The following selected consolidated financial data presented below has been extracted from our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB. Our consolidated financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016 are included in “Item 18. Financial Statements” in this Form 20-F.

The summary consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected in the future.

4

Exchange Rate

The Company publishes its consolidated financial statements expressed in U.S. dollars. Mesoblast Limited, the parent entity of the Group, has a functional currency of Australian dollars. For the convenience of the reader, this Annual Report contains translations of certain Australian dollar amounts into U.S. dollars at specified rates. These translations should not be construed as representations that the Australian dollar amounts actually represent such U.S. dollar amounts or could be converted into U.S. dollars at the rate indicated. Unless otherwise stated, the translations of Australian dollars into U.S. dollars have been made at the rate of US$0.7391 = A$1.00, the foreign exchange rate as issued daily by the Reserve Bank of Australia ( http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/ ) on June 29, 2018.

Exchange rates for the six months to July 2018 A$1.00 per US$:

5

Exchange rates for the last five fiscal years A$1.00 per US$:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

You should carefully consider the risks described below and all other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 20-F before making an investment decision. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the trading price of our ordinary shares and ADSs could decline, and you may lose part or all of your investment. This Annual Report on Form 20-F also contains forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of many factors, including the risks described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We have incurred operating losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future. We may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company and we have not yet generated significant revenues. We have incurred net losses during most of our fiscal periods since our inception. Our net loss for the year ended June 30, 2018 was $35.3 million. As of June 30, 2018, we have an accumulated deficit of $380.2 million since our inception. We do not know whether or when we will become profitable. Our losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in clinical development and manufacturing activities.

We anticipate that our expenses will increase in the future as we move toward commercialization, including the scaling up of our manufacturing activities and our establishment of infrastructure and logistics necessary to support a potential product launch. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. To achieve and maintain profitability, we must successfully develop our product candidates, obtain regulatory approval, and manufacture, market and sell those products for which we obtain regulatory approval. If we obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, our future revenue will depend upon the size of any markets in which our product candidates may receive approval, and our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, pricing, reimbursement from third-party payors, and adequate market share for our product candidates in those markets. We may not succeed in these activities, and we may never generate revenue from product sales that is significant enough to achieve profitability. Our failure to become or remain profitable would depress our market value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, discover or develop other product candidates or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could cause you to lose part or all of your investment.

We have never generated any revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.

Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability, either alone or with strategic collaboration partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize, our product candidates. We do not anticipate generating revenues from product sales for the foreseeable future (other than licensing revenue from sales of TEMCELL® HS. Inj. (“TEMCELL”), a registered trademark of JCR Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (“JCR”), by JCR in Japan, and, royalty revenue from net sales of Alifosel®, previously known as Cx601, an adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell product developed by TiGenix NV, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (“Takeda”)) and approved

6

for marketing in the EU, and we may never generate product sales. Our ability to generate future revenues from product sales depends heavily on our success in a number of areas, including:

Even if one or more of the product candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), or other regulatory agencies, to perform clinical and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. We may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

We require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and our failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. As of June 30, 2018, our cash and cash equivalents were $37.8 million. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future in connection with our planned research, development and product commercialization efforts. In addition, we will require additional financing to achieve our goals and our failure to do so could adversely affect our commercialization efforts. We anticipate that our expenses will increase if and as we:

7

If we were to experience any delays or encounter issues with any of the above, including clinical holds, failed studies, inconclusive or complex results, safety or efficacy issues, or other regulatory challenges that require longer follow-up of existing studies, additional studies, or additional supportive studies in order to pursue marketing approval, it could further increase the costs associated with the above. Further, the net operating losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance.

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest may be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a shareholder or as a holder of the ADSs. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic collaborations or partnerships, or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to do so at an earlier stage than would otherwise be ideal and/or may have to limit valuable rights to our intellectual property, technologies, product candidates or future revenue streams, or grant licenses or other rights on terms that are not favorable to us. Furthermore, any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

As described in Note 1(i) of our accompanying financial statements, our continuing viability and our ability to continue as a going concern and meet our debts and commitments as they fall due are dependent upon the strategic alliance with Tasly Pharmaceutical Group (“Tasly”), non-dilutive funding in the form of commercial partnering transactions or equity-based financing to fund future operations, together with maintaining implemented cost containment and deferment strategies.

Management and the directors believe that we will be successful in the above matters and, accordingly, have prepared the financial report on a going concern basis, notwithstanding that the r e is a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on our ability to continue as a going concern and that we may be unable to realize our assets and liabilities in the normal course of business. Our financial statements do not include any adjustments that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty.  If we are unable to obtain adequate funding or partnerships in the future, we may not be able to continue as a going concern, and our shareholders and holders of the ADSs may lose some or all of their investment in us.

The terms of our loan facilities with Hercules Capital, Inc. (“Hercules”) and NovaQuest Capital Management, L.L.C. (“NovaQuest”) could restrict our operations, particularly our ability to respond to changes in our business or to take specified actions.

On March 6, 2018, we entered into a loan and security agreement with Hercules, for a $75.0 million non-dilutive, four-year credit facility. We drew the first tranche of $35.0 million at closing. On June 29, 2018, we entered into a loan and security agreement with NovaQuest for a $40.0 million non-dilutive, eight-year term credit facility, repayable from net sales of our allogeneic product candidate MSC-100-IV in pediatric patients with steroid refractory aGVHD, in the United States and other geographies excluding Asia. We drew the first tranche of $30.0 million on closing.  Our loan facilities with Hercules and NovaQuest contain a number of restrictive covenants that impose operating restrictions on us, which may restrict our ability to respond to changes in our business or take specified actions. Our ability to comply with the various covenants under the agreements may be affected by events beyond our control, and we may not be able to continue to meet the covenants. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, Hercules or NovaQuest could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under the loan facility to be immediately due and payable and terminate all commitments to extend further credit. If Hercules or NovaQuest accelerates the repayment, if any, we may not have sufficient funds to repay our existing debt. If we were unable to repay those amounts, Hercules or NovaQuest could proceed against the collateral granted to it to secure such indebtedness. We have pledged substantially all of our assets as collateral under the loan facility with Hercules, and a portion of our assets relating to the aGVHD product candidate as collateral under the loan facility with NovaQuest.

We are subject to risks associated with currency fluctuations, and changes in foreign currency exchange rates could impact our results of operations.

Historically, a substantial portion of our operating expenses has been denominated in U.S. dollars and our main currency requirements are U.S. dollars, Australian dollars and Singapore dollars. Approximately 92% of our cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, 2018 were denominated in U.S. dollars and 8% were denominated in Australian dollars. Because we have multiple functional currencies across different jurisdictions, changes in the exchange rate between these currencies and the foreign currencies of the

8

transactions recorded in our accounts could materially impact our reported results of operations and distort period-to-period comparisons. For example, a portion of our research and clinical trials are undertaken in Australia. As such, payment will be made in Australian dollar currency, and may exceed the budgeted expenditure if there are adverse currency fluctuations against the U.S. dollar.

More specifically, if we decide to convert our Australian dollars into U.S. dollars for any business purpose, appreciation of the U.S. dollar against the Australian dollar would have a negative effect on the U.S. dollar amount available to us. Appreciation or depreciation in the value of the Australian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar would affect our financial results reported in U.S. dollar terms without giving effect to any underlying change in our business or results of operations. As a result of such foreign currency fluctuations, it could be more difficult to detect underlying trends in our business and results of operations.

Risks Related to Clinical Development and Regulatory Review and Approval of Our Product Candidates

Our product candidates are based on our novel mesenchymal lineage adult stem cells (“MLC”) technology, which makes it difficult to accurately and reliably predict the time and cost of product development and subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. At the moment, no industrially manufactured, non-hematopoietic, allogeneic stem cell products have been approved in the United States.

Other than with respect to sales of TEMCELL by our licensee JCR in Japan, we have not commercially marketed, distributed or sold any products, either ourselves or through a licensee. The success of our business depends on our ability to develop and commercialize our lead product candidates. We have concentrated our product research and development efforts on our MLC platform, a novel type of stem cell therapy. Our future success depends on the successful development of this therapeutic approach. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our MLC platform will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. We may also experience delays in developing sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing processes or transferring these processes to collaborators, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

In addition, the clinical study requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential product candidates. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates to develop. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of cell therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. At the moment, no industrially manufactured, non-hematopoietic, allogeneic stem cell products have been approved in the United States, which makes it difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in either the United States or elsewhere.

We may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory agencies.

Other than with respect to TEMCELL which is sold by our licensee in Japan, we have not obtained any regulatory approvals for a product, either ourselves or through a licensee. We must conduct extensive testing of our product candidates to demonstrate their safety and efficacy, including both preclinical animal testing and evaluation in human clinical trials, before we can obtain regulatory approval to market and sell them. Conducting such testing is a lengthy, time-consuming, and expensive process and there is a high rate of failure. Our current and completed preclinical and clinical results for our product candidates are not necessarily predictive of the results of our ongoing or future clinical trials. Promising results in preclinical studies of a product candidate may not be predictive of similar results in humans during clinical trials, and successful results from early human clinical trials of a product candidate may not be replicated in later and larger human clinical trials or in clinical trials for different indications. If the results of our or our collaborators’ ongoing or future clinical trials are negative or inconclusive with respect to the efficacy of our product candidates or if these trials do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical significance or if there are safety concerns or adverse events associated with our product candidates, we or our collaborators may be prevented or delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates.  Even if ongoing or future clinical studies meet the clinical endpoints with statistical significance, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may still find the data insufficient to support marketing approval based on other factors.

We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical studies.

