Gadsden Properties, Inc. - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016

OR

For the transition period from ______________ to _____________

Commission file number: 0-11635

PHOTOMEDEX, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

2300 Computer Drive, Building G, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania 19090

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

(215) 619-3600

(Issuer’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act:

Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:

None

(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.

Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (i) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (ii) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of "large accelerated filer," “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

Yes ¨ No x

As of March 31, 2017, the number of shares outstanding of our common stock was 4,361,094. The closing market price of our common stock as of March 30, 2017 was $1.81.

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, or this Report, are "forward-looking statements." These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about the plans, objectives, expectations and intentions of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Nevada corporation (referred to in this Report as “we,” “us,” “our”, “registrant” or “the Company”), and other statements contained in this Report that are not historical facts. Forward-looking statements in this Report or hereafter included in other publicly available documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Commission, reports to our stockholders and other publicly available statements issued or released by us involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which could cause our actual results, performance (financial or operating) or achievements to differ from the future results, performance (financial or operating) or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such future results are based upon management's best estimates based upon current conditions and the most recent results of operations. When used in this Report, the words "will" "expect," "anticipate," "intend," "plan," "believe," "seek," "estimate" and similar expressions are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements, because these forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. There are important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements, including our plans, objectives, expectations and intentions and other factors discussed under "Risk Factors." We undertake no obligation to update such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

In light of these assumptions, risks and uncertainties, the results and events discussed in the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K might not occur. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We are not under any obligation, and we expressly disclaim any obligation, to update or alter any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. All subsequent forward-looking statements attributable to us or to any person acting on its behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section.

PART I

Item 1. Business

Our Company (dollar amounts in thousands except where indicated and for per-share amounts)

PhotoMedex, Inc., re-incorporated in Nevada on December 30, 2010, originally formed in Delaware in 1980, and until the recent sale of the Company’s last significant business unit, as described below and in other sections of this report, has been a Global Health products and services company providing integrated disease management and aesthetic solutions to dermatologists, professional aestheticians and consumers. We have provided proprietary products and services that address skin diseases and conditions including acne and photo damage. Our past experience in the physician market has provided the platform to expand our skin health solutions to spa markets, as well as traditional retail, online and infomercial outlets for home-use products. Through our subsidiary Radiancy, Inc., which was merged into PhotoMedex in 2011, our professional product line increased its offerings using Radiancy’s LHE medical device portfolio to include acne clearance, skin tightening, psoriasis care and hair removal sold to physician clinics and spas.

Starting in August 2014, the Company began to restructure its operations and redirect its efforts in a manner that management expected would result in improved results of operations and address certain defaults in its commercial bank loan covenants. During this time the Company has also sold off certain business units and product lines to support this restructuring culminating in PhotoMedex’s shareholders approving the sale of its consumer products division to ICTV Brands, Inc. on January 23, 2017, which represented the sale of substantially all of the Companies remaining assets (See Acquisitions and Dispositions - Pending Transaction below and Note 18 - Subsequent Event).

Reasons for the Asset Sale

The decision by the Board to approve the entry into the Asset Purchase Agreement with ICTV was based on a careful evaluation of the Company's strategic alternatives following an extensive strategic review process. Over the past two years, in an effort to find a buyer for this business, over 151 entities were contacted; only a few entities then entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the Company to conduct due diligence work, and none of those entities then made an offer for the business. Due to the Company’s financial condition and the uncertainty of the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, the Company did not engage financial and legal advisors to prepare a fairness opinion on the ICTV deal, as such an opinion would be quite expensive and would strain the Company’s remaining financial resources. In addition, the Company did not feel a fairness opinion was necessary considering so much effort had been put into finding a suitable candidate and yet the Company ended up with only one offer for the purchase of the Radiancy Consumer Products Business, so it appeared there were no other offers available. After considering the Company's strategic alternatives, the opportunities for the rather immaterial operational assets following the sale of the Consumer Business, the Board determined that the sale of the Radiancy Business pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement was desirable and in the best interests of the Company.

Our Board considered a number of factors before deciding to enter into the Asset Purchase Agreement, including, among other things, the price to be paid by the Purchaser, the strategic and financial benefits that the Asset Sale will provide to the Company, the Company’s extensive search process with respect to the sale of the Radiancy Business that led the Company to enter into the Asset Purchase Agreement, the future business prospects of the Radiancy Business and the terms and conditions of the Asset Purchase Agreement. Our Board also considered the Company’s current financial condition, including that without an imminent injection of cash, we would likely default on certain outstanding indebtedness that could lead to the Company’s bankruptcy or liquidation.

Ultimately, the Board of Directors concluded that the price offered by ICTV was a fair offer for the consumer products division, given that the Asset Sale to ICTV represented the only deal available to the company that would likely close in a timely manner, that the previous deal would not be resumed as it was beyond the current capability of DS Healthcare, that the alternative of bankruptcy would wipe out shareholder equity and likely result in little to no payments to vendors, and that the Asset Sale would provide the Company with a cash infusion to achieve the following considerations and objectives:

As stated above, PhotoMedex has been engaged in an exhaustive and a multi-pronged effort over the past two and a half years to sell its consumer products division, either as an individual asset sale or through the sale of the subsidiary owning the Radiancy, Inc. division.

Following the purchase of LCA-Vision, Inc. (see Acquisitions and Dispositions, below), PhotoMedex defaulted upon its credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with JP Morgan Chase in May 2014. At the time of the default, the entire $85 million credit arrangement under the Credit Agreement was outstanding. As a result of that default, and as a condition of the forbearance agreements that we had entered into with the Bank, the Company began marketing its various product divisions, both as independent offerings and as components in the overall sale of PhotoMedex itself, to numerous entities in order to obtain the funds to repay that Credit Agreement. The entire $85 million, plus applicable interest, was repaid in full to JP Morgan Chase in June 2015 following the sale of the Company’s LCA and XTRAC product divisions.

Beginning in mid-2014, PhotoMedex contracted with two investment banks (Canaccord Genuity, LLC and Nomura Securities, Inc.) to sell one, several or all of its product divisions and the Company itself. Through this process, Nomura contacted a total of 151 parties including financial sponsors and strategic parties for the Radiancy Business and/or parties who could provide incremental working capital to the Company. This process yielded 36 interested parties that signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), and, subsequently, conducted a due diligence investigation of this division, including meetings with management, facility visits, and document review through a data room. None of these parties submitted Letters of Interest (LOI) for the purchase of the division.

While other sales of the LCA and XTRAC divisions were concluded and were monetarily sufficient to pay off in full the defaulted Credit Agreement, PhotoMedex’s overall finances had been negatively affected as a result of the default and the resulting prolonged forbearance workout process.

In the middle of 2015, after failing to locate a buyer for the consumer division, PhotoMedex terminated its engagement with Nomura as an investment bank. In light of its ongoing financial constraints, PhotoMedex engaged in short term lending facilities and continued to explore avenues to sell one or more of its business lines in order to raise needed capital for the Company. In particular, PhotoMedex made multiple attempts to market and sell the consumer products division. Following the termination of Nomura as an investment advisor, Photomedex maintained an active data room and entertained several entities that signed NDAs including Hawk Capital, Femme Pharma, Aerus Health, and the three entities which indicated interest in purchasing the consumer division and ultimately provided Letters of Intent: DS Healthcare, Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc., and ICTV Brands, Inc.

In May 2015, the Company was introduced to the principals of DS Healthcare which led to our mutual companies entering into a series of agreements by which DS Healthcare would purchase not just the consumer products division, but Radiancy, Inc. itself, another subsidiary, PhotoMedex Technology, Inc. including its Neova skincare product line, as well as ancillary foreign subsidiaries and assets. However, as disclosed in the Company’s previous filings under Forms 8-K, 10-K and 10-Q, DS Healthcare had withheld material information from PhotoMedex during those negotiations, information which became public after the signing of the agreements to sell those assets and the public disclosure of the proposed transaction. That information resulted in a breach by DS Healthcare of the signed agreements and the resulting cancellation of the transaction with that company.

PhotoMedex then attempted to contact other parties who had, in the past, expressed an interest in purchasing the division, but at this time those parties were no longer interested in obtaining this product group. The only parties who expressed interest were Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc., and ICTV Brands, Inc.

Viatek’s interest was in part an interest in the business and in part an attempt to settle ongoing patent infringement and commercial litigation between Radiancy, Inc. and Viatek. PhotoMedex entered into due diligence and negotiations with Viatek, as described in Background of the Asset Sale beginning on page 57. While Viatek provided an initial LOI, it then immediately began attempting to re-negotiate the deal, continually trying to lower the purchase price and more particularly, lower the guaranteed cash portion of the transaction.

PhotoMedex was also engaged in discussions with ICTV Brands. Its initial offer with regard to the consumer products division was not a purchase, per se, but rather a licensing agreement for the products of that division which would contain no specific guarantees with regard to payments to be received by the Company. As a result, at the time, PhotoMedex favored the Viatek transaction, both because it did provide some level of guaranteed cash payments and because it would also resolve longstanding litigation between the parties.

However, Viatek’s continuous attempts to lower the purchase price and the amount of guaranteed cash to be paid was a cause for concern by the board of PhotoMedex, particularly in light of Viatek’s past history of walking away from financial transactions. Under the terms of the Viatek LOI, PhotoMedex had agreed to a no-shop provision, and while that agreement was in force, the Company was restricted from seeking alternative buyers. At the time the board was re-evaluating the Viatek transaction, and attempting to reach an agreement with Viatek to terminate the LOI and settle the patent litigation, ICTV returned with a structured proposal to purchase the consumer products division in its entirety, with a guaranteed cash payment, a second payment guaranteed by a Letter of Credit, and then a royalty payment based upon future revenue streams.

The Board reviewed and compared the two transactions. Given that the ICTV Brands offer provided a final negotiated asset purchase agreement, guaranteed a higher cash payment and a longer-term royalty and thus a higher return to the Company, as compared to Viatek’s continued attempts to lower the transaction price while eliminating the upfront cash payment, the board determined that the ICTV Brands offer was a superior offer for the consumer products division.

Moreover, while the ICTV price was lower than that offered by DS Healthcare, the DS Healthcare offer was an all-stock deal which, if converted at the last traded price for DS Healthcare’s stock ($0.66/share) would be equal to or lower than the ICTV cash offer. At that time, there were no other offers for the product line, despite repeated and multiple attempts to market the line to other parties over the preceding two years. The DS Healthcare transaction had been terminated. DS Healthcare was not, at that time and to this day, in a legal or financial condition to close the transaction, given that it was not in compliance with its filings before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and that its finances and stock price had materially suffered as a result of the events involving its board and executive officers. The only other offer on the table for the division was from a company, Viatek, which had already lowered its offer multiple times and was, at the time PhotoMedex received the offer from ICTV, attempting to lower its offer yet again and to remove any guaranteed cash payments from the offer.

The board recommended the sale of the division and the PhotoMedex shareholders agreed by approving the transaction on January 19, 2017 for several reasons. The sale to ICTV would provide cash to the Company with which to pay outstanding debts to vendors and creditors. In the process of locating buyers for the assets or finding alternative sources of financing, the management and board members agreed to forebear on payment of salaries and board-related payments to reduce the Company’s financial obligations and allow the Company to survive. While there were certain outstanding payments that are due to the board, those payments were not a defining concern to the board during its review. While the board was aware it would likely receive no compensation in the event of a bankruptcy reorganization, neither would the vendors or shareholders likely reach a favorable outcome in such a case. Thus, what was of greater concern was the ability to resolve the outstanding payables to the Company’s trade creditors, which would be necessary in order to allow the Company space to begin marketing its remaining LHE business line, and also offer a clear path to enter into possible strategic transactions with regard to the Company, which would allow the Company the opportunity to resume its growth and provide some return to its shareholders. Absent completion of this transaction, PhotoMedex would have no recourse but to enter into a restructuring through bankruptcy, which would wipe out all shareholder value and guarantee that the shareholders, vendors and other creditors of the Company would receive little to no value on their debts and investments. As a result, the board does not believe there were any negative factors with regard to the sale of the consumer products division to ICTV, as the sale will allow the Company to continue its existence, satisfy its debts, and explore methods of increasing the investment return to its shareholders.

Activities of PhotoMedex Following the Asset Sale

Following the Asset Sale, the Company plans to primarily focus on collecting the remaining payments, if any, from ICTV under the Letter of Credit, as well as any ongoing royalty payments (up to a maximum of $4.5 million in royalty payments from ICTV). We will also continue to defend and prosecute the existing litigation involving the Company (including the claim by the Company against DS Healthcare regarding the failed acquisition earlier in 2016), and will consider other strategic investments or alternatives for the Company including merger opportunities to build shareholder value as well as to determine what can be done to create value out of the remaining LHE assets despite their relatively immaterial value.

