Humacyte, Inc.

On November 18, 2024, James A. Cutshall filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Cutshall v. Humacyte, Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-00954 (the “Securities Litigation”), against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint in the Securities Litigation (the “Initial Complaint”) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between May 10, 2024 and October 17, 2024, based on allegations that the defendants made or were responsible for false or misleading statements and omissions related to the BLA for the vascular trauma indication and to alleged deficiencies at the Company’s Durham, North Carolina manufacturing facility. The Initial Complaint seeks a variety of relief, including unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys fees and costs. On January 31, 2025, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On May 22, 2025, the co-lead plaintiffs filed the amended complaint in the Securities Litigation. The amended complaint expands the putative class to include persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between August 14, 2023 and March 25, 2025. It alleges that the defendants made or were responsible for false or misleading statements and omissions related to the safety of Symvess, alleged deficiencies at the Company’s Durham, North Carolina manufacturing facility, and the Company’s financial condition and liquidity. On July 25, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and with prejudice. The court has yet to rule on the motion, which remains pending.

On January 7 and 10, 2025, putative stockholders of the Company filed two verified stockholder derivative actions in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Silva v. Sebelius, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00005 (the “Silva Action”) and Misko v. Niklason, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00028 (the “Misko Action”). Each of these derivative actions was brought on behalf of the Company against certain of its current or former directors and officers, as well as Ayabudge LLC. The complaints in each action assert claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, based on a variety of allegations including claims that the defendants are responsible for any damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Securities Litigation. The Misko Action also includes a claim for contribution against certain defendants under Sections 10(b) and 21(d) of the Exchange Act for any liability the Company may sustain as a result of the Securities Litigation. On February 18, 2025, the court issued an order consolidating the Silva Action and the Misko Action (collectively, the “Consolidated Derivative Action”) and staying the defendants’ obligation to respond to any complaint in the Consolidated Derivative Action pending the submission of a proposed scheduling order. On March 11, 2025, the parties entered a joint motion to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action pending final resolution of the Securities Litigation, which the court granted.

On December 19, 2024, the Company received a demand letter (the “2024 Demand Letter”) from a purported stockholder of the Company, demanding that the Board assert claims against certain of the Company’s current or former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and insider trading, based on a variety of allegations including claims that the Company’s current and former officers and directors are responsible for any damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Securities Litigation. On January 24, 2025, the Board appointed a demand evaluation committee to evaluate the claims made in the 2024 Demand Letter and report back to the full Board. On February 19, 2025, the purported stockholder who sent the 2024 Demand Letter filed a stockholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Olson v. Niklason, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00123 (the “Olson Action”), alleging that the Company had refused his demand. The complaint in the Olson Action asserts substantive claims and allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in the Consolidated Derivative Action. On April 22, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the Olson Action pending final resolution of the Securities Litigation, which the court granted.

On May 19, 2025, the Company received a demand letter (the “2025 Demand Letter”) from a purported stockholder of the Company, making demands and stating allegations substantially similar to those in the 2024 Demand Letter. The letter was referred to the demand evaluation committee for evaluation, and the demand evaluation committee recommended that the board of directors of the Company defer action on the demand until after the resolution of the pending motion to dismiss in the securities class action. The board of directors accepted the demand evaluation committee’s recommendation, and counsel for the demand evaluation committee informed the shareholder of the board of director’s determination to defer action on the demand by letter dated September 24, 2025.

On June 9, 2025, a putative stockholder of the Company filed a verified stockholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Dusci v. Bamforth, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00722 (the “Dusci Action”). The complaint in the Dusci Action asserts substantive claims and allegations that are substantively similar to those asserted in the Consolidated Derivative Action and Olson Action. On September 8, 2025, the parties field a joint stipulation to stay the Dusci Action, pending final resolution of the Securities Litigation, which the court granted.

The Company disputes all claims asserted against it in the Securities Litigation and disputes that the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action, the Dusci Action and Olson Action have standing to assert claims derivatively on its behalf. The Company is currently unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits, which could be material.

See the section “Legal Matters” contained in Note 12 — Commitments and Contingencies in the notes to our accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information.