We cannot guarantee that any preclinical testing or clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. As a result, we may not achieve our expected clinical milestones. A failure can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely commencement, enrollment or completion of clinical development include:

9

Delays, including delays caused by the above factors, can be costly and could negatively affect our or our collaborators’ ability to complete clinical trials for our product candidates. If we or our collaborators are not able to successfully complete clinical trials or are not able to do so in a timely and cost-effective manner, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval and/or will not be able to commercialize our product candidates and our commercial partnering opportunities will be harmed.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent development of our product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates as well as completion of required follow-up periods. In general, if patients are unwilling to participate in our stem cell therapy trials because of negative publicity from adverse events in the biotechnology or stem cell industries or for other reasons, including competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates may be delayed. As a result, we or our collaborators generally will have to run multi-site and potentially multi-national trials, which can be time consuming, expensive and require close coordination and supervision. If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients or otherwise conducting clinical trials as planned, we or our collaborators may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business.

If there are delays in accumulating the required number of trial subjects or, in trials where clinical events are a primary endpoint, there may be delays in completing the trial. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing development of our product candidates, including delays in testing the effectiveness, or even termination of the clinical trials altogether.

Patient enrollment and completion of clinical trials are affected by factors including:

10

Once enrolled, patients may choose to discontinue their participation at any time during the trial, for any reason. Participants also may be terminated from the study at the initiative of the investigator, for example if they experience serious adverse clinical events or do not follow the study directions. If we are unable to maintain an adequate number of patients in our clinical trials, we may be required to delay or terminate an ongoing clinical trial, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

We may conduct multinational clinical trials, which present additional and unique risks.

We plan to seek initial marketing approval for our product candidates in the United States and in select non-U.S. jurisdictions such as Europe, Japan and Canada. Conducting trials on a multinational basis requires collaboration with foreign medical institutions and healthcare providers. Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete a clinical trial in multiple countries is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business internationally, including:

Serious adverse events or other safety risks could require us to abandon development and preclude, delay or limit approval of our product candidates, or limit the scope of any approved indication or market acceptance.

Participants in clinical trials of our investigational stem cell products may experience adverse reactions or other undesirable side effects. While some of these can be anticipated, others may be unexpected. We cannot predict the frequency, duration, or severity of adverse reactions or undesirable side effects that may occur during clinical investigation of our product candidates. If any of our product candidates, prior to or after any approval for commercial sale, cause adverse events or are associated with other safety risks, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

11

There can be no assurance that adverse events associated with our product candidates will not be observed, even where no prior adverse events have occurred. As is typical in clinical development, we have a program of ongoing toxicology studies in animals for our other clinical-stage product candidates and cannot provide assurance that the findings from such studies or any ongoing or future clinical trials will not adversely affect our clinical development activities.

We may voluntarily suspend or terminate our clinical trials if at any time we believe that they present an unacceptable risk to participants or if preliminary data demonstrate that our product candidates are unlikely to receive regulatory approval or unlikely to be successfully commercialized. In addition, regulatory agencies, IRBs or data safety monitoring boards may at any time recommend the temporary or permanent discontinuation of our clinical trials or request that we cease using investigators in the clinical trials if they believe that the clinical trials are not being conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, or that they present an unacceptable safety risk to participants. If we elect or are forced to suspend or terminate a clinical trial for any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for that product as well as our other product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenue from these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Furthermore, any of these events could prevent us or our collaborators from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates and impair our ability to generate revenue from the commercialization of these product candidates either by us or by our collaborators.

Several of our product candidates are being evaluated for the treatment of patients who are extremely ill, and patient deaths that occur in our clinical trials could negatively impact our business even if they are not shown to be related to our product candidates.

We are developing MPC-150-IM, which will focus on Class II-IV CHF, and MSC-100-IV, which will focus on steroid-refractory aGVHD. The patients who receive our product candidates are very ill due to their underlying diseases.

Generally, patients remain at high risk following their treatment with our product candidates and may more easily acquire infections or other common complications during the treatment period, which can be serious and life threatening. As a result, it is likely that we will observe severe adverse outcomes during our Phase 3 and other trials for these product candidates, including patient death. If a significant number of study subject deaths were to occur, regardless of whether such deaths are attributable to our product candidates, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for the applicable product candidate may be adversely impacted and our business could be materially harmed.

The requirements to obtain regulatory approval of the FDA and regulators in other jurisdictions can be costly, time-consuming, and unpredictable. If we or our collaborators are unable to obtain timely regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business may be substantially harmed.

The regulatory approval process is expensive and the time and resources required to obtain approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions to sell any product candidate is uncertain and approval may take years. Whether regulatory approval will be granted is unpredictable and depends upon numerous factors, including the discretion of the regulatory authorities. For example, governing legislation, approval policies, regulations, regulatory policies, or the type and amount of preclinical and clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. It is possible that none of our existing or future product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval (other than TEMCELL which is sold under license in Japan), even if we expend substantial time and resources seeking such approval.

Further, regulatory requirements governing stem cell therapy products in particular have changed and may continue to change in the future. For example, in December 2016, the 21 ^st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”) was signed into law in the United States. This new law is designed to advance medical innovation, and includes a number of provisions that may impact our product development programs. For example, the Cures Act establishes a new “regenerative medicine advanced therapy” designation (“RMAT”), and creates a pathway for increased interaction with FDA for the development of products which obtain designations. As this is a new law, it is not clear yet what impact it will have on the operation of our business. Although the FDA issued draft guidances for comment in November 2017, it remains unclear how and when the FDA will finalize these and fully implement the Cures Act.

Any regulatory review committees and advisory groups and any contemplated new guidelines may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval

12

limitations or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups, and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of our product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a product candidate to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient revenue to maintain our business.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

We or our collaborators may gain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates in some but not all of the territories available and any future approvals may be for some but not all of the target indications, limiting their commercial potential. Regulatory requirements and timing of product approvals vary from country to country and some jurisdictions may require additional testing beyond what is required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or by the FDA. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, regulatory approval does not specify pricing or reimbursement which may not match our expectations based on the results of our clinical data.

Our drug candidates may not benefit from an expedited approval path for cellular medicines designated as Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapies (RMATs) under the 21st Century Cures Act. 

On December 21, 2017, the FDA granted RMAT designation for our novel MPC therapy in the treatment of heart failure patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). While the Cures Act offers several potential benefits to drugs designated as RMATs, including eligibility for increased agency support and advice during development, priority review on filing, a potential pathway for accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints, and the potential to use patient registry data and other sources of real world evidence for post approval confirmatory studies, there is no assurance that any of these potential benefits will either apply to any or all of our drug candidates or, if applicable, accelerate marketing approval. RMAT designation does not change the evidentiary standards of safety and effectiveness needed for marketing approval.

Furthermore, there is no certainty as to whether any of our product candidates that have not yet received RMAT designation under the Cures Act will receive such designation under the Cures Act. Designation as an RMAT is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our products or product candidates meets the criteria for RMAT designation, the FDA may disagree. Additionally, for any product candidate that receives RMAT designation, we may not experience a faster development, review or approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw RMAT designation if it believes that the product no longer meets the qualifying criteria for designation.

13

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, our products will be subject to ongoing regulatory scrutiny.

Any of our product candidates that are approved in the United States or in other jurisdictions will continue to be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements relating to the quality, identity, strength, purity, safety, efficacy, testing, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution, sale, storage, packaging, pricing, import or export, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information for all approved product candidates. In the United States, this includes both federal and state requirements. In particular, as a condition of approval of a BLA, the FDA may require a REMS, to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals and elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. Moreover, regulatory approval may require substantial post-approval (Phase 4) testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Delays in the REMS approval process could result in delays in the BLA approval process. In addition, as part of the REMS, the FDA could require significant restrictions, such as restrictions on the prescription, distribution and patient use of the product, which could significantly impact our ability to effectively commercialize our product candidates, and dramatically reduce their market potential thereby adversely impacting our business, results of operations and financial condition. Post-approval study requirements could add additional burdens, and failure to timely complete such studies, or adverse findings from those studies, could adversely affect our ability to continue marketing the product.

Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements, as well as post-approval discovery of previously unknown problems, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing operations or processes, may significantly and adversely affect our ability to generate revenue from our product candidates, and may result in, among other things:

If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our business and our operating results will be adversely affected.

The FDA’s policies, or that of the applicable regulatory bodies in other jurisdictions, may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we or our collaborators are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, are slow or unable to adopt new requirements or policies, or effect changes to existing requirements, we or our collaborators may no longer be able to lawfully market our product, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

Ethical and other concerns surrounding the use of embryonic stem cell-based therapy may negatively affect regulatory approval or public perception of our non-embryonic stem cell product candidates, which could reduce demand for our products or depress our share price.

The use of embryonic stem cells (“ESCs”), for research and therapy has been the subject of considerable public debate, with many people voicing ethical, legal and social concerns related to their collection and use. Our cells are not ESCs, which have been the predominant focus of this public debate and concern in the United States and elsewhere. However, the distinction between ESCs and non-ESCs, such as our MLCs, is frequently misunderstood by the public. Negative public attitudes toward stem cell therapy could also result in greater governmental regulation of stem cell therapies, which could harm our business. The use of these cells could give rise to ethical and social commentary adverse to us, which could harm the market demand for new products and depress the price of our ordinary shares and ADSs. Ongoing lack of understanding of the difference between ESCs and non-ESCs could negatively impact the public’s perception of our company and product candidates and could negatively impact us.

14

Additional government-imposed restrictions on, or concerns regarding possible government regulation of, the use of stem cells in research, development and commercialization could also cause an adverse effect on us by harming our ability to establish important partnerships or collaborations, delaying or preventing the development of certain product candidates, and causing a decrease in the price of our ordinary shares and ADSs, or by otherwise making it more difficult for us to raise additional capital. For example, concerns regarding such possible regulation could impact our ability to attract collaborators and investors. Also, existing and potential government regulation of stem cells may lead researchers to leave the field of stem cell research altogether in order to assure that their careers will not be impeded by restrictions on their work. This may make it difficult for us to find and retain qualified scientific personnel.