Liquidity and Going Concern

As of December 31, 2016, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $115,635 and shareholders deficit of $1,408. To date, the Company has dedicated most of its financial resources to sales and marketing, general and administrative expenses and research and development.

Cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2016 were $2,677, including restricted cash of $342. The Company has historically financed its activities with cash from operations, the private placement of equity and debt securities, borrowings under lines of credit and, in the most recent periods with sale of certain assets and business units. The Company will be required to obtain additional liquidity resources in order to support its operations. The Company is addressing its liquidity needs by seeking additional funding from lenders as well as collecting amounts due from past sales of business assets and amounts due from asset sales that occurred after the year ending December 31, 2016 (see Acquisitions below and in other areas of this report). There are no assurances, however, that the Company will be able to obtain an adequate level of financial resources required for the short and long-term support of its operations. In light of the Company’s recent operating losses and negative cash flows, the termination of a pending merger agreement (see Acquisitions and Dispositions below) and the uncertainty of collecting further amounts due from sales of its product lines, there is no assurance that the Company will be able to continue as a going concern.

These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on recoverability and classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

On January 6, 2016, PhotoMedex, Inc. received an advance of $4 million, less a $40 financing fee (the “January 2016 Advance”), from CC Funding, a division of Credit Cash NJ, LLC, (the "Lender"), pursuant to a Credit Card Receivables Advance Agreement (the "Advance Agreement"), dated December 21, 2015. The Company’s domestic subsidiaries, Radiancy, Inc.; PTECH; and Lumiere, Inc., were also parties to the Advance Agreement (collectively with the Company, the “Borrowers”). Each Advance was secured by security interest in defined collateral representing substantially all the assets of the Company. Concurrent with the funding of the loan agreement, the Company established a $500 cash reserve account in favor of the lender to be used to make loan payments in the event that weekly remittances, net of sales return credits and other bank charges or offsets, were insufficient to cover the weekly repayment amount due the lender.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the Advance Agreement, the Lender was to make periodic advances to the Company (collectively with the January 2016 Advance and the April 2016 Advance described below, the “Advances”). The proceeds were used for general corporate purposes.

All outstanding Advances were repaid through the Company’s existing and future credit card receivables and other rights to payment arising out of our acceptance or other use of any credit or charge card (collectively, “Credit Card Receivables”) generated by activities based in the United States.

On April 29, 2016, the Company received an advance of $1 million, less a $10 financing fee (the “April 2016 Advance”), from the Lender pursuant to the Advance Agreement.

On June 17, 2016, the Company received an advance of $550, less a $50 financing fee (the “June 2016 Advance”), from the Lender pursuant to the Advance Agreement.

The above described advances were paid in full on July 29, 2016 and the security interest in the defined collateral was released from lien.

The restricted cash account includes $253 from the Neova Escrow Agreement (see Acquisitions and Dispositions below). Restricted cash also includes $89 reflecting certain commitments connected to our leased office facilities in Israel. Additionally the Company gained access to previously restricted cash amounts of $724 that were held in escrow as of the one year anniversary of the sale of the XTRAC and VTRAC business on June 22, 2015, from which $125 was paid to MELA Science, the purchaser of that business which amount was reflected within the loss from discontinued operations.

On August 30, 2016, the Company entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of its Neova product line. The sale was completed on September 15, 2016 resulting immediate proceeds to the company of $1.5 million and the Company recorded a loss of $1,731 from the transaction during the three months ended September 30, 2016. (See Acquisitions and Dispositions below)

On October 4, 2016, the Company entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of its Consumer Division for $9.5 million, including $5 million in cash payable in two tranches ($3 million at closing and $2 million 90 days after closing) plus a $4.5 million royalty agreement. (See Note 18 Subsequent Event and Acquisitions and Dispositions below). On January 23, 2017, the Company entered into a First Amendment (the “First APA Amendment”) to the Asset Purchase Agreement. This transaction was completed on January 23, 2017.

All references to the Neova, the Consumer or Radiancy business and/or XTRAC product divisions within this Form 10-K are intended for historical purposes only and for the interpretation of past revenue and business results, and do not form a part of the Company’s future business and revenue plans.

Acquisitions and Dispositions (dollar amounts in thousands except where indicated and for per-share amounts)

On May 12, 2014, PhotoMedex acquired 100% of the shares of LCA-Vision Inc. ("LCA-Vision" or "LCA"); the Company then sold 100% of the shares of LCA for $40 million in cash effective January 31, 2015. The results of operations of LCA-Vision have been included into the Company's consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015 as a discontinued operation.

On June 22, 2015, the Company, sold the assets, and related liabilities, of the XTRAC and VTRAC business for $42.5 million in cash, including restricted cash of $750 to be held in escrow for twelve months.

The Company used the proceeds from the sale of the LCA and XTRAC/VTRAC transactions to fully pay off and satisfy the $85 million senior secured credit facilities entered into with JP Morgan Chase as part of financing the acquisition of LCA.

On March 31, 2016 we completed the sale to The Lotus Global Group, Inc. of all of the tangible and intangible assets of the Omnilux product line for $220 ($110 was received as a refundable deposit during December 2015 in advance and $110 was received in April 2016), pursuant to the Agreement for Sale of Assets dated March 31, 2016. Management does not believe that the sale of the Omnilux product line represented a strategic shift for the Company. As a result, the above transaction has not been reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements as discontinued operations. The Company recorded a loss on the disposal of those assets in the amount of $843 for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Sale of Neova product line

On August 30, 2016, the Company and its subsidiary PhotoMedex Technology, Inc. (“PTECH”) entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Neova Asset Purchase Agreement”) with Pharma Cosmetics Laboratories Ltd., an Israeli corporation, and its subsidiary Pharma Cosmetics Inc., a Delaware corporation (together “PHARMA”) to acquire the Neova® skincare business (the “Transferred Business”) from PTECH, for a total purchase price of $1.8 million (the “Neova Purchase Price”). This transaction was completed on September 15, 2016, (the “Closing Date”). On that date, pursuant to the terms of the Neova Asset Purchase Agreement, PHARMA acquired all of the assets related to and associated with the Transferred Business, including but not limited to intellectual property, product inventory, accounts receivable and payable, and other tangible and intangible assets connected with the conduct of that Transferred Business. In exchange for these assets, the Company received a net payment from PHARMA of $1.5 million, subject to a post-closing working capital adjustment.

Also on that date, the parties entered into a First Amendment (the “First Neova APA Amendment”) to the Neova Asset Purchase Agreement, which provided that PHARMA would hold in trust the sum of $50 until such time as PhotoMedex and PTECH obtain a signed Worldwide Trademark Co-existence Agreement and Consent to Assignment from Singer-Kosmetik GmbH, a German company formed under the laws of Germany, (“Singer”) regarding the use by both Singer and the Transferred Business of their respective trademarks. That agreement was obtained from the relevant parties, and the $50 held in trust by Pharma was released to PhotoMedex on October 28, 2016.

Management does not believe that the sale of the Neova product line represents a strategic shift for the company. As a result, the above transaction has not been reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements as discontinued operations. The Company recorded a loss on the disposal of those assets in the amount of $1,731 for the year ended December 31, 2016.

The Neova Purchase Price is subject to a post-closing working capital adjustment, pursuant to which the Neova Purchase Price paid to the Company at closing will be adjusted up or down by an amount equal to the difference between the defined actual working capital and the target net working capital of $200. Target working capital is defined as the net Accounts Receivable less trade Accounts Payable related to the Transferred Business as of the closing date. The Neova Asset Purchase Agreement also contains customary representations, warranties and covenants by each of the Company, PTECH and PHARMA, as well customary indemnification provisions among the parties. There is not expected to be any working capital adjustment as of the measurement date which was 60 days after closing.

The parties entered into several ancillary agreements as part of this transaction, including a Neova Escrow Agreement and a Neova Transition Services Agreement. Under the Neova Escrow Agreement, $250 of the Purchase Price (the "Escrow Amount") was placed into an escrow account held by U.S. Bank National Association as Escrow Agent. The funds will remain in escrow for one year following the closing of the transaction.

Under the Neova Transition Services Agreement, PHMD will continue to provide certain accounting, benefit, payroll, regulatory, IT support and other services to PHARMA for periods ranging from approximately three to up to nine months following the closing. During those periods, PHARMA will arrange to transition the services it receives to its own personnel. PHARMA shall also have the right to continue occupying certain portions of PHMD’s Willow Grove, Pennsylvania facility and the Orangeburg, New York facility of PHMD’s Radiancy, Inc. subsidiary for a period of time. The amounts of compensation to be received by the Company for these services will be reflected in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive loss as a reduction of the related expenses that the Company will incur to provide these services.

Sale of Radiancy Consumer Products line

On October 4, 2016, the Company and its subsidiaries Radiancy, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Radiancy US”), Photo Therapeutics Ltd., a private limited company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (“PHMD UK”), and Radiancy (Israel) Limited, an Israel corporation (“Radiancy Israel” and, together with the Company, Radiancy, and PHMD UK, “PHMD”) entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”) with ICTV Brands, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“ICTV Parent”), and its subsidiary ICTV Holdings, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Purchaser” and together with together with ICTV Parent, “ICTV”) pursuant to which ICTV will acquire PHMD’s consumer products division, including its no!no!® hair and skin products and the Kyrobak back pain management products (all such consumer products, the “Consumer Products”) and the shares of capital stock of Radiancy (HK) Limited, a private limited company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong (the “Hong Kong Foreign Subsidiary”), and LK Technology Importaçăo E Exportaçăo LTDA, a private Sociedade limitada formed under the laws of Brazil (the “Brazilian Foreign Subsidiary” and together with the Hong Kong Foreign Subsidiary, the “Foreign Subsidiaries”) (collectively, the “Transferred Business”) from PHMD, for a total purchase price of $9.5 million (the “Purchase Price”) including $3 million in cash at closing, $2 million of cash 90 days after closing collateralized by a letter of credit, and a $4.5 million royalty on future sales of the product line

The Purchase Price will be paid as follows:

As part of this Transaction, ICTV will also acquire from PHMD all of the shares of capital stock of the Foreign Subsidiaries.

The Asset Purchase Agreement provides that ICTV will make offers of employment to certain employees of the Transferred Business and that PHMD will not solicit such employees (or any other employees of ICTV) for employment or other services for a period of five years and that PHMD will not compete with ICTV with respect to the Transferred Business for a period of five years.  It also contains customary representations, warranties and covenants by the Company, each of its subsidiaries and ICTV, as well customary indemnification provisions among the parties.

In connection with the sale of the Transferred Business, on October 4, 2016, the parties entered into an Escrow Agreement and a Transition Services Agreement.

Under the Escrow Agreement, ICTV deposited $3,000 of the Purchase Price into an escrow account which will be released to PHMD upon closing.

Under the Transition Services Agreement, PHMD will continue to provide certain accounting, benefit, payroll, regulatory, IT support and other services to ICTV for periods ranging from approximately three to up to nine months following the Closing. During those periods, ICTV will arrange to transition the services it receives to its own personnel.  In consideration for such services, ICTV will pay to PHMD the documented costs and expenses incurred by PHMD in connection with the provision of those services and the documented lease costs including monthly rental and any utility charges incurred under the applicable leases and will reimburse PHMD for the documented costs and expenses incurred for the continued storage of inventory and raw materials at warehouse locations, and for services for fulfilling and shipping orders for such inventory and the payroll, employment-related taxes, benefit costs and out of pocket expenses paid to or on behalf of employees. ICTV shall also have the right to continue occupying certain portions of the Orangeburg, New York facility of PHMD’s Radiancy, Inc. subsidiary for a period of time.

Also on January 23, 2017, (the “Closing Date”), the Company and its subsidiaries completed the disposition of the Transferred Business to ICTV. On that date, pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement as amended, ICTV acquired all of the assets related to and associated with the Transferred Business, including but not limited to intellectual property, product inventory, accounts receivable and payable, and other tangible and intangible assets connected with the conduct of that Transferred Business. In exchange for these assets, the Company received on the Closing Date an initial net payment from ICTV of $3.0 million.

Upon entering into the ICTV asset purchase agreement, the Company recorded an impairment of the consumer segment’s goodwill in the amount of $ 2,257 and intangible asset in the amount of $1,261 for the period ended September 30, 2016. Consequently, the Company is not expected to record significant gain or loss from the transaction contemplated under the Asset Purchase Agreement upon closing in January 2017 (see Note 18 Subsequent Event and Acquisitions and Dispositions).

