neither experimental nor investigational. Third-party reimbursement adequate to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in research and product development may not be available for our products. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

Healthcare Reform

In both the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system. Among policy makers and payors in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. In particular, in 2010, the ACA was enacted, which, among other things, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs, and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative efforts to expand, repeal, replace or modify the ACA, some of which have been successful, in part, in modifying the law, as well as court challenges to the constitutionality of the law. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration or other efforts, if any, to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA will impact our business.

Table of Contents

Prior to the Biden administration, on October 13, 2017, former President Trump signed an Executive Order terminating the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. The former Trump administration concluded that cost-sharing reduction, or CSR, payments to insurance companies required under the ACA have not received necessary appropriations from Congress and announced that it will discontinue these payments immediately until those appropriations are made. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. On August 14, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in two separate cases that the federal government is liable for the full amount of unpaid CSRs for the years preceding and including 2017. For CSR claims made by health insurance companies for years 2018 and later, further litigation will be required to determine the amounts due, if any. Further, on June 14, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments to third-party payors who argued the payments were owed to them. On April 27, 2020, the United States Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, concluding the government has an obligation to pay these risk corridor payments under the relevant formula. It is unclear what impact these rulings will have on our business.

In addition, other legislative and regulatory changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted:

•On August 2, 2011, the U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included 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 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the temporary suspension, a 1% payment reduction will occur beginning April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, and the 2% payment reduction will resume on July 1, 2022.

•On January 2, 2013, the U.S. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers.

•On April 13, 2017, CMS published a final rule that gives states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces.

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

•On May 23, 2019, CMS published a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020.

•On December 20, 2019, former President Trump signed into law the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1865), which repealed the Cadillac tax, the health insurance provider tax, and the medical device excise tax. It is impossible to determine whether similar taxes could be instated in the future.

There has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. At a federal level, President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration’s policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drug and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and, by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the Executive Order also directs HHS to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the Federal government pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry; and directs the FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by states under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. Further, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates would have been be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price

Table of Contents

drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. However, on December 29, 2021 CMS rescinded the Most Favored Nations rule. Additionally, on November 30, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

There have been several changes to the 340B drug pricing program, which imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. On December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change under the 340B drug pricing program, and CMS subsequently altered the FYs 2019 and 2018 reimbursement formula on specified covered outpatient drugs (“SCODs”). The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” which was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation. However, most recently, on July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and found that the changes were within the Secretary’s authority. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (i.e., before the full court), but was denied on October 16, 2020. Plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court on February 10, 2021. On Friday July 2, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the petition. It is unclear how these developments could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our future products and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products in the future, if any.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Competitive Environment for Cartilage Repair and Burn Treatment

The biotechnology and medical device industries are characterized by rapidly evolving technology and intense competition. Our competitors include major multinational medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies (those that process and distribute human tissue as well as human tissue-derived products or tissue banks), and stem cell companies operating in the fields of tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, orthopedics and neural medicine. Many of these companies are well-established and possess technical, research and development, financial, and sales and marketing resources significantly greater than ours. In addition, many of our smaller potential competitors have formed strategic collaborations, partnerships and other types of joint ventures with larger, well-established industry competitors that afford these companies potential research and development and commercialization advantages in the technology and therapeutic areas currently being pursued by us. Academic institutions, governmental agencies and other public and private research organizations are also conducting and financing research activities which may produce products directly competitive to those being commercialized by us. Moreover, many of these competitors may be able to obtain patent protection, obtain FDA and other regulatory approvals and begin commercial sales of their products before us.

For patients diagnosed with cartilage defects, there are several treatment options, including arthroscopic debridement/chondroplasty, marrow stimulation techniques such as microfracture, osteochondral autografts or allograft derived tissue products for smaller cartilage injuries, osteochondral allografts, and autologous chondrocyte implants (e.g., MACI) for larger injuries.

