CORETEC GROUP INC. - Annual Report: 2017 (Form 10-K)

PART I

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes the accounts of The Coretec Group Inc. (individually referred to as “the Group”), an Oklahoma corporation, together with its wholly-owned subsidiary, Coretec Industries LLC, a North Dakota limited liability corporation based in Fargo, North Dakota (individually referred to as “Coretec”). References in this Report to “we”, “our”, “us” or the “Company” refer to The Coretec Group Inc. and its consolidated subsidiary unless context dictates otherwise.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements in this report, including information incorporated by reference, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. Forward-looking statements reflect current views about future events and financial performance based on certain assumptions. They include opinions, forecasts, intentions, plans, goals, projections, guidance, expectations, beliefs or other statements that are not statements of historical fact. Words such as “will,” “may,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “expects,” “plans,” “believes,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “estimates,” “approximates,” “predicts,” “forecasts,” “potential,” “continue,” or “projects,” or the negative or other variation of such words, and similar expressions may identify a statement as a forward-looking statement. Any statements that refer to projections of our future financial performance, our anticipated growth and trends in our businesses, our goals, strategies, focus and plans, and other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including statements expressing general optimism about future operating results and the development of our products, are forward-looking statements.

Although forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K reflect the good faith judgment of our management, such statements can only be based on facts and factors currently known by us. Consequently, forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties and actual results and outcomes may differ materially from the results and outcomes discussed in or anticipated by the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences in results and outcomes include, without limitation, those specifically addressed under the heading “Risk Factors” below, as well as those discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Readers are urged not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The public can read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC's Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. You can obtain additional information about the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains an Internet site (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, including us.

We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect any event or circumstance that may arise after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Readers are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made throughout the entirety of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which attempt to advise interested parties of the risks and factors that may affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Organizational History 

On June 22, 2017, The Coretec Group Inc. (the “Group” or the “Company”) filed an Amended Certificate of Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Oklahoma to change its name from “3DIcon Corporation” to “The Coretec Group Inc.”, which became effective on June 29, 2017.

The Group, formerly known as 3DIcon Corporation, was incorporated on August 11, 1995, under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Prior to the September 30, 2016, the day we closed a transaction contemplated by the Share Exchange Agreement (as defined below), the Group’s primary activity had been the raising of capital in order to pursue its goal of becoming a significant participant in the development, commercialization and marketing of next generation 3D display technologies.

On September 30, 2016 (the “Closing Date”), we closed a transaction contemplated by a Share Exchange Agreement dated May 31, 2016 (the “Share Exchange Agreement”) with Coretec, and four Coretec members (the “Members”), which Members held all outstanding membership interests in Coretec. Pursuant to the Share Exchange Agreement, Coretec became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Group, and the Group issued an aggregate 15,870 post-split shares of the Group’s Series B Convertible Preferred Stock to the Members, resulting in their collective beneficial ownership of approximately 65% of the Group’s common stock on a fully-diluted basis, which shares were subject to a one-year lock up agreement. The Series B Convertible Preferred Stock was convertible into 1,914 shares, or an aggregate of 30,374,363 post-shares of common stock. Since the parties agreed and acknowledged that such conversion shares were not available for issuance, the Group agreed to take action to proceed in good faith to cause a corporate action that allowed the Group to issue such conversion shares (the “Capitalization Adjustment”). In the event that the Capitalization Adjustment was not completed by May 30, 2017, the Members had an option, but not the obligation, to rescind the Share Exchange Agreement by surrendering for cancellation all consideration paid by the Group and the Group returning all membership interests in Coretec. The Capitalization Adjustment was completed on June 28, 2017 with the completion of a reverse stock split and the Share Exchange Agreement was not rescinded.

Background of the Share Exchange Agreement.

As discussed above, on the Closing Date, we closed a transaction contemplated by the Share Exchange Agreement, pursuant to which Coretec became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Group. Coretec was organized on June 2, 2015 in the state of North Dakota. It is currently developing, testing, and providing new and/or improved technologies, products, and service solutions for medical, electronic, photonic, display, and lighting markets among others. The combination of the two companies provides a significant number of opportunities to increase shareholder value by:

Overview of the Consolidated Company.

Coretec’s Technology. Coretec’s underlying technology is based on the production of a high value liquid silicon precursor, cyclohexasilane (“CHS”). A key advantage of CHS is that it remains in liquid form at room temperature and does not convert to a gas until heated above 400°F. This compares to materials commonly used for manufacturing silicon-based semiconductors and solar cells (monosilane or trichlorosilane) that have much lower boiling points which leads to higher cost handling and shipping. Another key advantage of CHS is that the production rate of the silicon-forming step can be increased by a factor of six relative to the currently used materials, leading to significant cost savings. We anticipate that CHS will first be used as an alternative to monosilane or trichlorosilane when adding silicon to lithium ion batteries or when used in manufacturing silicon-based semiconductors.

We also see longer term potential in several emerging markets where there are opportunities in the conversion of CHS into nanoparticles and nanowires for use in such emerging, high-growth markets as:

Coretec’s IP portfolio of silicon-based materials in-licensed rights pursuant to an exclusive, global licensing agreement (the “License”) entered into between Coretec and the NDSU Research Foundation (NDSU/RF) in June 2016. The License provides access to 11 existing and three pending patents representing the global intellectual property around this silicon-based technology for all the markets we have identified.

Enhancement of CSpace. A key challenge in the development of CSpace® has been the development of the material to be used for the image chamber. The Company had been exploring a variety of glass alternatives under a Joint Development Agreement with Schott Defense, a global leader in specialty glass materials. While progress continued to be made, it was concluded that limitations remained, primarily in weight and cost.

A key virtue of having access to the Coretec IP portfolio of silicon-based materials is that we can now use all of the manufacturing infrastructure and knowledge that is available for optical plastics for the CSpace® image chamber. The benefit to CSpace® is that silicon-based optical plastics can be molded into a broad range of shapes and allow the image chamber to be much lighter and much lower in cost than the glass material we worked with before.

Near-Term Revenue Opportunities. Opportunities for near-term revenue continue to be explored in battery and microelectronic markets. Interest in the use of silicon in Li-ion batteries continues to increase driven by the growing demand for electrical vehicles and home energy storage systems for backup power. Discussions are ongoing with suppliers of Li-ion battery anode materials that are seeking next generation materials to further increase performance while improving lifetime, safety and reliability. We believe these suppliers will be well positioned to take advantage of the benefits provided by CHS when combined as a liquid with other powder-based materials. While we believe the use of CHS in Li-ion batteries will provide near term revenue, we also continue to explore revenue opportunities in microelectronics and especially those early adopter markets where advanced microelectronics are being developed in lower volumes and with less price sensitivity. 

Recent Developments. 

Supply Agreement

On December 13, 2016, we entered into a Supply Agreement (the “Supply Agreement”) with Gelest Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (“Gelest”). This Supply Agreement is for the purchase and sale of CHS as set forth in the Supply Agreement (the “Products”), pursuant to which the Company agrees to use Gelest as a primary source to manufacture the Products for a period of three years.  NDSU provided raw materials required to produce CHS to Gelest in January 2017. Efforts by Gelest to scale the manufacturing process for CHS are ongoing with the goal of producing up to 400 grams of material that will be available for sale to potential customers. An initial estimate of pricing for the Products is set forth in the Supply Agreement, which varies from $28/gram to $35/gram based on the quantity and quality of material that is being purchased. We believe this price is competitive with competing higher order silanes such as trisilane and neopentasilane while offering a number of advantages. 

 Research North Dakota Grant

The North Dakota Center of Excellence Commission awarded a funding request for Research North Dakota (“RND”) grant to NDSU Chemistry and Biochemistry in partnership with the Company. RND promotes the development and commercialization of products and processes through industry/university research partnerships. RND provides matching funds to help companies pay for the university research. The $150,000 matching grant was effective April 1, 2017 and expired on March 31, 2018. We shall provide for a match to State dollars of at least $1:$1. The match can be in the form of contribution directly to NDSU or cash expended by us on valid costs incurred in support of the project. The purpose of the grant is to improve the yield and purity of the key ingredients required for an economical synthesis of CHS, an ingredient for making a variety of commercially important silicon-based materials and materials for lightweight batteries and lightweight solar cells. 

Name Change and Reverse Stock Split

On June 22, 2017, the Group filed an Amended Certificate of Incorporation (the “Amendment”) with the Secretary of State of the State of Oklahoma, to (i) change its name from “3DIcon Corporation” to “The Coretec Group Inc.” (“Name Change”) and to (ii) effect a 1-for-300 reverse stock split (“Reverse Split”). The Name Change and Reverse Split became effective with the State of Oklahoma on June 28, 2017 and with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) on June 29, 2017 (“Effective Time”).

At the Effective Time, each 300 shares of the Group’s common stock, par value $.0002 per share (“Common Stock”), issued and outstanding were converted and reclassified into one share of the Group’s Common Stock. No fractional shares of the Group’s Common Stock were issued in connection with the Reverse Split. Shareholders who would otherwise be entitled to a fractional share received a new certificate rounding up their fractional share to the next nearest full share.

The Common Stock is currently quoted on OTC Pink under “CRTG”.

Overview of Business

Coretec Business

Coretec Industries LLC, a North Dakota limited liability company based in Fargo, was established in 2015 to create technology-based solutions (products and services) that address energy-related market needs globally. Coretec was founded by three corporate entities: EOS Management LLC, Carlton James North Dakota, Ltd., and ChymaTek Energy Solutions, LLC. Principals supporting the business include Simon Calton, and Ronald Dombrowski. The principals have combined expertise in forming and managing technology-based startups, fundraising, sales, and marketing. They are advised by Ramez Elgammal, VP of Technology, an expert in silicon chemistry and Doug Freitag, Chairman of our Advisory Board, an expert in the application of Si materials and Federal business development.

Coretec’s business model is to identify and commercialize disruptive technologies in silicon and 3D visualization serving advanced technology markets in support of global grand challenges in health, environment, security and energy. Sources of disruptive technology are licensed technology created by major universities, institutes, national laboratories and other research centers. Where technology does not already exist, research is to be sponsored and jointly developed with our customers. The initial candidates for commercialization center around CHS, and a source of this technology includes silicon technologies developed by the group of Dr. Philip Boudjouk at NDSU. CHS technologies include methods to produce and process cyclohexasilane (Si6H12), “stacked” polysilane ((R2Si)n) and their alloys with various dopants into liquid silane, Si, silicon nitride, and SiC thin films, Si nanowires and Si QDs. Future technologies will include high refractive index siloxane polymers (HRISP).

Technology licensed by Coretec is used to form partnerships with established manufacturers and distributors in global markets of interest. Early adoption of these technologies is anticipated in markets for battery energy storage (Li-ion), solid-state lighting (LEDs), solar energy (BIPV) and printable electronics (Asset Monitoring). These respective supply chains include material suppliers, process tool suppliers, subcomponent suppliers and OEMs. We will first form strategic partnerships with specialty material suppliers with expertise in Si. Once the supply of our materials has been established, we will form partnerships with OEMs and their suppliers in the respective markets looking for a competitive advantage we believe we can provide.