On January 23, 2017, PhotoMedex, Inc. (the “Company”) (Nasdaq and TASE: PHMD) and its subsidiaries Radiancy, Inc., (“Radiancy”), PhotoTherapeutics Ltd. (“PHMD UK”), and Radiancy (Israel) Limited, (“Radiancy Israel” and, together with the Company, Radiancy, and PHMD UK, the “Sellers” and each, a “Seller”) entered into a First Amendment (the “First APA Amendment”) to the Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”) between the Company and its subsidiaries, and ICTV Brands Inc. (“Parent”) and ICTV Holdings, Inc. (“Purchaser” and together with Parent, the Company, Radiancy, PHMD UK and Radiancy Israel, the “Parties” or singularly a “Party”) under which Purchaser agreed to acquire the consumer products division of PhotoMedex and its subsidiaries (the “Acquisition”), which includes, among other products, the no!no!® Hair and Skin and the Kyrobak pain management products (the “Transferred Business”). This transaction was previously reported on a Current Report filed on Form 8-K on October 5, 2016 and in a Definitive Proxy on Schedule 14A on December 16, 2016.

The First APA Amendment revised the definition of Business Assets and Assumed Liabilities in the Asset Purchase Agreement, as set forth in the attached exhibit. It also modified the first sentence of Section 5.5(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement to provide that the Parent, Purchaser, or an affiliate would take the necessary steps to establish and implement “employee benefit plans” within the meaning of Section 3(3) of ERISA and a 401(k) plan intended to be qualified under Section 401(a) of the Code (collectively, “Applicable Plans”) in which employees of the consumer products division who are hired by Purchaser shall be eligible to participate from and after the date of establishment. These steps are to be taken as soon as reasonably practicable after the Closing Date (defined below) of the Transaction, or a later date agreed to by the Parties or permitted under the Transition Services Agreement (defined below), but no later than 60 days after the Closing Date. The First APA Amendment also replaced the initial Disclosure Letter delivered by the Sellers to Purchaser concurrently with the execution of the Asset Purchase Agreement in its entirety with an amended Disclosure Letter.

Finally, the First APA Amendment modified the Letter of Credit issued in connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement. Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Purchaser agreed to pay to the Company $2.0 million on or before the ninetieth (90th) day following the Closing Date. This amount is guaranteed by an original letter of credit for the benefit of the Company made by a third party; however, under its original terms, the Letter of Credit was valid until the earlier of 180 days after the letter of credit was issued, or April 4, 2017, or until full payment upon demand and presentation on or January 3, 2017. Accordingly, the parties agreed to extend the term of the Letter of Credit to 100 days after the Closing Date.

Also on January 23, 2017, the Company and its subsidiaries entered into a First Amendment (the “First TSA Amendment”) to the Transition Services Agreement (the “Transition Services Agreement”) between the Company and its subsidiaries and Parent and Purchaser, pursuant to which the Company and its subsidiaries will provide the Purchaser with certain accounting, benefit, payroll, regulatory, IT support and other services for periods ranging from approximately three to up to one year following the Closing Date. During that time the Purchaser will arrange to transition the services it receives to its own personnel. The First TSA Amendment revised references in the Transition Services Agreement from “Effective Date” to “Closing Date”, and amended the fifth recital in its entirety to clarify specifications regarding the lease for certain premises in Israel by and between Radiancy Israel and the landlord for those premises. Furthermore, the sale of assets to ICTV Brands, Inc. represented the sale of substantially all the remaining operational assets of the Company. Consequently, the Company did not present discontinued operations in respect of the sale of the remaining consumer products because the Company had immaterial remaining operations.

TERMINATION OF PENDING TRANSACTION

On February 19, 2016, the Company, Radiancy, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“Radiancy”), DS Healthcare Group, Inc. (“DSKX”) and PHMD Consumer Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of DSKX (“Merger Sub A”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the “Radiancy Merger Agreement”) pursuant to which Radiancy was to merge with Merger Sub A, with Radiancy as the surviving corporation in such merger (the “Radiancy Merger”). Concurrently, PHMD, PTECH, DSKX, and PHMD Professional Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of DSKX (“Merger Sub B”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the “P-Tech Merger Agreement” and together with the Radiancy Merger Agreement, the “Merger Agreements”) pursuant to which PTECH was to merge with Merger Sub B, with PTECH as the surviving corporation in such merger (the “P-Tech Merger” and together with the Radiancy Merger, the “Mergers”). As a result of the Mergers, DSKX would become the holding company for Radiancy and PTECH. The Mergers were expected to qualify as tax-free transfers of property to DSKX for federal income tax purposes.

On March 23, 2016, DSKX filed a Current Report on Form 8-K (the “DSKX March 23 Form 8-K”) with the SEC reporting its audit committee, after discussion with its independent registered public accounting firm, concluded that the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of DSKX for the two fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 should no longer be relied upon because of certain errors in such financial statements. To the knowledge of DSKX’s audit committee, the facts underlying its conclusion include that revenues recognized related to certain customers of DSKX did not meet revenue recognition criteria in the two fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015. Additionally, certain equity transactions in the two fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 were not properly recorded in accordance with United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and also were not properly disclosed.

DSKX reported in the DSKX March 23 Form 8-K that, on March 17, 2016, all members of DSKX’s board of directors other than Mr. Khesin, terminated the employment of Mr. Khesin, as its president and as an employee of DSKX, and also terminated Mr. Khesin’s employment agreement, dated December 16, 2013. DSKX reported in the DSKX March 23 Form 8-K that all members of DSKX’s board of directors other than Mr. Khesin terminated both Mr. Khesin’s employment and employment agreement for cause. In addition, DSKX reported in the DSKX March 23 Form 8-K that all members of DSKX’s board of directors other than Mr. Khesin unanimously removed Mr. Khesin as Chairman and a member of DSKX’s board of directors, also for cause. DSKX reported in the DSKX March 23 Form 8-K that DSKX’s board terminated Mr. Khesin for cause from both his employment and board positions because DSKX’s board believes, based on the results of the investigation as of the date of the DSKX March 23 Form 8-K, that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Khesin violated his fiduciary duty to DSKX and its subsidiaries.

The Company was not advised of this investigation during its negotiations with DSKX or after signing the Merger Agreements until the evening of March 21, 2016. On April 12, 2016, the Company sent a Reservation of Rights letter to DSKX. The Notice states that, based upon the disclosures set forth in DSKX’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 23, 2016 and subsequent press releases and filings by DSKX with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (collectively, the “DSKX Public Disclosure”), DSKX is in material breach of various representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth in the Agreements; had failed to provide to the Company the information contained in the DSKX Public Disclosures during the discussions relating to the negotiation and execution of the Agreements; and continues to be in material breach under the Agreements. As a result, the letter further stated, the conditions precedent to the closing of these transactions as set forth in the Agreements may not be able to occur.

On May 27, 2016, PHMD, Radiancy, and P-Tech, terminated both Agreements and Plans of Merger and Reorganization among PhotoMedex and its affiliates and DS Healthcare Group. Given the material breaches identified in PHMD’s notice to DSKX, PHMD has initiated litigation seeking to recover a termination fee of $3.0 million, an expense reimbursement of up to $750 and its liabilities and damages suffered as a result of DSKX’s failures and breaches in connection with each of the Merger Agreements. On May 27, 2016, PHMD, Radiancy and P-Tech filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging breaches of the Merger Agreements by DSKX and seeking the damages described in the foregoing sentence. See Note 1, Pending Transactions in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2015 for additional information.

Reverse Split and Number of Shares Adjustment

On October 29, 2015 the Company held its Annual Meeting of Stockholders in which, among other matters, Company stockholders authorized the board of directors to amend the Company’s certificate of Incorporation with respect to a reverse split of the Company’s issued and outstanding Common Stock in a ratio to be determined by the Company’s Board of Directors not to exceed a 1 for 5 ratio.

On September 7, 2016 the Company’s Board of Directors approved a reverse split in a ratio of 1-for-five.  The 2016 reverse split was implemented on September 23, 2016 (the “2016 Reverse Split”).  The amount of authorized Common Stock as well as the par value for the Common Stock were not effected.  Any fractional shares resulting from the 2016 Reverse Split were rounded up to the nearest whole share.

All Common Stock, warrants, options and per share amounts set forth herein are presented to give retroactive effect to the 2016 Reverse Split for all periods presented.

On September 23, 2016, the Company’s Common stock and warrants approved for listing on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol PHMD.  Shares were previously listed on the NASDAQ Global Market under the same symbol.

Discontinued Operations

As stated above, on May 12, 2014, the Company acquired LCA.

LCA is a provider of fixed-site laser vision corrections services at its LasikPlus® vision centers. This business, from May 2014 through December 31, 2014, was a fourth business segment for the Company, referred to as the Clinics Segment, through which the Company briefly provided fixed-site laser vision correction services at its LasikPlus^® vision centers.

Effective January 31, 2015, influenced by the Chase Credit Agreement defaults of August 2014 and after preliminary investigations and discussions, the Company, and LCA entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Stock Purchase Agreement") with Vision Acquisition, LLC ("Vision"), under which Vision acquired LCA and its subsidiaries from PhotoMedex for a total purchase price of $40 million in cash (the "Purchase Price"). After giving effect to working capital and indebtedness adjustments and the payment of professional fees, the Company realized net proceeds of approximately $37.7 million from this sale. The Company used the proceeds from this transaction to pay down portions of its outstanding revolving line of credit and term loan under the Credit Agreement.

Based on the above information, the Company accordingly classified this former segment as held for sale and discontinued operations in accordance with ASC Topic 360. For the statement of operations, the activity related to LCA is captured as discontinued operations through the disposal date of January 31, 2015.

XTRAC® EXCIMER LASERS

XTRAC is an excimer laser technology used to treat psoriasis and other skin diseases for which there are no cures.

Also influenced by the Chase Credit Agreement default occurring in August 2014 and continuing until the debt was repaid in June of 2015, the Company, entered into a Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") with MELA Sciences, Inc. ("MELA"), under which MELA acquired the XTRAC business and its India subsidiary from PhotoMedex for a total purchase price of $42.5 million in cash (the "Purchase Price") including an escrow of $750.

Based on the above information, the Company accordingly classified these related assets as held for sale and discontinued operations in accordance with ASC Topic 360. For the statement of operations, the activity related to the XTRAC business is captured as discontinued operations thru the disposal date of June 22, 2015.

Our Key Strategies

Our technologies, products and research efforts have been directed to addressing a worldwide aesthetic industry valued at more than $34 billion annually. In December 2011, PhotoMedex merged with Radiancy Inc. which brought to PhotoMedex the no!no!® line of home-use consumer products for hair removal, acne treatment, skin rejuvenation and lower back pain. Radiancy also markets capital equipment to physicians, salons and med spas for hair removal, acne treatment, skin tightening and rejuvenation and psoriasis care. In addition to a synergistic product line, Radiancy possesses a proprietary consumer marketing engine built upon direct-to-consumer sales and creative marketing programs that drive brand awareness. After a period of significant growth and profitability following the PhotoMedex-Radiancy merger and then concurrent with entering into the Chase Credit Agreement and the merger with LCA-Vision, Inc., the company began to face a number of factors that caused the operating profitability of its consumer business to suffer. These factors included competition from consumer device companies claiming similar product functionality, the inability to purchase cost effective advertising to promote our consumer product portfolio, and the inability to effectively expand operations into foreign markets. Furthermore, after satisfying on June 23, 2015 the bank covenant defaults of our senior credit facility, we continued to face a challenging media environment to purchase cost effective advertisement in the USA, our largest product distribution market. Coupled with our inability to attract sufficient financial resources to quickly increase our advertisement to overcome the market confusion created by competitors and quickly ramp new and innovative product launches in the second half of the 2015, the company entertained a variety of inquiries to sell-off the remainder of its assets culminating in the sale of the Neova and consumer products lines as reported above. See above – Our Company, Acquisitions and Dispositions for more information.

Following these product line and asset sales, the Company plans to focus primarily on collecting the remaining payments, if any, from ICTV under the Letter of Credit, as well as any ongoing royalty payments (up to a maximum of $4.5 million in royalty payments from ICTV). We will also continue to defend and prosecute the existing litigation involving the Company (including the claim by the Company against DS Healthcare regarding the failed acquisition earlier in 2016), and will consider other strategic investments or alternatives for the Company including merger opportunities to build shareholder value as well as to determine what can be done to create value out of the remaining LHE assets despite their relatively immaterial value.

Expertise in Global Consumer Marketing

Until the recent sale to ICTV in January 2017, we had developed and owned a highly advanced consumer sales engine accompanied by creative marketing programs, well-tested and successful direct-to-consumer marketing strategies and a global distributor and retail network. That network was used to market the no!no!® products throughout the world and in multiple countries, through infomercials and print, radio other television advertising worldwide, online, on home shopping channels and at stores and kiosks.

