Organogenesis is a leading regenerative medicine company focused on the development, manufacture and commercialization of solutions for the Advanced Wound Care and Surgical & Sports Medicine markets. Our products have been shown through clinical and scientific studies to support and in some cases accelerate tissue healing and improve patient outcomes. We are advancing the standard of care in each phase of the healing process through multiple breakthroughs in tissue engineering and cell therapy. Our solutions address large and growing markets driven by aging demographics and increases in comorbidities such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease and smoking. We offer our differentiated products and customer support to a wide range of health care customers including hospitals, wound care centers, government facilities, ambulatory service centers (“ASCs”) and physician offices. Our mission is to provide integrated healing solutions that substantially improve medical outcomes and the lives of patients while lowering the overall cost of care.

Wound Care market in 2021, 49% of treatments used advanced wound dressings, 18% used biologics, 21% used external wound healing devices, and 13% consisted of more traditional wound care dressings. The skin substitute market, within biologics, is expected to grow from $1.1 billion in 2021 to $2 billion in 2026. Within the Surgical & Sports Medicine market, the surgical/acute wound accounts for $9.1 billion, chronic inflammatory and degenerative condition accounts for approximately $3.8 billion and the tendon and ligament for approximately $1.0 billion in 2015.

Wound biologics represents one of the smallest segments of the Advanced Wound Care market but is the fastest growing and has seen the highest level of innovation. According to BCC, the worldwide wound biologics market, which includes skin substitutes and growth factors, was estimated to be approximately $1.7 billion in 2021, of which skin substitute products are estimated to represent approximately 62%. Skin substitutes, bioengineered or biologic grafts that cover skin defects and support healing, are one of the fastest-growing categories of the Advanced Wound Care market. The skin substitute market, within biologics, is expected to grow from $1.1 billion in 2021 to $2 billion in 2026. Going forward, the skin substitute market is projected to continue to grow as patients with wounds transition from other therapies to skin substitute treatment.

We expect this market to continue to grow at a rapid rate as physicians are educated about the use of these products and understand the benefits as compared to other currently marketed products, payers incentivize doctors to use more cost effective treatments, patients demand more effective treatment solutions and advanced wound care becomes more common outside of the United States. We also believe that adoption of these products will increase as clinical evidence supporting the benefits of skin substitutes over traditional therapies continues to grow. Skin substitutes have demonstrated improved chronic and acute wound healing rates at a lower overall cost than the current standard of care. In a matched cohort study we commissioned, Medicare treatment costs for DFUs treated with Apligraf were $5,253 (=0.49) lower per patient than the standard of care and for DFUs treated with Dermagraft, these costs were $6,991 (=0.84) lower per patient than the standard of care. See Rice et al. “Economic outcomes among Medicare patients receiving bioengineered cellular technologies for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.” J Med Econ.

Finally, the skin substitute market remains substantially underpenetrated. According to BioMed GPS, over 7.9 million wounds globally, 3.7 million in the United States, require medical care and are classified as difficult to heal wounds where traditional therapies are unlikely to succeed. Market growth will be propelled by the aging population and rise of diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease—all associated with poor vascularity increasing the susceptibility of chronic, wounds. Despite the vast need and proven benefits of advanced wound care products in general to include skin substitutes, market penetration remains low in relation to the size of the total addressable market. Our internal estimates indicate that if the potentially addressable market were completely penetrated today, annual skin substitute revenue in the United States alone could exceed $9 billion.

While our portfolio of products has applicability across a wide variety of clinical specialties and wound types in the advanced wound care and surgical wound care market, our immediate focus in Sports Medicine is in the regenerative orthobiologics Orthobiologics are substances that orthopedic surgeons use to help injuries to bones, tendons and ligaments heal more quickly. Orthobiologic products are used to treat people with long-term disabling musculoskeletal disorders and injuries. The majority of musculoskeletal injuries occur due to recreational and sports activities. The patient demographics include both younger populations and those involved in professional sports, as well as the elderly population, usually requiring treatment for degenerative disorders and chronic diseases. The market has seen an increase in surgical volumes in part due to a higher incidence of comorbidities and chronic inflammatory and degenerative conditions, such as OA and tendonitis. The growing and aging population affected with osteoarthritis (OA) that is still looking to remain active will continue to or minimally invasive alternatives. The prevalence of knee OA has been increasing over the past several decades in the U.S., mirroring the aging population and the growing obesity epidemic.

Tendon and ligament injuries are common orthopedic conditions in an active and aging population. There are approximately 250,000 rotator cuff repairs performed in the United States annually. Additionally, in 2015, there were approximately 40,000 outpatient Achilles tendon repairs in the United States. and reoperation continue to be a significant source of concern with management, occurring in 4.8% of Achilles tendon repair cases and as many as 25% or more rotator cuff repair cases. Comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity, as well as age, are correlated with a higher risk of failed healing and Regenerative tissue scaffolds may be used to support the healing of tendons, ligaments and other soft tissues. According to Technavio, the annual regenerative tissue scaffold market is estimated to exceed $1 billion.

Orthobiologics have been shown to be an effective alternative to traditional treatments. Due to their anti-inflammatory and effects, they go beyond mechanical intervention to support the healing process in the damaged tissue and often result in faster healing times and shorter hospital stays. The orthobiologics market includes bone morphogenetic protein, viscosupplementation with HA, synthetic bone graft substitutes and stem cell therapy, in addition to DBM and allograft. Our current product pipeline includes Sports Medicine solutions based on placental-based technologies (ReNu). There is a rapidly growing body of clinical and scientific evidence indicating the potential of these products, particularly orthobiologics, in surgical applications, resulting in increased adoption of these products.

Apligraf is a bioengineered skin substitute that is the only product that has, to date, received PMA approval for the treatment of both VLUs and DFUs. Launched in 1998, Apligraf drives faster healing and more complete wound closure through its tissue engineered structure, which includes an outer layer of protective skin cells (human epidermal keratinocytes), and an inner layer of cells (human dermal fibroblasts) contained within a collagen matrix. Apligraf is the leading skin substitute product for the treatment of VLUs, and its effectiveness has been established based on an extensive clinical history with approximately 980,000 units shipped. We believe Apligraf is also the first and only wound-healing therapy to demonstrate in a randomized controlled trial, or RCT, a significant change in patients’ VLU wound tissue, showing a shift from a gene profile to a healing profile. Apligraf plays an active role in healing by providing the wound with living human skin cells, growth factors and other proteins produced by the cells, and a collagen matrix.

