Summary of Significant Accounting Policies | 2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES During the six months ended June 30, 2019, there have been no material changes to the significant accounting policies described in the Company’s audited financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, and the notes thereto, which are included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, Recently Adopted Accounting Standards – Leases The Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02, The Company elected the following practical expedients when assessing the transition impact of the new standard from both the lessee and lessor perspective and did not: (i) reassess whether any expired or existing contracts as of January 1, 2019, are or contain leases; (ii) reassess the lease classification for any expired or existing leases as of January 1, 2019; (iii) reassess initial direct costs for any existing leases as of January 1, 2019; and (iv) reassess whether land easements meet the definition of a lease. The primary impact was the balance sheet recognition of right-of-use Fair Value Measurements The carrying amounts reported in the Company’s consolidated financial statements for cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable, and accrued liabilities approximate their respective fair values because of the short-term nature of these accounts. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received if selling an asset or paid to transfer a liability in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Additionally, from time to time, the Company may be required to record at fair value other assets on a nonrecurring basis, such as assets held for sale and certain other assets. These nonrecurring fair value adjustments typically involve the application of lower-of-cost-or-market The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1), and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). The Company’s financial assets are classified within the fair value hierarchy based on the lowest level of inputs that is significant to the fair value measurement. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy, and their applicability to the Company’s financial assets, are described below. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 non-transferability, An adjustment to the pricing method used within either Level 1 or Level 2 inputs could generate a fair value measurement that effectively falls in a lower level in the hierarchy. The Company had no material re-measurements The fair value of the warrants issued in connection with the September 2016 private placement was determined using a Monte Carlo simulation model. This model incorporated several assumptions at each valuation date including: the price of the Company’s common stock on the date of valuation, the historical volatility of the price of the Company’s common stock, the remaining contractual term of the warrant and estimates of the probability of a fundamental transaction occurring. The fair value of the warrants issued in connection with the October 2018 underwritten public offering was determined using the Black Scholes model. See Note 6, Capital Stock, for further discussion of the private placement and underwritten public offering. The Company’s financial instruments as of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018 consisted primarily of cash and cash equivalents and warrant liability. As of June 30, 2019, and December 31, 2018, the Company’s financial assets recognized at fair value consisted of the following: Description Total Quoted prices in active (Level 1) Significant other observable inputs (Level 2) Significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) (in thousands) June 30, 2019 Assets: Cash Equivalents Money market funds $ 11 $ 11 $ — $ — Liabilities: Warrant liability $ 15 $ — $ — $ 15 December 31, 2018 Assets: Cash Equivalents Money market funds $ 9,711 $ 9,711 $ — $ — Liabilities: Warrant liability $ 2,512 $ — $ — $ 2,512 The following table provides a reconciliation of all liabilities measured at fair value using Level 3 significant unobservable inputs: June 30, 2019 (in thousands) Beginning balance, December 31, 2018 $ 2,512 Exercise of warrants (3,909 ) Change in fair value of warrant liability 1,412 Ending balance $ 15 Cash and Cash Equivalents The Company considers all highly liquid securities with original maturities of three months or less from the date of purchase to be cash equivalents. Cash and cash equivalents are comprised of funds in money market accounts. In addition, the Company has recorded restricted cash of $0.1 million as of December 31, 2018. Restricted cash consists of a security deposit related to a lease obligation. The restricted cash balance was paid to the lessor in the second quarter of 2019 as part of the settlement of the Company’s lease obligations (see Note 5). Revenue Recognition In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued a new standard related to revenue recognition, Accounting Standard Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, No. 2015-14, Revenue is recognized when, or as, performance obligations are satisfied, which occurs when control of the promised products or services is transferred to customers. Revenue is measured as the amount of consideration the Company expects to receive in exchange for transferring products or services to a customer (“transaction price”). To the extent that the transaction price includes variable consideration, the Company estimates the amount of variable consideration that should be included in the transaction price utilizing the most likely amount method. Variable consideration is included in the transaction price if, in the Company’s judgment, it is probable that a significant future reversal of cumulative revenue under the contract will not occur. Estimates of variable consideration and determination of whether to include estimated amounts in the transaction price are based largely on an assessment of the Company’s anticipated performance and all information (historical, current and forecasted) that is reasonably available. If the contract contains a single performance obligation, the entire transaction price is allocated to the single performance obligation. Contracts that contain multiple performance obligations require an allocation of the transaction price to each performance obligation based on a relative standalone selling price basis unless the transaction price is variable and meets the criteria to be allocated entirely to a performance obligation or to a distinct service that forms part of a single performance obligation. The Company currently generates revenue primarily through collaborative research, development and commercialization agreements. The