ORGANOVO HOLDINGS INC

Previous wording

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt, the ownership interests of our stockholders will be diluted. In addition, the terms of any equity or convertible debt we agree to issue may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. Convertible debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, and declaring dividends, and may impose limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Moreover, we have the ability to sell up to $0.8 million of additional shares of our common stock to the public through an “at the market” offering pursuant to a Sales Agreement that we entered into with H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC and JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC on March 16, 2018 (the "Sales Agreement"). Any shares of common stock issued in the at-the-market ("ATM") offering will result in dilution to our existing stockholders.

Current wording

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt, the ownership interests of our stockholders will be diluted. In addition, the terms of any equity or convertible debt we agree to issue may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. Convertible debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, and declaring dividends, and may impose limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Moreover, we have the ability to sell up to $0.8 million of additional shares of our common stock to the public through an “at the market” offering pursuant to a Sales Agreement that we entered into with H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC and JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC on March 16, 2018 (the "Sales

Previous wording

We currently have an effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), which we may use to offer from time to time any combination of debt securities, common and preferred stock and warrants. On March 16, 2018, we entered into the Sales Agreement pursuant to which we have the ability to sell shares of our common stock to the public through an ATM offering. As of September 30, 2024, we have issued and sold pursuant to the Sales Agreement an aggregate of 6,724,018 shares of our common stock for gross proceeds of approximately $48.7 million. However, in the event that the aggregate market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates (“public float”) is less than $75.0 million, the amount we can raise through primary public offerings of securities, including sales under the Sales Agreement, in any twelve-month period using shelf registration statements is limited to an aggregate of one-third of our public float. As of May 23, 2024, our public float was less than $75.0 million, and therefore we are limited to an aggregate of one-third of our public float in the amount we could raise through primary public offerings of securities in any twelve-month period using shelf registration statements, or $3,094,641. Although we would still maintain the ability to raise funds through other means, such as through the filing of a registration statement on Form S-1 or in private placements, the rules and regulations of the SEC or any other regulatory agencies may restrict our ability to conduct certain types of financing activities, or may affect the timing of and amounts we can raise by undertaking such activities.

Current wording

We currently have an effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), which we may use to offer from time to time any combination of debt securities, common and preferred stock and warrants. On March 16, 2018, we entered into the Sales Agreement pursuant to which we have the ability to sell shares of our common stock to the public through an ATM offering. As of December 31, 2024, we have issued and sold pursuant to the Sales Agreement an aggregate of 5,424,046 shares of our common stock for gross proceeds of approximately $46.9 million. However, in the event that the aggregate market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates (“public float”) is less than $75.0 million, the amount we can raise through primary public offerings of securities, including sales under the Sales Agreement, in any twelve-month period using shelf registration statements is limited to an aggregate of one-third of our public float. As of May 23, 2024, our public float was less than $75.0 million, and therefore we are limited to an aggregate of one-third of our public float in the amount we could raise through primary public offerings of securities in any twelve-month period using shelf registration statements, or $3,094,641. Although we would still maintain the ability to raise funds through other means, such as through the filing of a registration statement on Form S-1 or in private placements, the rules and regulations of the SEC or any other regulatory agencies may restrict our ability to conduct certain types of financing activities, or may affect the timing of and amounts we can raise by undertaking such activities.

Previous wording

There is an increasing focus from certain investors, employees, regulators and other stakeholders concerning corporate responsibility, specifically related to environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) factors. Some investors and investor advocacy groups may use these factors to guide investment strategies and, in some cases, investors may choose not to invest in our company if they believe our policies relating to corporate responsibility are inadequate. Third-party providers of corporate responsibility ratings and reports on companies have increased to meet growing investor demand for measurement of corporate responsibility performance, and a variety of organizations currently measure the performance of companies on such ESG topics, and the results of these assessments are widely publicized. Investors, particularly institutional investors, use these ratings to benchmark companies against their peers and if we are perceived as lagging with respect to ESG initiatives, certain investors may engage with us to improve ESG disclosures or performance and may also make voting decisions, or take other actions, to hold us and our board of directors accountable. In addition, the criteria by which our corporate responsibility practices are assessed may change, which could result in greater expectations of us and cause us to undertake costly initiatives to satisfy such new criteria. If we elect not to or are unable to satisfy such new criteria, investors may conclude that our policies with respect to corporate responsibility are inadequate. We may face reputational damage in the event that our corporate responsibility procedures or standards do not meet the standards set by various constituencies.