Coretec Overview

Coretec is developing, testing, and providing new and/or improved technologies and resulting product solutions for energy-related industries including, but not limited to oil/gas, renewable energy, energy conservation, and distributed energy industries. Many of these technologies and resulting product solutions also have application to the broader markets of anti-counterfeit packaging, medical devices, electronics, photonics, and displays. The initial technologies and product solutions are based on new innovations in cyclohexasilane (Si6H12), Si QDs, “stacked” polysilane ((R2Si)n), their alloys with various dopants, and in the future, high refractive index siloxane polymers (HRISP). Early adoption of these technologies and resulting product solutions is anticipated in markets for energy storage (Li-ion batteries), solid-state lighting (LEDs), solar energy (BIPV) and printable electronics (Asset Monitoring).

Coretec was founded by three corporate entities:

Business Model

Coretec’s business model includes monitoring the ever-growing catalogue of new technologies and valuable IP for licensing opportunities that could lead to incremental improvements and/or additional features in resulting products or lead to next generation products for use by energy-related industries and is created and held within universities and other parties that may lack financial resources and/or interest to further develop and commercialize them.

Additionally, where needs exist, but new technologies and resulting products are not currently available, conduct research and development (“R&D”) activities through sponsored projects performed at major universities, institutes, national laboratories and other research centers. Coretec will leverage existing, world-class expertise, experience, and laboratory facilities that reside in these non-profit, R&D entities for R&D, testing, and “proof of concept” studies up to and including at the device level that may be required to create commercialization opportunities.

Following these “proof of concept studies”, commercialization opportunities (e.g., manufacturing, marketing, sales) created for its technologies and IP will include, but are not limited to:

Research & Development

Coretec’s priorities for R&D and commercialization are customer/market-driven and guided by the needs and specifications of the energy-related industries served. Identified customer/market-driven opportunities include:

Future Revenue

In the future, we foresee revenue coming from one or more business transactions such as:

Gelest Supply Agreement

Pursuant to our Supply Agreement with Gelest we agreed to use Gelest as a primary source to manufacture our CHS Products for a period of three years.  The Supply Agreement provides us the opportunity to scale the manufacturing process for CHS and with the initial goal of producing up to 400 grams of material that will be available for sale to potential customers. An initial estimate of pricing for the Products is set forth in the Supply Agreement, which varies from $28/gram to $35/gram based on the quantity and quality of material that is being purchased. We believe this price for prototype material is competitive with competing higher order silanes such as trisilane and neopentasilane while offering a number of competitive advantages.

Competition

Based on our market research and competitive analysis, we have concluded that our CHS technology is unique and provides an advantage in that it should allow 1) production at high yields at low cost using readily available raw materials, 2) storage, transport and use as a liquid at room temperature 3) processing of the liquid into fibers, particles, and films that when heated forms silicon, and 4) the simple addition of dopants to the liquid at an atomic level that when heated forms doped silicon. Competing silanes provided by numerous manufacturers exist as a gas at room temperature and are explosive resulting in greater cost during storage, handling, transportation and use. Our closest competitor is cyclopentasilane which exists as a gas at room temperature and has proven costly and difficult to manufacture. Other competitors exist in specific applications. For example, graphene and carbon nanotubes are potential competitors in printable electronics but are only now emerging and require purification that is proving costly.   

Licenses

Coretec’s first priority is providing new or improved silicon-based materials that meet the needs and specifications of: a) battery energy storage (Li-ion batteries), b) solid-state lighting (LEDs), c) solar energy (BIPV) and d) printable electronics (Asset Monitoring) markets. To achieve this priority, Coretec will license certain silicon-based material technologies and IP that are derived from or are based upon new innovations in cyclohexasilane (Si6H12), Si QDs, “stacked” polysilane ((R2Si)n) and unique processes developed for their application. The material technologies and IP were invented by NDSU and are owned by NDSU’s authorized assignee, the NDSU/RF. Coretec has licensed from NDSU/RF a portfolio of silicon-related technologies and IP beginning with four inventions or intellectual property cases (NDSU/RF labels its intellectual property cases as “RFTs”).

Patent Rights for Licensed Technologies:

Licensing rights include: worldwide, royalty-bearing, exclusive, perpetual rights, with the right to sublicense without restrictions for the duration of the applicable issued patents or those patent claims licensable by NDSU Research Foundation and to exercise all due rights thereto including, but not limited to, make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer specified technologies and associated intellectual property and any and all derivative works thereof for the fields of use in:

Coretec’s business and commercialization model is based in part upon establishing joint development partnerships with companies that are commercially successful and financially sound as well as deeply embedded in the supply chains for the aforementioned energy-related products. For example, Coretec is developing a strategic partnership with a domestic supplier of silicon-based materials that will facilitate further development and scale-up of Si6H12 plus chemical derivatives and other materials based on Si6H12. This strategic partnership will enable Coretec to supply large quantities of these novel silicon materials to those companies interested in producing prototype batteries, electronics, and PV/solar cells for testing and commercial evaluation. Coretec will continue to seek other such strategic partnerships within the private sector.

Products

Coretec, under licenses from NDSU/RF, has commercial rights to certain key inventions created by NDSU that are based, in part or whole, on novel silicon-based materials. These silicon-based materials can be used to make new or improved products and other commercial applications. Coretec will be working with strategic partners to incorporate such novel materials into such new or improved products to the marketplace. Coretec’s business model features revenue coming initially from licenses granted to strategic partners to be followed by future sales of products developed and made by Coretec and/or through joint ventures with other companies. Specifically, Coretec’s license agreement with NDSU/RF currently provides rights to four patents for silicon-based, composition technologies (RFT-0039, 0265, 0324, 0325).

These licensed patents and patent applications (and other, related intellectual property including know-how, show-how, and trade secrets) concern various chemical compositions such as silanes (compounds containing a Si-H bond) and other silicon-based materials including, but not limited to, cyclohexasilane (“Si6H12” or “CHS”) and related dianion salt, various “doped” derivatives of Si6H12, and “stacked” polysilanes. These novel materials and processes will be used to produce new or improved energy storage (Li-ion batteries), solid-state lighting (LEDs), solar energy (BIPV), printable electronics (Asset Monitoring) and other commercially important products and applications.

Company Business

The Company is developing a patented volumetric 3D display technology that was developed by and with the University of Oklahoma (the “University”) under an SRA. The development to date has resulted in multiple new technologies, two working laboratory prototypes (Lab Proto 1 and Lab Proto 2), and eight provisional patents; five of the eight provisional patents have been combined and converted to five utility patents. Under the SRA, the Company has obtained the exclusive worldwide marketing rights to these 3D display technologies.

On May 26, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") approved the patent called "Volumetric Liquid Crystal Display" for rendering a three-dimensional image and converted it to U.S. patent No. 7,537,345. On December 28, 2010, USPTO approved the patent called “Light Surface Display for Rendering a Three-Dimensional Image,” and issued the United States Patent No. 7,858,913. On August 21, 2012, the USPTO approved a continuation patent called “3D Volumetric Display” and issued the US Patent No. 8,247,755. These patents describe the foundation of what is called CSpace® technology (“CSpace”).

Company Overview

The Company intends to commercialize the CSpace volumetric 3D technology through a combination of government funded research and development contracts, joint development agreements with industry partners and technology licensing agreements for high value applications in military planning, cyber data analysis, battlespace visualization, oil and gas exploration and medical imaging.

Commercialization Strategy and Target Applications

The Company plans to commercialize the CSpace volumetric 3D technology through customer funded research and development contracts and technology licensing agreements for high value applications like air traffic control, design visualization, and medical imaging. The Company plans to develop products for contract engineering and with joint development customers. At this time the Company does not have any commercialized products and does not plan to develop its own products based on the CSpace technology due to the high value / low volume nature of the best-fit initial applications for this technology. These applications include but are not limited to the following:

Competition

Based on our market research and competitive analysis to date, we have concluded that the CSpace volumetric technology is unique and advantaged versus other 3D technologies in that it can deliver both 1) a true 360 degree viewing experience for multiple simultaneous users, and 2) high image quality, high reliability and large image size. Rear projection 3D displays such as those from Zecotek, Setred, and EuroLCDs (formerly LC Tech LightSpace) do not provide a 360-degree viewing experience and are typically limited to one or two users. Early proof of concept work done on infrared active phosphor displays by 3D Display Laboratories proved to not be scalable due to limited phosphor persistence and vector scanning limitations. While holographic and light field displays show promise, they do not deliver a true 360-degree viewing experience and cost effective multiple user systems do not appear feasible due to current and expected pixel density, data bandwidth and compute power limitations.

History of 3D Technology Research and Development at the University of Oklahoma

Beginning in 2007 the University, under an SRA with the Company, undertook the development of high potential 3D display technologies.

It is anticipated that Coretec’s technology will play a key role in the continued development of an image space material for CSpace.

Intellectual Property History, Status and Rights

The USPTO approved the pending patent called "Volumetric Liquid Crystal Display" for rendering a three-dimensional image and converted it to US patent No. 7,537,345. On July 16, 2013, USPTO approved the pending patent called “Computer System with Digital Micromirror Device,” and issued US patent No. 8,487,865.

CSpace Patents are as follow: On December 28, 2010, USPTO approved the pending patent called “Light Surface Display for Rendering a Three-Dimensional Image,” and issued the US Patent No. 7,858,913. On August 21, 2012, the USPTO approved a continuation patent called “3D Volumetric Display” and issued the US Patent No. 8,247,755. On December 13, 2011, USPTO approved a continuation patent called “3D Light Surface Display,” and issued the US Patent No. 8,075,139.

Through a SRA with the University, we have obtained the exclusive worldwide marketing rights to certain 3D display technologies under development by the University. The development to date has resulted in the University filing eight provisional patents; five of the eight provisional patents have been combined and converted to five utility US patents, one pending European patent and one pending Japanese patent.

In addition, the Company owns exclusively two U.S. patents as noted below.

Key Patents Exclusively Licensed to the Company from the University of Oklahoma:

United States Patents Granted

International Patents Granted-Japan

International Patents Pending-Europe

Key Patents Exclusively Owned by the Company:

Employees

We had three employees as of March 31, 2018: Mr. Michael Kraft, Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Ronald Robinson, Chief Financial Officer and Ms. Judith Keating, Company Secretary and Director of Investor Relations. None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider relations with our employees to be good.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Risks Relating to Our Businesses

We have a limited operating history, as well as a history of operating losses.

We have a limited operating history. We cannot assure you that we can achieve revenue or sustain revenue growth or profitability in the future. We have a cumulative net loss of $2,593,337 for the period from inception (June 2, 2015) to December 31, 2017. Our operations are subject to the risks and competition inherent in the establishment of a business enterprise. Unanticipated problems, expenses, and delays are frequently encountered in establishing a new business and marketing and developing products. These include, but are not limited to, competition, the need to develop customers and market expertise, market conditions, sales, marketing and governmental regulation. Our failure to meet any of these conditions would have a materially adverse effect upon us and may force us to reduce or curtail our operations. Revenues and profits, if any, will depend upon various factors. We may not achieve our business objectives and the failure to achieve such goals would have an adverse impact on our business.

We may be unable to successfully integrate and develop the vertical synergies anticipated by or complete all obligations under the Share Exchange Agreement.