The main competing treatments for MACI in the U.S. are microfracture and osteochondral allograft. Microfracture, a minimally invasive procedure that can be performed during the initial arthroscopic procedure, involves creating small fractures in the underlying bone allowing bone marrow to enter the defect. This treatment eventually forms a weaker form of cartilage which can offer shorter term relief but is at high risk of breaking down in larger defects. This treatment is sometimes augmented with allograft derived products such as Cartiform® (manufactured and distributed by Osiris (recently acquired by Smith & Nephew) and marketed by Arthrex) and Prochondrix® (marketed by Stryker). Other competitive treatments in the U.S. include a juvenile donor-derived allograft product, DeNovo® NT, marketed by Zimmer Biomet. The osteochondral allograft procedure involves the transplant of a bone and cartilage graft from a deceased donor. The donor tissue is processed by a number of tissue

Table of Contents

banks and distributed by several companies. There are multiple other cartilage repair technologies currently being studied in clinical and preclinical studies. Hyalofast® is a biodegradable hyaluronic acid-based scaffold used in conjunction with autologous concentrated bone marrow aspirate being developed by Anika Therapeutics, Inc. It is currently being studied in a Phase 3 trial that was initiated in 2015. Agili-C® is a non-cellular biphasic implant derived from aragonite coral which is implanted into the subchondral bone and is being developed by CartiHeal, Inc. It has undergone a Phase 3 trial that initiated in 2018 and has met its primary endpoint. CartiHeal has announced plans to submit a PMA to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (“CDRH”) in late 2021 or early 2022 to seek medical device approval for Agili-C.

MACI is the only FDA-approved ACI product on the market in the U.S. We are aware of one other ACI product in development in the U.S. for the treatment of articular cartilage defects of the knee. In 2014, Aesculap Biologics, LLC initiated a Phase 3 trial of NOVOCART® 3D, a biologic-device combination product comprised of autologous chondrocytes seeded on a collagen scaffold. The trial is still enrolling patients.

Patients who are severely burned over a substantial portion of their TBSA have few options for permanent skin coverage. When undamaged skin is available, a procedure known as meshed split-thickness auto-grafting can be considered. However, this option becomes less viable as the percentage of TBSA burn increases. Epicel is a potentially lifesaving therapy and represents the only FDA-approved option for patients with TBSA burns greater than 30%. In September 2018, the FDA-approved Avita Medical’s RECELL® System in for use in partial thickness burns and in full-thickness burns in conjunction with meshed split-thickness auto-graft. The RECELLsystem is a device which enables the on-site preparation of an autologous epithelial cell suspension. One RECELL kit can treat an approximately 10% TBSA wound.

In the general area of cell-based therapies, we potentially compete with a variety of companies, most of whom are specialty medical technology/device or biotechnology companies. Some of these, such as Arthrex and Zimmer, are well-established and have substantial technical and financial resources compared to ours. However, as cell-based products are only just emerging as viable medical therapies, many of our potential competitors are smaller biotechnology and specialty medical products companies.

Environmental Matters

We are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, human health and safety in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions in which we operate. If we violate these laws and regulations, we could be fined, criminally charged or otherwise sanctioned by regulators. Environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have become more stringent over time. We believe that our operations currently comply in all material respects with applicable environmental laws and regulations.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2021, we employed approximately 281 full-time employees. A significant number of our management and professional employees have had prior experience with pharmaceutical, biotechnology or medical product companies. None of our employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements, and management considers relations with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing, and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purposes of our equity and cash incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

We are committed to the health and safety of our employees, patients and other partners in the healthcare community. We work to promote an environment of awareness and shared responsibility for safety and regulatory compliance throughout our organization, in order to minimize risks of injury, exposure, or business impact.

With respect to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we implement and oversee appropriate safety protocols, procedures and training, which align with applicable CDC guidance and state and local rules and regulations in order to minimize the spread of COVID-19 in our teams and communities. We continue to have flexible work arrangements for our employees and contractors and avoid non-essential work-related travel when possible.

Table of Contents

We appreciate one another’s differences and strengths and are proud to be an Equal Opportunity Employer. We value diversity of backgrounds and perspectives and our policy is that we do not discriminate based on race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, military and veteran status, sexual orientation or any other protected characteristic as established by federal, state or local laws.