Current wording

There is an increasing focus from certain investors, employees, regulators, listing exchanges, and other stakeholders concerning corporate responsibility, including with regard to environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) factors. Some investors and investor advocacy groups may use these factors, either positively or negatively, to guide their investment strategies and, in some cases, investors may choose not to invest in our company if they believe our policies or practices relating to corporate responsibility and sustainability do not align with their expectations. Currently, a variety of third-party providers of corporate responsibility and sustainability ratings measure the performance of companies on ESG topics, and the results of these assessments are widely publicized. Investors, particularly institutional investors, use these ratings to benchmark companies against their peers, and major institutional investors have publicly emphasized the importance of ESG measures to their investment decisions. Topics taken into account in such assessments include, among others, companies’ efforts and impacts on climate change, human rights, business ethics and compliance, diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) and the role of companies’ board of directors in overseeing various sustainability-related issues. In light of investors’ increased focus on sustainability matters, if we are, for example, perceived as lagging in taking steps with respect to ESG initiatives, certain investors may seek to engage with us on improving our ESG disclosures or performance. They may also make voting decisions or take other actions to hold us accountable.

Previous wording

PPACA are invalid as well. On December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling with respect to the individual mandate but remanded the case to the District Court to consider whether other parts of the law can remain in effect. While the Texas District Court Judge has stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the PPACA will impact the law and our business. We are not sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our drug candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing approval testing and other requirements.

Current wording

There have been public announcements by members of the U.S. Congress, regarding plans to repeal and replace the PPACA and Medicare. For example, on December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which, among other things, eliminated the individual mandate requiring most Americans (other than those who qualify for a hardship exemption) to carry a minimum level of health coverage, effective January 1, 2019. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, or the Texas District Court Judge, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the PPACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the remaining provisions of the PPACA are invalid as well. On December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling with respect to the individual mandate but remanded the case to the District Court to consider whether other parts of the law can remain in effect. While the Texas District Court Judge has stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the PPACA will impact the law and our business. We are not sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our drug candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing approval testing and other requirements.

Previous wording

In Europe, the United Kingdom formally withdrew from the European Union on January 31, 2020, and entered into a transition period that ended on December 31, 2020. A significant portion of the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom is derived from the regulations of the European Union. We cannot predict what consequences the recent withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union will have on the regulatory frameworks of the United Kingdom or the European Union, or on our future operations, if any, in these jurisdictions, and the United Kingdom is in the process of negotiating trade deals with other countries. Additionally, the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union may increase the possibility that other countries may decide to leave the European Union again.

Current wording

In Europe, the United Kingdom formally withdrew from the European Union on January 31, 2020, and entered into a transition period that ended on December 31, 2020. A significant portion of the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom is derived from the regulations of the European Union. We cannot predict what consequences the recent withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union will have on the regulatory frameworks of the United Kingdom or the European Union, or on our future operations, if any, in these jurisdictions, and the United Kingdom is in the process of negotiating trade deals with other countries. Additionally, the

Previous wording

We have generated operating losses each year since we began operations, including $6.0 million and $8.3 million for the six months ended September 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively. As of September 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $345.6 million. We expect to incur substantial additional operating losses over the next several years as our research and development activities increase.

Current wording

We have generated operating losses each year since we began operations, including $9.5 million and $12 million for the nine months ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $349.0 million. We expect to incur substantial additional operating losses over the next several years as our research and development activities increase.

Previous wording

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer, and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area (the “EEA”) in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR increases our obligations with respect to clinical trials conducted in the EEA by expanding the definition of personal data to include coded data and requiring changes to informed consent practices and more detailed notices for clinical trial subjects and investigators. In addition, the GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States, and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal information and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to four percent of global revenues or 20 million Euros, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that European Union member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.

Current wording

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer, and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area (the “EEA”) in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR increases our obligations with respect to clinical trials conducted in the EEA by expanding the definition of personal data to include coded data and requiring changes to informed consent practices and more detailed notices for clinical trial subjects and investigators. In addition, the GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States, and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal data and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to four percent of global revenues or 20 million Euros, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that European Union member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.