Fast track designation by the FDA may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that any of our product candidates will receive marketing approval in the United States.

If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease and the applicable nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the drug sponsor may apply for FDA fast track designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure that the FDA would decide to grant it. Our MSC-100-IV product candidate has received fast track designation for the treatment of aGVHD by the FDA. We may in the future seek fast track designation for other of our product candidates as appropriate in the United States. For any product candidate that receives fast track designation, we may not experience a faster development, review or approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

Orphan drug designation may not ensure that we will enjoy market exclusivity in a particular market, and if we fail to obtain or maintain orphan drug designation or other regulatory exclusivity for some of our product candidates, our competitive position would be harmed.

A product candidate that receives orphan drug designation can benefit from potential commercial benefits following approval. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as affecting (1) a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, (2) a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States, or (3) an “orphan subset” of a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States. In the European Union (“EU”), the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than 10,000 persons in the EU. Currently, this designation provides market exclusivity in the U.S. and the European Union for seven years and ten years, respectively, if a product is the first such product approved for such orphan indication. This market exclusivity does not, however, pertain to indications other than those for which the drug was specifically designated in the approval, nor does it prevent other types of drugs from receiving orphan designations or approvals in these same indications. Further, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a drug with similar chemical structure for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the new drug is clinically superior to the orphan product or a market shortage occurs. In the EU, orphan exclusivity may be reduced to six years if the drug no longer satisfies the original designation criteria or can be lost altogether if the marketing authorization holder consents to a second orphan drug application or cannot supply enough drug, or when a second applicant demonstrates its drug is “clinically superior” to the original orphan drug.

Our MSC-100-IV product candidate has received orphan drug designation for the treatment of aGVHD by the FDA. If we seek orphan drug designations for other product candidates in other indications, we may fail to receive such orphan drug designations and, even if we succeed, such orphan drug designations may fail to result in or maintain orphan drug exclusivity upon approval, which would harm our competitive position.

Breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that any of our product candidates will receive marketing approval in the United States.

We have in the past and may in the future apply for breakthrough therapy designation for our product candidates, as appropriate, in the United States. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and for which preliminary clinical evidence indicates substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drugs and biologics that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the applicant can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Products designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may, in some cases, also be eligible for accelerated approval.

15

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our products or product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree. In any event, the receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation for a product or product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. We have in the past been denied breakthrough designation for certain of our product candidates. In addition, even if one or more of our products or product candidates does qualify as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may later decide that the products no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

We may be required to participate in FDA Advisory Committee proceedings for some or all of our product candidates which may raise unanticipated safety and other concerns about our product candidates in a public forum.

It is likely that we will have to participate in FDA Advisory Committee proceedings for our aGVHD product candidate as well as potentially other product candidates.  FDA Advisory Committees are convened to conduct public hearings on matters of importance that come before FDA, to review the issues involved, and to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency. New product candidates may be referred for review by Advisory Committees whether FDA has identified issues or concerns in respect of such candidates or not.  Advisory Committee input and recommendations may be used at the discretion of the FDA. Advisory Committee proceedings are in part conducted publicly.  While the recommendations made by Advisory Committees in respect of marketing applications for any product are not dispositive, such determinations and recommendations are often influential, and may be made available publicly and to the advantage of our competitors. In addition, it is possible that safety findings and recommendations as well as other concerns and considerations raised by Advisory Committee members, who constitute a multi-disciplinary group of experts (including representatives/advocates from the consumer sector), may impact FDA’s review of our product candidate submissions or labeling unfavorably.  Furthermore, commentary from Advisory Committee proceedings can figure into future product and other litigation.

We may face competition from biosimilars due to changes in the regulatory environment.

We may face competition from biosimilars due to the changing regulatory environment. In the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar,” or biosimilar, to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved innovator (original) biological product. This pathway could allow competitors to reference data from innovator biological products already approved after 12 years from the time of approval. For several years the annual budget requests of President Obama’s administration included proposals to cut this 12-year period of exclusivity down to seven years. Those proposals were not adopted by Congress. Under President Trump’s administration, it is unclear if a similar change will be pursued in the future. In Europe, the European Commission has granted marketing authorizations for several biosimilars pursuant to a set of general and product class-specific guidelines for biosimilar approvals issued over the past few years. In Europe, a competitor may reference data from biological products already approved, but will not be able to get on the market until ten years after the time of approval. This 10-year period will be extended to 11 years if, during the first eight of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an approval for one or more new therapeutic indications that bring significant clinical benefits compared with existing therapies. In addition, companies may be developing biosimilars in other countries that could compete with our products. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our products, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences.

Risks Related to Collaborators

We rely on third parties to conduct our nonclinical and clinical studies and perform other tasks for us. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates in a timely and cost-effective manner or at all, and our business could be substantially harmed.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third-party entities, including CROs, academic institutions, hospitals and other third-party collaborators, to monitor, support, conduct and/or oversee preclinical and clinical studies of our current and future product candidates. We rely on these parties for execution of our nonclinical and clinical studies, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, and scientific standards and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. If we or any of these third-parties fail to comply with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, and scientific standards, the clinical data generated in our clinical studies may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical studies before approving our marketing applications.

If any of our relationships with these third parties terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative parties or do so on commercially reasonable terms. In addition, these parties are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our

16

on-going nonclinical and clinical programs. If third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements, or for other reasons, our clinical studies may be extended, delayed, or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. Third parties may also generate higher costs than anticipated. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding additional third parties involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with these third parties, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and prospects.

Our existing product development and/or commercialization arrangements, and any that we may enter into in the future, may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

We are a party to, and continue to seek additional, collaboration arrangements with biopharmaceutical companies for the development and/or commercialization of our current and future product candidates. We may enter into new arrangements on a selective basis depending on the merits of retaining certain development and commercialization rights for ourselves as compared to entering into selective collaboration arrangements with leading pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies for each product candidate, both in the United States and internationally. To the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, we will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Any failure to meet our clinical milestones with respect to an unpartnered product candidate would make finding a collaborator more difficult. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex, costly and time consuming to negotiate, document and implement, and we cannot guarantee that we can successfully maintain such relationships or that the terms of such arrangements will be favorable to us. If we fail to establish and implement collaboration or other alternative arrangements, the value of our business and operating results will be adversely affected.

We may not be successful in our efforts to establish, implement and maintain collaborations or other alternative arrangements if we choose to enter into such arrangements. The terms of any collaboration or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us. The management of collaborations may take significant time and resources that distract our management from other matters.

Our ability to successfully collaborate with any future collaborators may be impaired by multiple factors including:

17

Any such activities by our current or future collaborators could adversely affect us financially and could harm our business reputation.

Risks Related to Our Manufacturing and Supply Chain

We have no experience manufacturing our product candidates at a commercial scale. We may not be able to manufacture our product candidates in quantities sufficient for development and commercialization if our product candidates are approved, or for any future commercial demand for our product candidates.

We have manufactured clinical quantities of our MLC product candidates in manufacturing facilities, owned by Lonza Walkersville, Inc. and Lonza Bioscience Singapore Pte. Ltd. (collectively referred to as “Lonza”). We do not have any direct experience in manufacturing commercial quantities of any of our product candidates. The production of any biopharmaceutical, particularly stem cells, involves complex processes and protocols. We cannot provide assurance that such production efforts will enable us to manufacture our product candidates in the quantities and with the quality needed for clinical trials and any resulting commercialization. If we are unable to do so, our clinical trials and commercialization efforts, if any, may not proceed in a timely fashion and our business will be adversely affected. If any of our product candidates are approved for commercialization and marketing, we may be required to manufacture the product in large quantities to meet demand. Producing product in commercial quantities requires developing and adhering to complex manufacturing processes that are different from the manufacture of a product in smaller quantities for clinical trials, including adherence to additional and more demanding regulatory standards. Although we believe that we have developed processes and protocols that will enable us to consistently manufacture commercial-scale quantities of product, we cannot provide assurance that such processes and protocols will enable us to manufacture our product candidates in quantities that may be required for commercialization of the product with yields and at costs that will be commercially attractive. If we are unable to establish or maintain commercial manufacture of the product or are unable to do so at costs that we currently anticipate, our business will be adversely affected.

Further, we have made significant advances in the development of 3-dimensional (“3D”) bioreactor based production for MLCs, the goal of which is to allow us to produce our products at commercial scale. There is no guarantee that we will successfully complete this process or meet all applicable regulatory requirements.  This may be due to multiple factors, including the failure to produce sufficient quantities and the inability to produce cells that are equivalent in physical and therapeutic properties as compared to the products produced using our current two-dimensional, or 2D, manufacturing processes. In the event our transition to 3D manufacturing is unsuccessful, we may not be able to produce our products in a cost-efficient manner and our business may be adversely affected.

We rely on Lonza as our sole supplier and manufacturer of certain of our product candidates. Our business could be harmed if Lonza fails to provide us with sufficient quantities of these product candidates or fails to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.

We do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our MLC product candidates for use in the conduct of our clinical trials, and we currently lack the internal resources and the capability to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. As a result, we currently depend on Lonza to manufacture our MLC product candidates. Relying on Lonza as our sole source to manufacture our MLC product candidates entails risks, and Lonza may:

18

Any of these events could lead to delays in the development of our product candidates, including delays in our clinical trials, or failure to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, or it could impact our ability to successfully commercialize our current product candidates or any future products. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA or other regulatory action, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of production.

In addition, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new manufacturer can be lengthy, and we may experience delays in meeting demand in the event we must switch to a new manufacturer. We are expanding our manufacturing collaborations in order to meet future demand and to provide back-up manufacturing options, which also involves risk and requires significant time and resources. Our future collaborators may need to expand their facilities or alter the facilities to meet future demand and changes in regulations. These activities may lead to delays, interruptions to supply, or may prove to be more costly than anticipated. Any problems in our manufacturing process could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may not be able to manufacture or commercialize our product candidates in a profitable manner.