Our Global Growth Strategies

The global market for aesthetic devices and procedures continues to expand, driven by an individual desire to improve one’s appearance; a higher disposable income being spent on aesthetic treatments; an aging population in the industrialized world that desires a more youthful look; a younger generation seeking preventive solutions for the inevitable aging process; technological advances making products available to a consumer market that were previously only possible at the physician level; an increasing number of conditions, including acne and wrinkles, that can now be non-invasively treated; and a lower procedural cost, which has expanded the availability and affordability of many procedures to a greater number of individuals.

We had focused our efforts on addressing the above-mentioned trends in all three of our core business segments including the consumer and physician recurring segments, (which the product portfolio underlying each of these two business segments have now been sold to third parties – see Sale of Consumer product line and Sale of Neova product line above) and the professional segment. We are now primarily focused on collecting the remaining payments, if any, from sales of business assets. We will consider other strategic investments or alternatives for the Company, including merger opportunities to increase shareholder value as well as determine what can be done to create value out of the remaining LHE assets despite their relatively immaterial value.

In the last two years our three main sources of revenue have been generated from our three business segments: the Consumer segment, the Physician Recurring segment and the Professional segment. The remaining LHE product lines generates revenue as part of the Professional segment. We also operated the XTRAC business through June 22, 2015 which generated Physician Recurring revenues from our USA business and Professional revenues from our International operations.

Consumer Segment

Physician Recurring Segment

NEOVA® PHYSICIAN-DISPENSED SKIN CARE

Until the sale of the product line to Pharma Cosmetics, Inc. in September 2016, our NEOVA skin care line was designed as a therapeutic intervention for preventing premature skin aging due to UV-induced DNA damage. The topical technology seeks to repair photo-damaged skin using a novel combination of two key ingredients: DNA repair enzymes and our Copper Peptide Complex®. Copper has been studied for more than 20 years for its wound healing applications. Research suggests that copper can be used to improve the elasticity of skin and is complementary to DNA repair enzymes, which repair damage caused by sunlight and other UV rays.

The NEOVA technology represented another opportunity to integrate our marketing platform with our direct sales force for plastic surgeons and dermatologists, which has traditionally been responsible for furthering market adoption of NEOVA products. Through a direct-to-consumer initiative, we sought to drive consumers to medical practices for NEOVA as well as to our website to buy direct.

We held several patents related to the NEOVA technology, as well as the ability to draw upon more than 150 peer-reviewed journal articles that provide scientific support for these ingredients.

Professional Segment

LHE SKINCARE DEVICES

Sales under the professional business segment are mainly generated from capital equipment, namely our LHE® brand products.

Our proprietary LHE® brand technology combines the benefits of direct heat and a full-spectrum light source for a variety of clinical applications, including psoriasis care, acne treatment, skin tightening, skin rejuvenation, wrinkle reduction, collagen renewal, vascular and pigmented lesion treatments and hair removal. This technology was originally used primarily in our professional products, including capital equipment sold to physicians and skin care specialists worldwide. The technology was then adapted to our hand-held consumer line of products like no!no! Skin, a medical device for acne.

LHE capitalizes upon the principles of selective photothermolysis, which is a type of photo (or light-based) therapy in which heat is generated using selective absorption of light within the targeted tissue. Selective photothermolysis entails precisely targeting a pigmented tissue or structure with a specific wavelength of light that is absorbed into and limited to the target area of the skin but does not penetrate into surrounding areas. Heat is also produced and directed to the target with minimal effect on surrounding skin.

There are many phototherapy options available for patients today, including laser and intense pulse light (IPL), although we believe that we have optimized the light/heat relationship in our LHE products, there are many phototherapy options available for patients today including laser and intense pulse light (IPL). These factors together with the relatively immaterial value of the LHE assets and the Professional segment as of December 31, 2016, discontinued operations were not presented to reflect the sale of the consumer products division to ICTV Brands, Inc. that occurred in January 2017.

In contrast, LHE technology was developed with the objective of efficiently using both light and heat energy to provide a greater treatment advantage. In doing so, LHE® brand products can deliver less energy density to the target skin area, which is believed to create a safer, more efficient product. In addition, balancing light and heat enables phototherapy treatments for more sensitive skin types as well as a broader spectrum of hair colors.

As a result of our LHE technology, we have created an LHE® brand professional product line designed for clinical efficacy in a variety of applications, including psoriasis care, acne treatment, skin tightening, skin rejuvenation, wrinkle reduction, collagen renewal, vascular and pigmented lesion treatments and hair removal. The competitive advantages LHE products enjoy over the competition include its excellent performance and safety record, low operational costs, ease of operation, versatility and cost flexibility. We believe we have a market opportunity as physicians and skin care providers are seeking a product which offers an efficient and safe product at a lower price point, which we believe our LHE technology provides. In addition, lasers and IPL Technology carry with them an inherent risk of patient burns, and depending upon the conditions being treated, may require longer and more extensive treatment times to effect a result. The Company will refocus its efforts on its LHE products after the closing of the ICTV transaction.

Although we currently distribute this product line through a network of medical device distributors, the activity of this product line is relatively immaterial and generally reflects only the occasional sale of replacement parts to the installed based on past equipment sales.

Our Products

In the past, we have emphasized the development of physician-endorsed skin related products based on science. Once cleared for use by the required regulatory agencies, like the FDA, these products are commercialized through a systematic, proprietary marketing program that we view as integral to our business success. Some of our products, which are described in more detail below, have generated significant revenue for us. Our primary technology and product platforms contributing to this revenue are described below.

We evaluate four principal criteria in determining where to allocate product development resources:

Specifically, new projects must be able to work effectively, but also have a low enough cost of goods to achieve a favorable price point for consumers and a favorable margin for us to advertise our products effectively. As well, the market should be well defined and large enough to accommodate the new product with room for growth as we ramp up marketing efforts.

These platforms have included:

THERMICON® HEAT TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY

Until the sale of the consumer product portfolio to ICTV, our no!no!® hair removal products were built upon our proprietary heat-based Thermicon® brand technology to address consumer concerns over perceived limitations of existing hair removal products, including safety and pain, and to overcome inherent limitations of light-based hair removal solutions. Unlike other products that use methods that are painful, have side effects, are limited in body areas that can be treated or that emanate from the principle of selective thermolysis, the Thermicon® brand devices are based on heat only and are therefore applicable for all hair colors and skin types, can be used on all body areas, and if used per instructions do not have adverse events, and are virtually painless. Thermicon® brand devices utilize a high-temperature thermodynamic wire filament that is activated when the devices are moved in contact with and across the treatment area. We believe that the no!no!® brand hair removal products have several advantages over existing products for both the consumer and professional hair removal market, including:

no!no!® Product Line: “Professional Technology Made for Consumers”

We have realized favorable market adoption of Thermicon® brand technology, which not only overcomes the challenges of other hair removal methods but also puts control of the hair removal process in consumers’ hands.

We marketed a full line of consumer products based on the patented Thermicon® brand technology. These products are sold globally through infomercials and television shopping channels, retail stores, online shopping websites and worldwide strategic distribution agreements.

Since 2007, we have introduced a series of no!no! devices. Every product evolution—from the no!no! Classic™, the no!no! Hair™, the no!no! Hair for Men™, the no!no! Plus™ to the no!no! PRO 3™ and the no!no! PRO 5™—represents continued innovation and product line extension. Notably, each of the prior brands was still marketed even as we continued to introduce new product extensions like the no!no! Micro and no!no! Ultra launched in 2014.

LIGHT AND HEAT ENERGY (LHE^®)

Our proprietary LHE® brand technology combines the benefits of direct heat and a full-spectrum light source. This technology is used primarily in our professional products, which entail capital equipment sold to physicians and skin care specialists worldwide. This technology had also been adapted to the hand-held consumer line of products like no!no! Skin, a medical device for acne which was included as part of the product portfolio sold to ICTV in January 2017.

LHE capitalizes upon the principles of selective photothermolysis, which is a type of photo (or light-based) therapy in which heat is generated using selective absorption of light within the targeted tissue. Selective photothermolysis entails precisely targeting a pigmented tissue or structure with a specific wavelength of light that is absorbed into and limited to the target area but does not penetrate into the surrounding area. Heat is also produced and directed to the target with minimal effect on surrounding skin.

Although we believe that we have optimized the light/heat relationship in our LHE products, there are many phototherapy options available for patients today, including laser and intense pulse light (IPL). These factors together with the relatively immaterial value of the LHE assets and the Professional segment as of December 31, 2016, discontinued operations were not presented to reflect the sale of the consumer product division to ICTV Brands, Inc. that occurred in January 2017.

In contrast, LHE technology was developed with the objective of efficiently using both light and heat energy to provide a greater treatment advantage. In doing so, LHE® brand products can deliver less energy density (known as “low fluences”) to the target skin area, which is believed to create a safer, more efficient product. We believe that lowering the fluence of our LHE® brand products reduces the need for skin cooling techniques, simplifies the treatment process and decreases the risk of harmful side effects. In addition, balancing light and heat enables phototherapy treatments for more sensitive skin types as well as a broader spectrum of hair colors.

We have incorporated patented internal filters that protect the skin during treatment with LHE technology. We also offer a specialized light unit assembly for use on sensitive skin to further enhance our products’ safety and comfort without compromising results.

As a result of our LHE technology, we have created an LHE® brand professional product line designed for clinical efficacy in a variety of applications, including psoriasis care, acne treatment, skin tightening, skin rejuvenation, wrinkle reduction, collagen renewal, vascular and pigmented lesion treatments and hair removal. (Note that not all applications are cleared in the U.S.)

NEOVA® PHYSICIAN-DISPENSED SKIN CARE

Until the sale of the skin care product line to Pharma Cosmetics, Inc. in September 2015 (see Acquisitions and Dispositions) the NEOVA skin care line was designed as a therapeutic intervention for preventing premature skin aging due to UV-induced DNA damage. The topical technology seeks to repair photo-damaged skin using a novel combination of two key ingredients: DNA repair enzymes and our Copper Peptide Complex®. Copper has been studied for more than 20 years for its wound healing applications. Research suggests that copper can be used to improve the elasticity of skin and is complementary to DNA repair enzymes, which repair damage caused by sunlight and other UV rays.

The DNA repair enzymes contained in the NEOVA formulation have several objectives:

In concert with the repair enzymes, NEOVA’s Copper Peptide Complex serves to promote new blood vessel growth and enhance the expression of growth factors. It stimulates collagen and elastin formation, which accelerate the repair process. Additionally, the Copper Peptide Complex is designed to mitigate damage caused by free radicals by promoting an antioxidant defense. Free radicals are a type of highly reactive oxygen molecule known to cause oxidative stress, which triggers harmful inflammatory responses and cell death as the free radicals attack DNA, lipids, proteins and other cell components. They are also believed to accelerate the progression of cancer, cardiovascular disease and age-related diseases, including cataracts, arthritis, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes. As typically occurs in normal, healthy cells, an antioxidant defense system comprising vitamins C and E and a variety of enzymes can minimize and repair free radical-induced damage.

We previously held, until the sale to Pharma Cosmetics, several patents related to the NEOVA technology, as well as the ability to draw upon more than 150 peer-reviewed journal articles that provide scientific support for these ingredients.

Competition

The markets in which we have participated are highly competitive. Certain of our competitors are larger than us and have substantially more resources. As it pertains to the aesthetic device market, this arena is complex and highly competitive—both for home use and treatment in a physician’s office. Over the past several decades, the aesthetics technology market has changed considerably due to technological innovation and discoveries. We are exposed to competition from small, closely held, specialized aesthetic device companies, and several public companies, such as Syneron Medical Ltd. (ELOS-NASDAQ), Cynosure Inc. (CYNO-NASDAQ) and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VRX-NYSE).

We believe that a significant barrier to entry into an applicable market is the cost basis of the product and our products were based upon a proprietary technology that allowed us to build products inexpensively. From a marketing standpoint, if competitors are developing a product that may compete with our products they then become tasked with the challenge of building the marketing for that product. We invested roughly $13 million in 2016 in marketing and advertising. Furthermore, our intellectual property position has also likely served as a deterrent to companies to compete against our brands.

We currently face competitors offering discounted prices in some geographic markets where we conduct business. It is possible that our business could be materially adversely affected in the future by discounting practices of competitors, including from both a price and volume perspective. In individual markets, our challenge is to leverage the national strengths of our company and enhance local efforts in order to grow market share.

Research and Development

Our research and development expenditures were approximately $1.2 million in 2016 and $1.3 million in 2015. As of January 23, 2017 the research and development personnel were transferred to ICTV in connection with the closing of the sale of the consumer product line assets. See ITEM 1. Business-Our Company, Acquisitions and Dispositions above for more information.