Integration of the Group and Coretec may be a complex, time-consuming and costly process requiring the employment of additional personnel, including key management and accounting personnel. Additionally, the integration of the Group and Coretec businesses may require significant financial resources that would otherwise be available for the ongoing development or expansion of existing operations. Unanticipated problems, delays, costs or liabilities may also be encountered in the development of these businesses. Failure to successfully and fully integrate and develop these businesses and operations may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The difficulties of combining the acquired operations include, among other things:

In addition, we may not realize all of the anticipated benefits from the Share Exchange Agreement, such as increased earnings, cost savings and revenue enhancements, for various reasons, including difficulties integrating operations and personnel, higher than expected acquisition and operating costs, unknown liabilities, inaccurate reserve estimates and fluctuations in markets. If these benefits do not meet the expectations of financial or industry analysts, the market price of our shares may decline.

Our research and development efforts with respect to new technologies may not result in customer or market acceptance. Some or all of those technologies may not successfully make the transition from the research and development stage to cost-effective production as a result of technology problems, competitive cost issues, yield problems, and other factors. Even if we successfully complete a research and development effort with respect to a particular technology, our customers may decide not to introduce or may terminate products utilizing the technology for a variety of reasons, including difficulties with other suppliers of components for the products, superior technologies developed by our competitors and unfavorable comparisons of our solutions with these technologies, price considerations and lack of anticipated or actual market demand for the products.

Our business could be harmed if we are unable to develop and utilize new technologies that address the needs of our customers, or our competitors or customers develop and utilize new technologies more effectively or more quickly than we can. Any investments made to enhance or develop new technologies that are not successful could have an adverse effect on our net revenue and operating results.

Fluctuations in direct or indirect raw material costs could have an adverse impact on our business.

The availability and prices of raw material inputs may be influenced by supply and demand, changes in world politics, unstable governments in exporting nations and inflation. The prices of our direct and indirect raw materials have been, and we expect them to continue to be, volatile. If the cost of direct or indirect raw materials increases significantly and we are unable to offset the increased costs with higher selling prices, our profitability will decline. Additionally, we may not be able to obtain lower prices from our suppliers should our sale prices decrease. Increases in prices for our products could also hurt our ability to remain both competitive and profitable in the markets in which we compete.

Future raw material prices may be impacted by new laws or regulations, suppliers’ allocations to other purchasers, changes in our supplier manufacturing processes as some of our products are byproducts of these processes, interruptions in production by suppliers, natural disasters, volatility in the price of crude oil and related petrochemical products and changes in exchange rates.

We operate in industries that are subject to significant fluctuation in supply and demand and ultimately pricing that affects our revenue and profitability.

For example, the LED lighting industry is in the relatively early stages of adoption and is characterized by constant and rapid technological change, rapid product obsolescence and price erosion, evolving standards, short product life-cycles and fluctuations in product supply and demand. The LED industry has experienced significant fluctuations, often in connection with, or in anticipation of, product cycles and changes in general economic conditions. As the markets for our products mature, additional fluctuations may result from variability and consolidations within the industry’s customer base. These fluctuations have been characterized by lower product demand, production overcapacity, higher inventory levels and increased pricing pressure. These fluctuations have also been characterized by higher demand for key components and equipment used in, or in the manufacture of, our products resulting in longer lead times, supply delays and production disruptions.

We operate in a highly competitive industry.

The silane chemical markets are global, capital intensive and highly competitive. Our competitors may have greater financial resources, as well as other strategic advantages, to maintain, improve and possibly expand their facilities, and as a result, they may be better positioned to adapt to changes in the industry or the global economy. The advantages that our competitors have over us could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, new entrants may increase competition in our industry, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. An increase in the use of substitutes for certain of our products also could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operations.

Environmental, health and safety regulation—Compliance with extensive environmental, health and safety laws could require material expenditures or changes in our operations.

Our operations are subject to extensive environmental, health and safety laws and regulations at national, international and local levels in numerous jurisdictions. In addition, our production facilities require operating permits that are subject to renewal and, in some circumstances, revocation. The nature of the chemicals industry exposes us to risks of liability under these laws and regulations due to the production, storage, transportation, disposal and sale of chemicals and materials that can cause contamination or personal injury if released into the environment.

A reduction or disruption in our production capacity or our supplies, or an incorrect forecast, could negatively impact our business.

Our production capacity could be affected by manufacturing problems. Difficulties in the production process could reduce yields or interrupt production, and, as a result of such problems, we may not be able to deliver products on time or in a cost-effective, competitive manner. As the complexity of both our products and our fabrication processes has become more advanced, manufacturing tolerances have been reduced and requirements for precision have become more demanding. In the past, we have experienced delays in delivery and product quality. Our failure to adequately manage our capacity or maintain product quality could have a negative impact on net sales and harm our customer relationships.

Furthermore, we may suffer disruptions in our manufacturing operations, either due to production difficulties such as those described above or as a result of external factors beyond our control. We manufacture combustible materials in our manufacturing process and are therefore subject to the risk of explosions and fires, which can cause major disruptions to our operations. If operations at a manufacturing facility are interrupted, we may not be able to shift production to other facilities on a timely basis or at all. In addition, certain of our products are only capable of being produced at a single manufacturing facility due to unique manufacturing requirements and to the extent that any of these facilities fail to produce these products, this risk will be increased. Even if a transfer is possible, transitioning production of a particular type of material from one of our facilities to another can take between three to six months to accomplish, and in the interim period we would likely suffer extensive or total supply disruption and incur substantial costs. Such an event could have a material negative impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to meet customer demands also depends on our ability to obtain timely and adequate delivery of materials, parts and components from our suppliers. From time to time, suppliers may extend lead times, limit the amounts supplied to us or increase prices due to capacity constraints or other factors. Supply disruptions may also occur due to shortages in critical resources, such as lithium aluminum hydride, other specialized chemicals or energy or other general supplier disruptions. A reduction or interruption in supplies or a significant increase in the price of one or more supplies could have a material negative impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. 

If we do not keep pace with technological innovations, our future products may not remain competitive and our operating results may suffer.

We operate in rapidly changing highly competitive markets. Technological advances, the introduction of new products and new design techniques could adversely affect our business unless we are able to adapt to changing conditions. Technological advances could render our solutions less competitive or obsolete, and we may not be able to respond effectively to the technological requirements of evolving markets. Therefore, we will be required to expend substantial funds for and commit significant resources to enhancing and developing new technology which may include purchasing advanced design tools and test equipment, hiring additional highly qualified engineering and other technical personnel, and continuing and expanding research and development activities on existing and potential human interface solutions.

We may not be able to achieve the target specifications for the second and third generation CSpace laboratory prototypes.

The process of developing new highly technical products and solutions is inherently complex and uncertain. It requires accurate anticipation of customers’ changing needs and emerging technological trends. We must make long-term investments and commit significant resources before knowing whether these investments will eventually result in products that achieve customer acceptance and generate the revenues required to provide desired returns. If we fail to achieve and meet our target specifications in the development of the second and third generation CSpace laboratory prototypes, we could lose market position and customers to our competitors and that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

We may not be able to secure the customer funding necessary to develop the CSpace Trade Show Prototype.

An important part of our business strategy moving forward is the development of our Lab Proto 3.  While we believe this prototype will enable us to secure customer funded development contracts whereby our customer would provide part or all of the funding necessary to develop products for or with the customer and to secure technology licensing agreements, there can be no assurances that this will occur.  If we are unable to secure customer funded development contracts, we will likely not be able to develop our CSpace Trade Show Prototype.  Without the CSpace Trade Show Prototype we will not be able to successfully implement our business strategy for our volumetric 3D Display products, which could cause harm to our competitive position and financial condition.

We may not be able to successfully license the CSpace technology to customers.

A significant portion of our expected future revenues will be generated through licensing our CSpace technology to third parties such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Siemens, and General Electric.  However, there is no guarantee we will be able to successfully license our CSpace technology to such companies or to other third parties.  If we fail to successfully license our CSpace technology, it could negatively impact our revenue stream and financial condition.

We may not be able to compete successfully in the markets applicable to our volumetric 3D display technology.

Although the volumetric 3D display technology that we are attempting to develop is new, and although at present we are aware of only a limited number of companies that have publicly disclosed their attempts to develop similar technology, we anticipate a number of companies are or will attempt to develop technologies/products that compete or will compete with our technologies. Further, even if we are the first to market with a technology of this type, and even if the technology is protected by patents or otherwise, because of the vast market and communications potential of such a product, we anticipate the market will be flooded by a variety of competitors (including traditional display companies), many of which will offer a range of products in areas other than those in which we compete, which may make such competitors more attractive to prospective customers. In addition, many if not all of our competitors and potential competitors will initially be larger and have greater financial resources than we do. Some of the companies with which we may now be in competition, or with which we may compete in the future, have or may have more extensive research, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and significantly greater technical and personnel resources than we do, and may be better positioned to continue to improve their technology in order to compete in an evolving industry. Further, technology in this industry may evolve rapidly once an initially successful product is introduced, making timely product innovations and use of new technologies essential to our success in the marketplace. The introduction by our competitors of products with improved technologies or features may render any product we initially market obsolete and unmarketable. If we or our partners are not able to deliver to market products that respond to industry changes in a timely manner, or if our products do not perform well, our business and financial condition will be adversely affected.

The technologies being developed may not gain market acceptance.

The products that we are currently developing utilize new technologies. As with any new technologies, in order for us to be successful, these technologies must gain market acceptance. Since the technologies that we anticipate introducing to the marketplace will exploit or encroach upon markets that presently utilize or are serviced by products from competing technologies, meaningful commercial markets may not develop for our technologies.

In addition, the development efforts of the Company and the University on the 3D technology are subject to unanticipated delays, expenses or technical or other problems, as well as the possible insufficiency of funding to complete development. Our success will depend upon the ultimate products and technologies meeting acceptable cost and performance criteria, and upon their timely introduction into the marketplace. The proposed products and technologies may never be successfully developed, and even if developed, they may not satisfactorily perform the functions for which they are designed. Additionally, these may not meet applicable price or performance objectives. Unanticipated technical or other problems may occur which would result in increased costs or material delays in their development or commercialization.

If we are unable to successfully retain existing management and recruit qualified personnel having experience in our business, we may not be able to continue our operations.

Our success depends to a significant extent upon the continued services of our Board of Directors, management officers and other technical advisors.  Our success also depends on our ability to attract and retain other key executive officers. As of March 31, 2018, we had only three employees. If we are unable to successfully retain existing management and recruit qualified personnel having experience in our business, we may not be able to continue our operations.

There is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we do not continue as a going concern, investors will lose their entire investment.

We have a limited operating history. Since our inception, we have incurred net losses. As of December 31, 2017, we had a working capital deficiency of $1,904,514. We believe these conditions indicate that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern within the next twelve months from the date of this filing. Our auditors have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. These concerns arise from the fact that we have insufficient revenues to fund development and operating expenses. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, you could lose your entire investment in us.

We will need significant additional capital, which we may be unable to obtain.

Our capital requirements in connection with our development activities and transition to commercial operations have been and will continue to be significant. As of March 31, 2018, we require approximately $1.6 million of additional funds through December 2018 to continue research, development and testing of our technologies, to obtain intellectual property protection relating to our technologies when appropriate, and to improve and market our technologies. There can be no assurance that financing will be available in amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we fail to establish, maintain and enforce intellectual property rights with respect to our technology and/or licensed technology, our financial condition, results of operations and business could be negatively impacted.