We intend to implement a business model under which we control the manufacture and supply of our product candidates, including but not exclusively, through our product suppliers, including Lonza. We and the suppliers of our product candidates, including Lonza, have no experience manufacturing our product candidates at commercial scale. Accordingly, there can be no assurance as to whether we and our suppliers will be able to scale-up the manufacturing processes and implement technological improvements in a manner that will allow the manufacture of our product candidates in a cost effective manner. Our collaborators’ inability to sell our product candidates at a price that exceeds our cost of manufacture by an amount that is profitable for us will have a material adverse result on the results of our operations and our financial condition.

Our or our collaborators’ ability to identify, test and verify new donor tissue in order to create new master cell banks involves many risks.

The initial stage of manufacturing involves obtaining MLC-containing bone marrow from donors, for which we currently rely on Lonza. MLCs are isolated from each donor’s bone marrow, and expanded to create a master cell bank. Each individual master cell bank comes from a single donor. A single master cell bank can source many production runs, which in turn can produce up to thousands of doses of a given product, depending on the dose level. The process of identifying new donor tissue, testing and verifying its validity in order to create new master cell banks and validating such cell bank with the FDA and other regulatory agencies is time consuming, costly and prone to the many risks involved with creating living cell products. There could be consistency or quality control issues with any new master cell bank. Although we believe we and our collaborators have the necessary know-how and processes to enable us to create master cell banks with consistent quality and within the timeframe necessary to meet projected demand and we have begun doing so, we cannot be certain that we or our collaborators will be able to successfully do so, and any failure or delays in creating new master cell banks will have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial conditions and growth prospects and could result in our inability to continue operations.

We and our collaborators depend on a limited number of suppliers for our product candidates’ materials, equipment or supplies and components required to manufacture our product candidates. The loss of these suppliers, or their failure to provide quality supplies on a timely basis, could cause delays in our current and future capacity and adversely affect our business.

We and our collaborators depend on a limited number of suppliers for the materials, equipment and components required to manufacture our product candidates and the product candidates themselves. We rely exclusively on Lonza to supply certain of our product candidates. In addition, we rely on additional third parties to provide various “devices” or “carriers” for some of our programs (e.g., the catheter for use with MPC-150-IM, and the hyaluronic acid used for disc repair). The main consumable used in our manufacturing process is our media, which currently is sourced from fetal bovine serum (“FBS”). This material comes from limited sources, and as a result is expensive. Consequently, we or our collaborators may not be able to obtain sufficient quantities of our

19

product candidates or other critical materials equipment and components in the future, at affordable prices or at all. A delay or interruption by our suppliers may also harm our business, and operating results. In addition, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new supplier can be lengthy, and we or our collaborators may experience delays in meeting demand in the event we must switch to a new supplier. The time and effort to qualify for and, in some cases, obtain regulatory approval for a new supplier could result in additional costs, diversion of resources or reduced manufacturing yields, any of which would negatively impact our operating results. Our and our collaborators’ dependence on single-source suppliers exposes us to numerous risks, including the following:

We and our collaborators and Lonza are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing our product candidates. The Lonza manufacturing facilities on which we rely may not continue to meet regulatory requirements or may not be able to meet supply demands.

All entities involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical studies or commercial sale, including our existing manufacturers, including Lonza, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical studies must be manufactured in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practice and other international regulatory requirements. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record keeping) and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates. We, our collaborators, or suppliers must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA on a timely basis and must adhere to current Good Laboratory Practice and current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies through their facilities inspection program. Lonza and other suppliers have never produced a commercially approved cellular therapeutic product and therefore have not yet obtained the requisite regulatory authority approvals to do so.

Before we can begin commercial manufacture of our products for sale in the United States, we must obtain FDA regulatory approval for the product, in addition to the approval of the processes and quality systems associated with the manufacturing of such product, which requires a successful FDA inspection of the facility handling the manufacturing of our product, including Lonza’s manufacturing facilities. The novel nature of our product candidates creates significant challenges in regards to manufacturing. For example, the U.S. federal and state governments and other jurisdictions impose restrictions on the acquisition and use of tissue, including those incorporated in federal Good Tissue Practice regulations. We may not be able to identify or develop sources for the cells necessary for our product candidates that comply with these laws and regulations. Further, we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials using 3D manufacturing processes before we receive regulatory approval.

In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time before or after product approval, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or raw materials or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. Although we oversee each contract manufacturer involved in the production of our product candidates, we cannot control the manufacturing process of, and are dependent on, Lonza for compliance with the regulatory requirements. If Lonza is unable to comply with manufacturing regulations, we may be subject to fines, unanticipated compliance expenses, recall or seizure of any approved products, total or partial suspension of production and/or enforcement actions, including injunctions, and criminal or civil prosecution. These possible sanctions would adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. If Lonza fails to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA or other applicable regulatory authority can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new drug product or biologic product, withdrawal of an approval, or suspension of production. As a result, our business, financial condition, and results of operations may be materially harmed.

We will rely on third parties to perform many necessary services for the commercialization of our product candidates, including services related to the distribution, storage and transportation of our products.

We will rely upon third parties for certain storage, distribution and other logistical services. In accordance with certain laws, regulations and specifications, our product candidates must be stored and transported at extremely low temperatures within a certain range. If these environmental conditions deviate, our product candidates’ remaining shelf-lives could be impaired or their efficacy and safety could become adversely affected, making them no longer suitable for use. If any of the third parties that we intend to rely upon in our storage, distribution and other logistical services process fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, fail to meet

20

expected deadlines, or otherwise do not carry out their contractual duties to us, or encounter physical damage or natural disaster at their facilities, our ability to deliver product to meet commercial demand may be significantly impaired.

Product recalls or inventory losses caused by unforeseen events may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

Our product candidates are manufactured, stored and distributed 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, storage and distribution of our product candidates, subjects us to risks. For example, during the manufacturing process we have from time to time experienced several different types of issues that have led to a rejection of various batches. Historically, the most common reasons for batch rejections include major process deviations during the production of a specific batch and failure of manufactured product to meet one or more specifications. While product candidate batches released for the use in clinical trials or for commercialization undergo sample testing, some latent defects may only be identified following product release. In addition, process deviations or unanticipated effects of approved process changes may result in these product candidates not complying with stability requirements or specifications. The occurrence or suspected occurrence of production and distribution difficulties can lead to lost inventories, and in some cases product recalls, with consequential reputational damage and the risk of product liability. The investigation and remediation of any identified problems can cause production delays, substantial expense, lost sales and delays of new product launches. In the event our production efforts require a recall or result in an inventory loss, our operating results and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Our future commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, among physicians, patients and healthcare payors.

Even when product development is successful and regulatory approval has been obtained, our ability to generate significant revenue depends on the acceptance of our products by physicians, payors and patients. Many potential market participants have limited knowledge of, or experience with, stem cell-based products, so gaining market acceptance and overcoming any safety or efficacy concerns may be more challenging than for more traditional therapies. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts to educate the marketplace may require more or different resources than are required by the conventional therapies marketed by our competitors. We cannot assure you that our products will achieve the expected market acceptance and revenue if and when they obtain the requisite regulatory approvals. Alternatively, even if we obtain regulatory approval, that approval may be for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired or may require labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings. The market acceptance of each of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

Market acceptance is critical to our ability to generate significant revenue. Any product candidate, if approved and commercialized, may be accepted in only limited capacities or not at all. If any approved products are not accepted by the market to the extent that we expect, we may not be able to generate significant revenue and our business would suffer.

If, in the future, we are unable to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into licensing or collaboration agreements for these purposes, we may not be successful in independently commercializing any future products.

We have no sales and marketing infrastructure and, as a company, have limited sales, marketing or distribution experience. Commercializing our product candidates, if such product candidates obtain regulatory approval, would require significant sales,

21

distribution and marketing capabilities. Where and when appropriate, we may elect to utilize contract sales forces or distribution collaborators to assist in the commercialization of our product candidates. If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution/price reporting services for our product candidates, the resulting revenue or the profitability from this revenue to us may be lower than if we had sold, marketed and distributed that product ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute any future products or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of these third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell, market and distribute our current or any future products effectively.

To the extent we are unable to engage third parties to assist us with these functions, we will have to invest significant amounts of financial and management resources, some of which will need to be committed prior to any confirmation that any of our proprietary product candidates will be approved. For any future products for which we decide to perform sales, marketing and distribution functions ourselves, we could face a number of additional risks, including:

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before, or more successfully, than we do.

The biopharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid change. The industry continues to expand and evolve as an increasing number of competitors and potential competitors enter the market. Many of our potential competitors have significantly greater development, financial, manufacturing, marketing, technical and human resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and in manufacturing pharmaceutical products. Recent and potential future merger and acquisition activity in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds that could make our product candidates obsolete. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection and/or FDA approval or discovering, developing and commercializing our product candidates or competitors to our product candidates before we do. Specialized, smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly those with a focus and expertise in the stem cell industry and/or those with collaboration arrangements and other third party payors. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. If we are not able to compete effectively against potential competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and results of operations will suffer.

Our marketed products may be used by physicians for indications that are not approved by the FDA. If the FDA finds that we marketed our products in a manner that promoted off-label use, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and other laws, if any of our product candidates are approved by the FDA, we would be prohibited from promoting our products for off-label uses. This means, for example, that we would not be able to make claims about the use of our marketed products outside of their approved indications, and we would not be able to proactively discuss or provide information on off-label uses of such products, with very specific and limited exceptions. The FDA does not, however, prohibit physicians from prescribing products for off-label uses in the practice of medicine. Should the FDA determine that our activities constituted the promotion of off-label use, the FDA could issue a warning or untitled letter or, through the Department of Justice, bring an action for seizure or injunction, and could seek to impose fines and penalties on us and our executives. In addition, failure to follow FDA rules and guidelines relating to promotion and advertising can result in, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve a product, the suspension or withdrawal of an approved product from the market, product recalls, fines, disgorgement of money, operating restrictions, injunctions or criminal prosecutions, and also may figure into civil litigation against us.

Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act,

22

or collectively, the Affordable Care Act, was passed. The Affordable Care Act is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and the health insurance industry, impose new taxes and fees on the healthcare industry and impose additional health policy reforms. There have been a number of judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, and we expect that with the recent change in the administration the Affordable Care Act may be repealed or significantly amended. We can provide no assurance that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as amended in the future, will not adversely affect our business and financial results, and we cannot predict how future federal or state legislative or administrative changes relating to healthcare reform will affect our business.

Currently, the outcome of potential reforms and changes to government negotiation/regulation to healthcare costs are unknown. If there are changes in policy limit reimbursements that we are able to receive through federal programs, it could negatively impact reimbursement levels from those payors and private payors, and our business, revenues or profitability could be adversely affected.

If we or our collaborators fail to obtain and sustain an adequate level of reimbursement for our products by third-party payors, sales and profitability would be adversely affected.

Our and our collaborators’ ability to commercialize any products successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for our products and related treatments will be available from government healthcare programs, private health insurers, managed care plans, and other organizations. Additionally, even if there is a commercially viable market, if the level of third-party reimbursement is below our expectations, our revenue and profitability could be materially and adversely affected.

Third-party payors, such as government programs, including Medicare in the United States, or private healthcare insurers, carefully review and increasingly question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for medical products and services, and many third-party payors limit coverage of or reimbursement for newly approved healthcare products. Reimbursement rates from private health insurance companies vary depending on the company, the insurance plan and other factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

A current trend in the U.S. healthcare industry as well as in other countries around the world is toward cost containment. Large public and private payors, managed care organizations, group purchasing organizations and similar organizations are exerting increasing influence on decisions regarding the use of, and reimbursement levels for, particular treatments. In particular, third-party payors may limit the covered indications. Cost-control initiatives could decrease the price we might establish for any product, which could result in product revenue and profitability being lower than anticipated.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also be insufficient to cover our and any collaborator’s costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

Furthermore, reimbursement systems in international markets vary significantly by country and by region, and reimbursement approvals must be obtained on a country-by-country basis. Our existing or future collaborators, if any, may elect to reduce the price of our products in order to increase the likelihood of obtaining reimbursement approvals which could adversely affect our revenues and profits. In many countries, including for example in Japan, products cannot be commercially launched until reimbursement is approved. Further, the negotiation process in some countries can exceed 12 months. In addition, pricing and reimbursement decisions in certain countries can be affected by decisions taken in other countries, which can lead to mandatory price reductions and/or additional reimbursement restrictions across a number of other countries, which may thereby adversely affect our sales and profitability. In the event that countries impose prices which are not sufficient to allow us or our collaborators to generate a profit, our collaborators may refuse to launch the product in such countries or withdraw the product from the market, which would adversely affect sales and profitability.

23

Due to the novel nature of our stem cell therapy and the potential for our product candidates to offer therapeutic benefit in a single administration, we face uncertainty related to pricing and reimbursement for these product candidates.

Our target patient populations for some of our product candidates may be relatively small, and as a result, the pricing and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved, must be adequate to support commercial infrastructure. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell our product candidates will be adversely affected. Due to the novel nature of our stem cell therapy, the manner and level at which reimbursement is provided for services related to our product candidates (e.g., for administration of our product to patients) is uncertain. Inadequate reimbursement for such services may lead to physician resistance and adversely affect our ability to market or sell our products. Further, if the results of our clinical trials do not clearly demonstrate the efficacy of our product candidates in a manner that is meaningful to prescribers and payors, our pricing and reimbursement may be adversely affected.

Price controls may be imposed in foreign markets, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

In some countries, particularly EU member states, Japan, Australia and Canada, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business, revenues or profitability could be adversely affected.

If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our revenues may be adversely affected and our business may suffer. Because the target patient populations of certain of our product candidates are small, we must be able to successfully identify patients and achieve a significant market share to maintain profitability and growth.

Our projections of the number of people with diseases targeted by our product candidates are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, Europe and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

We are exposed to risks related to our licensees and our international operations, and failure to manage these risks may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

We and our subsidiaries operate out of Australia, the United States, Singapore, the United Kingdom and Switzerland. We have licensees, with rights to commercialize products based on our MSC technology, including JCR in Japan. Our primary manufacturing collaborator, Lonza, serves us primarily out of their facilities in Singapore, and through contractual relationships with third parties, has access to storage facilities in the U.S., Europe, Australia and Singapore. As a result, a significant portion of our operations are conducted by and/or rely on entities outside the markets in which certain of our trials take place, our suppliers are sourced, our product candidates are developed, and, if any such product candidates obtain regulatory approval, our products may be sold. Accordingly, we import a substantial number of products and/or materials into such markets. We may be denied access to our customers, suppliers or other collaborators or denied the ability to ship products from any of these sites as a result of a closing of the borders of the countries in which we operate, or in which these operations are located, due to economic, legislative, political and military conditions in such countries. For example, on June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom, or UK, voted in favor of leaving the European Union (EU) (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). Thereafter, on March 29, 2017, the country formally notified the EU of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The withdrawal of the UK from the EU will take effect either on the effective date of the withdrawal agreement or, in the absence of agreement, two years after the UK provides a notice of withdrawal pursuant to the EU Treaty. The United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union creates an uncertain political and economic environment in the United Kingdom and potentially across other European Union member states, which may last for a number of months or years. If any of our product candidates are approved for commercialization, we may enter into agreements with third parties to market them on a worldwide basis or in more limited geographical regions. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to entering into international business relationships, including:

24

Use of animal-derived materials could harm our product development and commercialization efforts.

Some of the manufacturing materials and/or components that we use in, and which are critical to, implementation of our technology involve the use of animal-derived products, including FBS. Suppliers or regulatory changes may limit or restrict the availability of such materials for clinical and commercial use. While FBS is commonly used in the production of various marketed biopharmaceuticals, the suppliers of FBS that meet our strict quality standards are limited in number and region. As such, to the extent that any such suppliers or regions face an interruption in supply (for example, if there is a new occurrence of so-called “mad cow disease”), it may lead to a restricted supply of the serum currently required for our product manufacturing processes. Any restrictions on these materials would impose a potential competitive disadvantage for our products or prevent our ability to manufacture our cell products. The FDA has issued regulations for controls over bovine material in animal feed. These regulations do not appear to affect our ability to purchase the manufacturing materials we currently use. However, the FDA may propose new regulations that could affect our operations. Our inability to develop or obtain alternative compounds would harm our product development and commercialization efforts. There are certain limitations in the supply of certain animal-derived materials, which may lead to delays in our ability to complete clinical trials or eventually to meet the anticipated market demand for our cell products.

25

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the human clinical use of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability, and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Failure to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop. Additionally, our insurance policies have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage or reduced coverage. Any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We may not be able to protect our proprietary technology in the marketplace.

Our success will depend, in part, on our ability to obtain patents, protect our trade secrets and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others. We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection, and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property of our product candidates. Patents might not be issued or granted with respect to our patent applications that are currently pending, and issued or granted patents might later be found to be invalid or unenforceable, be interpreted in a manner that does not adequately protect our current product or any future products, or fail to otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our proprietary products and technology, if any, and a failure to obtain adequate intellectual property protection with respect to our product candidates and proprietary technology could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, so our policy is to patent technology in jurisdictions with significant or otherwise relevant commercial opportunities or activities. However, patent protection may not be available for some of the products or technology we are developing. If we must spend significant time and money protecting or enforcing our patents, designing around patents held by others or licensing, potentially for large fees, patents or other proprietary rights held by others, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be harmed.

26

The patent positions of biopharmaceutical products are complex and uncertain.

The scope and extent of patent protection for our product candidates are particularly uncertain. To date, our principal product candidates have been based on specific subpopulations of known and naturally occurring adult stem cells. We anticipate that the products we develop in the future will continue to include or be based on the same or other naturally occurring stem cells or derivatives or products thereof. Although we have sought and expect to continue to seek patent protection for our product candidates, their methods of use and methods of manufacture, any or all of them may not be subject to effective patent protection. Publication of information related to our product candidates by us or others may prevent us from obtaining or enforcing patents relating to these products and product candidates. Furthermore, others may independently develop similar products, may duplicate our products, or may design around our patent rights. In addition, any of our issued patents may be declared invalid. If we fail to adequately protect our intellectual property, we may face competition from companies who attempt to create a generic product to compete with our product candidates. We may also face competition from companies who develop a substantially similar product to our other product candidates that may not be covered by any of our patents.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our current or future products, if any, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

We may be unable to adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

We maintain certain of our proprietary know-how and technological advances as trade secrets, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable, including, but not exclusively, with respect to certain aspects of the manufacturing of our products. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We take a number of measures to protect our trade secrets including, limiting disclosure, physical security and confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. We enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturing partners, sponsored researchers and other advisors and third parties to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary information. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights. Failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection, or failure to adequately protect our intellectual property could enable competitors to develop generic products or use our proprietary information to develop other products that compete with our products or cause additional, material adverse effects upon our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may be forced to litigate to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights, and/or the intellectual property rights of our licensors.

We may be forced to litigate to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights against infringement by competitors, and to protect our trade secrets against unauthorized use. In so doing, we may place our intellectual property at risk of being invalidated, unenforceable, or limited or narrowed in scope and may no longer be used to prevent the manufacture and sale of competitive product. Further, an adverse result in any litigation or other proceedings before government agencies such as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), may place pending applications at risk of non-issuance. Further, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, entitlement proceedings, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review, and opposition proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO or any foreign patent authority may be used to challenge inventorship, ownership, claim scope, or validity of our patent applications. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential and proprietary information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

27

Intellectual property disputes could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and/or management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the market price of our ADSs and ordinary shares. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of litigation proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and personnel. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to conduct our clinical trials, continue our internal research programs, in-license needed technology or enter into strategic collaborations that would help us bring our product candidates to market. As a result, uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

U.S. patent reform legislation and court decisions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued U.S. patents.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. Under the current patent laws, a third party that files a patent application in the USPTO before us for a particular invention could therefore be awarded a patent covering such invention even if we had made that invention before it was made by such third party. This requires us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application.