Available Information

Additional information about Vericel is included on our website, www.vcel.com. Information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report. We make available on our website free of charge our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K as soon as reasonably practicable after those reports are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Our reports filed with the SEC are also made available on its website at www.sec.gov. The following Corporate Governance documents are also posted on the Investor Relations section of our website: Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers, Insider Trading Policy, Special Trading Procedures for Insiders, Board Member Attendance at Annual Meetings Policy, Director Nominations Policy, Shareholder Communications with Directors Policy and the Charters for each of the Committees of the Board of Directors.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Our operations and financial results are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including those described below, that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and trading price of our common stock. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. There may be additional risks and uncertainties that are not known to us or that we do not consider to be material at this time. If the events described in these risks occur, our business, financial condition, and results of operations would likely suffer. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and the risks of our businesses described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‐K.

Risks Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The current and ongoing pandemic of COVID-19 and the future outbreak of other highly infectious or contagious diseases, could seriously harm our research, development and commercialization efforts, increase our costs and expenses and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Broad-based business or economic disruptions could adversely affect our ongoing or planned research, development and commercialization activities. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has created significant disruptions to the U.S. and global economy and has contributed, at times, to significant volatility in financial markets. The global impact of the pandemic has fluctuated since early 2020. At times, many state, local and national governments – including those in Massachusetts and Michigan, where our operations are located – have responded by issuing, extending and supplementing orders requiring quarantines, restrictions on travel, and the mandatory closure of certain non-essential businesses, among other actions. In the U.S., the status and application of these orders have varied on a state-by-state basis since the early days of the pandemic. Many of the restrictions have been periodically updated as infection rates in the U.S. have risen and fallen, as new virus variants have emerged, as vaccines have been distributed and administered, and as world health leaders learn more about the virus, its transmission pathway and who is most at risk. Because Vericel is deemed an essential business, we have been exempted from government orders requiring the closure of workplaces and the cessation of business operations as they have existed from time-to-time during the pandemic.

Even though widespread distribution of vaccines designed to protect against COVID-19 infection began in the U.S. and other countries throughout the world in early 2021, the pandemic remains unpredictable, and the number of COVID-19 infections has fluctuated significantly in various geographies during 2020 and throughout 2021 and could continue to do so, particularly in light of emerging variant strains. As such, some state and local governments have re-instituted restrictions on businesses, travel, and personal activities from time-to-time and additional such measures may occur in the future as the pandemic evolves.

At the outset of the pandemic, we put in place a comprehensive workplace protection plan, which instituted protective measures in response to COVID-19. At all times, our workplace protection plan has closely followed guidance issued by the CDC and has complied with applicable federal and state law. We have continued to regularly review our policies and procedures as the pandemic has evolved and will continue to do so – balancing the need to protect our workforce, customers

Table of Contents

and partners from COVID-19 infection with the need to continue optimal business operations and the delivery of MACI and Epicel to the patients we serve. Future actions that we take may result in disruption to our business.

The extent to which the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, or the future outbreak of any other highly infectious or contagious disease, impacts our preclinical studies, clinical trial operations and current or future commercialization efforts will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the scope, severity and duration of such pandemic, the actions taken to contain the pandemic or mitigate its impact, and the direct and indirect economic effects of the pandemic and containment measures, among others. The rapid development and uncertainty of this situation precludes any prediction as to the full adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic has and could continue to adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and it may have the effect of heightening many of the risks described herein, including the below.

•Hospitals, health systems and surgeons minimized, postponed, or canceled electively scheduled surgeries during the initial wave of the pandemic in the spring of 2020. These actions were followed by numerous state-level executive orders either restricting or partially restricting elective surgeries. Because MACI is an elective surgical procedure, as a result of these restrictions we experienced a significant increase in cancellations of scheduled MACI procedures as well as a slowdown in new MACI orders during March and April of 2020, which negatively impacted our business and results of operations during the first and second quarters of 2020. The level and degree of restriction on elective surgeries, on the ability of patients to seek treatment and on U.S. business operations generally fluctuated throughout 2020 as COVID-19 infection rates rose and fell during the summer months and into the autumn. By the first quarter of 2021, the pandemic’s effects on our MACI business had largely dissipated. During the summer of 2021, however, some patients postponed or delayed treatment with MACI in order to take vacation and/or travel following the lifting of COVID-19-related restrictions that had been in place in many parts of the country for more than a year. Additionally, the surge of new COVID-19 infections seen throughout the U.S. during the second half of 2021, resulting from the spread of the “Delta” and “Omicron” variants again caused disruptions to health care networks, the postponement or cessation of elective surgical procedures, like MACI, and overall patient behavior. These effects were compounded by staffing shortages at many healthcare facilities across the U.S. during the same period. Consequently, and notwithstanding the widespread distribution of vaccines in the U.S., these factors contributed to a slowdown of MACI procedures during the third and fourth quarters of 2021. The risk remains that regional or local restrictions could again be placed on the performance of elective surgical procedures if the number of COVID-19 infections in the U.S. were to continue to rise, or if new or existing COVID-19 variants render current vaccine treatments ineffective. We believe our MACI business will be negatively impacted if elective surgical procedures are again materially restricted. Further, renewed and material disruption to the operations of our employees, distributors, suppliers or customers will impact our sales and operating results and could lead to potential impairments to inventory and accounts receivable. Although Epicel has been less directly impacted by the pandemic given the critical nature of severe burn injuries, it is difficult to ascertain the current or future impact of COVID-19 on the treatment of severe burns.