Our research and development activities were focused on:

Patents and Proprietary Technologies

We intend to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that our proprietary rights are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets.

Our policy is to file patent applications and to protect certain technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business. As patents expire and expose our inventions to public use, we seek to mitigate the impact of such expirations by seeking protection of improvements. In connection with the sales of our Neova product line and our Consumer Products division to Pharma Cosmetics and ICTV Brands, respectively, we transferred the intellectual property associated with those product lines, including patents, to their respective purchasers. As of December 31, 2016, we had 12 issued patents and 1 patent applications. In the U.S. alone, our business is protected by 3 patents.

We also relied on trade secrets, employee and third-party nondisclosure agreements and other protective measures to protect our intellectual property rights pertaining to our products and technology.

Our products and services are offered under trademarks and service marks, both registered and unregistered. We believe our trademarks encouraged customer loyalty and aided in the differentiation of our products from competitors’ products. . In connection with the sales of our Neova product line and our Consumer Products division to Pharma Cosmetics and ICTV Brands, respectively, we transferred the intellectual property associated with those product lines, including trademarks and trade names, to their respective purchasers. Accordingly, we had 20 trademarks, either registered or being registered, in markets around the world that we intend to maintain in support of our products. These include 9 trademarks issued in the U.S. and 11 trademarks issued in the rest of the world. We periodically review the trademarks in our portfolio for usefulness with our existing and anticipated product lines; as a result, certain trademarks which were no longer in use in our business were not renewed.

Government Regulation

Regulations Relating to Products and Manufacturing

Our products and research and development activities are regulated by numerous governmental authorities, principally the FDA and corresponding state and foreign regulatory agencies. Any medical device or cosmetic we manufacture and/or distribute will be subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA. The U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, or FD&C Act, and other federal and state laws and regulations govern the pre-clinical and clinical testing, design, manufacture, use, labeling and promotion of medical devices, including our, LED devices, and other products currently under development by us and govern the manufacture and labeling of the cosmetic products. Product development and approval for medical devices within this regulatory framework takes a number of years and involves the expenditure of substantial resources.

In the U.S., medical devices are classified into three different classes, Class I, II and III, on the basis of controls deemed necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Class I devices are subject to general controls, such as facility registration, medical device listing, labeling requirements, premarket notification (unless the medical device has been specifically exempted from this requirement), adherence to the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, and requirements concerning the submission of device-related adverse event reports to the FDA. Class II devices are subject to general and special controls, such as performance standards, pre-market notification (510(k) clearance), post-market surveillance, and FDA Quality System Regulations. Generally, Class III devices are those that must receive premarket approval by the FDA to provide a reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting and implantable devices, or new devices that have been found not to be substantially equivalent to existing legally marketed devices.

With limited exceptions, before a new medical device can be distributed in the U.S., marketing authorization typically must be obtained from the FDA through a premarket notification under Section 510(k) of the FDA Act, or through a premarket approval application under Section 515 of the FDA Act. The FDA will typically grant a 510(k) clearance if it can be established that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device that is a legally marketed Class I or II device (or to pre-amendments Class III devices for which the FDA has yet to call for premarket approvals). We have received FDA 510(k) clearance to market our LED products for a variety of indications for use. The FDA granted these clearances under Section 510(k) on the basis of substantial equivalence to other devices that had received prior clearances.

For any devices that are cleared through the 510(k) process, modifications or enhancements that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, or that constitute a major change in the intended use of the device, will require a new 510(k) submission. To date, we have not been required to secure premarket approval for our devices. A premarket approval application may be required for a Class II device if it is not substantially equivalent to an existing legally marketed Class I or II device (or a pre-amendments Class III device for which the FDA has yet to call for premarket approval) or if the device is a Class III premarket approval device by regulation. A premarket approval application must be supported by valid scientific evidence to demonstrate a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device, typically including the results of clinical trials, bench tests and possibly animal studies. In addition, the submission must include, among other things, the proposed labeling. The premarket approval process can be expensive, uncertain and lengthy and a number of devices for which FDA approval has been sought by other companies have never been approved for marketing.

We are subject to routine inspection by the FDA and, as noted above, must comply with a number of regulatory requirements applicable to firms that manufacture medical devices and other FDA-regulated products for distribution within the U.S., including requirements related to device labeling (including prohibitions against promoting products for unapproved or off-label uses), facility registration, medical device listing, labeling requirements, adherence to the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, good manufacturing processes and requirements for the submission of reports regarding certain device-related adverse events to the FDA.

We have received approval from the European Union to affix the CE Mark to our LHE products. This certification is a mandatory conformity mark for products placed on the market in the European Economic Area, which is evidence that they meet all European Community, or EC, quality assurance standards and compliance with applicable European medical device directives for the production of medical devices. This will enable us to market our approved products in all of the member countries that accept the CE Mark. We also will be required to comply with additional individual national requirements that are in addition to those required by these nations. Our products have also met the requirements for marketing in various other countries.

Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in fines, injunctions, civil penalties, recalls or seizures of products, total or partial suspensions of production, refusals by the U.S and foreign governments to permit product sales and criminal prosecution.

As to our cosmetic products, the FD&C Act and the regulations promulgated there and under other federal and state statutes govern the testing, manufacture, safety, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising and promotion of cosmetic products. Our cosmetic products and product candidates may be regulated by any of the various FDA Centers. Routinely, however, cosmetics are regulated by the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. In other countries, cosmetic products may also be regulated by similar health and regulatory authorities. The skin care business also has two devices (e.g. wound care dressings) subject to 510(k) clearance, four products (e.g. sunscreen products) that contain drugs approved for use in over-the-counter products, and one prescription drug. Currently, the skincare products that are classified as drugs are not required to obtain pre-marketing regulatory approval. The process of obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals in the U.S. and abroad for the manufacturing or marketing of our existing and potential skincare products is potentially costly and time-consuming and is subject to unanticipated delays. Regulatory requirements ultimately imposed could also adversely affect our ability to clinically test, manufacture or market products.

Failure to obtain regulatory approvals where appropriate for our cosmetic, device or drug product candidates or to attain or maintain compliance with quality system regulations or other manufacturing requirements, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are or may become subject to various other federal, state, local and foreign laws, regulations and policies relating to, among other things, safe working conditions, good laboratory practices and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances used in connection with research and development.

Fraud and Abuse Laws

Because of the significant federal funding involved in Medicare and Medicaid, Congress and the states have enacted, and actively enforce, a number of laws whose purpose is to eliminate fraud and abuse in federal health care programs. Our business is subject to compliance with these laws.

Anti-Kickback Laws

In the U.S., there are federal and state anti-kickback laws that generally prohibit the payment or receipt of kickbacks, bribes or other remuneration in exchange for the referral of patients or other health-related business. The U.S. federal healthcare programs’ Anti-Kickback Statute makes it unlawful for individuals or entities knowingly and willfully to solicit, offer, receive or pay any kickback, bribe or other remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce the purchase, lease or order, or arranging for or recommending purchasing, leasing, or ordering, any good, facility, service, or item for which payment may be made in whole or in part under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare or Medicaid. The Anti-Kickback Statute covers “any remuneration,” which has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example gifts, certain discounts, the furnishing of free supplies, equipment or services, credit arrangements, payments of cash and waivers of payments. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the arrangement can be found to violate the statute. Penalties for violations include criminal penalties and civil sanctions such as fines, imprisonment and possible exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs. In addition, several courts have permitted kickback cases brought under the Federal False Claims Act to proceed, as discussed in more detail below.

Because the Anti-Kickback Statute is broadly written and encompasses many harmless or efficient arrangements, Congress authorized the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or OIG, to issue a series of regulations, known as “safe harbors.” For example, there are regulatory safe harbors for payments to bona fide employees, properly reported discounts and rebates, and for certain investment interests. Although an arrangement that fits into one or more of these exceptions or safe harbors is immune from prosecution, arrangements that do not fit squarely within an exception or safe harbor do not necessarily violate the statute. The failure of a transaction or arrangement to fit precisely within one or more of the exceptions or safe harbors does not necessarily mean that it is illegal or that prosecution will be pursued. However, conduct and business arrangements that arguably implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute but do not fully satisfy all the elements of an exception or safe harbor may be subject to increased scrutiny by government enforcement authorities such as the OIG.

Many states have laws that implicate anti-kickback restrictions similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply, regardless of whether federal health care program business is involved, to arrangements such as for self-pay or private-pay patients.

Government officials have focused their enforcement efforts on marketing of healthcare services and products, among other activities, and recently have brought cases against companies, and certain sales, marketing and executive personnel, for allegedly offering unlawful inducements to potential or existing customers in an attempt to procure their business.

Federal Civil False Claims Act and State False Claims Laws

The federal civil False Claims Act imposes liability on any person or entity who, among other things, knowingly and willfully presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by a federal healthcare program, including Medicare and Medicaid. The “qui tam,” or “whistleblower” provisions of the False Claims Act allow a private individual to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has submitted a false claim to the federal government, and to share in any monetary recovery. In recent years, the number of suits brought against healthcare providers by private individuals has increased dramatically. Medical device companies, like us, can be held liable under false claims laws, even if they do not submit claims to the government, when they are deemed to have caused submission of false claims by, among other things, providing incorrect coding or billing advice about their products to customers that file claims, or by engaging in kickback arrangements with customers that file claims.

The False Claims Act also has been used to assert liability on the basis of misrepresentations with respect to the services rendered and in connection with alleged off-label promotion of products. Our future activities relating to the manner in which we sell our products and document our prices, such as the reporting of discount and rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement of our products, and the sale and marketing of our products, may be subject to scrutiny under these laws.

When an entity is determined to have violated the False Claims Act, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus civil penalties of five to eleven thousand dollars for each separate false claim. There are many potential bases for liability under the False Claims Act. A number of states have enacted false claim laws analogous to the federal civil False Claims Act and many of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any state or private third-party payor. In this environment, our engagement of physician consultants in product development and product training and education could subject us to similar scrutiny. We are unable to predict whether we would be subject to actions under the False Claims Act or a similar state law, or the impact of such actions. However, the costs of defending such claims, as well as any sanctions imposed, could significantly affect our financial performance.

HIPAA Fraud and Other Regulations

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created a class of federal crimes known as the “federal health care offenses,” including healthcare fraud and false statements relating to healthcare matters. The HIPAA health care fraud statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or to obtain by means of false of fraudulent pretenses, any money under the control of any health care benefit program, including private payors. A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion from government-sponsored programs. The HIPAA false statements statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines and/or imprisonment. Entities that are found to have aided or abetted in a violation of the HIPAA federal health care offenses are deemed by statute to have committed the offense and are punishable as a principal.

We are also subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar anti-bribery laws applicable in non-U.S. jurisdictions that generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to non-U.S. government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Because of the predominance of government-sponsored healthcare systems around the world, most of our customer relationships outside of the U.S. will be with governmental entities and therefore subject to such anti-bribery laws.

HIPAA and Other Privacy Regulations

The regulations that implement HIPAA also establish uniform standards governing the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and protecting the security and privacy of individually identifiable health information maintained or transmitted by healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, which are referred to as “covered entities.” Several regulations have been promulgated under HIPAA’s regulations including: the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, or the Privacy Rule, which restricts the use and disclosure of certain individually identifiable health information; the Standards for Electronic Transactions, or the Transactions Rule, which establishes standards for common healthcare transactions, such as claims information, plan eligibility, payment information and the use of electronic signatures; and the Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information, or the Security Rule, which requires covered entities to implement and maintain certain security measures to safeguard certain electronic health information. Although we do not believe we are a covered entity and therefore are not currently directly subject to these standards, we expect that our customers generally will be covered entities and may ask us to contractually comply with certain aspects of these standards by entering into requisite business associate agreements. While the government intended this legislation to reduce administrative expenses and burdens for the healthcare industry, our compliance with certain provisions of these standards entails significant costs for us.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or the HITECH Act, which was enacted in February 2009, strengthens and expands the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and the restrictions on use and disclosure of patient identifiable health information. HITECH also fundamentally changed a business associate’s obligations by imposing a number of Privacy Rule requirements and a majority of Security Rule provisions directly on business associates that were previously only directly applicable to covered entities. HITECH includes, but is not limited to, prohibitions on exchanging patient identifiable health information for remuneration, restrictions on marketing to individuals, and obligations to agree to provide individuals an accounting of virtually all disclosures of their health information. Moreover, HITECH requires covered entities to report any unauthorized use or disclosure of patient identifiable health information, known as a breach, to the affected individuals, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, and, depending on the size of any such breach, the media for the affected market. Business associates are similarly required to notify covered entities of a breach. Most of the HITECH provisions became effective in February 2010. HHS has already issued regulations governing breach notification which were effective in September 2009.