The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation and proceedings. These include allowing third party submissions of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures for attacking the validity of a patent through USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review,  inter partes  review, and derivation proceedings. Because a lower evidentiary standard applies in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standards applied in United States federal courts in actions seeking to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if challenged in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use available USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not otherwise have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party in a district court action. The new post-grant review (PGR) proceedings added as of September 2012 by the America Invents Act, which are similar to European “opposition” proceedings and provide third-party petitioners with the ability to challenge the validity of a patent on more expansive grounds than those permitted in other USTPO proceedings, allow for validity to be examined by the USPTO based not only on prior art patents and publications, but also on prior invalidating public use and sales, the presence of non-statutory subject matter in the patent claims and inadequate written description or lack of enablement. Discovery for PGR proceedings is accordingly likely to be expansive given that the issues addressed in PGR are more comprehensive than those addressed in other USPTO proceedings. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

As compared to intellectual property-reliant companies generally, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. These rulings have created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, even once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

28

If third parties claim that intellectual property used by us infringes upon their intellectual property, commercialization of our product candidates and our operating profits could be adversely affected.

There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biopharmaceutical industry. We may, from time to time, be notified of claims that we are infringing upon patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights owned by third parties, and we cannot provide assurances that other companies will not, in the future, pursue such infringement claims against us or any third-party proprietary technologies we have licensed. Any such claims could also be expensive and time consuming to defend and divert management’s attention and resources, and could delay or prevent us from commercializing our product candidates. Our competitive position could suffer as a result. Although we have reviewed certain third-party patents and patent filings that we believe may be relevant to our product candidates, we have not conducted a freedom-to-operate search or analysis for our product candidates, and we may not be aware of patents or pending or future patent applications that, if issued, would block us from commercializing our product candidates. Thus, we cannot guarantee that our product candidates, or our commercialization thereof, do not and will not infringe any third party’s intellectual property.

If we do not obtain patent term extension in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act and in foreign countries under similar legislation, thereby potentially extending the term of our marketing exclusivity of our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending on the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, if any, one of the U.S. patents covering each of such approved product(s) or the use thereof may be eligible for up to five years of patent term restoration under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA approved product. Patent term extension also may be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates, including by the EMA in the EU or the PMDA in Japan. Nevertheless, we may not be granted patent term extension either in the United States or in any foreign country because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the term of extension, as well as the scope of patent protection during any such extension, afforded by the governmental authority could be less than we request. In addition, if a patent we wish to extend is owned by another party and licensed to us, we may need to obtain approval and cooperation from our licensor to request the extension.

If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

If we fail to attract and keep senior management and key scientific and regulatory affairs personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop our product candidates, conduct our clinical trials and commercialize our product candidates.

We are highly dependent on members of our executive management, particularly Silviu Itescu, our Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Itescu was an early pioneer in the study and clinical development of stem cell therapeutics and is globally recognized in the field of regenerative medicine. The loss of the services of Dr. Itescu or any other member of the executive management team could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing, regulatory affairs, sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. We may not be able to attract and retain these personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and collaboration partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with laws and regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include failures to comply with FDA regulations, to provide accurate information to the FDA, to comply with manufacturing standards we have established, to comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, to report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements (including arrangements with

29

healthcare providers, opinion leaders, research institutions, distributors and payors) in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations restrict or prohibit a wide range of activity relating to pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commissions, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation, or, given we are a listed company in Australia and the United States, breach of insider trading laws. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

We may acquire other companies or assets which could divert our management’s attention, result in additional dilution to our shareholders and otherwise disrupt our operations and harm our operating results.

We have in the past and may in the future seek to acquire businesses, products or technologies that we believe could complement or expand our product offerings, enhance our technical capabilities or otherwise offer growth opportunities. For example, we acquired MSC assets from Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (“Osiris”) in 2013. The pursuit of potential acquisitions may divert the attention of management and cause us to incur various expenses in identifying, investigating and pursuing suitable acquisitions, whether or not they are consummated. If we acquire additional businesses, we may not be able to integrate the acquired personnel, operations and technologies successfully, or effectively manage the combined business following the acquisition. We also may not achieve the anticipated benefits from the acquired business due to a number of factors, including:

In the future, if our acquisitions do not yield expected returns, we may be required to take charges to our operating results arising from the impairment assessment process. Acquisitions may also result in dilutive issuances of equity securities or the incurrence of debt, which could adversely affect our operating results. In addition, if an acquired business fails to meet our expectations, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

We and our collaborators must comply with environmental laws and regulations, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations could expose us to significant liabilities.

We and our collaborators are subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws, rules and regulations, including those relating to the discharge of materials into the air, water and ground, the manufacture, storage, handling, use, transportation and disposal of hazardous and biological materials, and the health and safety of employees with respect to laboratory activities required for the development of products and technologies. In the event of contamination or injury, or failure to comply with environmental, occupational health and safety and export control laws and regulations, it could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts, or business operations, and we could be held liable for any resulting damages and any such liability could exceed our assets and resources.

30

We work with outside scientists and their institutions in developing product candidates. These scientists may have other commitments or conflicts of interest, which could limit our access to their expertise and harm our ability to leverage our discovery platform.

We work with scientific advisors and collaborators at academic research institutions in connection with our product development. These scientific advisors serve as our link to the specific pools of trial participants we are targeting in that these advisors may:

These scientists and collaborators are not our employees, rather they serve as either independent contractors or the primary investigators under research collaboration agreements that we have with their sponsoring academic or research institution. Such scientists and collaborators may have other commitments that would limit their availability to us. Although our scientific advisors generally agree not to do competing work, if an actual or potential conflict of interest between their work for us and their work for another entity arises, we may lose their services. It is also possible that some of our valuable proprietary knowledge may become publicly known through these scientific advisors if they breach their confidentiality agreements with us, which would cause competitive harm to our business.

If our ability to use cumulative carry forward net operating losses is or becomes subject to certain limitations or if certain tax incentive credits from which we benefit expire or no longer apply to us, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

We are an Australian company subject to taxation in Australia and other jurisdictions. As of June 30, 2018, our cumulative operating losses have a total potential tax benefit of $97.4 million at local tax rates (excluding other temporary differences). These losses may be available for use once we are in a tax profitable position. These losses were incurred in different jurisdictions and can only be offset against profits earned in the relevant jurisdictions. Tax losses are able to be carried forward at their nominal amount indefinitely in Australia and in Singapore, and for up to 20 years in the U.S. as long as certain conditions are met; however, new tax reform legislation in the United States allows for indefinite carryforward of any net operating loss arising in a tax year ending after June 30, 2018, subject to certain conditions. In order to use these tax losses, it is necessary to satisfy certain tests and, as a result, we cannot assure you that the tax losses will be available to offset profits if and when we earn them. Utilization of our net operating loss and research and development credit carryforwards in the U.S. may be subject to substantial annual limitation due to ownership change limitations that could occur in the future provided by Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In addition, U.S. tax reform introduced a limitation on the amount of net operating losses arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, that a corporation may deduct in a single tax year equal to the lesser of the available net operating loss carryover or 80 percent of a taxpayer’s pre-net operating loss deduction taxable income. With respect to carryforward net operating losses in the U.S. that are subject to the 20-year carry-forward limit, our carry forward net operating losses first start to expire in 2032. In addition, we are eligible for certain research and development tax incentive refundable credits in Australia that may increase our available cash flow. The Australian federal government's Research and Development Tax Incentive grant is available for eligible research and development purposes based on the filing of an annual application. We currently project to benefit from these incentives in future taxable years. We recognized income of $1.8 million and $1.5 million, respectively, from the Research and Development Tax Incentive program for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017. To the extent our research and development expenditures are deemed to be “ineligible,” then our grants would decrease.

There can be no assurances that we will continue to benefit from these incentives or that such tax incentive credit programs will not be revoked or modified in any way in the future. The Australian government may in the future decide to modify the requirements of, reduce the amounts of the research and development tax incentive credits available under, or discontinue its research and development tax incentive program. For instance, the Australian government undertook a review of its Research and Development Tax Incentive program in 2016 and in the May 2018 Federal budget announced its intention to pass certain recommendations of the review panel into law to reduce the research and development tax incentive credits available in certain circumstances. One of the changes announced in May 2018 was to reduce the amount of the research and development tax incentive credits available by capping the annual refundable tax offset amount at A$4.0 million for companies with an annual aggregate turnover of less than A$20.0 million, such as us, however, refundable tax offsets related to spend incurred on clinical trials conducted in Australia would not be capped. If the Research and Development Tax program incentives are revoked or modified, or if we no longer qualify as a small-medium business under the A$20.0 million turnover test or we are no longer eligible for such incentives due to other circumstances, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

31

Taxing authorities could reallocate our taxable income within our subsidiaries, which could increase our consolidated tax liability.

We conduct operations in multiple tax jurisdictions and the tax laws of those jurisdictions generally require that the transfer prices between affiliated companies in different jurisdictions be the same as those between unrelated companies dealing at arms’ length, and that such prices are supported by contemporaneous documentation. While we believe that we operate in compliance with applicable transfer pricing laws and intend to continue to do so, our transfer pricing procedures are not binding on applicable tax authorities. If tax authorities in any of these countries were to successfully challenge our transfer prices as not reflecting arms’ length transactions, they could require us to adjust our transfer prices and thereby reallocate our income to reflect these revised transfer prices, which could result in a higher tax liability to us, and possibly interest and penalties, and could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The pharmaceutical industry is highly regulated and pharmaceutical companies are subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act.

