Note 1 – Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting Policies

The unaudited consolidated financial statements including the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of May 31, 2012 and November 30, 2011, the related Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and six months ended May 31, 2012 and May 31, 2011 and the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the six months ended May 31, 2012 and 2011 have been prepared by Cryo-Cell International, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“the Company” or “Cryo-Cell”) pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission for interim financial reporting. Certain financial information and note disclosures, which are normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, have been condensed or omitted pursuant to those rules and regulations. It is suggested that these consolidated financial statements be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s November 30, 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (which include only normal recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly the financial position, results of operations, and changes in cash flows for all periods presented have been made. The results of operations for the three and six months ended May 31, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results expected for any interim period in the future or the entire year ending November 30, 2012.

Revenue Recognition

Revenue Recognition for Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables

For multi-element arrangements, the Company allocates revenue to all deliverables based on their relative selling prices. In such circumstances, accounting principles establish a hierarchy to determine the selling price to be used for allocating revenue to deliverables as follows: (i) vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value (“VSOE”), (ii) third-party evidence of selling price (“TPE”), and (iii) best estimate of the selling price (“ESP”). VSOE generally exists only when the Company sells the deliverable separately and it is the price actually charged by the Company for that deliverable.

The Company has identified two deliverables generally contained in the arrangements involving the sale of its umbilical cord blood product. The first deliverable is the processing of a specimen. The second deliverable is either the annual storage of a specimen or the 21 year storage fee charged for a specimen. The Company has allocated revenue between these deliverables using the relative selling price method. The Company has VSOE for its annual storage fees as the Company renews storage fees annually with its customers on a standalone basis. Because the Company has neither VSOE nor TPE for the processing and 21 year storage deliverables, the allocation of revenue has been based on the Company’s ESPs. Amounts allocated to processing a specimen are recognized at the time of sale. Amounts allocated to the storage of a specimen are recognized ratably over the contractual storage period. Any discounts given to the customer are recognized by applying the relative selling price method whereby after the Company determines the selling price to be allocated to each deliverable (processing and storage), the sum of the prices of the deliverables is then compared to the arrangement consideration, and any difference is applied to the separate deliverables ratably.

The Company’s process for determining its ESP for deliverables without VSOE or TPE considers multiple factors that may vary depending upon the unique facts and circumstances related to each deliverable. Key factors considered by the Company in developing the ESPs for its processing and 21 year storage fee include the Company’s historical pricing practices as well as expected profit margins.

The Company records revenue from processing and storage of specimens and pursuant to agreements with licensees. The Company recognizes revenue from processing fees upon completion of processing and recognizes storage fees ratably over the contractual storage period, as well as, other income from royalties paid by licensees related to long-term storage contracts which the Company has under license agreements. Contracted storage periods can range from one to twenty-one years. Deferred revenue on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets includes the portion of the annual storage fee and the twenty-one year storage fee that is being recognized over the contractual storage period as well as royalties received from foreign licensees related to long-term storage contracts in which the Company has future obligations under the license agreement. The Company classifies deferred revenue as current if the Company expects to recognize the related revenue over the next 12 months. The Company also records revenue within processing and storage fees from shipping and handling billed to customers when earned. Shipping and handling costs that the Company incurs are expensed and included in cost of sales.

The Company has not had a third party conduct a physical inventory count of all specimens stored; however, the Company from time to time will perform a physical inventory count of specimens stored to ensure that all records are accurate.

Income Taxes

Deferred income tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences attributable to differences between financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred income tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to be recovered or settled. The Company has recorded a valuation allowance of $10,328,000 and $7,756,000 as of May 31, 2012 and November 30, 2011, respectively, as the Company does not believe it is “more likely than not” that all future income tax benefits will be realized. If the Company changes its determination as to the amount of deferred tax assets that can be realized, the valuation allowance is adjusted with a corresponding impact to income tax expense in the period in which such determination is made. The ultimate realization of the Company’s deferred tax assets depends upon generating sufficient taxable income prior to the expiration of the tax attributes. In assessing the need for a valuation allowance, the Company projects future levels of taxable income. This assessment requires significant judgment. We examine the evidence related to the recent history of losses, the economic conditions in which we operate and our forecasts and projections to make that determination.

The Company has made certain strategic decisions during 2011 and 2012 concerning the negotiated termination of some of the perpetual Revenue Sharing Agreements (“RSA’s”), the impairment of internal use software that is being replaced with a technology platform that is better suited for the Company’s business needs and the implementation of a national sales force in order to generate growth and future value for the Company’s stockholders. These strategic decisions, including the decision to terminate the former CEO’s employment, resulted in losses in the past few quarters in late fiscal 2011 and the first six months of fiscal 2012. The accounting standards surrounding income taxes require a company to consider whether it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets will be realized. Once a company has had cumulative losses in recent years, regardless of the nature of the loss, the accounting standards do not allow the Company to put significant reliance on future taxable income projections to overcome the more likely than not threshold that the deferred tax assets will be realized. As a result of these recent cumulative losses, the Company reserved all of its remaining net deferred tax assets of approximately $1,700,000 as of May 31, 2012 resulting in a charge to earnings during the three months ended May 31, 2012.