Previous wording

Further, Brexit has led to, and could continue to lead to legislative and regulatory changes, which may increase our compliance costs. As of January 1, 2021 and the expiry of transitional arrangements agreed to between the United Kingdom and the European Union, data processing in the United Kingdom is governed by a United Kingdom version of the GDPR (combining the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), exposing us to two parallel regimes, each of which authorizes similar fines and other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations. On June 28, 2021, the European Commission adopted an Adequacy Decision for the United Kingdom, allowing for the relatively free exchange of personal information between the European Union and the United Kingdom, however, the European Commission may suspend the Adequacy Decision if it considers that the United Kingdom no longer provides for an adequate level of data protection. A bill to amend the existing UK framework has been reintroduced (in a different form) by the new UK Government and was announced as a bill which will be introduced into Parliament at the King’s Speech on July 17, 2024. At this time, there is no specific clarity on the provisions of the bill, or the extent to which it will amend the UK framework, beyond general descriptions on its intended purpose. Other jurisdictions outside the European Union are similarly introducing or enhancing privacy and data security laws, rules and regulations.

Current wording

Further, Brexit has led to, and could continue to lead to legislative and regulatory changes, which may increase our compliance costs. As of January 1, 2021 and the expiry of transitional arrangements agreed to between the United Kingdom and the European Union, data processing in the United Kingdom is governed by a United Kingdom version of the GDPR (combining the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), exposing us to two parallel regimes, each of which authorizes similar fines and other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations. On June 28, 2021, the European Commission adopted an Adequacy Decision for the United Kingdom, allowing for the relatively free exchange of personal data between the European Union and the United Kingdom, however, the European Commission may suspend the Adequacy Decision if it considers that the United Kingdom no longer provides for an adequate level of data protection. A bill to amend the existing UK framework has been reintroduced (in a different form) by the new UK Government and was announced as a bill which will be introduced into Parliament at the King’s Speech on July 17, 2024. At this time, there is no specific clarity on the provisions of the bill, or the extent to which it will amend the UK framework, beyond general descriptions on its intended purpose. Other jurisdictions outside the European Union are similarly introducing or enhancing privacy and data security laws, rules and regulations.

Previous wording

Similar actions are either in place or under way in the United States. There are a broad variety of data protection laws that are applicable to our activities, and a wide range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General all are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels and several states have passed comprehensive privacy laws. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act — which went into effect on January 1, 2020 — is creating similar risks and obligations as those created by the GDPR, though the California Consumer Privacy Act does exempt certain information collected as part of a clinical trial subject to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the Common Rule). As of January 1, 2023, the California Consumer Privacy Act (as amended and expanded by the California Privacy Rights Act) is in full effect, with enforcement by California’s dedicated privacy enforcement agency expected to start later in 2023. While California was first among the states in adopting comprehensive data privacy legislation similar to the GDPR, many other states are following suit. Similar laws passed in Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah took effect in 2023. Additionally, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and others have adopted privacy laws, which take effect from July 1, 2024 through 2026. Some state laws also minimize what data can be collected from consumers and how businesses may use and disclose it. These state privacy laws also require businesses to make disclosures to consumers about data collection, use and sharing practices. In addition, some of these laws (including the California Privacy Rights Act), along with other standalone health privacy laws, subject health-related information to additional safeguards and disclosures and some specifically regulate consumer health data, such as the Washington My Health My Data Act, which became effective in 2023 and 2024. Additionally, a broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level. Accordingly, failure to comply with federal and state laws (both those currently in effect and future legislation) regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. There also is the threat of consumer class actions related to these laws and the overall protection of personal data. This is particularly true with respect to data security incidents, and sensitive personal information, including health and biometric data. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative p…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels and several states have passed comprehensive privacy laws. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act — which went into effect on January 1, 2020 — is creating similar risks and obligations as those created by the GDPR, though the California Consumer Privacy Act does exempt certain information collected as part of a clinical trial subject to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the Common Rule). As of January 1, 2023, the California Consumer Privacy Act (as amended and expanded by the California Privacy Rights Act) is in full effect, with enforcement by California’s dedicated privacy enforcement agency expected to start later in 2023. While California was first among the states in adopting comprehensive data privacy legislation similar to the GDPR, many other states are following suit. Similar laws passed in Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah took effect in 2023 while laws in Oregon, Montana, and Texas went into effect in 2024. Additionally, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, have adopted privacy laws, which take effect from January 1, 2025 through 2026. Some state laws also minimize what data can be collected from consumers and how businesses may use and disclose it. These state privacy laws also require businesses to make disclosures to consumers about data collection, use and sharing practices. In addition, some of these laws (including the California Privacy Rights Act), along with other standalone health privacy laws, subject health-related information to additional safeguards and disclosures and some specifically regulate consumer health data, such as the Washington My Health My Data Act, which became effective in 2023 and 2024, Nevada's Consumer Health Data Privacy Law, which became effective in 2024, and Connecticut's amendments to its privacy law to address health data, which became effective in 2023. Additionally, a broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level. Accordingly, failure to comply with federal and state laws (both those currently in effect and future legislation) regarding privacy and security of personal data could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. There also is the threat of consumer class actions related to these laws and the overall protection of personal data. This is particularly true with respect to data security incidents, and sensitive personal data, including health and biometric data. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and business.