Our ability to establish, maintain and enforce intellectual property rights with respect to our technology and the University’s ability to establish, maintain and enforce intellectual property rights with respect to our exclusively licensed technologies will be a significant factor in determining our future financial and operating performance. We seek to protect our intellectual property rights by relying on a combination of patent, trade secret and copyright laws. We also use confidentiality and other provisions in our agreements that restrict access to and disclosure of its confidential know-how and trade secrets.

Outside the patents and pending patent applications directly granted to us or in-licensed to us, we seek to protect our technology as trade secrets and technical know-how. However, trade secrets and technical know-how are difficult to maintain and do not provide the same legal protections provided by patents. In particular, only patents will allow us to prohibit others from using independently developed technologies that are similar. If competitors develop knowledge substantially equivalent or superior to our trade secrets and technical know-how or gain access to our knowledge through other means such as observation of our technology that embodies trade secrets at customer sites that we do not control, the value of our trade secrets and technical know-how would be diminished.

While we strive to maintain systems and procedures to protect the confidentiality and security of our trade secrets and technical know-how, these systems and procedures may fail to provide an adequate degree of protection. For example, although we generally enter into agreements with our employees, consultants, advisors, and strategic partners restricting the disclosure and use of trade secrets, technical know-how and confidential information, we cannot provide any assurance that these agreements will be sufficient to prevent unauthorized use or disclosure. In addition, some of the technology deployed at customer sites in the future, which we do not control, may be readily observable by third parties who are not under contractual obligations of non-disclosure, which may limit or compromise our ability to continue to protect such technology as a trade secret.

While we are not currently aware of any infringement or other violation of our intellectual property rights, monitoring and policing unauthorized use and disclosure of intellectual property is difficult. If we learned that a third party was in fact infringing or otherwise violating our intellectual property, we may need to enforce our intellectual property rights through litigation. Litigation relating to our intellectual property may not prove successful and might result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention.

If our technology is licensed to customers at some point in the future, the strength of the intellectual property under which we would grant licenses can be a critical determinant of the value of such potential licenses. If we are unable to secure, protect and enforce our intellectual property now and in the future, it may become more difficult for us to attract such customers.  Any such development could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We may face claims that we are violating the intellectual property rights of others.

Although we are not aware of any potential violations of others’ intellectual property rights, we may face claims, including from direct competitors, other companies, scientists or research universities, asserting that our technology or the commercial use of such technology infringes or otherwise violates the intellectual property rights of others. We cannot be certain that our technologies and processes do not violate the intellectual property rights of others. If we are successful in developing technologies that allow us to earn revenues and our market profile grows we could become increasingly subject to such claims.

We may also face infringement claims from the employees, consultants, agents and outside organizations we have engaged to develop our technology. While we have sought to protect ourselves against such claims through contractual means, we cannot provide any assurance that such contractual provisions are adequate, and any of these parties might claim full or partial ownership of the intellectual property in the technology that they were engaged to develop.

If we were found to be infringing or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of others, we could face significant costs to implement work-around methods, and we cannot provide any assurance that any such work-around would be available or technically equivalent to our potential technology. In such cases, we might need to license a third party’s intellectual property, although any required license might not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to work around such infringement or obtain a license on acceptable terms, we might face substantial monetary judgments against us or an injunction against continuing to use or license such technology, which might cause us to cease operations.

In addition, even if we are not infringing or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of others, we could nonetheless incur substantial costs in defending ourselves in suits brought against us for alleged infringement. Also, if we are to enter into a license agreement in the future and it provides that we will defend and indemnify our customer licensees for claims against them relating to any alleged infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties in connection with such customer licensees’ use of such technologies, we may incur substantial costs defending and indemnifying any customer licensees to the extent they are subject to these types of claims. Such suits, even if without merit, would likely require our management team to dedicate substantial time to addressing the issues presented. Any party bringing claims might have greater resources than we do, which could potentially lead to us settling claims against which we might otherwise prevail on the merits.

Any claims brought against us or any customer licensees alleging that we have violated the intellectual property of others could have negative consequences for our financial condition, results of operations and business, each of which could be materially adversely affected as a result.

At this time, we do not own all of the intellectual property in Volumetric Liquid Crystal Display or Light Surface Display for Rendering Three-Dimensional Images, and, apart from the SRA with the University and the exclusive worldwide marketing rights thereto, we have no contracts or agreements pending to acquire the intellectual property.

Although we have obtained exclusive worldwide marketing rights to “Volumetric Liquid Crystal Display” and “Light Surface Display for Rendering Three-Dimensional Images”, two technologies vital to our business and growth strategy, we do not own all of the intellectual property in these technologies.  Although our exclusive worldwide marketing rights to these technologies stand alone and are independent of the SRA, outside of our SRA with the University, we have no pending agreements to obtain or purchase ownership over all intellectual property in these technologies.  Should the University lose their rights in such technologies or we are otherwise unable to utilize the rights obtained in such agreements it would be difficult to successfully implement our business strategy going forward and our stock value would likely decrease.

Our subsidiary, Coretec, does not own any patents and relies on the patents we license from NDSU Research Foundation.

We do not currently own any patents related to our silicon-based businesses and only have an exclusive worldwide license to certain intellectual property owned by NDSU Research Foundation pursuant to a license agreement between Coretec and NDSU Research Foundation. Under the license agreement with NDSU, NDSU retains ownership of the licensed patents.

 As of December 31, 2017, and pursuant to the NDSU/RF Agreement, Coretec was in arrears on certain payment obligations in the amount of $139,800.  Accordingly, as of December 31, 2017, Coretec would be considered in default under the NDSU/RF Agreement, because of the unpaid obligations, which could allow NDSU/RF to exercise various options under the NDSU/RF Agreement, including an option to terminate the agreement if we do not cure the default within 10 business days after receiving written notice by NDSU/RF.  Although NDSU/RF provided a written notice on or around February 7, 2018, NDSU/RF subsequently retracted the notice and agreed to forbear from enforcing any defaults prior to March 30, 2018.  Due to Coretec’s belief that certain obligations of NDSU/RF were unsatisfied, Coretec has actively communicated with NDSU/RF in order to determine what obligations are owed and what actions all parties are required to take, and will agree to take, in furtherance of the NDSU/RF Agreement. In connection with such objective, Coretec expects to send NDSU/RF a detailed communication setting forth, among other things, the basis for its belief that (i) the payment obligation was not due to NDSU/RF; and (ii) NDSU/RF does not have the right to enforce a default.  As of the date of this report, there have been no legal proceedings initiated in connection with the NDSU/RF Agreement.  However, no assurances can be made that the active communications between the parties will result in a resolution or that legal proceedings will not be initiated in the future. 

If we were to default under the license agreement, then our rights to NDSU’s intellectual property would be extinguished and we would lose all rights to operate the areas of our business that rely upon NDSU’s intellectual property. In such an event, we would effectively be required to cease our cyclohexasilane-based business operations unless we were able to (i) re-obtain licensing with NDSU; (ii) obtain other means, if any, to license or use cyclohexasilane-based intellectual property; (iii) obtain necessary cyclohexasilane-based materials elsewhere; and/or (iv) invest in developing its own, or in joint development with other parties, intellectual property and cyclohexasilane-based or related silicon-based materials, although no assurances can be made that such options or opportunities exist or, if such options do exist, no assurances can be made that acting upon such options or opportunities would not constitute an infringement upon NDSU’s or other parties’ intellectual property or be as successful alternative to licensing NDSU’s intellectual property.

Risks Relating to Our Current Financing Arrangements:

There are a large number of shares underlying our convertible debentures and warrants that may be available for future sale and the sale of these shares may depress the market price of our common stock.

As of March 25, 2018, we had 67,582,970 shares of common stock issued and outstanding and convertible debentures outstanding that may be converted into an estimated 102,712,520 shares of common stock at current market prices. The number of shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the outstanding convertible debentures may increase if the market price of our stock declines. We also have outstanding warrants issued to Golden State Equity Investors, Inc. f/k/a Golden Gate Investors ("Golden State") to purchase 61 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $114,450. The sale of the shares underlying the convertible debentures and warrants may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our obligation to issue shares upon conversion of our convertible debentures is essentially limitless. Additionally, as of March 26, 2018, we have 1,432,417,030 unissued authorized shares available.

The conversion price of our convertible debentures is continuously adjustable, which could require us to issue a substantially greater number of shares, which will cause dilution to our existing stockholders.

The following is an example of the number of shares of our common stock that are issuable, upon conversion of our 4.75% $100,000 convertible debenture (excluding accrued interest) issued to Golden State on November 3, 2006, based on the remaining principal balance of $63,900 and market prices 25%, 50% and 75% below the market price as of March 26, 2018 of $0.095.

(1) Shares issuable exclude 61 shares underlying the remaining warrants exercisable at $114,450 per share.

As illustrated, the number of shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of our convertible debentures will increase if the market price of our stock declines, which will cause dilution to our existing stockholders.

The continuously adjustable conversion price feature of our convertible debentures may encourage investors to make short sales in our common stock, which could have a depressive effect on the price of our common stock.

So long as the market price of our stock is below $1,200, the issuance of shares in connection with the conversion of the $100,000 convertible debenture results in the issuance of shares at an effective 20% discount to the trading price of the common stock prior to the conversion. The significant downward pressure on the price of the common stock as the selling stockholders convert and sell material amounts of common stock could encourage short sales by investors. This could place further downward pressure on the price of the common stock. The selling stockholders could sell common stock into the market in anticipation of covering the short sale by converting their securities, which could cause the further downward pressure on the stock price. In addition, not only the sale of shares issued upon conversion or exercise of debentures and warrants, but also the mere perception that these sales could occur, may adversely affect the market price of the common stock.

The issuance of shares upon conversion of outstanding Series A Stock, the convertible debentures or the exercise of outstanding warrants may cause immediate and substantial dilution to our existing stockholders.

The issuance of shares upon conversion of our outstanding Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, convertible debentures and exercise of warrants would result in substantial dilution to the interests of other stockholders since the selling stockholders may ultimately convert and sell the full amount issuable on conversion. Although Golden State may not convert its convertible debenture and/or exercise their warrants if such conversion or exercise would cause it to own more than 9.9% of our outstanding common stock, this restriction does not prevent the selling stockholders from converting and selling some of their holdings and then converting the rest of their holdings. In this way, assuming the market price remains at a level acceptable to the selling stockholders, the selling stockholders could continue on a "conversion-sell-conversion" trend while never holding more than 9.9% of our common stock. Further, under the convertible debenture there is theoretically no upper limit on the number of shares that may be issued, which will have the effect of further diluting the proportionate equity interest and voting power of holders of our common stock.

If we are unable to issue shares of common stock upon conversion of the convertible debenture as a result of our inability to increase our authorized shares of common stock or as a result of any other reason, we are required to pay penalties to Golden State, redeem the convertible debenture at 130% and/or compensate Golden State for any buy-in that it is required to make.

If we are unable to issue shares of common stock upon conversion of the convertible debenture as a result of our inability to increase our authorized shares of common stock or as a result of any other reason, we are required to:

In the event that we are required to pay penalties to Golden State or redeem the convertible debentures held by Golden State, we may be required to curtail or cease our operations.