•We continue to manufacture MACI and Epicel and we maintain a significant safety back-up of all key raw materials. We do not currently expect that supply chain interruptions will impact our ongoing manufacturing operations. However, we currently rely on both domestic and international third parties to, among other things, manufacture and supply raw materials, which are used to produce our products, and supply other goods and services to run our business. If any such third parties in our supply chain are adversely impacted by current or future restrictions or executive orders resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for an extended period of time, including staffing shortages, production slowdowns, disruptions in delivery systems, or federal, state or foreign orders requiring the diversion of key supplies for use in the production or manufacturing of vaccines designed to inoculate individuals against COVID-19, our supply chain may be disrupted, limiting our ability to manufacture our products and product candidates and conduct our research and development operations, or commercially launch any of our product candidates, if approved. With respect to customer delivery, MACI final product has an established shelf life of six (6) days and established shipping shelf life of three (3) days. Currently, MACI is picked-up by courier and shipped by commercial air or ground transportation to our customers’ locations. Epicel final product has an established shelf life of 24 hours and is hand carried to customer hospital sites by courier. Transportation is primarily by commercial or charter airline. Although we have not experienced material shipping delays or increased costs to date, significant disruption of air travel in the future could result in the inability to deliver MACI or Epicel final products to customer sites within appropriate timeframes, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Table of Contents

•The documented and ongoing world-wide supply chain disruptions may adversely impact our ability or the ability of others, including hospitals, to utilize MACI or Epicel.

•As public health data warranted, at various times during the pandemic we restricted on-site staff in our facilities to only those personnel and contractors who are required to perform essential activities related to the manufacture, production and delivery of our products. During these periods, we encouraged the majority of our remaining employees to work remotely. To date, we have been successful in sustaining our operations and providing MACI and Epicel to patients in need. We continue to review our policies and procedures regularly, including our workplace protection plan, as the pandemic evolves and we may take additional actions to the extent required. We expect that some of our employees will continue to work remotely from time to time. A resurgence of COVID-19, COVID-19 variants, or similar infectious diseases in the U.S., however, may lead to future government-imposed quarantines and restrictions, which may result in the closure of our administrative offices, with our employees working outside of our offices for an extended period of time. These actions may also result in the disruption of our manufacturing operations, which are currently accomplished within our administrative offices. Additionally, such quarantines and restrictions may adversely affect our ability to conduct certain product enhancement and business development activities.

•Our partial reliance on certain personnel working from home may also increase our cyber security risk, create data accessibility concerns, and make us more susceptible to communication disruptions, any of which could adversely impact our business operations or delay necessary interactions with local and federal regulators, institutional review boards and ethics committees, third-party contractors and suppliers, clinical trial sites and other important agencies and contractors. Our business operations may be further disrupted if any of our employees, officers or directors contract an illness related to COVID-19 and are unable to perform their duties. For example, COVID-19 illness could impact members of management or our board of directors resulting in absenteeism from management meetings or meetings of the directors or committees of directors, and making it more difficult for management to effectively oversee our daily operations, or to convene the quorums of the full board of directors or its committees needed to conduct meetings for the management of our affairs. A resurgence of COVID-19 or COVID-19 variants may cause our employees, and employees of third-party contractors and licensees, including MediWound, responsible for conducting research and development activities to be unable to access laboratories and places of business for an extended period of time as a result of the temporary closure of such workspaces. As a result, this could delay timely completion of ongoing clinical trials or preclinical activities, and our ability to select future development candidates.