terms of these agreements may contain multiple promises which may include: (i) licenses to the Company’s technology; (ii) services related to the transfer and update of know-how; non-refundable The Company assesses the promises to determine if they are distinct performance obligations. Once the performance obligations are determined, the transaction price is allocated based on a relative standalone selling price basis. Milestone payments and royalties are typically considered variable consideration at the outset of the contract and are recognized in the transaction price either upon occurrence or when the constraint of a probable reversal is no longer applicable. Collaboration Revenue While no revenue has been recognized as of June 30, 2019, the Company has collaboration and license agreements with strategic partners for the development and commercialization of product candidates. The collaboration and license agreements are within the scope of Accounting Standards Codification (ASC 606) Revenue from Contracts with Customers. In determining the appropriate amount of revenue to be recognized as it fulfills its obligations under the agreements, the Company performs the following steps: (i) identification of the promised goods or services in the contract; (ii) determination of whether the promised goods or services are performance obligations including whether they are distinct in the context of the contract; (iii) measurement of the transaction price, including the constraint on variable consideration; (iv) allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations; and (v) recognition of revenue when (or as) the Company satisfies each performance obligation. As part of the accounting for the arrangement, the Company must develop assumptions that require judgment to determine the stand-alone selling price for each performance obligation identified in the contract. The Company uses key assumptions to determine the stand-alone selling price, which may include market conditions, reimbursement rates for personnel costs, development timelines and probabilities of regulatory success. Licenses of intellectual property: non-refundable, up-front non-refundable, up-front Manufacturing Supply Services: non-refundable, up-front Milestone Payments: re-evaluates catch-up Royalties: License and Collaboration Arrangements MEDINET Co., Ltd. In December 2017, the Company entered into a License and Commercialization Agreement (the “License Agreement”) with MEDINET Co., Ltd. (“MEDINET”) to grant MEDINET a license under certain patents, patent applications, know-how, non-human In exchange for the license, MEDINET agreed to pay the Company an upfront cash payment of $10.0 million which the Company received in January 2018. As of June 30, 2019, the contract with MEDINET was wholly unperformed and all revenue under the License Agreement has been deferred and has not been recognized. As of June 30, 2019, the aggregate amount of the transaction price allocated to remaining performance obligations was $10.0 million. Because the License Agreement was not terminated as of June 30, 2019, the authoritative accounting literature requires that the $10.0 million of deferred revenue remain a liability on the Company’s balance sheet. Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement with Medavate, the Company has agreed to sell the NeoCart Assets in return for a cash payment of $ 6.5 At contract inception, the Company determined that the $10.0 million non-refundable re-evaluates per-patient The Company incurred costs of $0.9 million related to the License Agreement with MEDINET. $0.8 million was recorded as an asset that was to be expensed proportionally over the performance service period. However, given the Company’s decision to discontinue the development of NeoCart and terminate its manufacturing operations, the Company concluded that the asset was impaired and a decision was made to fully write down the value of this asset in the first quarter of 2019. This impairment resulted in a charge to the income statement of $0.8 million. Stock-Based Compensation The Company accounts for stock options and restricted stock based on their grant date fair value and recognizes compensation expense on a straight-line basis over their vesting period. The Company estimates the fair value of stock options as of the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, with the exception of stock options that include a market condition, and restricted stock based on the fair value of the underlying common stock as of the date of grant or the value of the services provided, whichever is more readily determinable. The Company, in conjunction with adoption of ASU 2016-09- pre-vesting For stock option grants with vesting triggered by the achievement of performance-based milestones, the expense is recorded over the remaining service period after the point when the achievement of the milestone is probable or the performance condition has been achieved. For stock option grants with both performance-based milestones and market conditions, expense is recorded over the derived service period after the point when the achievement of the performance-based milestone is probable or the performance condition has been achieved. For stock option grants with market conditions, the expense is calculated using the Monte Carlo model based on the grant date fair value of the option and is recorded on a straight line basis over the requisite service period, which represents the derived service period and accelerated when the market condition is satisfied. The Company did not issue awards with market conditions during the six months ended June 30, 2019. The Company accounts for stock options and restricted stock awards to non-employees non-employees Warrant Accounting As noted in Note 6, Capital Stock, the Company classifies a warrant to purchase shares of its common stock as a liability on its consolidated balance sheet if the warrant is a free-standing financial instrument that may require the Company to transfer consideration upon exercise. Each warrant of this type is initially recorded at fair value on date of grant using the Monte Carlo simulation model net of issuance costs, and is subsequently re-measured Recent Accounting Pronouncements In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-18, In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-13, In August 2018, the SEC adopted the final rule under SEC Release No. 33-10532, 10-Q In June 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-07, No other accounting standards known by the Company to be applicable to it that have been issued by the FASB or other standard-setting bodies and that do not require adoption until a future date are expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. |