Healthcare fraud and abuse regulations are complex and can be subject to varying interpretations as to whether or not a statute has been violated. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

Any failure to comply with these laws, or the regulations adopted thereunder, could result in administrative, civil, and/or criminal penalties, and could result in a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition.

The federal fraud and abuse laws have been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers and a variety of health care professionals. Although the federal Anti-Kickback Statute has several statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, all elements of the potentially applicable exemption or safe harbor must be met in order for the arrangement to be protected, and prosecutors have interpreted the federal healthcare fraud statutes to attack a wide range of conduct by pharmaceutical companies. In addition, most states have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback and federal false claims laws, which apply to items and services covered by Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Administrative, civil and criminal sanctions may be imposed under these federal and state laws.

32

Further, the ACA, among other things, amended the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA makes clear that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim under the federal False Claims Act. Any violations of these laws, or any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could result in a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition.

A failure to adequately protect private health information could result in severe harm to our reputation and subject us to significant liabilities, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Throughout the clinical trial process, we may obtain the private health information of our trial subjects. There are a number of state, federal and international laws protecting the privacy and security of health information and personal data. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 (“ARRA”), Congress amended the privacy and security provisions of HIPAA. HIPAA imposes limitations on the use and disclosure of an individual’s healthcare information by healthcare providers conducting certain electronic transactions, healthcare clearinghouses, and health insurance plans, collectively referred to as covered entities. The HIPAA amendments also impose compliance obligations and corresponding penalties for non-compliance on certain individuals and entities that provide services to or perform certain functions on behalf of healthcare providers and other covered entities involving the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information, collectively referred to as business associates. ARRA also made significant increases in the penalties for improper use or disclosure of an individual’s health information under HIPAA and extended enforcement authority to state attorneys general. The amendments also create notification requirements to federal regulators, and in some cases local and national media, for individuals whose health information has been inappropriately accessed or disclosed. Notification is not required under HIPAA if the health information that is improperly used or disclosed is deemed secured in accordance with certain encryption or other standards developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS. Most states have laws requiring notification of affected individuals and state regulators in the event of a breach of personal information, which is a broader class of information than the health information protected by HIPAA. Many state laws impose significant data security requirements, such as encryption or mandatory contractual terms to ensure ongoing protection of personal information. Activities outside of the U.S. implicate local and national data protection standards, impose additional compliance requirements and generate additional risks of enforcement for non-compliance. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and other data protection, privacy and similar national, state/provincial and local laws and regulations may also restrict the access, use and disclosure of patient health information abroad. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws, to protect against security breaches and hackers or to alleviate problems caused by such breaches.

Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including Australian bribery laws, the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business.

Anti-corruption laws generally prohibit us and our employees and intermediaries from bribing, being bribed or making other prohibited payments to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Although we believe that we have adequate policies and enforcement mechanisms to ensure legal and regulatory compliance with the FCPA, the U.K. Bribery Act 2010 and other similar regulations, we participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties, and it is possible that any of our employees, subcontractors, agents or partners may violate any such legal and regulatory requirements, which may expose us to criminal or civil enforcement actions, including penalties and suspension or disqualification from U.S. federal procurement contracting . In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope or effect of future regulatory requirements to which our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted.

There is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws or other laws including trade related laws. If we are not in compliance with these laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. Likewise, any investigation of any potential violations of these laws by respective government bodies could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may lose our foreign private issuer status, which would then require us to comply with the Exchange Act’s domestic reporting regime and cause us to incur additional legal, accounting and other expenses.

In order to maintain our current status as a foreign private issuer, either (1) a majority of our ordinary shares must be either directly or indirectly owned of record by non-residents of the United States or (2) (a) a majority of our executive officers or directors must not be U.S. citizens or residents, (b) more than 50 percent of our assets cannot be located in the United States and (c) our business must be administered principally outside the United States. If we lost this status, we would be required to comply with the

33

Exchange Act reporting and other requirements applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, which are more detailed and extensive than the requirements for foreign private issuers. We may also be required to make changes in our corporate governance practices in accordance with various SEC rules and Nasdaq listing standards. Further, we would be required to comply with United States generally accepted accounting principles, as opposed to IFRS, in the preparation and issuance of our financial statements for historical and current periods. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws if we are required to comply with the reporting requirements applicable to a U.S. domestic issuer may be higher than the cost we would incur as a foreign private issuer. As a result, we expect that a loss of foreign private issuer status would increase our legal and financial compliance costs.

If we fail to maintain proper internal controls, our ability to produce accurate financial statements or comply with applicable regulations could be impaired.

Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), requires that our management assess and report annually on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting and identify any material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting. In order to maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, we have expended, and anticipate that we will continue to expend, significant resources, including accounting-related costs and significant management oversight.

If either we are unable to conclude that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting or our independent auditors are unwilling or unable to provide us with an unqualified report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting as required by Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, investors may lose confidence in our operating results, the price of the ADSs could decline and we may be subject to litigation or regulatory enforcement actions. In addition, if we are unable to meet the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we may not be able to remain listed on Nasdaq Global Select Market.

We have incurred and will continue to incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a company whose ADSs are publicly traded in the United States, and our management will continue to be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

As a company whose ADSs are publicly traded in the United States, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting, insurance and other expenses. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and related rules implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq, have imposed various requirements on public companies including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls. Our management and other personnel will need to continue to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives, and we will need to add additional personnel and build our internal compliance infrastructure. Moreover, these rules and regulations have increased and will continue to increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. These laws and regulations could also make it more difficult and expensive for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as our senior management. Furthermore, if we are unable to satisfy our obligations as a public company, we could be subject to delisting of the ADSs, fines, sanctions and other regulatory action and potentially civil litigation.

We have never declared or paid dividends on our ordinary shares, and we do not anticipate paying dividends in the foreseeable future. Therefore, you must rely on price-appreciation of our ordinary shares or ADSs for a return on your investment.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our ordinary shares. For the foreseeable future, we currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to support our operations and to finance the growth and development of our business. Any future determination to declare cash dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors, subject to compliance with applicable laws and covenants under the loan facilities with Hercules and NovaQuest or other current or future credit facilities, which may restrict or limit our ability to pay dividends, and will depend on our financial condition, operating results, capital requirements, general business conditions and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. We do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our ordinary shares in the foreseeable future. As a result, a return on your investment in our ordinary shares or ADSs will likely only occur if our ordinary share or ADS price appreciates. There is no guarantee that our ordinary shares or ADSs will appreciate in value in the future.

Australian takeover laws may discourage takeover offers being made for us or may discourage the acquisition of a significant position in our ordinary shares or ADSs.

We are incorporated in Australia and are subject to the takeover laws of Australia. Among other things, we are subject to the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (the “Corporations Act”). Subject to a range of exceptions, the Corporations Act prohibits the acquisition of a direct or indirect interest in our issued voting shares if the acquisition of that interest will lead to a person’s voting power in us increasing to more than 20%, or increasing from a starting point that is above 20% and below 90%. Australian takeover laws may discourage takeover offers being made for us or may discourage the acquisition of a significant position in our ordinary

34

shares. This may have the ancillary effect of entrenching our board of directors and may deprive or limit our shareholders’ opportunity to sell their ordinary shares or ADSs and may further restrict the ability of our shareholders to obtain a premium from such transactions.

Risks Related to Our Trading Markets

The market price and trading volume of our ordinary shares and ADSs may be volatile and may be affected by economic conditions beyond our control.

The market price of our ordinary shares and ADSs may be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations. In addition, the trading volume of our ordinary shares and ADSs may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. We cannot assure you that the market price of our ordinary shares and ADSs will not fluctuate or significantly decline in the future.

Some specific factors that could negatively affect the price of our ordinary shares and ADSs or result in fluctuations in their price and trading volume include:

The dual listing of our ordinary shares and the ADSs may adversely affect the liquidity and value of these securities.

Our ADSs are listed on the Nasdaq and our ordinary shares are listed on the ASX. We cannot predict the effect of this dual listing on the value of our ordinary shares and ADSs. However, the dual listing of our ordinary shares and ADSs may dilute the liquidity of these securities in one or both markets and may adversely affect the development of an active trading market for the ADSs in the United States. The price of the ADSs could also be adversely affected by trading in our ordinary shares on the ASX, and vice versa.

35

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research reports about our business, or if they issue an adverse opinion about our business, the market price and trading volume of our ordinary shares and/or ADSs could decline.

The trading market for our ordinary shares and ADSs will be influenced by the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. Securities and industry analysts may discontinue research on our company, to the extent such coverage currently exists, or in other cases, may never publish research on our company. If too few securities or industry analysts commence coverage of our company, the trading price for our ordinary shares and ADSs would likely be negatively impacted. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our ordinary shares or ADSs or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, the market price of our ADSs would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our ordinary shares and/or ADSs could decrease, which might cause our price and trading volume to decline.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our ADSs

An active trading market for the ADSs may not develop in the United States.

Our ADSs are listed in the United States on the Nasdaq under the symbol “MESO.” However, we cannot assure you that an active public market in the United States for the ADSs will develop on that exchange, or if developed, that this market will be sustained. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, shareholders often instituted securities class action litigation against that company. If we were involved in a class action suit, it could divert the attention of senior management and, if adversely determined, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

We currently report our financial results under IFRS, which differs in certain significant respect from U.S. GAAP.

Currently we report our financial statements under IFRS. There have been and there may in the future be certain significant differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP, including differences related to revenue recognition, intangible assets, share-based compensation expense, income tax and earnings per share. As a result, our financial information and reported earnings for historical or future periods could be significantly different if they were prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. In addition, we do not intend to provide a reconciliation between IFRS and U.S. GAAP unless it is required under applicable law. As a result, you may not be able to meaningfully compare our financial statements under IFRS with those companies that prepare financial statements under U.S. GAAP.