•NexoBrid is currently a pre-commercial product in North America. On June 29, 2021, we announced that MediWound had received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding the BLA and the agency communicated to MediWound that it had completed its review of the BLA, as amended, and had determined that it cannot approve the BLA in its present form.We announced further that we are working with MediWound and the FDA to address the issues identified by the FDA to seek potential approval of NexoBrid. Health regulatory agencies, including the FDA, have experienced and may continue to experience disruptions in their operations as a result of the continued spread or resurgence of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic may impact the FDA’s response times to regulatory submissions, like a BLA resubmission in response to the complete response letter, and its ability to monitor our clinical trials. Additionally, in many instances across the industry, the FDA has postponed, or has been unable to conduct certain inspections of domestic and international manufacturing facilities in connection with its regulatory review of product applications as a result of travel and other restrictions caused by the pandemic. As part of its review of the BLA, and any BLA resubmission, the FDA has communicated to MediWound that physical cGMP inspections of manufacturing facilities in Israel and Taiwan are required before the BLA can be approved, as the FDA must assess the ability of those facilities to conduct certain manufacturing operations in compliance with cGMP. The FDA indicated that because of restrictions on travel caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency was unable to conduct the required inspections of those facilities during the original BLA review cycle. Should continued restrictions prevent or delay the FDA in conducting necessary reviews or physical inspections of the manufacturing facilities involved in the production of NexoBrid, or should other events impact the FDA’s response times, the timeline for approval of NexoBrid could be materially and further delayed, which could materially affect the development, study and ultimate commercialization of the product.

•The trading prices of our common stock and that of other biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, we may face difficulties raising capital through sales of our common stock or such sales may be on unfavorable terms. In addition, a recession, depression or other sustained adverse market event resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could materially and adversely affect our business and the value of our common stock.

Table of Contents

•The negative economic effects of the pandemic have, at times, caused increased unemployment in the U.S. resulting in many individuals losing their employer-based insurance coverage. The continued or future unemployment of our potential patients may adversely affect our ability to commercialize our products. In addition, market disruption or rising unemployment caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or a variant strain thereof may lead to delays in obtaining insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products as well as an increase in the numbers of uninsured patients and patients who may no longer be able to afford their co-insurance or co-pay obligations. These factors may lead to decreased utilization of our products, which could reduce revenue. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may also negatively impact our commercialization strategy for our products and product candidates, if approved. At times during the pandemic, hospitals and other medical institutions have reduced and diverted staffing, diverted resources to patients suffering from COVID-19 and limited hospital access for non-patients, which has included our sales personnel. Hospitals may continue or increase these and similar measures in the future should the COVID-19 virus and any future variants continue to spread or surge in certain areas. In addition, COVID-19 levels in the U.S. and/or specific regions of the U.S. may cause customers or patients to postpone or cancel previously scheduled surgeries or to decline to schedule surgeries utilizing our products, which would negatively impact our operations and financial results. Although many face-to-face interactions have resumed, our sales personnel, at times, have conducted, and may continue to have to conduct, many of their interactions with physicians and patients through the use of webinars, telemedicine, direct-to-consumer advertising and social media. These circumstances may adversely affect the ability of our sales professionals to effectively market our products to physicians in the future, which may have a negative impact on our potential sales and our market penetration.

If any of these risks related to the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic were to occur, our preclinical activities, clinical development progress, data and timelines, commercialization efforts including any potential revenue from sales, supply chain continuity, and general business operations could be delayed and/or materially harmed and our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations would suffer as a result. The extent to which the current pandemic, or a future pandemic, impacts our business and operations will depend on future developments, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, the duration of the outbreak, travel restrictions and governmental actions to contain the outbreak or treat its impact, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence.

Risks Related to Our Operations

We may experience significant quarterly and annual fluctuations in our results of operations due to a number of factors.