HITECH has increased civil penalty amounts for violations of HIPAA by either covered entities or business associates up to an annual maximum of $1.5 million for uncorrected violations based on willful neglect. Imposition of these penalties is more likely now because HITECH significantly strengthens enforcement. It requires HHS to conduct periodic audits to confirm compliance beginning in February 2010 and to investigate any violation that involves willful neglect which carries mandatory penalties beginning in February 2011. Additionally, state attorneys general are authorized to bring civil actions seeking either injunctions or damages in response to violations of HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules that threaten the privacy of state residents.

In addition to federal regulations issued under HIPAA, some states have enacted privacy and security statutes or regulations that, in some cases, are more stringent than those issued under HIPAA. In those cases, it may be necessary to modify our planned operations and procedures to comply with the more stringent state laws. If we fail to comply with applicable state laws and regulations, we could be subject to additional sanctions.

Federal and state consumer protection laws are being applied increasingly by the United States Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, and state attorneys general to regulate the collection, use, storage and disclosure of personal or patient information, through websites or otherwise, and to regulate the presentation of web site content. Courts may also adopt the standards for fair information practices promulgated by the FTC, which concern consumer notice, choice, security and access. Numerous other countries have or are developing laws governing the collection, use, disclosure and transmission of personal or patient information.

HIPAA as well as other federal and state laws apply to our receipt of patient identifiable health information in connection with research and clinical trials. We collaborate with other individuals and entities in conducting research and all involved parties must comply with applicable laws. Therefore, the compliance of the physicians, hospitals or other providers or entities with whom we collaborate also impacts our business.

Employees

As of March 30, 2017, we had 6 full-time employees devoted to the ongoing business of the Company, which consisted of two executive officers and 4 finance, legal and administration staff. We do however, still technically employ personnel on behalf of ICTV in connection with the sale of the consumer business in January 2017 in connection with assisting the transition of that business to ICTV and will continue to employ these people at the direction of ICTV until such time that ICTV has its systems in place to seamlessly affect such transition. ICTV contractually reimburses the Company for the full cost of providing such transition services.

Our employees are not represented by a labor union nor covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that we have good relations with our employees.

Financial Information about Geographic Areas

See Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this filing.

Available Information

PhotoMedex’s website is www.photomedex.com. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are available on our website at www.photomedex.com as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish them to, the SEC. The information on the Company’s website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report and the exhibits hereto, the following risk factors should be considered carefully in evaluating our business. Our business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations could be materially adversely affected by any of these risks. Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also adversely affect our business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. The following discussion of risk factors contains forward-looking statements as discussed on page 1. Our business routinely encounters and addresses risks, some of which may cause our future results to be different – sometimes materially different – than we presently anticipate.

Risk factors relating to acquisition of First Capital Real Estate Development Business

Failure to complete the acquisition could negatively impact the stock price and the future business and financial results of the Company.

As noted in Item 1. Liquidity and Going Concern, the Company has issued a going concern notice to its shareholders.  The Company anticipates that the acquisition of this new line of business will bring renewed liquidity and growth to the Company; however, as the latter stages of this acquisition require approval by the Company’s shareholders at a to-be-called special meeting, there is no assurance that the proposals relating to the acquisition to be presented at the special meeting will be approved, and there is no assurance that the Company or First Capital Real Estate Operating Partnership, L.P., and First Capital Real Estate Trust Incorporated (together, “First Capital”) will receive any necessary regulatory approvals or satisfy the other conditions to the completion of the acquisition. If the acquisition is not completed for any reason, the Company will be subject to several risks, including the possible payment of a termination fee and related costs, the loss of other business ventures as a result of the restriction on the Company’s investigation of other avenues of revenue under the Contribution Agreement, and having had the focus of management of the Company directed toward the acquisition and integration planning and diverted from the Company’s other business and other opportunities that could have been beneficial to the Company.  In addition, if the acquisition is not completed, the Company will not realize any of the expected benefits of having completed the acquisition and will continue to face the non-acquisition related risks outlined in this Form 10-K, Annual Report for the calendar year ending December 31, 2016. 

If the acquisition is not completed, the price of the Company’s common and preferred stock may decline (i) to the extent that the current market price of that stock reflects a market assumption that the acquisition will be completed and that the related benefits and synergies will be realized, or (ii) as a result of the market’s perceptions that the acquisition was not consummated due to an adverse change in the Company’s or First Capital’s business or financial positions. Further, if the acquisition is not completed, the price of the Company’s stock could decline as a result of employees, customers, suppliers, and others remaining uncertain about the Company’s future prospects in the absence of the acquisition.

In addition, if the acquisition contemplated with First Capital is not completed and the Company’s board of directors determines to seek another merger or business combination, there can be no assurance that such a transaction, if consummated, would create Company stockholder value comparable to the value that might have been created had the acquisition been completed. 

Litigation against the Company or First Capital could result in an injunction preventing completion of the acquisition, or the payment of damages in the event the acquisition is completed. Such outcomes could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

One of the conditions to the closing of the acquisition is that no order issued by a governmental authority of competent jurisdiction or law or other legal restraint or prohibition making the acquisition illegal or permanently restraining, enjoining, or otherwise prohibiting or preventing the consummation of the acquisition or the other transactions contemplated by the Contribution Agreement be in effect. Consequently, if any plaintiffs in a litigation against the Company or First Capital, or any of their respective directors, secures injunctive or other relief prohibiting, delaying, or otherwise adversely affecting the Company’s ability to complete the acquisition, such injunctive or other relief may prevent the acquisition from becoming effective within the expected time frame or at all. If completion of the acquisition is prevented or delayed, substantial costs to the Company could result. In addition, the Company could incur significant costs in connection with lawsuits, including costs associated with the indemnification of the Company’s directors and officers.

If all stages of the acquisition are completed, the Company may not be able to successfully integrate the acquired real estate business or realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition.

Realization of the anticipated benefits in the acquisition will depend on the Company’s ability to successfully integrate the operations of the real estate development business into the Company. A successful integration will require that the Company devote significant management attention and resources to integrating its business practices, operations, and support functions into a public company structure. The challenges the Company may encounter include preserving customer, supplier, and other important relationships and resolving potential conflicts that may arise as a result of the acquisition, addressing differences in business cultures, preserving employee morale, and retaining key employees while maintaining focus on meeting the operational and financial goals of the Company and the real estate development business, and adequately addressing other business integration issues.  The process of integrating a real estate development business, the diversion of management’s attention from other business efforts, and any subsequent delays in the integration process, could adversely affect the Company’s business and financial performance and the market price of the Company’s stock. 

Following the acquisition, the Company may be unable to retain key employees.

The success of the Company after the acquisition will depend in part upon its ability to retain key employees who may depart either before or after the acquisition because of issues relating to the uncertainty and difficulty of integration or a desire not to remain with the Company following the acquisition. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that the Company will be able to retain key employees to the same extent as in the past.

The Contribution Agreement limits the Company’s ability to pursue an alternative acquisition proposal and requires that the Company pay a termination fee if it does.

The Contribution Agreement prohibits the Company from soliciting, initiating, encouraging, or facilitating certain acquisition proposals with any third party, subject to exceptions set forth in the Contribution Agreement.  The Contribution Agreement also provides for the payment by either party of a termination fee of the cost incurred by the non-terminating party in negotiating the transaction, if the other party terminates the Contribution Agreement.  These provisions limit the Company’s ability to pursue offers from third parties that could result in greater value to the Company’s stockholders. The obligation to make the termination fee payment also may discourage a third party from pursuing an acquisition proposal with the Company.

The shares of Company common and preferred stock to be received by First Capital stockholders as a result of the acquisition may have different rights from other shares of the Company’s common and preferred stock.

Following completion of each stage of the acquisition, the First Capital stockholders will receive shares of common and/or preferred stock in the Company.  Those shares may be subject to different rights than those held by earlier shareholders of the Company. This disparity could adversely affect existing Company shareholders. 

The Company’s ability to use its net operating loss carryforwards to offset future taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be limited as a result of “ownership changes” of the Company caused by the transaction. In addition, the amount of such NOL carryforwards could be subject to adjustment in the event of an IRS examination.

If a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” under Section 382 of the Code as a result of the acquisition, the amount of its pre-change net operating losses, or “NOLs”, that may be utilized to offset future taxable income will be subject to an annual limitation. In general, an ownership change occurs if the aggregate stock ownership of certain stockholders increases by more than 50 percentage points over such stockholders’ lowest percentage ownership during the applicable testing period (generally three years). The annual limitation generally is determined by multiplying the value of the corporation’s stock immediately before the ownership change by the applicable long-term tax-exempt rate. Any unused annual limitation may, subject to certain limits, be carried over to later years, and the limitation may under certain circumstances be increased by recognized built-in gains or reduced by recognized built-in losses in the assets held by the corporation at the time of the ownership change. Similar rules and limitations may apply for state income tax purposes.

The Company’s NOLs, which for federal income tax purposes expire over the next 20 years, may be subject to an annual limitation under Section 382 of the Code as a result of the completion of one or more stages of the acquisition.  Consequently, the Company’s ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs may be subject to an additional layer of limitations imposed by Section 382 of the Code. The amount of the NOL carryforwards is subject to review and audit by the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), and there can be no assurance that the benefit of such NOL carryforwards will be fully realized.

The acquisition may not qualify for special tax treatment, for example, as a tax-free reorganization for U.S. federal income tax purposes, resulting in certain shareholders’ recognition of taxable gain or loss in respect of their stock.

There is currently no opinion as to whether the acquisition will qualify for special tax treatment, as, for example, a tax-free reorganization for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Moreover, there is no requirement that the Company take all actions to ensure that the acquisition so qualifies and, therefore, no assurance can be given that the acquisition will qualify for any certain tax treatment, including as a tax-free reorganization, or that the Internal Revenue Service or the courts will not assert that the acquisition fails to qualify as such. If the acquisition does not qualify as a tax-free reorganization, some holders of stock may be required to recognize gain or loss or incur other taxable consequences as a result of this transaction. 

Factors involving the real estate investment business

The following risk factors are associated with a proposed transaction involving the acquisition of certain real estate investments from First Capital Real Estate Operating Partnership, L.P. and First Capital Trust Inc. (together First Capital).  Should the transaction be completed, as more fully described in Note18 Subsequent Events, then these risks will become applicable to the Company and its business and financial operations. 

The Company is entering into a new business line and, therefore, there is only a limited history upon which investors can evaluate the Company’s performance and its future business prospects.

The Company has entered into a Contribution Agreement with First Capital on March 31, 2017, pursuant to which it is planned that First Capital will contribute real estate assets to the Company on a staggered schedule, beginning with the contribution of $10 million in assets at the close of the initial transaction, currently scheduled to occur on or before May 17, 2017.  This Contribution Agreement represents a new business line for the Company, which has no experience in the real estate sector.  The Company will be relying on the experience of the principals of First Capital for the operation and development of this business line.  As a result, the Company’s business will be subject to the substantial risks which are found in the early stages of a new business venture operating in the competitive real estate industry.  The Company’s future growth and development prospects must be evaluated in light of the risks, expenses and difficulties encountered by all companies in such situations, and in particular those companies which operate a business, such as real estate investment, in competitive environments that can be greatly affected by changes in economic conditions.

The Company will be subject to demand fluctuations in the real estate industry. Any reduction in demand could adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Upon consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Contribution Agreement, the Company will be entering the real estate industry, where demand for properties similar to those expected to be owned by the Company is subject to fluctuations that are often due to factors outside the Company’s control.  Neither the Company, nor the personnel of First Capital joining the Company, are able to predict the course of the real estate markets or whether the current favorable trends in those markets can, or will, continue.  In the event of an economic downturn, the Company’s results of operations may be adversely affected, and the Company may incur significant inventory impairments and other write-offs, a major decline in its gross margins from past levels, and substantial losses from operations of this business.

Adverse changes in economic conditions in markets where the Company’s real estate investments may be made and where prospective purchasers and utilizers of these properties live could reduce the demand for and utilization of these properties and, therefore, adversely affect the Company’s operations and financial condition.

The real estate investment business in which the Company has become involved as a result of its signing of the Contribution Agreement will be conduct in various global locales, including the United States, Mexico, the Caribbean and South America.  Adverse changes in economic conditions in these markets, and in the markets where prospective purchasers and utilizers of the Company’s to-be-acquired properties live, could negatively impact those properties and their profitability.  Unfavorable changes in job growth, employment levels, consumer income and spending patterns, a decline in consumer confidence, increases in interest rates, and an oversupply of similar properties, could reduce the demand, and depress the prices we may ask, for these properties, resulting in lower sales and income from these properties and a negative impact on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

Adverse weather conditions, natural disasters, and other unforeseen and/or unplanned conditions could disrupt the Company’s real estate developments.