Dermagraft is a dermal substitute grown from human dermal fibroblasts and has received PMA approval for the treatment of DFUs. Launched in 2001 by Smith & Nephew and acquired by us in 2014, this product helps to restore the compromised wound bed to facilitate healing. The living cells in Dermagraft produce many of the same proteins and growth factors that support the healing response in healthy skin. In addition to an RCT demonstrating its superiority to conventional therapy in the healing of DFUs, studies based on real-world electronic health records and Medicare data have demonstrated its superior clinical efficacy and value as compared to competitive wound care products and conventional therapy. Dermagraft can be applied weekly (up to eight times) over a twelve-week period and does not need to be removed from the wound during this period because it contains a temporary mesh fabric that is dissolvable and becomes part of the body’s own healing processes. As part of our long-term plan to consolidate manufacturing operations in Massachusetts, manufacturing of Dermagraft was suspended in the fourth quarter of 2021 and sales of Dermagraft will be suspended in the second quarter of 2022. We currently plan to transition our Dermagraft manufacturing to our Massachusetts-based manufacturing facilities, which we expect will result in substantial long-term cost savings. In the period when Dermagraft is not available (possibly for a few years), we expect that customers will be willing to substitute Apligraf for Dermagraft and that the suspension of Dermagraft sales will not have a material impact on our net revenue.

We market our NuShield product for surgical and orthopedic applications. NuShield may be used as a surgical barrier or as an or wrap barrier to support soft tissue repairs. When used as a barrier membrane, the native biological characteristics of this placental tissue may help support the healing of soft tissue defects, particularly in locations or challenging patient populations. We market our Affinity and Novachor products as wound coverings for acute surgical wounds and our PuraPly AM product as an antimicrobial barrier for the management of open wounds in the surgical setting. PuraForce is a bioengineered porcine collagen surgical matrix for use in soft tissue reinforcement applications.

Our bone allograft products, which are derived from donated human cadaveric bone, include FiberOS and OCMP. Each of these products is used as a bone void filler, primarily in orthopedic and neurosurgical applications requiring bony fusion, such as spinal fusions and foot and ankle fusions. FiberOS is a blend of demineralized cortical fibers, mineralized cortical powder, and demineralized cortical powder and OCMP is a allograft cancellous (spongy or mesh-like) and demineralized cortical mixture.

We also have accumulated a significant body of clinical evidence demonstrating the efficacy of our products, Apligraf and Dermagraft. We continue to invest in generating similar data for other Advanced Wound Care and Surgical & Sports Medicine products, and believe such data enhance sales efforts with physicians and reimbursement dynamics with payers over time. Our product Apligraf is the only product that has obtained FDA approval for the treatment of both VLUs and DFUs. Our product Dermagraft has also received FDA approval for DFUs. Below is a summary of the primary data supporting each product, and a description of the clinical studies that are currently in progress. As used herein, p value is a measure of statistical significance. The lower the p value, the more likely it is that the results of a clinical trial or study are statistically significant rather than an experimental anomaly. Generally, to be considered statistically significant, such results must have a p value <0.05.

For the DFU indication, a multi-center prospective RCT of Apligraf for the treatment of DFUs versus standard of care was conducted. Two hundred eight patients with Type 1 and 2 diabetes were enrolled, who had a plantar DFU of full- or partial thickness. Patients with a chronic wound that exhibited less than 30% healing prior to treatment were eligible for the clinical trial. All patients’ ulcers were using either crutches or a wheelchair for the first six weeks, followed by customized pressure-relieving footwear for at least four weeks post closure. Mean ulcer size was 2.97 cm and 2.83 cm in the Apligraf and the control group, respectively. The mean duration of the ulcer was 12 months in the Apligraf group and 11 months in the control group.

Apligraf was significantly more effective than conventional therapy for the incidence of complete wound closure over time. By 12 weeks of treatment, 56% (63 of 112 patients) of DFUs treated with Apligraf plus conventional therapy (debridement, saline dressings, total were 100% closed, compared to 38% (36 of 96 subjects) of ulcers treated with conventional therapy alone (=.0042). The median time to 100% wound closure was 65 days for DFUs treated with Apligraf plus conventional therapy versus 90 days for ulcers treated with conventional therapy alone (=.0026).

Recurrence is an important measure of healing durability, and in the study, 96% of ulcers treated with Apligraf remained closed at six months versus 87% in the control group. An important outcome of the study was an observed reduction in the incidence of reported adverse events of osteomyelitis and amputations/resections. Patients receiving Apligraf had a statistically significant (<.05) lower incidence of osteomyelitis at the study ulcer site (2.7% vs. 10.4%) compared to patients treated with conventional therapy at six months. Apligraf-treated patients required significantly fewer amputations or resections of the study limb (6.3% vs. 15.6%) ( <.05) compared to patients treated with conventional therapy at six months. The primary results of the study are presented in the figures below.

For the VLU pivotal trial, the efficacy of Apligraf was evaluated in a prospective, parallel-group, randomized, controlled, multi-center study involving 240 patients with VLUs. Subjects receiving Apligraf in combination with compression therapy were compared with an active treatment concurrent control of zinc paste gauze and compression therapy. Apligraf plus compression therapy was more effective in achieving complete wound closure by week 24 (57% vs 40%, =.022). In patients with long-standing VLUs with greater than one year’s duration (n=120), Apligraf plus compression therapy was more than twice as effective in achieving complete wound closure by week 24 (47% vs 19%, =.002). The primary results of the study are presented in the figures below.

The Analysis Group, a private economics consulting firm, conducted a study to evaluate the economic outcomes of Medicare patients receiving Apligraf and Dermagraft, assessing the real-world medical services utilization and associated costs compared to patients receiving conventional care. Data for 502 matched Apligraf and conventional care patient pairs and 222 matched Dermagraft and conventional care patient pairs were analyzed. Increased costs associated with outpatient service utilization relative to matched conventional care patients were offset by lower amputation rates, fewer days hospitalized and fewer emergency department visits among Apligraf and Dermagraft patients. Consequently, Apligraf and Dermagraft patients with DFUs had average healthcare costs during the period that were lower than their respective matched conventional care counterparts (Apligraf was $5,253 (=0.49), lower per patient, while Dermagraft was $6,991 (=0.84) lower). These findings suggest that use of Apligraf and Dermagraft for treatment of DFU may lower overall medical costs through reduced utilization of costly healthcare services.