Previous wording

Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, preparing for and complying with these requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the European Union. The GDPR, new state privacy laws and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal information from our clinical trials, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and significant fines and penalties against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, preparing for and complying with these requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the European Union. The GDPR, new state privacy laws and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal data from our clinical trials, and access to certain data such as the European Health Data Space Regulation, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and significant fines and penalties against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

Keith Murphy, our Executive Chairman, is the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and principal stockholder of Viscient, a private company that he founded in 2017 that is focused on drug discovery and development utilizing 3D tissue technology and multi-omics (genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics). In addition, Adam Stern, Douglas Jay Cohen and David Gobel (through the Methuselah Foundation and the Methuselah Fund), members of our Board, have invested funds through a convertible promissory note in Viscient, but do not serve as an employee, officer or director of Viscient. Additional members of our Research and Development organization also work at Viscient, and we expect that additional employees or consultants of ours will also be employees of or consultants to Viscient. We use certain Viscient-owned facilities and equipment and allow Viscient to use certain of our facilities and equipment. During fiscal 2024, we provided services to Viscient, and we expect to continue to provide services to Viscient and enter into additional agreements with Viscient in the future. No services were provided to Viscient during the six months ended September 30, 2024.

Current wording

Keith Murphy, our Executive Chairman, is the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and principal stockholder of Viscient, a private company that he founded in 2017 that is focused on drug discovery and development utilizing 3D tissue technology and multi-omics (genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics). In addition, Adam Stern, Douglas Jay Cohen and David Gobel (through the Methuselah Foundation and the Methuselah Fund), members of our Board, have invested funds through a convertible promissory note in Viscient, but do not serve as an employee, officer or director of Viscient. Additional members of our Research and Development organization also work at Viscient, and we expect that additional employees or consultants of ours will also be employees of or consultants to Viscient. We use certain Viscient-owned facilities and equipment and allow Viscient to use certain of our facilities and equipment. During fiscal 2024, we provided services to Viscient, and we expect to continue to provide services to Viscient and enter into additional agreements with Viscient in the future. No services were provided to Viscient during the nine months ended December 31, 2024.

Previous wording

On December 28, 2020, we entered into an intercompany agreement with Viscient and Organovo, Inc., our wholly-owned subsidiary (the “Intercompany Agreement”). Pursuant to the Intercompany Agreement and subsequent statements of work entered into pursuant thereto, we agreed to provide Viscient certain services related to 3D bioprinting technology, which includes, but is not limited to, histology services, cell isolation, and proliferation of cells, and Viscient agreed to provide us certain services related to 3D bioprinting technology, including bioprinter training, bioprinting services, and qPCR assays, in each case on payment terms specified in the Intercompany Agreement and as may be further determined by the parties. In addition, Viscient and we each agreed to share certain facilities and equipment and, subject to further agreement, to each make certain employees available for specified projects to the other party at prices to be determined in good faith by the parties. Under the Intercompany Agreement, each party will retain its own prior intellectual property and will obtain new intellectual property rights within their respectively defined fields of use.

Current wording

On December 28, 2020, we entered into an intercompany agreement with Viscient and Organovo, Inc., our wholly-owned subsidiary (the “Intercompany Agreement”). Pursuant to the Intercompany Agreement and subsequent statements of work entered into pursuant thereto, we agreed to provide Viscient certain services related to 3D bioprinting technology, which includes, but is not limited to, histology services, cell isolation, and proliferation of cells, and Viscient agreed to provide us certain services related to 3D bioprinting technology, including bioprinter training, bioprinting services, and qPCR assays, in each case on payment terms specified in the Intercompany Agreement and as may be further determined by the parties. In addition, Viscient and we each agreed to share certain facilities and equipment and, subject to further agreement, to each make certain employees available for specified projects to the other party at prices to be determined in good faith by the parties. During the second quarter of fiscal 2025, the companies added a Statement of Work ("SOW") to the Intercompany Agreement, where Viscient agreed to provide the Company with certain testing services related to the Company's ongoing R&D. Under the Intercompany Agreement, each party will retain its own prior intellectual property and will obtain new intellectual property rights within their respectively defined fields of use.