Risks Relating to Our Common Stock:

The price of our common stock is volatile and fluctuations in our operating results and announcements and developments concerning our business affect our stock price, which may cause investment losses for our stockholders.

The market for our common stock is highly volatile and the trading price of our stock on the OTC Pink Marketplace is subject to wide fluctuations in response to, among other things, operating results, the number of stockholders desiring to sell their shares, changes in general economic conditions and the financial markets, the execution of new contracts and the completion of existing agreements and other developments affecting us. In addition, statements or changes in opinions, ratings, or earnings estimates made by brokerage firms or industry analysts relating to our market or relating to us could result in an immediate and adverse effect on the market price of our common stock. The highly volatile nature of our stock price may cause investment losses for our shareholders. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of their securities. If securities class action litigation is brought against us, such litigation could result in substantial costs while diverting management’s attention and resources.

Our common stock is subject to the "Penny Stock" rules of the SEC and the trading market in our securities is limited, which makes transactions in our stock cumbersome and may reduce the value of an investment in our stock.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has adopted Rule 15g-9 which establishes the definition of a "penny stock," for the purposes relevant to us, as any equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share or with an exercise price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to certain exceptions. For any transaction involving a penny stock, unless exempt, the rules require:

In order to approve a person's account for transactions in penny stocks, the broker or dealer must:

The broker or dealer must also deliver, prior to any transaction in a penny stock, a disclosure schedule prescribed by the Commission relating to the penny stock market, which, in highlight form:

Generally, brokers may be less willing to execute transactions in securities subject to the "penny stock" rules. This may make it more difficult for investors to dispose of our common stock and cause a decline in the market value of our stock.

Disclosure also has to be made about the risks of investing in penny stocks in both public offerings and in secondary trading and about the commissions payable to both the broker-dealer and the registered representative, current quotations for the securities and the rights and remedies available to an investor in cases of fraud in penny stock transactions. Finally, monthly statements have to be sent disclosing recent price information for the penny stock held in the account and information on the limited market in penny stocks.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) sales practice requirements may limit a shareholder’s ability to buy and sell our common stock.

In addition to the “penny stock” rules described above, FINRA has adopted rules that require that in recommending an investment to a customer, a broker-dealer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the investment is suitable for that customer. Prior to recommending speculative low-priced securities to their non-institutional customers, broker-dealers must make reasonable efforts to obtain information about the customer’s financial status, tax status, investment objectives and other information. Under interpretations of these rules, FINRA believes that there is a high probability that speculative low-priced securities will not be suitable for at least some customers. FINRA requirements make it more difficult for broker-dealers to recommend that their customers buy our common stock, which may limit your ability to buy and sell our stock and have an adverse effect on the market for our shares.

Our stock is thinly traded, so you may be unable to sell your shares at or near the quoted bid prices if you need to sell a significant number of your shares.

The shares of our common stock are thinly-traded on the OTC Pink Marketplace, meaning that the number of persons interested in purchasing our common stock at or near bid prices at any given time may be relatively small or non-existent.  As a consequence, there may be periods of several days or more when trading activity in our shares is minimal or non-existent, as compared to a seasoned issuer which has a large and steady volume of trading activity that will generally support continuous sales without an adverse effect on share price. We cannot give you any assurance that a broader or more active public trading market for our common stock will develop or be sustained, or that current trading levels will be sustained. Due to these conditions, we can give you no assurance that you will be able to sell your shares at or near bid prices or at all if you need money or otherwise desire to liquidate your shares.

Shares eligible for future sale may adversely affect the market.

From time to time, certain of our stockholders may be eligible to sell all or some of their shares of common stock by means of ordinary brokerage transactions in the open market pursuant to Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act, subject to certain limitations. In general, pursuant to amended Rule 144, non-affiliate stockholders may sell freely after six months subject only to the current public information requirement. Affiliates may sell after six months subject to the Rule 144 volume, manner of sale (for equity securities), and current public information and notice requirements. Any substantial sales of our common stock pursuant to Rule 144 may have a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

We could issue additional common stock, which might dilute the book value of our common stock.

Our Board of Directors has authority, without action or vote of our shareholders, to issue all or a part of our authorized but unissued shares. Such stock issuances could be made at a price that reflects a discount or a premium from the then-current trading price of our common stock. In addition, in order to raise capital, we may need to issue securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for a significant amount of our common stock. These issuances would dilute the percentage ownership interest, which would have the effect of reducing your influence on matters on which our shareholders vote and might dilute the book value of our common stock. You may incur additional dilution if holders of stock options, whether currently outstanding or subsequently granted, exercise their options, or if warrant holders exercise their warrants to purchase shares of our common stock.

Our common stock could be further diluted as a result of the issuance of convertible securities, warrants or options.

In the past, we have issued convertible securities (such as convertible debentures and notes), warrants and options in order to raise money or as compensation for services and incentive compensation for our employees and directors. We have shares of common stock reserved for issuance upon the exercise of certain of these securities and may increase the shares reserved for these purposes in the future. Our issuance of these convertible securities, options and warrants could affect the rights of our stockholders, could reduce the market price of our common stock or could result in adjustments to exercise prices of outstanding warrants (resulting in these securities becoming exercisable for, as the case may be, a greater number of shares of our common stock), or could obligate us to issue additional shares of common stock to certain of our stockholders.

We do not intend to pay dividends.

We do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. We may not have sufficient funds to legally pay dividends. Even if funds are legally available to pay dividends, we may nevertheless decide in our sole discretion not to pay dividends. The declaration, payment and amount of any future dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors, and will depend upon, among other things, the results of our operations, cash flows and financial condition, operating and capital requirements, and other factors our board of directors may consider relevant. There is no assurance that we will pay any dividends in the future, and, if dividends are paid, there is no assurance with respect to the amount of any such dividend.

If we fail to maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting, the price of our common stock may be adversely affected.

Our internal control over financial reporting may have weaknesses and conditions that could require correction or remediation, the disclosure of which may have an adverse impact on the price of our common stock.  We are required to establish and maintain appropriate internal controls over financial reporting.  Failure to establish those controls, or any failure of those controls once established, could adversely affect our public disclosures regarding our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.  In addition, management’s assessment of internal controls over financial reporting may identify weaknesses and conditions that need to be addressed in our internal controls over financial reporting or other matters that may raise concerns for investors.  Any actual or perceived weaknesses and conditions that need to be addressed in our internal control over financial reporting or disclosure of management’s assessment of our internal controls over financial reporting may have an adverse impact on the price of our common stock.

We are required to comply with certain provisions of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and if we fail to comply in a timely manner, our business could be harmed and our stock price could decline.

Rules adopted by the SEC pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 require an annual assessment of internal controls over financial reporting, and for certain issuers an attestation of this assessment by the issuer’s independent registered public accounting firm.  The standards that must be met for management to assess the internal controls over financial reporting as effective are evolving and complex, and require significant documentation, testing, and possible remediation to meet the detailed standards.  We expect to incur significant expenses and to devote resources to Section 404 compliance on an ongoing basis.  It is difficult for us to predict how long it will take or how costly it will be to complete the assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting for each year and to remediate any deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting. As a result, we may not be able to complete the assessment and remediation process on a timely basis.  In addition, although attestation requirements by our independent registered public accounting firm are not presently applicable to us we could become subject to these requirements in the future and we may encounter problems or delays in completing the implementation of any resulting changes to internal controls over financial reporting.  In the event that our Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer determine that our internal control over financial reporting is not effective as defined under Section 404, we cannot predict how regulators will react or how the market prices of our shares will be affected; however, we believe that there is a risk that investor confidence and share value may be negatively affected.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

Not applicable.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

Our executive offices are located at 6804 South Canton Avenue, Suite 150, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136. The Company signed an Office Lease Agreement (the “Lease Agreement”) on April 24, 2008. On July 2, 2015 the Lease Agreement was amended (amendment 3) to extend the expiration date to July 31, 2018. 

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are not a party to any pending legal proceeding, nor is our property the subject of a pending legal proceeding, that is not in the ordinary course of business or otherwise material to the financial condition of our business. None of our directors, officers or affiliates is involved in a proceeding adverse to our business or has a material interest adverse to our business.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our common stock is quoted on the OTC Pink marketplace under the symbol “CRTG”.

For the periods indicated, the following table sets forth the high and low bid prices per share of common stock. These prices represent inter-dealer quotations without retail markup, markdown, or commission and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

2017 Fiscal Year 

2016 Fiscal Year 

The market price of our common stock, like that of other technology companies, is highly volatile and is subject to fluctuations in response to variations in operating results, announcements of technological innovations or new products, or other events or factors. Our stock price may also be affected by broader market trends unrelated to our performance.

Holders

As of March 26, 2018, we had approximately 5,200 active holders of our common stock. The number of active record holders was determined from the records of our transfer agent and does not include beneficial owners of common stock whose shares are held in the names of various security brokers, dealers, and registered clearing agencies. Our transfer agent is Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, 17 Battery Place, New York, NY 10004.

Dividend Policy

We have not declared any dividends to date. We have no present intention of paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future, as we intend to use earnings, if any, to generate growth. The payment of dividends, if any, in the future, rests within the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend, among other things, upon our earnings, capital requirements and our financial condition, as well as other relevant factors. There are no restrictions in our Certificate of Incorporation or By-laws that restrict us from declaring dividends.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

We have three stock-based compensation plans, the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2015 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2018 Equity Incentive Plan, together referred to herein as the “Stock Plans.” As of April 2, 2018, 2,950,262 options to purchase our common stock were issued and outstanding under the Stock Plans with a weighted-average price of $0.63.

The following table sets forth the information indicated with respect to our compensation plans under which our common stock is authorized for issuance.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

On November 15, 2017, the Company conducted a private placement with an accredited investor and related party, Victor Keen, Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, pursuant to which it sold 20,000,000 shares of common stock for a purchase price of $750,000. 

Simultaneously, the Company issued an option to purchase an aggregate of 2,666,667 shares of common stock to a third-party accredited investor as an inducement to provide Victor Keen with a personal loan, the proceeds from which Victor Keen used to partially fund his purchase of the shares.

The option is exercisable, at any time on or after the initial issuance date, at an exercise price of $0.0375 per share, subject to adjustment, and expires one year from the date of issuance.

The $750,000 in proceeds received for the common stock issued and the option to purchase common stock were recorded using the relative fair value method under the guidance in ASC 470-20-25-2. The fair value of the 20,000,000 shares of common stock issued was determined using the quoted closing price of $0.28 and the option was valued based on the Black Scholes valuation on November 15, 2017 of $714,719. Based on the proportion of the fair values to the sum of the fair values of the common stock and the option, $665,113 (89%) was allocated to the common stock and $84,887 (11%) was allocated to the option.

The $714,719 estimated fair value of option to purchase common stock issued in November 2017 was determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The expected dividend yield of $0 is based on the average annual dividend yield at the date issued. Expected volatility of 300.18% is based on the historical volatility of the stock. The risk-free interest rate of 1.55% is based on the U.S. Treasury Constant Maturity rates as of the issue date. The expected life of the option of one year is based on the historical exercise behavior and expected future experience.