To elucidate the mechanisms through which Apligraf promotes healing of chronic VLUs, the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Department of Dermatology & Cutaneous Surgery conducted an RCT in which 24 patients with VLUs were treated with either standard of care (compression therapy) or Apligraf together with standard of care. Tissue biopsies were collected from the VLU edge before and one week after treatment, and the samples underwent a comprehensive analysis of gene expression and protein analyses. The analyses conducted suggest that Apligraf induced a shift from a to a healing tissue response, involving modulation of inflammatory and growth factor signaling, keratinocyte activation, and attenuation of signaling involved in the chronic ulcer impaired state. In these ways, Apligraf application orchestrated a shift from the chronic microenvironment to a distinctive healing milieu resembling that of an acute, healing wound.

Dermagraft was approved as a Class III medical device for the treatment of DFUs based on the results of a large pivotal clinical trial. Three hundred fourteen patients were enrolled in a prospective RCT to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Dermagraft in conjunction with conventional therapy compared to a control arm of conventional therapy alone. Conventional therapy involved the sharp debridement and cleaning of the ulcer, application of a gauze and the use of therapeutic, pressure-reducing footwear. Patients were eligible to be screened for the trial if they had a plantar DFU on the heel or forefoot that was greater than 1cm and less than 20cm. At the screening visit, the patients began receiving conventional therapy. If the DFU had not decreased in size by more than 50% during the next two weeks and the patient met all other inclusion and exclusion criteria, the patient was randomized into one of two treatment groups: Dermagraft plus conventional therapy or conventional therapy alone. Patients in the Dermagraft group received a weekly application of Dermagraft and conventional therapy for up to eight weeks. The primary endpoint for the trial was superiority in complete DFU closure by 12 weeks.

In a analysis, it was determined that in patients treated with Dermagraft there was a significant reduction in incidence of amputations or bone resections, as compared to the control group (12.6% versus 5.5%, respectively, p=0.031). No adverse laboratory findings were associated with the use of Dermagraft and no adverse device effects were reported in the trial. In addition, no immunological responses or rejections from patients that received Dermagraft were reported in this trial or in patients treated to date. The amputation or bone resection data is presented in the figure below.

The economic study of Dermagraft in a Medicare population conducted by the Analysis Group is described under the heading “—Our Products—Previously Published Clinical Studies for Products—Apligraf—Comparative Effectiveness and Economic Studies” above.

PuraPly MZ is a micronized particulate version of PuraPly that allows application in powder or gel form to deep and tunneling wounds. Like PuraPly, PuraPly MZ is intended for indications for the management of chronic and acute wounds (other than burns) and in conjunction with the surgical treatment of open wounds. We have submitted a 510(k) application for PuraPly MZ and plan to commercially launch this product as soon as early 2022 if we receive FDA Clearance.

Our R&D Team continues to research and develop additional product concepts from our placental technology platform, as well as to collaborate with our Business Development team to assess additional product or acquisition opportunities.

TransCyte is a bioengineered tissue scaffold that promotes burn healing, and has received PMA approval for the treatment of deep second- and third-degree burns. We acquired the product from Shire, and it was previously marketed by Smith & Nephew. TransCyte complements our portfolio to address all severities of burn wounds. TransCyte is a flexible, durable product that provides bioactive dermal components, an outer protective barrier, increased and pain relief for patients suffering from burns. We believe TransCyte will address a sizable market opportunity with limited competition, with only one other PMA approved product that would be directly competitive to TransCyte currently on the market. We plan to initiate a market and clinical experience program in 2022. Full launch is dependent on completion of our new manufacturing facility at our Canton, MA campus.

We have historically focused our market development and commercial activities on the United States, but we have obtained marketing registrations, developed commercial and distribution capabilities, and we are currently selling products in several countries outside of the United States. Our Apligraf productis currently distributed by our direct sales force in Switzerland, and through independent sales agents in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Our NuShield product is also distributed by our direct sales force in Switzerland, and through independent sales agents in Kuwait. We have obtained marketing registration for our Dermagraft product in Mexico, but we are not currently distributing it. Additionally, we are evaluating the regulatory pathways and market potential for our products in other major markets, including the European Union. Sales generated by our direct sales forces in the United States have represented, and we anticipate will continue to represent, a majority of our revenues.

We offer our customers customer support services, including services provided by our experienced reimbursement support team, our medical and technical support team and our field-based medical science liaison team. We believe that we have a competitive advantage by providing these essential support services in that we are able to align the support services closely with our sales efforts as appropriate and improve the customer’s overall experience.

We manufacture internally our primary products and use third-party manufacturers for our placental-based products. We have significant expansion capabilities in our manufacturing facilities and we believe that our contract manufacturers are well positioned to support future expansion.

We utilize third-party raw material suppliers to support our internal manufacturing processes. We select all of our suppliers through a rigorous process to ensure high quality and reliability with the capacity to support our expanding production levels. Only raw material from approved suppliers is used in the manufacture of our products. To confirm quality and identify any risks, our approved suppliers are audited at intervals. Historically, we have not experienced any significant difficulty locating and obtaining the suppliers or materials necessary to fulfill our production requirements. In the first quarter of 2019, however, we suspended production of our product Affinity due to production issues at one of our suppliers. As this was our sole supplier of Affinity, it resulted in a disruption of our production capabilities. We identified an alternate supplier and were able to resume commercial-scale production in the second quarter of 2020. Subsequently, we have added a second source to provide additional capacity and redundancy in supply.

Our customers primarily consist of hospitals, wound care centers, government facilities, ASCs and physician offices, all of which rely on coverage and reimbursement for our products by Medicare, Medicaid and other third-party payers. Governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, typically have published and defined coverage criteria and published reimbursement rates for medical products, services and procedures that are established by law or regulation. payers have their own coverage criteria and often negotiate payment rates for medical products, services and procedures. Many also require prior authorization as a prerequisite to coverage. In addition, in the United States, an increasing percentage of insured individuals are receiving their medical care through managed care programs, which monitor utilization and also may require prior authorization for the products and services that a member receives. Coverage and reimbursement from government and commercial payers is not assured and is subject to change.

All of our Advanced Wound Care products are classified as “skin substitutes” for Medicare reimbursement purposes. In 2014, CMS instituted “bundled” payments in the hospital outpatient and ASC setting for skin substitutes using a payment system. The Medicare payment system bundles payment for our products (and all skin substitutes) into the payment for the application of the skin substitute, resulting in a single payment to the provider that includes both the application of the product and the product itself. There is one bundled payment amount for procedures that involve high cost products, i.e., products whose cost exceeds a threshold amount, and another bundled payment amount for procedures that involve low cost products that do not meet the threshold. The bundled payment rate is updated annually and is also geographically adjusted. Currently, all of our wound care products are assigned to the high cost bundle; it is not possible to predict, however, whether those products will continue to be assigned to the high cost bundle or the rates that will be paid for each bundle. Further, under the bundling policy, there is an inherent incentive to use the cheapest products available, even if those products are less effective.