There was $1,718,919 of U.S. income tax expense recorded for the three and six months ended May 31, 2012 as a result of the Company’s decision to record a valuation allowance associated with certain of the Company’s deferred tax assets during the second quarter of 2012, as it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets will not be realized.

There was no U.S. income tax expense or benefit for the three and six months ended May 31, 2011. The Company did not record U.S. income tax expense during the three and six month ended May 31, 2011 due to the utilization of net operating losses and foreign tax credit carryforwards, which were previously reserved through valuation allowances in the Company’s financial statements.

The Company records foreign income taxes withheld from installment payments of non-refundable up-front license fees and royalty income earned on the processing and storage of cord blood stem cell specimens in geographic areas where the Company has license agreements. The Company recognized approximately $25,000 and $31,000 for the three months ended May 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, of foreign income tax expense. The Company recognized approximately $82,000 and $70,000 for the six months ended May 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, of foreign income tax expense.

The Company recognizes the financial statement benefit of a tax position only after determining that the relevant tax authority would more likely than not sustain the position following an audit. For tax positions meeting the more-likely-than-not threshold, the amount recognized in the financial statements is the largest benefit that has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the relevant tax authority. Increases or decreases to the unrecognized tax benefits could result from management’s belief that a position can or cannot be sustained upon examination based on subsequent information or potential lapse of the applicable statute of limitation for certain tax positions.

The Company recognizes interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions in income tax expense. For the three and six months ended May 31, 2012 and May 31, 2011, the Company had no provisions for interest or penalties related to uncertain tax positions.

Long-Lived Assets

The Company evaluates the realizability of its long-lived assets, which requires impairment losses to be recorded on long-lived assets used in operations when indicators of impairment, such as reductions in demand or when significant economic slowdowns are present. Reviews are performed to determine whether the carrying value of an asset is impaired, based on comparisons to undiscounted expected future cash flows. If this comparison indicates that there is impairment and carrying value is in excess of fair value, the impaired asset is written down to fair value, which is typically calculated using: (i) quoted market prices or (ii) discounted expected future cash flows utilizing a discount rate.

Stock Compensation

As of May 31, 2012, the Company has three stock-based employee compensation plans, which are described in Note 4. The Company’s third stock-based employee compensation plan became effective December 1, 2011 as approved by the Board of Directors and approved by the stockholders at the 2012 Annual Meeting. The Company recognized approximately $760,000 and $34,000 for the three months ended May 31, 2012 and May 31, 2011, respectively, of stock option compensation expense. The Company recognized approximately $1,019,000 and $93,000 for the six months ended May 31, 2012 and May 31, 2011, respectively, of stock compensation expense. On May 30, 2012, the Company was notified that Mr. Ki Yong Choi nominated himself and five other persons for election as directors to compete with the Company’s existing board of directors at the 2012 Annual Meeting. Pursuant to the Co-CEO’s employment agreements, if the Company receives a Nomination Solicitation Notice, as defined in the Company’s Bylaws, all options that have been issued to the Co-CEO’s will immediately vest. Included in stock compensation expense is approximately $700,000 that is due to the immediate vesting of the options issued to the Co-CEO’s. The Company recognizes stock-based compensation based on the fair value of the related awards. Under the fair value recognition guidance of stock-based compensation accounting rules, stock-based compensation expense is estimated at the grant date based on the fair value of the award and is recognized as expense over the requisite service period of the award. The fair value of service-based vesting condition and performance-based vesting condition stock option awards is determined using the Black-Scholes valuation model. The Company estimates the fair value of stock option awards as of the grant date by applying the Black-Scholes option pricing model. For stock options awards with only service-based vesting conditions and graded vesting features, the Company recognizes stock compensation expense based on the graded-vesting method. To value awards with market-based vesting conditions the Company uses a binomial valuation model. The Company recognizes compensation cost for awards with market-based vesting conditions on a graded-vesting basis over the derived service period calculated by the binomial valuation model. The use of these valuation models involve assumptions that are judgmental and highly sensitive in the determination of compensation expense and include the expected life of the option, stock price volatility, risk-free interest rate, dividend yield, exercise price, and forfeiture rate. Forfeitures are estimated at the time of valuation and reduce expense ratably over the vesting period.

The estimation of stock awards that will ultimately vest requires judgment and to the extent that actual results or updated estimates differ from current estimates, such amounts will be recorded as a cumulative adjustment in the period they become known. The Company considered many factors when estimating forfeitures, including the recipient groups and historical experience. Actual results and future changes in estimates may differ substantially from current estimates.

The Company issues performance-based equity awards which vest upon the achievement of certain financial performance goals, including revenue and income targets. Determining the appropriate amount to expense based on the anticipated achievement of the stated goals requires judgment, including forecasting future financial results. The estimate of the timing of the expense recognition is revised periodically based on the probability of achieving the required performance targets and adjustments are made as appropriate. The cumulative impact of any revision is reflected in the period of the change. If the financial performance goals are not met, the award does not vest, so no compensation cost is recognized and any previously stock-recognized stock-based compensation expense is reversed.