Adverse weather conditions and natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, droughts, and fires, could have serious impacts on the Company’s ability to develop and market individual real estate offerings.  Properties that the Company looks to acquire may also be affected by unforeseen planning, engineering, environmental, or geological conditions or problems, including conditions or problems which arise on third party properties adjacent to or in the vicinity of properties which the Company expects to own and which may result in unfavorable impacts on the Company’s prospective properties.  As the Company’s proposed real estate investments are located in multiple countries, with differing climates and geological characteristics, each property will face different known and unknown risks.  Any adverse event or circumstance could cause a delay in, prevent the completion of, or increase the cost of, one or more of these properties expected to be developed and brought to market by the Company, thereby resulting in a negative impact on the Company’s operations and financial results. 

If the market value of the Company’s future real estate investments decreases, the Company’s results of operations will also likely decrease.

The market value of each prospective real estate investment will depend on market conditions both locally and globally.  The Company expects to acquire land for each expansion into a new market at a cost based upon then-current economic conditions.  If local and/or global economic conditions deteriorate, or if the demand for such properties decreases below the levels anticipated at the time of acquisition of a property, the Company may not be able to make a profit on such property comparable to those profits made by First Capital in the past. As a result of declining economic conditions, the Company may experience lower than anticipated or forecast results or profits, and/or may not be able to recover the Company’s costs of a project when a property is brought to market.  

The Company will be relying on subcontractors to construct each property, and on building supply companies to provide components for each property’s construction. The failure of one or more of these subcontractors to properly construct these facilities, or any defects in the components obtained from building supply companies, could adversely affect these properties, and thus the Company’s operations. 

The Company plans to engage and rely on subcontractors to perform the actual construction of the buildings upon each property it expects to purchase.  Also, the Company plans to purchase the components used in its construction projects from third party independent building supply companies.  The Company will utilize industry standard quality control programs, but despite these programs, the Company may find that subcontractors are utilizing improper construction practices or the components purchased from building supply companies do not perform as specified in the project’s plans.  The Company may also find that its subcontractors are inadequately capitalized or have insufficient staffing to undertake the required work.  In such events, the Company may incur substantial additional costs to repair substandard construction at its properties, to comply with the plans and local legal requirements. The cost of satisfying local legal building code obligations may be significant, and the Company may not be able to recover these costs from its subcontractors, suppliers and/or their respective insurers.

Legal challenges or governmental regulations may delay the start or completion of construction on the Company’s projected real estate ventures, increase the Company’s expenses, or limit the Company’s construction activities, which could have a negative impact on operations.

Each of the Company’s future real estate development may experience a delay and/or increased expenses in construction, marketing and/or operation due to legal challenges to the development.  These challenges may be brought by private parties or by governmental authorities, resulting in delays in the start or completion of each project’s construction or requiring changes to the design or construction of each development.  Any delay or change in a development’s construction would result in increased expenses to the Company in the development of the property, which could in turn negatively impact the Company’s financial results with respect to that development and with respect to its overall operations.

Numerous governmental authorities are typically involved in each new development project, and such authorities have broad discretion in exercising their approval authority.  Various local, state, and federal statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations concerning building, zoning, sales, and similar matters apply to and/or affect the real estate development industry and govern matters including construction, marketing, sales, operation, lending, and other activities concerning each development.  In the United States, there have been numerous changes in regulations that limit the availability or use of land, including regulations which limit growth in certain communities, the use of utilities including water and sewer outlets, road construction and utilization, and other related matters.  Each jurisdiction in which the Company expects to invest in real estate development will have different and varying levels of regulation which must be taken into account when planning and implementing such developments.  For example, the Company may be required to change or modify its plans due to alterations in local planning or laws.  As a result, the Company could incur substantial costs related to compliance with legal and regulatory requirements with regard to each real estate development, negatively impacting the Company’s business by causing delays, increasing costs, or limiting the Company’s ability to operate in those locations.

If a development project experiences increased costs or shortages of labor or components, or other circumstances beyond the Company’s control, there could be delays or increased costs in developing such project, which could negatively impact the Company’s finances and operating results.

The Company will have real estate development projects in a number of countries and regions, including the United States, Mexico, the Caribbean and South America.  Each project may be negatively impacted by local circumstances beyond the Company’s control, including labor shortages, disputes and work stoppages, union organizing activities, price changes and delays in availability of building materials and components, and a lack of adequate utility and road infrastructure and services. Any change in these circumstances could delay the start or completion of, or increase the cost of, one or more developments.  The Company may not be able to recover any additional such costs through an increase in the prices for its properties, and therefore the Company’s operating results may be negatively affected. 

Changes in tax laws, taxes or fees may increase the cost of each development, and such changes could adversely impact the Company’s finances and operational results.  

Each development project will be subject to different tax laws, tax levies and governmental fees, depending upon its geographic location.  Any increase or change in such laws, taxes, or fees, including real estate property taxes, and fees to fund schools, open space, utility and road improvements, could increase the cost of a development and thus have an adverse effect on the Company’s operations.   Such changes could also negatively impact potential and/or actual users and purchasers of a development because potential buyers may factor such changes into their decisions to utilize or purchase a property. 

The Company will incur significant advance costs in each real estate development before that development begins to generate revenue from sales and/or public usage, and as a result, the Company may not recover its costs in whole or in part, may recover those costs slower than originally anticipated, or may incur higher costs as a result of any delays in completion of a project, resulting in an adverse impact to the Company’s operating results.  

The Company expects to make a number of significant cash outlays for each real estate development before that construction on that development begins, and considerably before any development begins to generate revenue. Such cash outlays will include expenditures to buy, rent, lease or otherwise acquire land, to plan, design and develop a property, to conduct site studies as necessary for development, to provide basic utility and infrastructure access to a property, to obtain permits, licenses, and other required regulatory approvals, to post surety bonds and such other construction guarantees as required by law, and to actually construct the project building(s) and to fully develop a property.  These processes can take up to several years before a development is completed and ready to generate any revenue for the Company.  The time to complete each development will vary, based on local geographic conditions, legal requirements, regulatory and community concerns, the ability to obtain required construction materials and labor, and other factors that may be unique to each project.  The Company will face the risk that, during construction, demand for a project may change, alter or decline, and the Company may be forced to take steps to adjust to these changes in demand, including altering a project and its scope, and selling the property at lower than anticipated or planned prices or at prices that generate lower profit margins or losses.  Inflation, economic changes or downturns, asset carrying costs (including interest on funds that are used to acquire land and/or construct a building) may also be generated and may be significant.  As a result of these factors, the Company may experience adverse impacts on its operating results, and if a development experiences a significant decline in value, the Company may also be required to recognize material write-downs of the book value of a project building in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

The real estate industry is highly competitive; if other property developers are more successful or offer better value to customers, the Company’s business could suffer.

The real estate industry is highly competitive, regardless of locale, and the Company will face competitors in each location where it expects to develop, construct, market, sell and/or operate real estate ventures.  Competitors will range from small local companies to large international conglomerates with financial resources much greater than those of the Company.  The Company will have to compete in each market for land, raw materials, construction components, financing, environmental resources, utilities, infrastructure, labor, skilled management, governmental permits and licensing and other factors critical to the successful development of each project.  The Company will compete against both new and existing developments and developers.  Any increase in or change to any competitive factor could result in the Company’s inability to begin or complete development of a project in a timely manner, increased costs for the design, development and completion of a project, and/or higher costs and/or lower revenues from the marketing, sales and/or operation of a development.  As a result, the Company may experience lower revenue and decreased profits due to these factors, impacting the Company’s operations and its overall financial results. 

Future terrorist activity and/or international instability could adverse impact the Company’s real estate developments and financial operations.

The Company expects to operate real estate developments in a variety of locales, including the United States, Mexico, the Caribbean and South America.  A terrorist attack against the United States or other foreign country, an increase in terroristic threats or suspected activity, and/or an increase in domestic or international instability, whether or not located in a country in which the Company has real estate assets, could significantly affect the Company’s business by slowing, delaying or halting construction of real estate developments, increasing the cost of such developments, and/or reducing the sales and/or usages of such properties, thereby adversely affect the Company’s business.

The Company may incur environmental liabilities with respect to its development projects.

The properties the Company will target for investment will be subject to a variety of local, state and federal statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations concerning the protection of health and the environment. The particular environmental laws that apply to any given community vary greatly according to the community site, the site’s environmental conditions and the present and former use of the site. Environmental laws may result in delays, may cause the Company to incur substantial compliance and other costs and may prohibit or severely restrict development in certain environmentally sensitive regions or areas. Furthermore, under various federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, an owner of real property may be liable for the costs or removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances on or in such property. Such laws often impose such liability without regard to whether the Company knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. The cost of any required remediation and the Company’s liability therefor as to any property are generally not limited under such laws and could exceed the value of the property and/or the aggregate assets of the Company. The presence of such substances, or the failure to properly remediate contamination from such substances, may adversely affect the Company’s ability to sell the real estate or to borrow using such property as collateral.

If the Company fails to diversify its real estate investment portfolio, downturns relating to certain geographic regions, types of assets, industries or business sectors may have a more significant adverse impact on the Company’s income and assets than if it had a diversified development property portfolio.

The Company is not required to observe specific diversification criteria. Therefore, its target portfolio may at times be concentrated in certain asset types that are subject to higher risk of foreclosure, or secured by assets concentrated in a limited number of geographic locations. To the extent that the Company’s real estate portfolio will be concentrated in limited geographic regions, types of assets, industries or business sectors, downturns relating generally to such region, type of asset, industry or business sector may result, for example, in tenants defaulting on their lease obligations at a number of properties within a short time period, which may reduce future projected net income and the value of the Company’s publicly traded securities and, accordingly, adversely affect the Company’s business and prospects.

The Company’s co-venture partners, co-tenants or other partners in co-ownership arrangements could take actions that decrease the value of an investment to the Company and lower the Company’s valuation.

Certain of the development properties that we may acquire could involve joint ventures, tenant-in-common investments or other co-ownership arrangements with third parties having investment objectives that are may or may not be similar to those of the Company for the acquisition, development or improvement of properties, as well as the acquisition of real estate-related investments. The Company also may purchase and develop properties in joint ventures or in partnerships, co-tenancies or other co-ownership arrangements with the sellers of the properties, affiliates of the sellers, developers or other persons. Such investments may involve risks not otherwise present with other forms of real estate investment, including, for example:

Any of the above might subject a property to liabilities in excess of those contemplated and thus reduce the Company’s returns on that investment.

Uninsured losses relating to real property or excessively expensive premiums for insurance coverage may adversely affect the value of your Company stock.

The nature of the activities at certain properties we may acquire or develop will expose us and our operators to potential liability for personal injuries and, in certain instances, property damage claims. For instance, there are types of losses, generally catastrophic in nature, such as losses due to wars, acts of terrorism, earthquakes, pollution, environmental matters or extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes, floods and snow storms that are uninsurable or not economically insurable, or may be insured subject to limitations, such as large deductibles or co-payments. Insurance risks associated with potential terrorist acts could sharply increase the premiums the Company will pay for coverage against property and casualty claims. Mortgage lenders generally insist that specific coverage against terrorism be purchased by commercial property owners as a condition for providing mortgage, bridge or mezzanine loans. It is uncertain whether such insurance policies will be available, or available at reasonable cost, which could inhibit the Company’s ability to finance or refinance its planned to-be-acquired properties. In such instances, the Company may be required to provide other financial support, either through financial assurances or self-insurance, to cover potential losses. The Company cannot assure you that it will have adequate coverage for such losses. If any of the Company’s future properties incurs a casualty loss that is not fully covered by insurance, the value of the Company’s assets will be reduced by the amount of any such uninsured loss. In addition, other than the capital reserve or other reserves the Company may establish, the Company does not expect to have any contingent sources of funding in place to repair or reconstruct any uninsured damaged property, and the Company cannot assure you that any such sources of funding will be available to the Company for such purposes in the future. Also, to the extent the Company must pay unexpectedly large amounts for insurance, the Company could suffer reduced earnings that would result in a decreased value attributed to the Company’s publicly traded stock.

The Company could face losses with respect to abandoned predevelopment costs.  

The development process inherently requires that a large number of opportunities be pursued with only a few being developed and constructed. The Company may incur significant costs for predevelopment activity for projects that are abandoned that directly affect the Company’s results of operations. The Company expects to institute procedures and controls that are intended to minimize this risk, but it is likely that there will be predevelopment costs charged to expense on an ongoing basis.