Medicare has signaled that it may revise its bundled payment policy for skin substitutes. Medicare solicited comments in calendar year 2019 proposed rule related to proposed updates and policy changes under the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and ASC Payment System. Medicare specifically solicited comments on whether it should eliminate the bundle policy and establish a single bundle for all products. It is possible that Medicare will revise its payment policy in calendar year 2022 or calendar year 2023. Any revised policy could result in decreased reimbursement for our products which could decrease utilization and reduce our revenues. Moreover, any new policy could result in a financial incentive for hospitals and ASCs to use our competitor’s products, thereby reducing our market share and revenue.

Medicare payment rate for all biological skin substitutes (including ours) is calculated based on the manufacturer’s ASP on a per square centimeter basis with the total payment for the product being the per square centimeter payment rate multiplied by the total number of centimeters. In the physician office setting the Medicare payment rates for all biological skin substitutes (including ours) are updated quarterly based on manufacturer-reported ASP and are not geographically adjusted. The actual payment rate for skin substitutes is ASP plus 6% before application of a sequestration reduction required by law. Sequestration reduces by two percent the federal portion of the Medicare payment amount; the beneficiary coinsurance amount of 20 percent is unaffected by sequestration. Congress has suspended sequestration during the public health emergency. Recent legislation continued the suspension of the sequestration until April 1, 2022 at which time the reduction will be one percent. Starting on July 1, 2022, the sequestration rate will return to two percent.

The payment methodology applies only to physician offices. However, in the future, it is possible, through legislation or regulation, that Medicare will institute bundled payment for skin substitutes in the physician office setting. Previously, Medicare did not require us to report ASP for our products because they are regulated by the FDA as medical devices; we voluntarily reported ASP data for most products However, starting in April 30, 2022, we will be required to report ASP for all our products because of a provision enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, signed into law on December 27, 2020. The April 2022 ASP report will be for Q1 2022. CMS does not necessarily include all products that report ASP data in the quarterly ASP file. The local Part A/B MACs establish local payment for drugs and biologics whose ASP does not appear in the quarterly ASP file. MACs have the discretion to pay for such products based on invoices submitted by providers, Wholesale Acquisition Cost (“WAC”) + 6%, or they may contact CMS to determine if there are unpublished ASP data.

Commercial insurers contract with participating providers such as hospitals, wound care centers, government facilities, ASCs and physician offices to establish agreed-upon payment rates for items and services, including skin substitutes. Usually, these rates are in the form of a but sometimes there is a bundled payment rate. In many cases, the fee schedules are based on Medicare payment rates, which are bundled in hospitals and ASCs, but not in physician offices. These rates may vary by insurer, provider and by region.

Surgical & Sports Medicine products administered on an inpatient basis in a hospital are reimbursed by Medicare as part of a bundled payment based on the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group, or to which a patient is assigned upon discharge from the hospital. assignment is determined according to the patient’s primary diagnosis, but can also be affected by other diagnoses that affect the patient’s condition and the provision of certain surgical procedures. In addition, certain account for complications and comorbidities, which may increase the reimbursement amount.

The payment rate is a consolidated prospective payment for all services provided by the hospital during the patient’s hospitalization, based on the average cost of care calculated from Medicare claims data. With extremely few exceptions, the payment is inclusive of all services, products, and resources. Products administered during surgical procedures are not typically coded or paid separately when provided to a hospital inpatient. payments are case rates and hospitals profit when their costs for a particular patient are below the case-rate and they are at risk of a loss if their costs are above the case rate.

Some private payers use the based system to reimburse facilities for inpatient services.

We believe that the demonstrated clinical efficacy of our products, the breadth of our product portfolio, our customer support services, our customer relationships and reputation offer us advantages over our competitors. In addition, we believe we are one of the few regenerative medicine companies offering PMA approved and 510(k) cleared products in addition to our 361 HCT/Ps.

Our success depends in part on our ability to protect our proprietary technology and intellectual property and operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. We rely on a combination of trademark, trade secret, patents, copyright and other intellectual property rights and measures to protect the intellectual property rights that we consider important to our business. We also rely on and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. Other than a license from Novartis Pharma AG for trademark and domain name rights to Apligraf and an exclusive license from RESORBA Medical GmbH, or Resorba, to a U.S. patent for a collagen-based wound dressing containing PHMB, we do not have any additional material licenses to any technology or intellectual property rights. Under the terms of the exclusive license from Resorba, we were obligated to make minimum royalty payments of $1.0 million in each of 2018 and 2019, and were subject to a $2.5 million minimum royalty payment in 2017, as part of an ongoing low single-digit royalty payment on net sales of PuraPly AM; the term of the license shall continue for the life of the patent, which expires in October 2026. We may also terminate the license upon written notice to Resorba in the event that (i) the patent is invalidated or (ii) we stop all activities that would require a license to the patent, and either party may terminate the license in the event of a material breach by the other party, subject to notice and an ability to cure. In addition, we were obligated to make upfront and maintenance payments totaling $0.6 million at specified periods prior to April 1, 2019, including a payment of $0.2 million that was made on July 1, 2018. The license is assignable but not

As of December 31, 2021, we owned 20 issued patents globally, of which 12 were U.S. patents. As of December 31, 2021, we owned 13 pending patent applications, of which 10 were patent applications pending in the United States. Subject to payment of required maintenance fees, annuities and other charges, many of our issued patents are currently expected to expire between 2027 and 2038. The expiration of these patents is not expected to have a material impact on our business. In addition, many of our products, including our Apligraf, Dermagraft and NuShield products, are not covered by our issued patents or pending patent applications. Our issued patents are drawn to the following main areas: methods of making and using cultured tissue constructs, methods for preparing multi-layer stacks of living tissue, methods for treating recessed oral gingiva using cultured tissue constructs, methods of making and using osteogenic implants comprising a placental membrane sheet, wound treatment methods using amniotic stem cell solutions and placental membrane sheets, methods of generating cartilage in a skeletal joint using placental membrane preparations, hepatocyte growth factor- and hyaluronic acid-containing compositions and methods of using such compositions, methods making placental membrane preparations comprising hyaluronic acid, methods of harvesting or proliferating human prenatal stem cells, hypothermic morselized placental membrane storage methods, uses of human amniotic fluid for treating chronic wounds and joint diseases, and adjustable debridement curette apparatuses. Our pending patent applications encompass additional areas, including wound treating methods using morselized amnion tissue and amniotic-derived cells, methods of assessing native stem cell populations using cultured isolated stem cells and reference cell sources, visco-supplement compositions and musculoskeletal inflammatory treatment methods using same, wound care treatment and methods of making and using such treatment, model systems and methods to characterize anti-inflammatory activity, and porcine collagen compositions and methods of using such compositions. Our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents and we can give no assurance that any patents that have been issued or might be issued in the future will protect our current or future products or provide us with any competitive advantage. See the section titled “” for additional information.