Previous wording

On July 18, 2024, we received a written notice (the “Notice”) from the Listing Qualifications Staff of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) indicating that, based upon the closing bid price of our common stock for the last 30 consecutive business days, we no longer meet the requirement to maintain a minimum bid price of $1 per share, as set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) (“Rule 5550(a)(2)”).

Current wording

On July 18, 2024, we received a written notice (the “Notice”) from the Listing Qualifications Staff (the "Staff") of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) indicating that, based upon the closing bid price of our common stock for the last 30 consecutive business days, we no longer meet the requirement to maintain a minimum bid price of $1 per share, as set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) (“Rule 5550(a)(2)”). In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), we were provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until January 14, 2025, to regain compliance.

Previous wording

The Notice had no immediate effect on the listing or trading of our common stock and our common stock will continue to trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “ONVO”. We intend to monitor the closing bid price of our common stock and consider our available options if our common stock does not trade at a level likely to result in us regaining compliance with Rule 5550(a)(2) by January 14, 2025, including effecting a reverse stock split, which would be subject to the prior approval of our stockholders. At our 2024 annual meeting of our stockholders to be held on November 20, 2024, we are asking our stockholders to approve an amendment to our Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, to effect, in the sole discretion of our Board of Directors (our “Board”) at any time on or before November 20, 2025, a reverse split of our common stock at a ratio to be determined by the Board within a range of 1-to-5 to 1-to-20 (or any number in between). However, there can be no assurances that our stockholders will approve this proposal.

Current wording

We intend to monitor the closing bid price of our common stock and consider our available options if our common stock does not trade at a level likely to result in us regaining compliance with Rule 5550(a)(2), including effecting a reverse stock split. At our 2024 annual meeting of our stockholders held on November 20, 2024, our stockholders approved an amendment to our Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, to effect, in the sole discretion of our Board of Directors (our “Board”) at any time on or before November 20, 2025, a reverse split of our common stock at a ratio to be determined by the Board within a range of 1-to-5 to 1-to-20 (or any number in between).

Previous wording

The stock market is subject to significant price and volume fluctuations. The trading price of our common stock is, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. For example, during the quarter ended September 30, 2024, our closing stock price ranged from $0.44 to $1.04 per share. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been initiated against such a company. Litigation initiated against us, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and diversion of our management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business and financial condition.

Current wording

The stock market is subject to significant price and volume fluctuations. The trading price of our common stock is, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. For example, during the quarter ended December 31, 2024, our closing stock price ranged from $0.34 to $0.49 per share. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been initiated against such a company. Litigation initiated against us, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and diversion of our management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business and financial condition.

Previous wording

We are authorized to issue 200,000,000 shares of common stock and 25,000,000 shares of preferred stock. As of September 30, 2024, there were an aggregate of 15,365,826 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding and available for issuance on a fully diluted basis and no shares of preferred stock outstanding. That total for our common stock includes 2,475,188 shares of our common stock that may be issued upon the vesting of restricted stock units, the exercise of outstanding stock options, or is available for issuance under our equity incentive plans, 44,500 shares of common stock that may be issued through our 2023 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”), and 9,192,500 shares of our common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of outstanding warrants.

Current wording

We are authorized to issue 200,000,000 shares of common stock and 25,000,000 shares of preferred stock. As of December 31, 2024, there were an aggregate of 17,133,346 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding and available for issuance on a fully diluted basis and no shares of preferred stock outstanding. That total for our common stock includes 2,407,296 shares of our common stock that may be issued upon the vesting of restricted stock units, the exercise of outstanding stock options, or is available for issuance under our equity incentive plans, 44,500 shares of common stock that may be issued through our 2023 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”), and 7,596,500 shares of our common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of outstanding warrants.

Previous wording

Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application is typically entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO, and may become involved in post-grant proceedings, including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position.

Current wording

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. For example, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and that may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application is typically entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO, and may become involved in post-grant proceedings, including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position.