The Company issued an aggregate of 522,924 shares of the Company’s common stock on February 15, 2018. The Company had agreed to issue to certain consultants and service providers (collectively, “Recipients”) and the Recipients had agreed to accept, shares of common stock in consideration for the satisfaction, in lieu of cash payment, of an aggregate of $71,880 owed by the Company to the Recipients. Among the Recipients were (i) Doug Freitag, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, who received 322,154 shares of common stock in satisfaction of $41,880 owed to him for services he provided to the Company; (ii) Concordia Financial Group, the Company’s financial consultant, who received 230,770 shares of common stock satisfaction of $30,000 owed for services provided to the Company under the terms of the independent consulting agreement (the “Independent Consulting Agreement”).

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

Not applicable.

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATION

The following discussion and analysis should be read together with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes appearing elsewhere in this Report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements reflecting our current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Forward-Looking Statements” for a discussion of the uncertainties, risks and assumptions associated with these statements. Actual results and the timing of events could differ materially from those discussed in our forward-looking statements as a result of many factors, including those set forth under “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Report.

Plan of Operation

Background: 

From June 2, 2015 (inception), our wholly owned subsidiary, Coretec Industries, LLC, aimed to create technology-based solutions (products and services) that address energy-related market needs globally. Leveraging the expertise of its management in forming and managing technology based startups, funding raising, sales, and marketing. They are advised by Dr. Philip Boudjouk, an expert in silicon (“Si”) chemistry and Doug Freitag, an expert in the application of Si materials and Federal business development.

On June 22, 2017, the Group filed an Amended Certificate of Incorporation (the “Amendment”) with the Secretary of State of the State of Oklahoma, to (i) change its name from “3DIcon Corporation” to “The Coretec Group Inc.” and to (ii) effect a 1-for-300 reverse stock split. The Name Change and Reverse Split became effective with the State of Oklahoma on June 28, 2017 and with FINRA on June 29, 2017. 

The Group was incorporated on August 11, 1995, under the laws of the State of Oklahoma as First Keating Corporation. The articles of incorporation were amended August 1, 2003 to change the name to 3DIcon Corporation. During 2001, First Keating Corporation began to focus on the development of 360-degree holographic technology. On July 15, 2005, the Group entered into a Sponsored Research Agreement (“SRA”) with the University of Oklahoma (the “University” or “OU”), which expired on January 14, 2007, under which they conducted a research project entitled "Investigation of 3-Dimensional Display Technologies”. On February 23, 2007, they entered into an SRA with the University, which expired on March 31, 2010, under which they conducted a research project entitled "3-Dimensional Display Development". The development to date has resulted in multiple new technologies, two working laboratory prototypes (Lab Proto 1 and Lab Proto 2), and eight provisional patents; five of the eight provisional patents have been combined and converted to five utility patents. Under the SRA, the Group has obtained the exclusive worldwide marketing rights to these 3D display technologies.

On September 30, 2016 we closed a transaction contemplated by the Share Exchange Agreement with Coretec, pursuant to which Coretec became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Group. The combination of the two companies provides a significant number of opportunities to increase shareholder value by: 

Combined Company Plans

Coretec’s Technology. Coretec’s underlying technology is based on the efficient production of a high value liquid silicon precursor, cyclohexasilane. A key advantage of cyclohexasilane (“CHS”) is that it is a liquid at room temperature and does not convert to a gas until heated above 400°F. This compares to materials commonly used for manufacturing silicon-based semiconductors and solar cells (monosilane or trichlorosilane) that have much lower boiling points which leads to higher cost handling and shipping. Another key advantage of CHS is that the production rate of the silicon-forming step can be increased by a factor of six relative to the currently used materials, leading to significant cost savings. The Company anticipates that CHS will first be used as an alternative to monosilane or trichlorosilane when adding silicon to lithium ion batteries or when used in manufacturing silicon-based semiconductors.

The Company also sees longer term potential in several emerging markets where there are opportunities in the conversion of CHS into nanoparticles and nanowires for use in such emerging, high-growth markets as:

Coretec’s IP portfolio of silicon-based materials will be accessible to the Company as a result of the signing of an exclusive, global licensing agreement (the “License”) between Coretec and the NDSU Research Foundation (“NDSU/RF”) in June 2016.

The License provides access to 11 existing and three pending patents representing the global intellectual property around this silicon-based technology for all of these markets. 

Enhancement of CSpace. A key challenge in the development of CSpace® has been the development of the material to be used for the image chamber. The Company had been exploring a variety of glass alternatives under a Joint Development Agreement with Schott Defense, a global leader in specialty glass materials, but it was concluded that limitations remained, primarily in weight and cost.

A key virtue of having access to the Coretec IP portfolio of Silicon-based materials is that the Company can now use all of the manufacturing infrastructure and knowledge that’s available for optical plastics for the CSpace® image chamber. The benefit to CSpace® is that we can now mold the material into a broad range of shapes that is much lighter and much lower in cost than the glass material we worked with before. While this approach is being explored, alternative approaches continue to be considered.

Near-Term Revenue Opportunities. Opportunities for near-term revenue continue to be explored in battery and microelectronic markets. Interest in the use of silicon in Li-ion batteries continues to increase driven by the growing demand for electrical vehicles and home energy storage systems for backup power. Discussions are ongoing with suppliers of Li-ion battery anode materials that are seeking next generation materials to further increase performance while improving lifetime, safety and reliability. We believe these suppliers will be well positioned to take advantage of the benefits provided by CHS when combined as a liquid with other powder-based materials. While we believe the use of CHS in Li-ion batteries will provide near term revenue, we also continue to explore revenue opportunities in microelectronics and especially those early adopter markets where advanced microelectronics are being developed in lower volumes and with less price sensitivity. 

Recent Developments

Supply Agreement

On December 13, 2016, we entered into a Supply Agreement (the “Supply Agreement”) with Gelest Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (“Gelest”). This Supply Agreement is for the purchase and sale of Cyclohexasilane (CHS) as set forth in the Supply Agreement (the “Products”), pursuant to which the Company agrees to use Gelest as a primary source to manufacture the Products for a period of three years.  NDSU provided raw materials required to produce CHS to Gelest in January 2017. Efforts by Gelest to scale the manufacturing process for CHS are ongoing with the goal of producing up to 400 grams of material that will be available for sale to potential customers. An initial estimate of pricing for the Products is set forth in the Supply Agreement, which varies from $28/gram to $35/gram based on the quantity and quality of material that is being purchased. We believe this price is competitive with competing higher order silanes such as trisilane and neopentasilane while offering a number of advantages. 

Research North Dakota Grant

The North Dakota Center of Excellence Commission awarded a funding request for Research North Dakota (“RND”) grant to NDSU Chemistry and Biochemistry in partnership with the Company. RND promotes the development and commercialization of products and processes through industry/university research partnerships. RND provides matching funds to help companies pay for the university research. The $150,000 matching grant is effective April 1, 2017 and expired on March 31, 2018. We shall provide for a match to State dollars of at least $1:$1. The match can be in the form of contribution directly to NDSU or cash expended by us on valid costs incurred in support of the project. We applied for the matching funds prior to the expiration of the grant and as of the filing of this report, the funds have not been approved by RND. The purpose of the grant is to improve the yield and purity of the key ingredients required for an economical synthesis of CHS, an ingredient for making a variety of commercially important silicon-based materials and materials for lightweight batteries and lightweight solar cells. 

Name Change and Reverse Stock Split

On June 22, 2017, the Group filed an Amended Certificate of Incorporation (the “Amendment”) with the Secretary of State of the State of Oklahoma, to (i) change its name from “3DIcon Corporation” to “The Coretec Group Inc.” (“Name Change”) and to (ii) effect a 1-for-300 reverse stock split (“Reverse Split”). The Name Change and Reverse Split became effective with the State of Oklahoma on June 28, 2017 and with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) on June 29, 2017 (“Effective Time”).

At the Effective Time, each 300 shares of the Group’s common stock, par value $.0002 per share (“Common Stock”), issued and outstanding were converted and reclassified into one share of the Group’s Common Stock. No fractional shares of the Group’s Common Stock were issued in connection with the Reverse Split. Shareholders who would otherwise be entitled to a fractional share received a new certificate rounding up their fractional share to the next nearest full share.

The Common Stock is currently quoted on OTC Pink under “CRTG”.

Consulting Agreements

On January 22, 2017, the Company hired silicon materials expert Ragnar Avery as Vice President, CHS Marketing and Sales. Mr. Avery will lead new business development and sales initiatives for the Company’s proprietary liquid silicon precursor, CHS. The consulting agreement was effective as of February 1, 2017 and continued in full force and effect through February 1, 2018. The Company paid Mr. Avery a fee of $125 per hour for the first three months and $150 per hour thereafter. The Company paid Mr. Avery a fee of $44,425 for the year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company entered into a consulting agreement dated July 7, 2015 with Mr. Doug Freitag, who became the Company’s CEO on October 1, 2016. Mr. Freitag’s field of consultation was in the area of working as a federal business and private sector business consultant and technical consultant. The work under this consulting agreement was performed for the Company, in support of business development, research, development, and commercialization activities. The consulting agreement was effective as of July 2015 and continued in full force through July 2016 and will continue monthly thereafter, unless terminated under the terms of the agreement. On October 1, 2016, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Mr. Doug Freitag which replaced the previous agreement, but the terms are identical. The consulting agreement was effective as of October 1, 2016 and continued in full force and effect through December 31, 2016. The Company paid Mr. Freitag a fee of $185 per hour. The Company entered into a third consulting agreement on January 1, 2017 with Mr. Freitag. Under the terms of the one-year agreement, Mr. Freitag’s fee is $194 per hour. The Company paid Mr. Freitag a fee of $58,054 and $100,517 for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 respectively. On March 21, 2017, Doug Freitag resigned as Chief Executive Officer of the Company in order to allow Michael A. Kraft to take over in his place as the Company’s newly appointed Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Freitag assumed a strategic consulting role as the Company’s Vice President of Technology and remained on the Company’s Board of Directors until August 20, 2017, at which time he resigned from the board and Vice President of Technology.

The Company entered into a consulting agreement dated March 20, 2017 with Mr. Michael A. Kraft, who became the Company’s CEO. Under the terms of the agreement the Company agreed to compensate Mr. Kraft $1,500 per day for his commitment to allocate seven days a month to the Company and a $25,000 bonus payable in the Company’s restricted stock upon the occurrence of certain events. In addition, the Company agreed to issue to Mr. Kraft, an option to purchase up to $50,000 of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price equal to the market price as of the date on which certain milestones are completed. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company recognized $177,500 of expense under the terms of the agreement.

The Company entered into a one-year consulting agreement dated July 15, 2016 with Mr. Phillip Boudjouk, a scientific and technical consultant. The Group anticipated that Mr. Boudjouk’s work under this consulting agreement would be performed for the Group, in support of their business development, research, development, and commercialization activities. A fee of $7,000 per month was the original arrangement, and a total of $7,000 has been already paid to Mr. Boudjouk. During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Group recognized $45,500 and $40,000 of expense, respectively under the terms of the agreement.

The Company entered into a one-year independent consulting agreement with Concordia Financial Group (“Concordia”) effective August 1, 2016, and month-to-month thereafter. Under the terms of the agreement Concordia will provide business strategy services by assisting the Company by reviewing and evaluating the Company's plans, personnel, board composition, technology, development of business models, building financial models for projections, developing materials to describe the Company, developing capital sources and assisting and advising the Company in its financial negotiations with capital sources. Concordia also advises with respect to effective registration of offerings of Company securities, the management team, the Company's development of near and long-term budgets, marketing strategies and plans, and assists in presentations related to the above services. Concordia is paid an hourly fee of $185. The Company recognized expense of $66,555 and $21,830 during the years ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017 COMPARED TO THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016

Revenue

We did not have revenues for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016.