The FDA conducts periodic visits, both announced and unannounced, to our equipment, facilities, laboratories and processes to confirm regulatory compliance. These inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of subcontractors. Following an inspection, the FDA may issue a report, known as a 483, listing instances where the manufacturer has failed to comply with applicable regulations and/or procedures or, if observed violations are severe and urgent, a warning letter. If the manufacturer does not adequately respond to a 483 or warning letter, the FDA may take enforcement action against the manufacturer or impose other sanctions or consequences, which may include:

The clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. The FDA may impose clinical holds on a biologic product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, clinical trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such trials.

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety Sometimes approval for a product is conditional upon the completion of post-marketing clinical studies.

Advertising, marketing and promotional activities for devices and biologics are also subject to FDA oversight and must comply with the statutory standards of the FDCA, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. The FDA’s oversight authority review of marketing and promotional activities encompasses, but is not limited to, advertising, healthcare provider-directed advertising and promotion, sales representative communications to healthcare professionals, promotional programming and promotional activities involving electronic media. The FDA also regulates industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities that make representations regarding product safety or efficacy in a promotional context. A sponsor also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as use”). The FDA may take enforcement action against a company for promoting unapproved uses of a product or for other violations of its advertising and labeling laws and regulations. Enforcement actions may include product seizures, injunctions, civil or criminal penalties or regulatory letters, which may require corrective advertising or other corrective communications to healthcare professionals.

We engage in public policy advocacy with policymakers and continue to work to demonstrate that our therapeutic products provide value to patients and to those who pay for health care. We advocate with government policymakers to encourage a long-term approach to sustainable health care financing that ensures access to innovative medicines and does not disproportionately target medical devices and biologics as a source of budget savings. In markets with historically low rates of health care spending, we encourage those governments to increase their investments and adopt market reforms in order to improve their citizens’ access to appropriate health care.

information disclosures to agencies or potential purchasers relating to drug price increases. Health care laws and regulations generally limit financial interactions between manufacturers and health care providers; require pharmaceutical and medical device companies to comply with voluntary compliance standards issued by industry associations and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the U.S. federal government; and/or require disclosure to the government and/or public of financial interactions “sunshine laws”). Many of these laws and regulations contain ambiguous requirements or require administrative guidance for implementation. Manufacturers must adopt reasonable interpretations of requirements if there is ambiguity and those interpretations could be challenged. Given the lack of clarity in laws and their implementation, our activities could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent federal and state laws and regulations.

Our Internet website address is http://www.organogenesis.com. Through our website, we make available, free of charge, our annual report on Form quarterly reports on Form current reports on Form and any amendments to those reports, as well as proxy statements, and, from time to time, other documents as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. These SEC reports can be accessed through the “Investors” section of our website. The information found on our website is not part of this or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC.

Our products are manufactured using technically complex processes requiring specialized facilities, highly specific raw materials and other production constraints. The complexity of these processes, as well as strict company and government standards for the manufacture and storage of our products, subjects us to production risks. In addition to ongoing production risks, process deviations or unanticipated effects of approved process changes may result in with regulatory requirements including stability requirements or specifications. Most of our products must be stored and transported within a specified temperature range. For example, if environmental conditions deviate from that range, our products’ remaining shelf-lives could be impaired or their safety and efficacy could be adversely affected, making them unsuitable for use. These deviations may go undetected. The occurrence of actual or suspected production and distribution problems can lead to lost inventories, and in some cases recalls, with consequential reputational damage and the risk of product liability. The investigation and remediation of any identified problems can cause production delays and result in substantial additional expenses. Production of our Affinity product, for example, was suspended in the first quarter of 2019 due to production issues at one of our suppliers. As a result, we identified an alternate supplier, and were only able to resume commercial-scale production in the second quarter of 2020. Subsequently, we have added a second source to provide additional capacity and redundancy in supply. This disruption in supply

We derive a portion of our revenues through our relationships with independent sales agencies. The impairment or termination of these relationships for any reason could materially and adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and profits. Because the independent sales agency often controls the customer relationships within its territory, there is a risk that if our relationship with the independent sales agency ends, our relationship with the customer will be lost. Also, because we do not control an independent sales agency’s field sales agents, there is a risk we will be unable to ensure that our sales processes, regulatory compliance, and other priorities will be consistently communicated and executed by the distributor. If we fail to maintain relationships with our key independent sales agencies, or fail to ensure that our independent sales agencies adhere to our sales processes, regulatory compliance, and other priorities, this could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We may have liability for the actions of independent sales agencies in marketing our products and our lack of control over their activities impedes our ability to prevent, detect or address such

In addition, California has enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which came into effect on January 1, 2020. Pursuant to the CCPA, certain businesses are required, among other things, to make certain enhanced disclosures related to California residents regarding the use or disclosure of their personal information, allow California residents to of certain uses and disclosures of their personal information without penalty, provide Californians with other choices related to personal data in our possession, and obtain consent before engaging in certain uses of personal information relating to Californians under the age of 16. The California Attorney General may seek substantial monetary penalties and injunctive relief in the event of our with the CCPA. The CCPA also allows for private lawsuits from Californians in the event of certain data breaches. Aspects of the CCPA remain uncertain, and we may be required to make modifications to our policies or practices in order to comply.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “PPACA”) imposed, among other things, an excise tax of 2.3% on any entity that manufactures or imports medical devices offered for sale in the United States. Under these provisions, the Congressional Research Service predicted that the total cost to the medical device industry may be up to $20 billion over a decade. The Internal Revenue Service issued final regulations implementing the tax in December 2012, which required, among other things, payments and quarterly reporting. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. signed into law in December 2015, included a moratorium on the medical device excise tax. A second moratorium on the medical device excise tax was signed into law in January 2018 as part of the Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. extending the moratorium through December 31, 2019. On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed into law a permanent repeal of the medical device tax under the PPACA, but there is no guarantee that Congress or the President will not reverse course in the future. If such an excise tax on sales of our products in the United States is enacted, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our long-term assets include property, plant and equipment of $79.2 million and $55.8 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. We review our long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. If an asset is determined to be impaired, the asset is written down to fair value, which is determined based on appraised value. Any such impairment could result in a charge equal to the full value of these improvements. During the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019, we did not recognize an impairment charge in relation to these leasehold improvements. Changes in our assumptions with respect to our expected use of these assets may result in an impairment charge in the future, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, our ability to utilize our federal net operating loss carryforwards may be limited under Section 382 of the Code. In the event of an “ownership change,” Section 382 imposes an annual limitation on the amount of post-ownership change taxable income that may be offset with change net operating losses of the loss corporation experiencing the ownership change. An “ownership change” is defined by Section 382 as a cumulative change in ownership of our company of more than 50% within a three-year period. As of December 31, 2021, we performed a study and determined that there is no limitation on our federal net operating losses. Current or future changes in our stock ownership may trigger an “ownership change,” some of which may be outside our control. Accordingly, our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards to offset federal taxable income, if any, could be limited by Section 382, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us.