Our quarterly and annual results of operations may fluctuate significantly due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. This variability may lead to volatility in our stock price as investors and research analysts respond to quarterly fluctuations. In addition, comparing our results of operations on a period-to-period basis, particularly on a sequential quarterly basis, may not be meaningful. You should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance.

Factors that may affect our results of operations include:

•the timing of new orders and revenue recognition for new and prior year orders;

•seasonal buying patterns of our customers;

•volatility in the sales of our products;

•volume of revenues;

•competitive developments;

•changes in third-party coverage and reimbursement for our products;

•our ability to supply and meet customer demand for our products;

•our ability to increase sales to our existing customers, particularly larger customers;

•our ability to attract new customers;

•our ability to develop and achieve market adoption of our products;

•the impact of a recession or any other adverse global economic conditions on our business;

•the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, or the future outbreak of another highly infectious or contagious disease;

•erosion in margins or significant fluctuations in revenues caused by changing customer demand;

•the timing and cost of hiring personnel and of large expenses such as third-party professional services;

•stock-based compensation expenses, which vary along with changes to our stock price;

•supply chain disruptions or constraints;

•fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; and

•future accounting pronouncements or changes in accounting rules or our accounting policies.

Table of Contents

The foregoing factors are difficult to forecast, and these, as well as other factors, could materially adversely affect our quarterly and annual results of operations. There can be no assurance that the level of revenues and profits, if any, achieved by us in any particular fiscal period, will not be significantly lower than in other comparable fiscal periods. For example, the rate at which MACI biopsies convert to implants has generally been consistent since the product was first commercially launched in 2017, although the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic effected this conversion rate at times during 2021. We cannot be certain that this rate will remain constant in the future, and if this rate were to decline, our revenue growth could be negatively impacted. In addition, our expense levels are based, in part, on our expectations as to future revenues.As a result, if future revenues are below expectations, net income or loss may be disproportionately affected by a reduction in revenues, as any corresponding reduction in expenses may not be proportionate to the reduction in revenues.If we fail to achieve our quarterly forecasts, if our forecasts fall below the expectations of investors or research analysts, or if our actual results fail to meet the expectations of investors or research analysts, our stock price may decline.

Seasonal sales patterns and other variations related to our revenue recognition may cause significant fluctuations in our results of operations and cash flows and may prevent us from achieving our quarterly or annual forecasts, which may cause our stock price to decline.

Historically, and specifically prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have had significant seasonal patterns in product orders with the highest volume occurring in the fourth quarter and the lowest volume occurring in the first quarter. As a result, a significantly higher percentage of our annual revenues have historically been recognized in the fourth quarter and the lowest percentage of annual revenues in the first quarter of a given calendar year. This is due to a number of factors, including insurance deductible limits and the time of year during which patients prefer to start rehabilitation. We expect to continue to experience this seasonality of our business in subsequent years after the COVID-19 pandemic and its related implications have ended.

Our quarterly growth in revenues also may not align with new orders that we receive in a given quarter, which could mask the impact of seasonal variations. This mismatch can be due to the timing of revenue recognition.

Seasonal and other variations related to our revenue recognition may cause significant fluctuations in our results of operations and cash flows, may make it challenging for an investor to predict our performance on a quarterly basis and may prevent us from achieving our quarterly or annual forecasts or meeting or exceeding the expectations of research analysts or investors, which in turn may cause our stock price to decline.

Our operating results will be harmed if we are unable to effectively manage and sustain our future growth or scale our operations.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our future growth efficiently or profitably. Our business remains unproven at a large-scale operational level and actual revenue and operating margins, or revenue and margin growth, may be less than expected. If we are unable to scale our production capabilities efficiently or maintain pricing without significant discounting, we may fail to achieve expected operating margins, which would have a material and adverse effect on our operating results. For example, we are planning to move to a larger facility to support our potential growth, but if the construction and customization of such facility is delayed, we may be limited in our ability to meet future demand for our products. Growth may also stress our ability to adequately manage our operations, quality of products, safety and regulatory compliance. If growth significantly decreases it will negatively impact our cash reserves, and we may be required to obtain additional financing, which may increase indebtedness or result in dilution to shareholders. Further, there can be no assurance that we would be able to obtain additional financing on acceptable terms, if at all.

If we do not manage inventory in an effective and efficient manner, it could adversely affect our results of operations.