Research and Development Expenses

The research and development expenses were $456,360 for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $300,985 for the year ended December 31, 2016. The approximately $155,000 increase was a result of the cost related to the License Agreement signed with NDSU/RF in June 2016 of $76,000, the SRA signed with NDSU on August 14, 2015 of $17,000, the amortization of patent cost related to the NDSU/RF License Agreement of $60,000 and an increase in travel expenses of $2,000.

General and Administrative Expenses

Our general and administrative expenses were $936,780 for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $383,784 for the year ended December 31, 2016. The approximately $553,000 net increase was a result of the increase in cost for consulting fees of $257,000 for our full year expenses and our new CEO, an increase of legal fees of $62,000, an increase in insurance expense of $43,000, an increase in salaries of $49,000, an increase in Edgarizing and transfer agent fees of $41,000 from our SEC reporting, an increase in accounting fees for reviews and proforma information prepared in 2017 of $30,000 and an increase in the cost of our shareholder meeting expenses of $10,000. A significant portion of the increases in our expenses is due to the consolidation of our operations effective September 30, 2016 under the terms of the Share Exchange Agreement. Only three months of the operation of the former 3DIcon were included in our consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Interest Expense

Interest expense was $320,093 for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to $60,082 for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase of approximately $260,000 was a result of the increase of the principal balance due under our loan agreements with Carlton James ND, LTD and Victor F. Keen.

Financial Condition, Liquidity and Capital Resources

Management remains focused on controlling cash expenses. We recognize our limited cash resources and plan our expenses accordingly. We intend to leverage stock-for-services wherever possible. The operating budget consists of the following expenses:

We had net cash of $470,630 at December 31, 2017. We had negative working capital of $1,905,514 at December 31, 2017.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, we used $834,834 of cash for operating activities, an increase of $262,034 or 46% compared to the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in the use of cash for operating activities was a result of the increase in the loss from operations of $968,382, the increase in amortization of debt discount of $97,143, the increase in amortization of intangibles of $93,007, an increase in the options issued for common stock of $50,000, the decrease in prepaid expenses of $6,012 and an increase of accounts payable of $457,041.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, there was $232 of net cash provided by investing activities, a decrease of $60,455 or 100% compared to the year ended December 31, 2016. The decrease was primarily a result of $75,687 of cash acquired in reverse acquisition in 2016 and note payments from a related party of $5,000, partially offset by the purchase of $20,000 of intangible assets in the year ended December 31, 2016.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, there was $1,304,638 of cash provided by financing activities, an increase of $800,742 or 159% compared to the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase was due to proceeds from stock and options issued for cash of $750,000 and an increase in proceeds from notes payable to related parties of $77,401, offset by an increase in the payments on our insurance financing agreement of $26,659.

We expect to fund the ongoing operations through the existing financing in place through raising additional funds as permitted by the terms of Golden State financing as well as reducing our monthly expenses. Our ability to fund the operations of the Company is highly dependent on the underlying stock price of the Company.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

The Company does not engage in any off-balance sheet arrangements that are reasonably likely to have a current or future effect on our consolidated financial condition, revenues, and results of operations, liquidity or capital expenditures.

Significant Accounting Policies

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of each class of financial instrument held by the Company:

Current assets and current liabilities - The carrying value approximates fair value due to the short maturity of these items.

Notes payable - The fair value of the Company's notes payable has been estimated by the Company based upon the liability's characteristics, including interest rate. The carrying value approximates fair value.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Actual results could differ from the estimates and assumptions used.

Intangible Assets

Intangible assets consist primarily of acquired patents. The Company acquired $1,400,000 of intangible assets in conjunction with the reverse acquisition. Intangible assets with finite lives are amortized on a straight-line basis over their useful lives.

Research and Development

Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Research and development costs amounted to approximately $456,000 and $301,000 for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

See the Recent Accounting Pronouncements section of Note 1 to our Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8 of this report for further details of recent accounting pronouncements.

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

Not applicable.

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

All financial information required by this Item is attached hereto at the end of this report beginning on page F-1 and is hereby incorporated by reference.

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None.

ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls. In designing and evaluating our disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives. In addition, the design of disclosure controls and procedures must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and that management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the benefits of possible controls and procedures relative to their costs.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures. Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2017. The term “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rule 13a-15 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), means controls and other procedures of a company that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, including our principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Based on our evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2017, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at a reasonable assurance level as we do not have sufficient resources in our accounting function, which restricts the Company’s ability to gather, analyze and properly review information related to financial reporting in a timely manner. In addition, due to our size and nature, segregation of all conflicting duties may not always be possible and may not be economically feasible. However, to the extent possible, management will engage financial consultants and perform additional analysis and other procedures to help address this material weakness. Until remediation actions are fully implemented and the operational effectiveness of related internal controls are validated through testing, the material weaknesses described above will continue to exist. 

Notwithstanding the assessment that our Internal Control Over Financial Reporting was not effective and that there is a material weakness as identified herein, we believe that our consolidated financial statements contained in this Annual Report fairly present our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods covered thereby in all material respects.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with the evaluation required by Rule 13a-15(d) of the Exchange Act that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2017 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. 

ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION

None.

PART III

ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, PROMOTERS AND CONTROL PERSONS; COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 16(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS AND KEY EMPLOYEES

The following table sets forth the names and ages of the members of our Board of Directors and our executive officers and the positions held by each. There are no family relationships among any of our Directors and Executive Officers.

Victor Keen – Director, Co-Chairman

Mr. Keen is a significant shareholder in the Company and has been a member of the Board since November 2007. Mr. Keen is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Trinity College. Until November 2010 he was the chair of the Tax Practice Group at Duane Morris LLP, an international law firm and one of the 100 largest law firms in the world. In November 2010, Mr. Keen became Of Counsel to the firm and has since devoted the majority of his time to charitable board memberships, as well as real estate investments and other ventures. For more than ten years Mr. Keen served on the board of Research Frontiers (NASDAQ: REFR), a developer of “Smart Glass” through licensees around the world. Mr. Keen has been an active investor in a number of private companies, both start up and later stage, including: Lending Tree, acquired by IAC Interactive Corp. (NASDAQ: IACI); Circle Lending, Inc., now part of Richard Branson’s Virgin Group; and Rollover Systems, Inc., a privately held company involved in the matching of individual IRA/pension accounts with appropriate managers. Mr. Keen is a co-founder and co-owner of Bantam Pharmaceutical LLC, a privately held biotechnology company founded in 2015 focusing on the discovery and development of innovative cancer therapies.

Simon Calton – Director, Co-Chairman

Simon Calton has over 12 years of experience in financing and company structuring and utilizes his experience to find opportunities in different sectors. Since 2008, Mr. Calton has structured a number of Alternative Investment Products geared around Construction and Development in the United States and United Kingdom. In 2012 he co-founded Carlton James North Dakota Ltd, which specializes in funding specific projects and developments throughout the United States. In 2007 Mr. Calton co-founded Carlton James Private and Commercial, a project investment, pension administration service and global financing firm which helps to fund projects around the globe.

We believe Mr. Calton is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his extensive business and management experience.

Michael A. Kraft – Chief Executive Officer

In addition to his role as CEO, Michael is a Mentor-in-Residence at the University of Michigan Technology Transfer Office and he is Founder/Managing Director of MKT Partners, LLC, an Executive Advisory and Interim C-Level firm focused on business development for materials science, performance materials and technology systems. Michael has served as an Executive in Residence for a large European PE Firm, CEO of Covaron Advanced Materials, Executive Officer and Vice President of Ceradyne Inc. (previously NASDAQ: CRDN), and GM at both Kulicke & Soffa and General Electric. As CEO/GM he has managed P&L’s from start-up to $300M and as a member of two executive teams grew shareholder value to >$1.4B by identifying critical business drivers, growing revenues and market share organically, building strategic partnerships, and completing accretive acquisitions. Michael completed the General Electric Crotonville Management Program with a Master of Management and Business from Penn State University. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering & Systems Science from Michigan State University and recently extended his executive education by completing courses in Strategic Planning and Technology Marketing at CalTech.

Ron Dombrowski – Director

Since August 2015, Mr. Dombrowski served as a member of Coretec’s Board of Directors. Between April 2015 and November 2015, he was Director of Sales and Marketing at Lifting Solutions Automation Inc. From August 2010 to April 2015 Mr. Dombrowski served as the Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Limited Solutions Automation Inc. He is a graduate of the Southern Illinois University with degrees in Electrical Engineering and Management. Mr. Dombrowski has also attended executive education programs at University of Phoenix and Marquette University. Mr. Dombrowski has over 25 years of global sales and operations experience, growing and scaling both startups and Fortune 500 technology companies.

We believe that Mr. Dombrowski is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his background in sales and operations experience. 

Ronald Robinson - Chief Financial Officer

Ronald Robinson was appointed Chief Financial Officer on January 28, 2013. He was a partner in three local CPA firms spanning forty years, the latest of which was Sutton Robinson Freeman & Co., PC, from 1999 through 2010, of which he was the managing partner and performed SEC/PCOAB audits for several clients, including the Company. He has been an SEC compliance and accounting consultant for the Company since 2010. Mr. Robinson is a graduate of East Central University, Ada, Oklahoma with a BS in Accounting.

Audit Committee

On February 25, 2008, the Board of Directors created an Audit Committee comprising of Mr. Victor Keen. We intend to continue to evaluate the composition of our Audit Committee.

Compensation Committee

On February 25, 2008, the Board of Directors created a Compensation Committee comprising of Mr. Victor Keen. We intend to continue to evaluate the composition of our Compensation Committee.

Nomination and Corporate Governance Committee

On February 25, 2008, the Board of Directors created Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee comprising of Mr. Victor Keen. We intend to continue to evaluate the composition of our Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee.

Director or Officer Involvement in Certain Legal Proceedings

Our directors and executive officers were not involved in any legal proceedings as described in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K in the past ten years.

Board Leadership Structure and Role in Risk Oversight

Although we have not adopted a formal policy on whether the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer positions should be separate or combined, in the past we determined that it was in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to combine these roles. From the inception of the Company through June 13, 2011, Martin Keating served as our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Due to the small size and early stage of the Company, we believe it was most effective to have the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer positions combined. Since June 13, 2011, the role of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman, or any member, of the Board of Directors was separated.

Our Board of Directors receives and reviews periodic reports from management, auditors, legal counsel, and others, as considered appropriate regarding our Company's assessment of risks. Our Board of Directors focuses on the most significant risks facing our Company and our Company's general risk management strategy and ensures that risks undertaken by us are consistent with the Board's appetite for risk. While the Board oversees our Company's risk management, management is responsible for day-to-day risk management processes. We believe this division of responsibilities is the most effective approach for addressing the risks facing our Company and that our board leadership structure and role in risk oversight is effective. 

Involvement in Certain Legal Proceedings

To our knowledge, our directors and executive officers have not been involved in any of the following events during the past ten years:

Code of Ethics

We have not adopted a Code of Ethics and Business Conduct for Officers, Directors and Employees that applies to all of our officers, directors and employees.