continuing to impact worldwide economic activity. Estimates for economic growth have been reduced and may have a corresponding effect on our sales activity. The virus has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization and has spread globally to over 180 countries, including the United States. The impact of this pandemic has been and will likely continue to be extensive in many aspects of society, which has resulted in and will likely continue to result in significant disruptions to the global economy, as well as businesses and capital markets around the world. We, like many employers in the United States, have required (with limited exceptions) employees to work from home or not come into their offices or facilities. We manufacture our non- placental-based products and use third-party manufacturers for our placental-based products and we use third-party raw material suppliers to support our internal manufacturing processes. Our

manufacturing facilities have, thus far, remained operational as “essential” services under applicable regulatory orders. If our manufacturing capabilities or the manufacturing capabilities of our suppliers are impacted as a result may not be possible for us to timely manufacture relevant products at the required levels or at all. A reduction or interruption in any of our manufacturing processes could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Further, remote work may disrupt our operations or increase the risk of a cybersecurity incident.

We also may be unable to obtain the raw materials necessary to support our internal manufacturing processes due to the additional constraints on suppliers created delays in the delivery of these raw materials and delay manufacturing of our products may result in the cancellation of orders for our products.

In addition, the manufacture of our products is dependent on the availability of sufficient quantities of source tissue, which is the primary component of our products. Source tissue includes donated human tissue, porcine tissue and bovine tissue. We acquire donated human tissue directly through institutional review board-approved protocols at multiple hospitals, as well as through tissue procurement firms engaged by us or by our contract manufacturers. Any failure to obtain tissue from our sources, including any failures related interfere with our ability to effectively meet the demand for our products. Any interruption in the supply of source tissue could materially harm our ability to manufacture our products until a new source of supply, if any, could be found. We may be unable to find a sufficient alternative supply channel in a reasonable time period or on commercially reasonable terms, if at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our direct sales force functions by meeting in person with physicians and health care providers to discuss our negatively affect demand for our products by limiting the ability of our sales personnel to maintain their customary contacts with physicians and health care providers. We may also find that the independent agencies that we use will have to prioritize their workload and may be forced to slow their activities as a result a result, we cannot assure you that our direct sales representatives or independent agencies will increase or maintain our current sales levels, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The support for our sales force may also be impacted, thereby reducing the effectiveness of our sales force.

We may also experience significant and unpredictable reductions in demand for certain of our products if patients are unable to access certain advanced therapies due or providers prioritizing resources to address

The impact economic activity, and its effect on our manufacturing facilities, supply chain and sales force is uncertain at this time and could have a material adverse effect on our results, especially to the extent these effects persist or exacerbate over an extended period of time.

We have funded our operations and capital spending, in part, through third-party debt and proceeds from the sale of our Class A common stock. Our 2021 Credit Agreement requires that we comply with certain financial covenants that include Consolidated Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio and Consolidated Total Net Leverage Ratio, tested quarterly. If we are unable to meet these financial covenants due to the economic impact otherwise, the borrowings under the 2021 Credit Agreement may become due and payable immediately unless we obtain an amendment from our lenders and we would be prohibited from making any borrowings under the Revolving Facility. There can be no assurance that our lenders would agree to any such amendment on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, any sustained disruption in the capital markets from the pandemic could negatively impact our ability to raise capital from the offering of equity or debt securities.

Certain of the products that we manufacture, process and distribute are, or are derived from, human cells or tissues, including amniotic tissue. The FDA has specific regulations governing human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps. In particular, HCT/Ps that meet certain criteria set forth in the FDA’s regulations at 21 C.F.R. § 1271.10 are regulated solely under Section 361 of the PHSA, “Section 361 HCT/Ps”, and are not subject to any premarket clearance or approval requirements. They are also subject to less stringent post-market regulatory requirements than products regulated under Section 351 of the PHSA and/or under Sections 505, 510 or 515 of the FDCA. The Company has believed that certain of our HCT/Ps, including our products derived from amniotic membrane, qualify for regulation as Section 361 HCT/Ps. However, the regulatory classification of an HCT/P as a Section 361 HCT/P depends in part on the purposes for which the product is intended and in part on the processing to which an HCT/P is subject. On November 16, 2017, the FDA issued a final guidance document entitled, “Regulatory Considerations for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products: Minimal Manipulation and Homologous Use”, or 361 HCT/P Guidance, which provides FDA’s current thinking on how to apply the existing regulatory criteria for regulation as a Section 361 HCT/P. These include, in addition to other requirements, requirements that an HCT/P be both minimally manipulated and intended for homologous use. In general, “minimal manipulation” is a standard referring to the degree to which the original characteristics of an HCT/P have been altered by processing and “homologous use” refers to the requirement that an HCT/P perform the same basic function in the donor as in the recipient. Any action by the FDA to apply the principles set forth in the 361 HCT/P Guidance to the HCT/Ps that we distribute could have adverse consequences for us and make it more difficult or expensive for us to conduct our business.

The 361 HCT/P Guidance originally indicated that the FDA was providing grace period to allow time for distributors of HCT/Ps to make any regulatory submissions and obtain any premarket approvals necessary to comply with the guidance. In July 2020, the FDA announced that the enforcement grace period would be extended until May 31, 2021 as a result of the challenges presented by the public health emergency. On April 21, 2021, the FDA reaffirmed that the enforcement grace period would end on May 31, 2021, at which time we ceased commercial distribution of ReNu and NuCel. Although we believe our suspension of ReNu and NuCel commercialization was timely and proper, the FDA and other regulators may disagree with how or when such commercialization practices were conducted, which could expose us to regulatory sanctions, and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Manufacturers of medical devices and biological products are permitted to promote products solely for the uses and indications set forth in the approved or cleared product labeling. A number of enforcement actions have been taken against manufacturers that promote products for uses (i.e., uses that are not described in the approved or cleared labeling), including actions alleging that claims submitted to government healthcare programs for reimbursement of products that were promoted for uses are fraudulent in violation of the Federal False Claims Act or other federal and state statutes and that the submission of those claims was caused by promotion. The failure to comply with prohibitions on promotion can result in significant monetary penalties, revocation or suspension of a company’s business license, suspension of sales of certain products, product recalls, civil or criminal sanctions, exclusion from participating in federal healthcare programs, or other enforcement actions. In the United States, allegations of such wrongful conduct could also result in a corporate integrity agreement with the U.S. government that imposes significant administrative obligations and costs.