Many factors affect the efficient use and planning of inventory of certain components and other materials used in our cell manufacturing process to manufacture our marketed products, such as effectiveness of predicting demand, effectiveness of preparing manufacturing to meet demand, efficiently meeting product demand requirements and expiration of materials in inventory. We may be unable to manage our inventory efficiently, keep inventory within expected budget goals, keep inventory on hand or manage it efficiently, control expired inventory or keep sufficient inventory of materials to meet product demand due to our dependence on third-party suppliers. Finally, we cannot provide assurances that we can keep inventory costs within our target levels. Failure to do so may harm our long-term growth prospects.

Table of Contents

We have incurred losses and may not achieve consistent profitability for some time or at all.

For the year ended December 31, 2021 we reported net loss of $7.5 million. Prior to that, with the exception of the year ended December 31, 2020, when we reported net income of $2.9 million, we had incurred net losses each year since our inception in 1989. As of December 31, 2021, we had accumulated a deficit of approximately $383.3 million and $129.3 million of cash, cash equivalents and investments. Based on our current plan and existing cash, cash equivalents and investments on hand we are positioned to sustain current operations through at least 12 months following the issuance of the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Although we believe we can continue to achieve profitability without the need to raise additional capital, we may incur significant operating losses over the next several years despite sales increasing and margins improving, due to continuing expenses related to research and development, and the expense associated with continuing the commercialization of our approved products. We cannot predict with any certainty the existence or amount of future losses. Our ability to maintain profitability will depend on, among other things, increasing sales of our current products, improving gross margins, successfully commercializing new products, completing the development of our future product candidates, timely initiation and completion of clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, establishing manufacturing, sales and marketing arrangements with third parties, maintaining supplies of key manufacturing components and the possible acquisition and development of additional and complementary products. Therefore, we may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability.

In the longer term, we may need to raise additional funds in order to continue to complete product development programs and the clinical trials needed to obtain approval for and commercialize our future product candidates, or to capitalize on potential strategic opportunities. We cannot be certain that actual results will not differ materially from our current projections and that current capital will be sufficient to achieve profitability or that funding will be available on favorable terms, if at all. Some of the factors that will impact our ability to raise additional capital and our overall success include:

•The ability to maintain our manufacturing facility’s compliance with FDA requirements, including establishment and product fees;

•The requirements necessary to maintain in good standing marketing authorizations and licenses from regulatory bodies in the U.S. and other countries;

•The liquidity and market volatility of our equity securities;

•Regulatory and manufacturing requirements and uncertainties;

•Anticipating technological developments by competitors;

•The rate and degree of progress of our product development; and

•The rate and cadence of the regulatory approvals needed to proceed with clinical development programs.

Our products and product development programs are based on novel technologies and are inherently risky, which may decrease the chances of regulatory approval and could have material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results.

Our products are subject to the inherent risks of failure associated with the development of new products based on novel technologies. The innovative nature of our therapeutics creates significant challenges with regard to product development and optimization, manufacturing, regulatory environment and emerging regulations, third-party reimbursement and market acceptance. Therapeutic advancements are generally ahead of development and release of regulatory guidance and requirements. The lack of established precedents and evolving regulatory policy for novel products can pose significant challenges in product and clinical development, which can decrease the chances of regulatory success.

Our products represent new classes of therapy that the marketplace may not understand or accept. Furthermore, the success of our products is dependent on wider acceptance by the medical community.

While our products have had some commercial success to date, the broader market may not understand or accept our products. Our products represent new treatments or therapies and compete with a number of more conventional products and therapies manufactured and marketed by others. The nature of our products creates significant challenges with regard to product development and optimization, manufacturing, regulations, and third-party reimbursement. As a result, the commercialization of our current products and the development pathway for our potential new products may be subject to increased scrutiny, as compared to the pathway for more conventional products.

Table of Contents

The degree of market acceptance of any of our marketed or potential new products will depend on a number of factors, including:

•The clinical safety and effectiveness of our products and their demonstrated advantage over alternative treatment methods;

VCEL US Equity

VCEL · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business

Item 1A. Risk Factors

VCEL US Equity☆

VCEL · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business

Item 1A. Risk Factors

VCEL US Equity