Employment Agreements

The Company entered into a consulting agreement dated March 20, 2017 with Mr. Michael A. Kraft, who became the Company’s CEO. Under the terms of the agreement the Company agreed to compensate Mr. Kraft, $1,500 per day for his commitment to allocate seven days a month to the Company and a $25,000 bonus payable in the Company’s restricted stock upon the occurrence of certain events. In addition, the Company agreed to issue to Mr. Kraft, an option to purchase up to $50,000 of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price equal to the market price as of the date on which certain milestones are completed. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company recognized $177,500 of expense under the terms of the agreement.

On January 22, 2017, the Company hired silicon materials expert Ragnar Avery as Vice President, CHS Marketing and Sales. Mr. Avery will lead new business development and sales initiatives for the Company’s proprietary liquid silicon precursor, CHS. The consulting agreement was effective as of February 1, 2017 and shall continue in full force and effect through February 1, 2018. The Company shall pay Mr. Avery a fee of $125 per hour for the first three months and $150 per hour thereafter. The Company paid Mr. Avery a fee of $44,425 for the year ended December 31, 2017.

Director Compensation

Our directors have not received monetary compensation for their service on the Board of Directors since 2012. Directors may receive compensation for their services and reimbursement for their expenses as shall be determined from time to time by resolution of the Board.

Except as below, none of the following parties has, since our date of incorporation, had any material interest, direct or indirect, in any transaction with us or in any presently proposed transaction that has or will materially affect us:

The Company issued an aggregate of 1,589,010 shares of the Company’s Series B Convertible Preferred in connection with Securities Purchase Agreements (the “Securities Purchase Agreements”) dated December 11, 2015. Pursuant the Securities Purchase Agreements, the Company had agreed to issue, and on March 23, 2016 issued, to certain officers, directors, consultants and service providers (collectively, “Recipients”) and the Recipients had agreed to accept, and on March 23, 2016 received, shares of Series B Preferred in consideration for the satisfaction, in lieu of cash payment, of an aggregate of $1,105,402 owed by the Company to the Recipients. Each Series B Preferred may be converted in whole or in part, from time to time, into 6.38 post-split shares of Common Stock. Among the Recipients were (i) Victor F. Keen, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, who received 1,193,582 shares of Series B Preferred in satisfaction of $685,354 owed to him under certain notes, in connection with certain advances he provided to the Company and for services he provided to the Company; (ii) Ronald W. Robinson, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, who received 85,771 shares of Series B Preferred in satisfaction of $90,291 owed to him for services he provided to the Company; (iii) Martin Keating, a former Director of the Company, who received 19,266 shares of Series B Preferred in satisfaction of $20,280 owed to him under certain notes and for services he provided to the Company; and (iv) Newton, O'Connor, Turner & Ketchum, PC, a law firm of which John O’Connor, a former Director of the Company, is a partner, that received 50,149 shares of Series B Preferred in satisfaction of $52,791 owed to it for services provided to the Company.

In addition to shares issued under the Securities Purchase Agreements, Victor F. Keen, the Company’s former CEO and current Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors, was issued an additional 152,386 shares of Series B Preferred in satisfaction of $87,500 owed to him as compensation as CEO prior to closing the Share Exchange Agreement.

Prior to Mr. Freitag’s appointment as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, he received compensation from the Company in his capacity as a consultant in the form of 5,000,000 shares of common stock and 44,769 shares of Series B Preferred issued under the Securities Purchase Agreement in lieu of cash payment of an aggregate of $47,0340 owed to him by the Company.

On March 21, 2017, Doug Freitag resigned as Chief Executive Officer of the Company in order to allow Michael A. Kraft to take over in his place as the Company’s newly appointed Chief Executive Officer. In connection with Mr. Kraft’s appointment, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Mr. Kraft, pursuant to which it agreed to compensate Mr. Kraft, $1,500 per day for his commitment to allocate seven days a month to the Company and a $25,000 bonus payable in the Company’s restricted stock upon the occurrence of certain events. In addition, the Company agreed to issue to Mr. Kraft, an option to purchase up to $50,000 of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price equal to the market price as of the date on which certain milestones are completed. Mr. Freitag assumed a strategic consulting role as the Company’s Vice President of Technology and remained on the Company’s Board of Directors until his resignation on August 20, 2017.

Risk Management

The Company does not believe risks arising from its compensation policies and practices for its employees are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Director Independence

Because the Company’s Common Stock is not currently listed on a national securities exchange, the Company has used the definition of “independence” of The NASDAQ Stock Market to make this determination. NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(a)(2) provides that an “independent director” is a person other than an officer or employee of the company or any other individual having a relationship which, in the opinion of the company’s board of directors, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. The NASDAQ listing rules provide that a director cannot be considered independent if:

Based on this review of the Company’s Board of Directors, none of the members are considered to be independent under the listing standards of the Rules of NASDAQ set forth in the NASDAQ Manual.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors and executive officers and persons who own more than 10% of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock to file reports of initial ownership of common stock and other equity securities and subsequent changes in that ownership with the SEC. Officers, directors and greater than ten percent stockholders are required by SEC regulation to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the below reports were not reported on a timely basis:

  ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The following table sets forth all compensation earned in respect of our Chief Executive Officer and those individuals who received compensation in excess of $100,000 per year, collectively referred to as the named executive officers, for our last three completed fiscal years.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

The following information is furnished for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 for our principal executive officer and the two most highly compensated officers.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR END 

The following table sets forth with respect to grants of options to purchase our common stock to the executive officers as of December 31, 2017:

Director Compensation 2017

 ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT 

The following table provides information about shares of common stock beneficially owned as of April 2, 2018 by:

ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Related Party Transactions

During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company advanced $5,000 to an entity partially owned by a former member of Coretec. This amount was due on demand and repaid in April 2016. 

The Company entered into a consulting agreement dated July 7, 2015 with Mr. Doug Freitag, who became the Company’s CEO on October 1, 2016. Mr. Freitag’s field of consultation was in the area of working as a federal business and private sector business consultant and technical consultant. The work under this consulting agreement was performed for the Company, in support of business development, research, development, and commercialization activities. The consulting agreement was effective as of July 2015 and continued in full force through July 2016 and will continue monthly thereafter, unless terminated under the terms of the agreement. On October 1, 2016, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Mr. Doug Freitag which replaced the previous agreement, but the terms are identical. The consulting agreement was effective as of October 1, 2016 and continued in full force and effect through December 31, 2016. The Company paid Mr. Freitag a fee of $185 per hour. The Company entered into a third consulting agreement on January 1, 2017 with Mr. Freitag. Under the terms of the one-year agreement, Mr. Freitag’s fee is $194 per hour.

The Company paid Mr. Freitag a fee of $58,054 and $100,517 for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 respectively. Mr. Freitag assumed a strategic consulting role as the Company’s Vice President of Technology and remained on the Company’s Board of Directors until his resignation on August 20, 2017. On March 21, 2017, Doug Freitag resigned as Chief Executive Officer of the Company in order to allow Michael A. Kraft to take over in his place as the Company’s newly appointed Chief Executive Officer. In connection with Mr. Kraft’s appointment, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Mr. Kraft, pursuant to which it agreed to compensate Mr. Kraft, $1,500 per day for his commitment to allocate seven days a month to the Company and a $25,000 bonus payable in the Company’s restricted stock upon the occurrence of certain events. In addition, the Company agreed to issue to Mr. Kraft, an option to purchase up to $50,000 of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price equal to the market price as of the date on which certain milestones are completed. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the company recognized $177,500 of expense under the terms of the agreement.

At December 31, 2016 the Company had an aggregate balance of $440,500 of advances due to Mr. Victor Keen. During the year ended December 31, 2017, Mr. Keen advanced the Company an additional $156,000 such that as of December 31, 2017, an aggregate amount of $596,500 is due to Mr. Keen under the terms of a 14% Term loan which is included in notes payable – related party (see Note 5).  As of December 31, 2017, accrued interest related to the 14% Term loan due June 2018 amounted to $102,247 and interest expense was $81,729 during the year ended December 31, 2016.

During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, CJNDL, a company owned by Mr. Simon Calton, a director of the Company, advanced $52,109 and $613,825, respectively to the Company under the terms of two loans, which are included in term loans (see Note 5). As of December 31, 2017, accrued interest related to the 14% Term loans due June 2018 amounted to $139,323 and interest expense was $88,532 and $42,738 during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

On March 30, 2017, the Company issued to Mr. Victor Keen, Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors, a 7% convertible promissory note in a principal amount of $250,000, due March 1, 2019. The promissory note shall automatically convert into eight percent (8%) of the fully diluted outstanding shares of common stock of the Company calculated after giving effect to certain conversions as discussed in Note 5.

On June 21, 2017, the Company issued to Mr. Victor Keen, Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors, a 7% convertible promissory note in a principal amount of $100,000, due June 21, 2019. The promissory note shall automatically convert into four percent (4%) of the fully diluted outstanding shares of common stock of the Company calculated after giving effect to certain conversions discussed in Note 5.

On November 15, 2017, the Company conducted a private placement with Victor Keen, Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, pursuant to which it sold 20,000,000 shares of common stock for a purchase price of $750,000. 

Director Independence

As discussed above, none of the members are considered to be independent under the listing standards of the Rules of NASDAQ set forth in the NASDAQ Manual

ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

Audit Fees

The aggregate fees billed by our principal accountants for the audit of our annual financial statements, review of financial statements included in the quarterly reports and other fees that are normally provided by the accountant in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were approximately $89,000 and $114,000, respectively.

Audit-Related Fees

The aggregate fees billed by our principal accountant for assurance and advisory services that were related to the performance of the audit or review of our financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were $0 and $0, respectively.

Tax Fees

The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by our principal accountant for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were $0 and $0, respectively.

All Other Fees

The aggregate fees billed for products and services provided by our principal accountant for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were $0 and $0, respectively.

Policy on Audit Committee Pre-Approval of Audit and Permissible Non-Audit Services of Independent Auditors

The Audit Committee's policy is to pre-approve all audit and permissible non-audit services provided by the independent auditors. These services may include audit services, audit-related services, tax services and other services. Pre-approval is generally provided for up to one year and any pre-approval is detailed as to the particular service or category of services and is generally subject to a specific budget. The independent auditors and management are required to periodically report to our Board of Directors regarding the extent of services provided by the independent auditors in accordance with this pre-approval, and the fees for the services performed to date. The Board of Directors may also pre-approve particular services on a case-by-case basis.

PART IV

ITEM 15. EXHIBITS

SIGNATURES

In accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

THE CORETEC GROUP INC.

December 31, 2017 and 2016

CONTENTS

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Stockholders and the Board of Directors

The Coretec Group Inc.

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of The Coretec Group Inc. and its subsidiary (the Company) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity (deficiency) and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes to the consolidated financial statements (collectively, the financial statements). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The Company's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company has insufficient revenue and capital commitments to fund the development of its planned products and to pay operating expenses. This raises substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters also are described in Note 1. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

We have served as the Company's auditor since 2016.

/s/ HOGANTAYLOR LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma

April 2, 2018

Note - Share and per share information for the periods has been retroactively adjusted to reflect the June 28, 2017 one for 300 reverse split of the Company's common stock.

See notes to consolidated financial statements