Government expectations and industry best practices for compliance continue to evolve and past activities may not always be consistent with current industry best practices. Further, there is a lack of government guidance as to whether various industry practices comply with these laws, and government interpretations of these laws continue to evolve, all of which create compliance uncertainties. Any could result in regulatory sanctions, criminal or civil liability and serious harm to our reputation. Although we have a comprehensive compliance program designed to ensure that our employees’ and commercial partners’ activities and interactions with healthcare professionals and patients are appropriate, ethical, and consistent with all applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, policies and standards, it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in preventing such conduct, mitigating risks, or reducing the chance of governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations.

There have been and continue to be laws enacted by the federal government, state governments, regulators and third-party payers to control healthcare costs, and generally, to reform the healthcare system in the United States. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“PPACA”) and the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 substantially changed the way healthcare is delivered and financed by both governmental and private insurers. These changes included the creation of demonstration programs and other value-based purchasing initiatives that provide financial incentives for physicians and hospitals to reduce costs, including incentives for furnishing low cost therapies for chronic wounds even if those therapies are less effective than our products. There are ongoing efforts to modify or repeal all or part of PPACA. Tax reform legislation was passed that includes provisions that impact healthcare insurance coverage and payment such as the elimination of the tax penalty for individuals who do not maintain health insurance coverage (the “individual mandate”). Such actions or similar actions could have a negative effect on the utilization of our products. We expect such efforts to continue and that there may be additional reform proposals at federal and state levels. On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a lower court’s determination in (orig. , that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case to the lower court for further analysis as to whether PPACA as a whole is unconstitutional because the individual mandate is not severable from other provisions of the law. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review the case and on June 17, 2021 ordered that the Fifth Circuit’s decision be reversed and that the case be dismissed.

conservatively and not use our products. Furthermore, all our products are not paid separately in the outpatient hospital setting which is our largest customer base. This payment policy has created incentives to use our competitors’ products. Accordingly, even if coverage and reimbursement are provided, market acceptance of our products has been and will be adversely affected if access to coverage is administratively burdensome to obtain and/or use of our products is administratively burdensome or unprofitable for healthcare providers or less profitable than alternative treatments. In addition, reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid and other third-party payers is usually adjusted yearly as a result of legislative, regulatory and policy changes as well as budgetary pressures. In fact, Medicare has signaled that it may discontinue its bundling policy when it solicited comments on alternatives in its calendar year 2019 rulemaking. Changes in the policy could occur as early as calendar year 2023 and could include the establishment of a single bundle for all products which could place our products at a significant competitive disadvantage. Possible reductions in, or eliminations of, coverage or reimbursement by third-party payers, or the denial of, or provision of uneconomical reimbursement for new products, as a result of these changes may affect our customers’ revenue and ability to purchase our products. Any changes in the healthcare regulatory, payment or enforcement landscape relative to our customers’ healthcare services also have the potential to significantly affect our operations and revenue. In addition, Medicare uses regional contractors called Medicare Administrative Contractors, or MACs, to process claims, develop coverage policies and make payments within designated geographic jurisdictions. While our products are currently covered by most MACs, we cannot be certain they will be in the future.

Furthermore, Medicare has signaled that it may revise its bundled payment policy for skin substitutes. Medicare solicited comments in rulemaking for calendar year 2019 related to proposed updates and policy changes under the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Payment System. Medicare specifically solicited comments on whether it should eliminate the bundle policy and establish a single bundle for all products. Based on the statements made in the proposed rule, it is possible that Medicare will revise its payment policy for calendar year 2023. Any revised policy could result in decreased reimbursement for our products which could decrease utilization and reduce our revenues. Moreover, any new policy could result in a financial incentive for hospitals and ASCs to use our competitor’s products, thereby reducing our market share and revenue.

Many existing and potential customers for our products within the United States are members of GPOs and/or IDNs, including accountable care organizations or public-based purchasing organizations, and our business is partly dependent on major contracts with these organizations. Our products can be contracted under national tenders or with larger hospital GPOs. GPOs and IDNs negotiate pricing arrangements with healthcare product manufacturers and distributors and offer the negotiated prices to affiliated hospitals and other members. GPOs and IDNs typically award contracts on a basis through a competitive bidding process. At any given time, we are typically at various stages of responding to bids and negotiating and renewing GPO and IDN agreements, including agreements that would otherwise expire. Bids are generally solicited from multiple manufacturers or service providers with the intention of obtaining lower pricing. Due to the highly competitive nature of the bidding process and the GPO and IDN contracting processes in the United States, we may not be able to obtain or maintain contract positions with major GPOs and IDNs across our product portfolio. Failure to be included in certain of these agreements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, while having a contract with a major purchaser, such as a GPO or IDN, for a given product category can facilitate sales, sales volumes of those products may not be maintained. For example, GPOs and IDNs are increasingly awarding contracts to multiple suppliers for the same product category. Even when we are the sole contracted supplier of a GPO or IDN for a certain product category, members of the GPO or IDN generally are free to purchase from other suppliers. Furthermore, GPO and IDN contracts typically are terminable without cause upon 60 to 90 days’ notice. The healthcare industry has been consolidating, and the consolidation among third-party payers into larger purchasing groups will increase their negotiating and purchasing power. Such consolidation may result in greater pricing pressure on us due to pricing concessions and may further exacerbate the risks described above.

Our ability to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to maintain the proprietary nature of our technology and manufacturing processes. We rely on manufacturing and other patents, trade secrets, trademarks, license agreements and contractual provisions to establish our intellectual property rights and protect our products. These legal means, however, afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect

In particular, we rely primarily on trade secrets, and other unpatented technology, which are difficult to protect. Although we seek such protection in part by entering into confidentiality agreements with our vendors, employees, consultants and others who may have access to proprietary information, we cannot be certain that these agreements will not be breached, adequate remedies for any breach would be available or our trade secrets, and other unpatented proprietary technology will not otherwise become known to or be independently developed by our competitors. If we are unsuccessful in protecting our intellectual property rights, sales of our products may suffer and our ability to generate revenue could be severely impacted.