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted and expect to follow certain home country corporate governance practices in lieu of certain Nasdaq requirements applicable to domestic issuers and we are permitted to file less information with the Securities and Exchange Commission than a company that is not a foreign private issuer. This may afford less protection to holders of our ADSs.

As a “foreign private issuer,” as defined in Rule 405 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 , as amended (the “Securities Act”), whose ADSs will be listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, we will be permitted to, and plan to, follow certain home country corporate governance practices in lieu of certain Nasdaq Global Select Market requirements. For example, we may follow home country practice with regard to certain corporate governance requirements, such as the composition of the board of directors and quorum requirements applicable to shareholders’ meetings. This difference may result in a board that is more difficult to remove and less shareholder approvals required generally. In addition, we may follow home country practice instead of the Nasdaq Global Select Market requirement to hold executive sessions and to obtain shareholder approval prior to the issuance of securities in connection with certain acquisitions or private placements of securities. The above differences may result in less shareholder oversight and requisite approvals for certain acquisition or financing related decisions. Further, we may follow home country practice instead of the Nasdaq Global Select Market requirement to obtain shareholder approval prior to the establishment or amendment of certain share option, purchase or other compensation plans. This difference may result in less shareholder oversight and requisite approvals for certain company compensation related decisions. A foreign private issuer must disclose in its annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and the Nasdaq Global Select Market, the requirements with which it does not comply followed by a description of its applicable home country practice. The Australian home country practices described above may afford less protection to holders of the ADSs than that provided under the Nasdaq Global Select Market rules.

Further, as a foreign private issuer, we are exempt from certain rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 , as amended (the “Exchange Act”), that impose disclosure requirements as well as procedural requirements for proxy solicitations under Section 14 of the Exchange Act. In addition, our officers, directors and principal shareholders are exempt from the reporting and “short-swing” profit recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. Moreover, we are not required to file periodic reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as a company that files as a domestic issuer whose securities are registered under the Exchange Act, nor are we generally required to comply with the SEC’s Regulation FD, which restricts the selective disclosure of material non-public information. Accordingly, the information may not be disseminated in as timely a manner, or there may be less information publicly available concerning us generally than there is for a company that files as a domestic issuer.

36

ADS holders may be subject to additional risks related to holding ADSs rather than ordinary shares.

ADS holders do not hold ordinary shares directly and, as such, are subject to, among others, the following additional risks.

ADS holders must act through the ADR depositary to exercise your voting rights and, as a result, you may be unable to exercise your voting rights on a timely basis.

As a holder of ADSs (and not the ordinary shares underlying your ADSs), we will not treat you as one of our shareholders, and you will not be able to exercise shareholder rights. The ADR depositary will be the holder of the ordinary shares underlying your ADSs, and ADS holders will be able to exercise voting rights with respect to the ordinary shares represented by the ADSs only in accordance with the deposit agreement relating to the ADSs. There are practical limitations on the ability of ADS holders to exercise their voting rights due to the additional procedural steps involved in communicating with these holders. For example, holders of our ordinary shares will receive notice of shareholders’ meetings by mail or email and will be able to exercise their voting rights by either attending the shareholders meeting in person or voting by proxy. ADS holders, by comparison, will not receive notice directly from us. Instead, in accordance with the deposit agreement, we will provide notice to the ADR depositary of any such shareholders meeting and details concerning the matters to be voted upon. As soon as practicable after receiving notice from us of any such meeting, the ADR depositary will mail to holders of ADSs the notice of the meeting and a statement as to the manner in which voting instructions may be given by ADS holders. To exercise their voting rights, ADS holders must then instruct the ADR depositary as to voting the ordinary shares represented by their ADSs. Due to these procedural steps involving the ADR depositary, the process for exercising voting rights may take longer for ADS holders than for holders of ordinary shares. The ordinary shares represented by ADSs for which the ADR depositary fails to receive timely voting instructions will not be voted. Under Australian law and our Constitution, any resolution to be considered at a meeting of the shareholders shall be decided on a show of hands unless a poll is demanded by the shareholders at or before the declaration of the result of the show of hands. Under voting by a show of hands, multiple “yes” votes by ADS holders will only count as one “yes” vote and will be negated by a single “no” vote, unless a poll is demanded.

If we are or become classified as a passive foreign investment company, our U.S. securityholders may suffer adverse tax consequences.

Based upon an analysis of our income and assets for the taxable year ended June 30, 2018, we do not believe we were a passive foreign investment company (a "PFIC") for our most recent tax year. In general, if at least 75% of our gross income for any taxable year consists of passive income or at least 50% of the average quarterly value of assets is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income, including cash, then we will be classified as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Passive income for this purpose generally includes dividends, interest, certain royalties and rents, and gains from commodities and securities transactions. Passive assets for this purpose generally includes assets held for the production of passive income. Accordingly, passive assets generally include any cash, cash equivalents and cash invested in short-term, interest bearing, debt instruments or bank deposits that are readily convertible into cash. Since PFIC status depends upon the composition of our income and assets and the market value of our assets from time to time, and as the determination of PFIC status must be made annually at the end of each taxable year, there can be no assurance that we will not be considered a PFIC for any future taxable year. Investors should be aware that our gross income for purposes of the PFIC income test depends on the receipt of Australian research and development tax incentive credits and other active revenue, and there can be no assurances that such tax incentive credit programs will not be revoked or modified, that we will continue to conduct our operations in the manner necessary to be eligible for such incentives or that we will receive other gross income that is not considered passive for purposes of the PFIC income test. If we were a PFIC for any taxable year during a U.S. investor’s holding period for the ordinary shares or ADSs, we would ordinarily continue to be treated as a PFIC for each subsequent year during which the U.S. investor owned the ordinary shares or ADSs. If we were treated as a PFIC, U.S. investors would be subject to special punitive tax rules with respect to any "excess distribution" received from us and any gain realized from a sale or other disposition (including a pledge) of the ordinary shares or ADSs unless a U.S. investor made a timely "qualified electing fund" or "mark-to-market" election. For a more detailed discussion of the U.S. tax consequences to U.S. investors if we were classified as a PFIC, see Item 10.E- "Taxation — Certain Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations to U.S. Holders — Passive Foreign Investment Company".

37

Changes in foreign currency exchange rates could impact amounts you receive as a result of any dividend or distribution we declare on our ordinary shares.

Any significant change in the value of the Australian dollar may impact amounts you receive in U.S. dollars as a result of any dividend or distribution we declare on our ordinary shares as a holder of our ADSs. More specifically, any dividends that we pay on our ordinary shares will be in Australian dollars. The depositary for the ADSs has agreed to pay to you the cash dividends or other distributions it or the custodian receives on our ordinary shares or other deposited securities after deducting its fees and expenses, including any such fees or expenses incurred to convert any such Australian dollars into U.S. dollars. You will receive these distributions in U.S. dollars in proportion to the number of our ordinary shares your ADSs represent. Depreciation of the U.S. dollar against the Australian dollar would have a negative effect on any such distribution payable to you.

You may not receive distributions on our ordinary shares represented by the ADSs or any value for such distribution if it is illegal or impractical to make them available to holders of ADSs.

While we do not anticipate paying any dividends on our ordinary shares in the foreseeable future, if such a dividend is declared, the depositary for the ADSs has agreed to pay to you the cash dividends or other distributions it or the custodian receives on our ordinary shares or other deposited securities after deducting its fees and expenses. You will receive these distributions in proportion to the number of our ordinary shares your ADSs represent. However, in accordance with the limitations set forth in the deposit agreement, it may be unlawful or impractical to make a distribution available to holders of ADSs. We have no obligation to take any other action to permit the distribution of the ADSs, ordinary shares, rights or anything else to holders of the ADSs. This means that you may not receive the distributions we make on our ordinary shares or any value from them if it is unlawful or impractical to make them available to you. These restrictions may have a material adverse effect on the value of your ADSs.

You may be subject to limitations on transfers of your ADSs.

ADSs are transferable on the books of the depositary. However, the depositary may close its transfer books at any time or from time to time when it deems expedient in connection with the performance of its duties. In addition, the depositary may refuse to deliver, transfer or register transfers of ADSs generally when our books or the books of the depositary are closed, or at any time if we or the depositary deems it advisable to do so because of any requirement of law or of any government or governmental body, or under any provision of the deposit agreement, or for any other reason.

U.S. investors may have difficulty enforcing civil liabilities against our company, our directors or members of our senior management.

Several of our officers and directors are non-residents of the United States, and a substantial portion of the assets of such persons are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be impossible to serve process on such persons in the United States or to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts against them based on civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States. Even if you are successful in bringing such an action, there is doubt as to whether Australian courts would enforce certain civil liabilities under U.S. securities laws in original actions or judgments of U.S. courts based upon these civil liability provisions. In addition, awards of punitive damages in actions brought in the United States or elsewhere may be unenforceable in Australia or elsewhere outside the U.S. An award for monetary damages under the U.S. securities laws would be considered punitive if it does not seek to compensate the claimant for loss or damage suffered and is intended to punish the defendant. The enforceability of any judgment in Australia will depend on the particular facts of the case as well as the laws and treaties in effect at the time. The United States and Australia do not currently have a treaty or statute providing for recognition and enforcement of the judgments of the other country (other than arbitration awards) in civil and commercial matters.

As a result, our public shareholders and holders of the ADSs may have more difficulty in protecting their interests through actions against us, our management, our directors than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction in the United States.

Our Constitution and Australian laws and regulations applicable to us may adversely affect our ability to take actions that could be beneficial to our shareholders.

As an Australian company we are subject to different corporate requirements than a corporation organized under the laws of the United States. Our Constitution, as well as the Corporations Act, sets forth various rights and obligations that apply to us as an Australian company and which may not apply to a U.S. corporation. These requirements may operate differently than those of many U.S. companies.

38