The Company issues equity awards with market-based vesting conditions which vest upon the achievement of certain stock price targets. If the awards are forfeited prior to the completion of the derived service period, any recognized compensation is reversed. If the awards are forfeited after the completion of the derived service period, the compensation cost is not reversed, even if the awards never vest.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Management uses a fair value hierarchy, which gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets. The fair value of financial instruments is estimated based on market trading information, where available. Absent published market values for an instrument or other assets, management uses observable market data to arrive at its estimates of fair value. Management believes that the carrying amount of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and advances, notes receivable, accounts payable, accrued expenses, deferred consulting obligation and its liability associated with long-term revenue sharing arrangements approximate fair value.

The Company uses an accounting standard that defines fair value as an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. As a basis for considering such assumptions, the standard establishes a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value are as follows:

The following table summarizes the financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of May 31, 2012 and November 30, 2011, respectively, segregated among the appropriate levels within the fair value hierarchy:

The following is a description of the valuation techniques used for these items, as well as the general classification of such items pursuant to the fair value hierarchy:

Trading securities – The Company invested in exchange-traded equity securities of $20,760 and $0 at May 31, 2012 and November 30, 2011, respectively. Fair values for these investments are based on quoted prices in active markets and are therefore classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. There was $7,380 in unrealized holding loss recorded in other income and expense on the accompanying consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended May 31, 2012.

Available-for-sale securities – As of November 30, 2011, the Company invested $1,002,000 in variable rate demand notes. The interest rate on these variable rate demand notes resets every seven days to adjust to current market conditions. The Company can redeem these investments at cost at any time with seven days notice. Therefore, the investments are held at cost, which approximates fair value, and are classified as short-term investments on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. During fiscal 2012, the Company redeemed these variable rate demand notes for an amount that closely approximated redemption date carrying value. As a result, no gain or loss was recognized upon redemption.

The Company further invested in exchange-traded equity securities of and $0 and $6,404 at May 31, 2012 and November 30, 2011, respectively. Fair values for these investments are based on quoted prices in active markets and are therefore classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

The Company is permitted to make an election to carry certain eligible financial assets and liabilities at fair value, even if fair value measurement has not historically been required for such assets and liabilities under U.S. GAAP. The Company made no elections to record any such assets and or liabilities at fair value. Adjustments to the fair value in the Company’s available-for-sale securities and other investments were reflected in accumulated other comprehensive loss.

Product Warranty and Cryo-Cell Cares ^TM Program

In December 2005, the Company began providing its customers enrolled under the new pricing structure with a payment warranty under which the Company agrees to pay $50,000 to its client if the umbilical cord blood product retrieved is used for a stem cell transplant for the donor or an immediate family member and fails to engraft, subject to various restrictions. Effective February 1, 2012, the Company increased the $50,000 payment warranty to a $75,000 payment warranty to all of its new clients. Additionally, under the Cryo-Cell CaresTM program, the Company will pay $10,000 to the client to offset personal expenses if the umbilical cord blood product is used for bone marrow reconstitution in a myeloblative transplant procedure. The product warranty and the Cryo-Cell Cares program are available to the clients who enroll under this structure for as long as the specimen is stored with the Company. The Company has not experienced any claims under the warranty program nor has it incurred costs related to these warranties. The Company does not maintain insurance for this warranty program and therefore maintains reserves to cover any estimated potential liabilities. The Company’s reserve balance is based on the $75,000 or $50,000 (as applicable) maximum payment and the $10,000 maximum expense reimbursement multiplied by formulas to determine the projected number of units requiring a payout. The Company determined the estimated expected usage and engraftment failure rates based on an analysis of the historical usage and failure rates and the historical usage and failure rates in other private and public cord blood banks based on published data. The Company’s estimates of expected usage and engraftment failure could change as a result of changes in actual usage rates or failure rates and such changes would require an adjustment to the established reserves. The historical usage and failure rates have been very low and a small increase in the number of transplants or engraftment failures could cause a significant increase in the estimated rates used in determining our reserve. In addition, the reserve will increase as additional umbilical cord blood specimens are stored which are subject to the warranty. As of May 31, 2012 and November 30, 2011 the Company recorded reserves under these programs in the amounts of $13,713 and $13,351, respectively, which are included in accrued expenses in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income (“ASU 2011-05”). ASU 2011-05 will require companies to present the components of net income and other comprehensive income either as one continuous statement or as two consecutive statements. It eliminates the option to present components of other comprehensive income as part of the changes in stockholders’ equity. The standard does not change the items which must be reported in other comprehensive income, how such items are measured or when they must be reclassified to net income. ASU 2011-05 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011, with early adoption permitted. The Company will adopt ASU 2011-05 when required in the first quarter of 2013. The adoption of ASU 2011-05 will only impact presentation and will not have any effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements or on its financial condition.

In December 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-12: Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05 (ASU 2011-12) . The Update defers the specific requirement to present items that are reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income to net income separately with their respective components of net income and other comprehensive income. As part of this update, the FASB did not defer the requirement to report comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement or in two separate but consecutive financial statements. ASU 2011-12 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company will adopt ASU 2011-12 in the first quarter of 2013.