Most of the key patents related to our marketed products are expired. We have no patent protection covering, for example, our Apligraf, Dermagraft, or NuShield products. However, in addition to trade secrets, trademarks, and other unpatented technology, we have pursued and plan to continue to pursue patent protection where we believe that doing so offers potential commercial benefits. However, we may be incorrect in our assessments of whether or when to pursue patent protection. Moreover, patents may not issue from any of our pending patent applications. Even if we obtain or issued patents, such patent rights may not provide valid patent protection sufficiently broad to prevent any third party from developing, using or commercializing products that are similar or functionally equivalent to our products or technologies, or otherwise provide any competitive advantage. In addition, these patent rights may be challenged, revoked, invalidated, infringed or circumvented by third parties. Laws relating to such rights may in the future be changed or withdrawn in a manner adverse to us.

Some of our employees were previously employed at other medical device, pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. We may also hire additional employees who are currently employed at other medical device, pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, including our competitors. Additionally, consultants or other independent agents with which we may contract may be or have been in a contractual arrangement with one or more of our competitors. Although no claims are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that we, our employees, or our independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of these former employers or competitors. In addition, we have been and may in the future be subject to claims that we caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her or agreement. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. If we fail to defend such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. There can be no assurance that this type of litigation will not occur, and any future litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire additional direct sales representatives, or other personnel. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to market existing or new products, which could severely harm our business.

We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality and assignment of inventions agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Despite our efforts, agreements may be breached and security measures may fail, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach or failure. In addition, our trade secrets and may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and other fees on patents and patent applications will be due to be paid to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and similar foreign agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and patent applications. We rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees due to foreign patent agencies. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and various foreign patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent application process. We employ law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our Class A common stock is listed on Nasdaq under the symbol “ORGO”. On December 10, 2018, Avista Healthcare Public Acquisition Corp., our predecessor company (“AHPAC”), consummated a business combination (the “Avista Merger”) pursuant to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 17, 2018 (as amended, the “Avista Merger Agreement”), by and among AHPAC, Avista Healthcare Merger Sub, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AHPAC (“Avista Merger Sub”) and Organogenesis Inc. As a result of the Avista Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Avista Merger Agreement, Avista Merger Sub merged with and into Organogenesis Inc., with Organogenesis Inc. surviving the Avista Merger, and becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of AHPAC. AHPAC changed its name to “Organogenesis Holdings Inc.” (ORGO). Trading of AHPAC’s Class A common stock and public warrants was suspended as a result of the redemption on October 31, 2018 of all of AHPAC’s public shares. On November 2, 2018, as a result of the redemption of the public shares, Nasdaq issued a delisting notice in respect of the AHPAC units, AHPAC Class A ordinary shares and AHPAC warrants to purchase Class A ordinary shares. On November 9, 2018, AHPAC submitted a request for an oral hearing before the Hearings Panel to appeal the delisting determination pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Nasdaq rules. That hearing occurred on December 13, 2018 and on January 4, 2019, Nasdaq notified us that the Hearings Panel granted our request for the continued listing of our Class A common stock and lifted the trading suspension at the open of the market on January 8, 2019. Pursuant to the Hearing Panel’s decision, on or before March 31, 2019, we were required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of Staff and the Hearings Panel that we had a minimum of 300 round lot stockholders and that we otherwise meet all applicable requirements for listing on Nasdaq. The Hearings Panel determined to delist our public warrants due to our with the minimum 400 round lot holder requirement for initial listing on Nasdaq, as required by Nasdaq Listing Rule 5515(a)(4). On March 12, 2019, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC filed a Form 25 with the SEC to delist the public warrants. The delisting became effective on March 22, 2019 (ten days after the Form 25 was filed). In connection with our exchange offer in the summer of 2019, we issued an aggregate of 2,925,731 shares of our Class A commons stock in exchange for all outstanding public warrants, which, until such time, traded under the trading symbol “ORGOW.” Even though the Company was able to regain compliance with the Nasdaq listing standards with respect to its Class A common stock, the Company can provide no assurance that it can maintain compliance with those standards.

Under the Nasdaq rules, a company that ceases to be a controlled company must comply with the independent board committee requirements as they relate to the nominating and corporate governance committee (if applicable) and compensation committee on the following schedule: (1) one independent committee member at the time it ceases to be a controlled company, (2) a majority of independent committee members within 90 days of the date it ceases to be a controlled company and (3) all independent committee members within one year of the date it ceases to be a controlled company. Additionally, the Nasdaq rules provide a period from the date a company ceases to be a controlled company to comply with the majority independent board requirement.

During these periods, our stockholders will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies of which the majority of directors are independent and, if, within the periods, we are not able to recruit additional directors who would qualify as independent, or otherwise comply with the Nasdaq listing requirements, we may be subject to enforcement actions by Nasdaq. In addition, a change in our board of directors and committee membership may result in a change in corporate strategy and operating philosophies, and may result in deviations from our current growth strategy.

Alan A. Ades, Albert Erani, Glenn H. Nussdorf, Dennis Erani, Starr Wisdom and certain of their respective affiliates, including Organo PFG LLC, Organo Investors LLC, Dennis Erani 2012 Issue Trust, Alan Ades as Trustee of the Alan Ades 2014 GRAT, Albert Erani Family Trust dated 12/29/2012, GN 2016 Family Trust u/a/d August 12, 2016 and GN 2016 u/a/d September 30, 2016, who we refer to collectively as the Significant Stockholder Group, control a significant amount of the voting power of the outstanding Class A common stock. As of February 15, 2022, the Significant Stockholder Group collectively beneficially own approximately 46% of the Company’s Class A common stock. As a result of this voting control, the Significant Stockholder Group collectively can effectively determine the outcome of all matters requiring stockholder approval, including, but not limited to, the election and removal of the Company’s directors (including the right to designate four of our directors pursuant to the terms of an agreement between the Company and the Significant

If general economic conditions in the United States decline, or if consumers fear that economic conditions will decline, sales of our products may decline. Adverse changes may occur as a result of adverse economic conditions, fluctuating oil prices, supply chain problems, inflation, political instability, declining consumer confidence, a continuation or worsening of the pandemic or another pandemic, unemployment, fluctuations in stock markets, contraction of credit availability, or other factors affecting economic conditions generally. These changes may negatively affect the sales of our existing or development of future products, increase the cost, and decrease the availability of financing, or increase costs associated with producing and distributing our products and potential product candidates.