The Company may not have adequate financing to fund its future property acquisitions and project developments, and such capital resources may not be available to the Company on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

The implementation of the Company’s new business plan including the prospective acquisition of development properties and the completion of construction projects on such properties will involve considerable sums of capital. The Company currently does not have any such capital and will be required to raise acquisition, construction and related funds in the future on a project by project basis. The Company may not be successful in its efforts to raise such funds, or capital that it can acquire may not be reasonably priced. In such a case, the Company may not be able to successfully effect its new business plan. Such a failure would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial results, its future business prospects and its public market stock valuation.

The Company’s financial condition as of December 31, 2016 raises substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going-concern.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $115,635 and shareholders deficit of $1,408. To date, the Company has dedicated most of its financial resources to sales and marketing, general and administrative expenses and research and development.

Cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2016 were $2,677, including restricted cash of $342. The Company has historically financed its activities with cash from operations, the private placement of equity and debt securities, borrowings under lines of credit and, in the most recent periods with sale of certain assets and business units. The Company will be required to obtain additional liquidity resources in order to support its operations. The Company is addressing its liquidity needs by seeking additional funding from lenders as well as selling certain of its product lines to a third party. There are no assurances, however, that the Company will be able to obtain an adequate level of financial resources required for the short and long-term support of its operations. In light of the Company’s recent operating losses and negative cash flows, the termination of a pending merger agreement (see Acquisitions and Dispositions below) and the uncertainty of completing further sales of its product lines, there is no assurance that the Company will be able to continue as a going concern.

These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on recoverability and classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

On January 6, 2016, PhotoMedex, Inc. received an advance of $4 million, less a $40 financing fee (the “January 2016 Advance”), from CC Funding, a division of Credit Cash NJ, LLC, (the "Lender"), pursuant to a Credit Card Receivables Advance Agreement (the "Advance Agreement"), dated December 21, 2015. The Company’s domestic subsidiaries, Radiancy, Inc.; PTECH; and Lumiere, Inc., were also parties to the Advance Agreement (collectively with the Company, the “Borrowers”). Each Advance was secured by security interest in defined collateral representing substantially all the assets of the Company. Concurrent with the funding of the loan agreement, the Company established a $500 cash reserve account in favor of the lender to be used to make loan payments in the event that weekly remittances, net of sales return credits and other bank charges or offsets, were insufficient to cover the weekly repayment amount due the lender.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the Advance Agreement, the Lender was to make periodic advances to the Company (collectively with the January 2016 Advance and the April 2016 Advance described below, the “Advances”). The proceeds were used for general corporate purposes.

All outstanding Advances were repaid through the Company’s existing and future credit card receivables and other rights to payment arising out of our acceptance or other use of any credit or charge card (collectively, “Credit Card Receivables”) generated by activities based in the United States.

On April 29, 2016, the Company received an advance of $1 million, less a $10 financing fee (the “April 2016 Advance”), from the Lender pursuant to the Advance Agreement.

On June 17, 2016, the Company received an advance of $550, less a $50 financing fee (the “June 2016 Advance”), from the Lender pursuant to the Advance Agreement.

The above described advances were paid in full on July 29, 2016 and the security interest in the defined collateral was released from lien.

The restricted cash account includes $253 from the Neova Escrow Agreement (see Acquisitions and Dispositions below). Restricted cash also includes $89 reflecting certain commitments connected to our leased office facilities in Israel. Additionally the Company gained access to previously restricted cash amounts of $724 that were held in escrow as of the one year anniversary of the sale of the XTRAC and VTRAC business on June 22, 2015, from which $125 was paid to MELA Science, the purchaser of that business which amount was reflected within the loss from discontinued operations.

On August 30, 2016, the Company entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of its Neova product line. The sale was completed on September 15, 2016 resulting immediate proceeds to the company of $1.5 million and the Company recorded a loss of $1,731 from the transaction during the three months ended September 30, 2016. (See Acquisitions and Dispositions below)

On October 4, 2016, the Company entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of its Consumer Division for $9.5 million, including $5 million in cash payable in two tranches ($3 million at closing and $2 million 90 days after closing) plus a $4.5 million royalty agreement. (See Note 18 Subsequent Event and Acquisitions and Dispositions below). On January 23, 2017, the Company entered into a First Amendment (the “First APA Amendment”) to the Asset Purchase Agreement. This transaction was completed on January 23, 2017.

All references to the Neova, the Consumer or Radiancy business and/or XTRAC product divisions within this Form 10-K are intended for historical purposes only and for the interpretation of past revenue and business results, and do not form a part of the Company’s future business and revenue plans.

Risk Factors Relating to the Sale of the Consumer Products Division

Because the Consumer Products division represented approximately 89% of the Company’s total revenues for fiscal year 2016, its business following the Asset Sale will be substantially different.

The Consumer Products division represented approximately 89% of the Company’s total revenues for the fiscal year 2016. Following the consummation of the sale of this business, the Company’s results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected if it fails to effectively reduce its overhead costs to reflect that the sale of the consumer business represented sale of substantially all of the operational assets of the Company.

If the sale of the Consumer Products division disrupts the Company’s business operations and prevents the Company from realizing intended benefits, our business may be harmed.

The sale of the Consumer Products division may disrupt the operation of the Company’s business and prevent it from realizing the intended benefits of the Asset Sale as a result of a number of obstacles, such as the loss of key employees, customers or business partners, the failure to adjust or implement its business strategies, additional expenditures required to facilitate the Asset Sale transaction, and the diversion of management's attention from day-to-day operations.

There is no assurance that the $2.0 million portion of the purchase price for the consumer products group will be paid.

The consideration for the sale of the Consumer Products division was $9.5 million in cash, with three million dollars ($3,000) paid upon closing on January 23, 2017; two million dollars ($2,000) to be paid on or before the ninetieth (90th) day following the closing date of the transaction; and the remaining four million five hundred thousand dollars ($4,500) will be paid by Purchaser to the Company under a continuing royalty on net cash (invoiced amount less sales refunds, returns, rebates, allowances and similar items) actually received by Purchaser or its affiliates from sales of the Consumer Products commencing with net cash actually received by the Purchaser or its affiliates from and after the closing date of this transaction and continuing until the total royalty paid to the Company reaches that amount.

A letter of credit for the payment of the two million dollars ($2,000) was issued for the Company’s benefit on the date that the Asset Purchase Agreement was executed to guarantee the payment by the Purchaser of that amount. The letter of credit was issued by a third party for our benefit and is not secured by any assets of the Purchaser or the third party issuer. However, the letter of credit is only valid until the earlier of 180 days after the letter of credit was issued or full payment upon demand and presentation on or before January 3, 2017. If the letter of credit is no longer valid, we may be unable to collect the $2.0 million payment for the Asset Sale and the Asset Sale may therefore terminate. If we are unable to consummate the Asset Sale we could be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation.

There is no assurance that the final $4.5 million of the purchase price for the consumer products group will be paid to the Company in the near term or that the payment will be made in full or at all.

The remaining four million five hundred thousand dollar ($4,500) payment for the consumer products division will be paid by the Purchaser to the Company under a continuing royalty on net cash (invoiced amount less sales refunds, returns, rebates, allowances and similar items) actually received by Purchaser or its affiliates from sales of the Consumer Products commencing with net cash actually received by the Purchaser or its affiliates from and after the closing date of this transaction and continuing until the total royalty paid to the Company reaches that amount. Royalty payments will be made on a monthly basis in arrears within thirty days of each month end. The Company will receive thirty five percent (35%) of net cash actually received by Purchaser through Consumer Products sold through live television promotions less certain deductions and six percent (6%) of all other sales of Consumer Products.

The final $4.5 million payment will be paid solely on the basis of future royalty payments. Further, the final $4.5 million payment is not secured by the consumer products business or any other assets of the Purchaser. Accordingly, the Company’s receipt of the final payment will be contingent upon the Purchaser’s ability to sell the consumer products.

If the Purchaser is unable to successfully sell the consumer products, the Company may not receive the proceeds from the royalty until a time in the distant future, or may only receive a portion of the royalties or none of the $4.5 million at all, if the Purchaser:

There is no assurance that the funds received from the sale of the Consumer Products division will be sufficient to repay all the Company’s debts, or provide sufficient financing to the Company to grow its future operations.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company and its subsidiaries had a combined total of $6,648 in outstanding accounts payable to third parties and its corporate officers and directors. As stated above, the Company will collect $9.5 million from the sale of its Consumer Products division, and will have limited, if any, ongoing revenue from the sales of products in its LHE line, particularly since the value of the LHE assets as of December 31, 2016, were relatively immaterial. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the Company will collect approximately $6.5 million of the payments for the sale of its Consumer Products division. Because of the uncertainty of the collection of those monies, there is no assurance that the Company will have sufficient funds to pay the outstanding accounts payable to its third parties, corporate officers and directors, and also have sufficient funds to devote to the growth of its LHE product line. Should the Company not be able to pay the amounts due to its creditors, those creditors may seek to take action to enforce the payment of their debts, including the instigation of litigation to collect funds from the Company and the possibility of filing a bankruptcy action against the Company. In the event of such steps, the Company’s assets could be liquidated, and there would be no sums remaining for the payment of any dividends to the Company’s stockholders, while the value of the stock of the Company would be reduced or eliminated as a result of these actions.

The Company is required to provide certain transition services to the purchaser of the Consumer Products division.

Under a Transition Services Agreement entered into with ICTV Brands, the purchaser of the Consumer Products division, the Company is required to provide certain services to ICTV, including the provision of certain sales, marketing, legal, accounting and payroll services. The period of time to provide those services ranges from a few months post-closing of the transaction, to up to a year following the close of the transaction. In order to provide these contractually-mandated services, the Company must devote certain resources to those services which would otherwise be devoted to the payment of the Company’s outstanding debts, the growth of its LHE product line, and other strategic alliances for the Company. Moreover, these services require the presence of certain key personnel of the Company. Should the Company lose a key employee, or be otherwise unable to provide one or more of these services, the Company may be subject to action by ICTV to force the provision of these services or otherwise provide recompense to ICTV for the lack of these services.

The Company may not be able to unwind the business affairs, and terminate the existence, of certain of the Company’s international subsidiaries in a timely and efficient manner. .

The Company has certain international subsidiaries, including companies located in the United Kingdom and Israel. Those companies were involved in the operation of the Company’s Neova and Consumer Products businesses; now that those businesses have been sold, those companies are no longer required for the operations of the corporate group. The Company anticipates unwinding the business affairs of those corporations over the next six to twelve months, and then deciding whether or not to terminate those corporations or seek an alternate purchaser for these companies. There is no guarantee that the Company will be able to conclude these matters in a timely and efficient manner. The unwinding of these subsidiaries will require the use of certain Company personnel and resources which might otherwise be devoted to other operations of the Company, including personnel who are now, or will shortly be, employed by the purchasers of the Neova and Consumer Products divisions.

The Company may not have sufficient access to certain international personnel while unwinding its operations in those countries.

The Company utilized the services of certain personnel at its international subsidiaries to provide accounting, legal, marketing and sales and other services to the Company and its United States subsidiaries, including the accounting and record-keeping services for those international subsidiaries. Those personnel have been assigned to ICTV Brands, the purchaser of the Company’s Consumer Products division, and will become employees of ICTV brands at the end of a transition period. The Company may not be able to utilize the services of those employees after this time. Until the Company closes those international subsidiaries, the Company will need such services in order to conduct the business of the subsidiaries, and therefore the Company may need to seek third party replacements at a much higher cost to the Company, placing a burden upon the Company’s remaining resources.

The sale of the Company’s Consumer Products division may adversely affect the Company’s business and results of operations.

The sale of the Company’s Consumer Products division may adversely affect the trading price of the Company’s common stock, its remaining business or its relationships with customers and suppliers of that business and the Company’s remaining employees. This may affect the Company’s ability to collect amounts when due from the sale of its business assets.

Risk Factors Relating to the Company’s Business

Economic downturns and disruption in the financial markets could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

Financial markets in the United States, Europe and Asia have experienced prolonged periods of significant disruption, particularly in the periods following 2008 financial market tightening. These periods included volatility in securities prices and diminished liquidity and credit availability. Furthermore, an economic slowdown in the United States and other countries can weaken consumer confidence and lead to significant reductions in the amounts persons and businesses will spend on consumer products and other expenditures. In part, as a result, certain of the Company’s operations and revenues can be negatively impacted.

If adverse general economic conditions exist and continue for prolonged periods of time, the Company’s future revenue, profitability and cash flow from operations could decrease and its liquidity and financial condition could be adversely impacted.

The Company is exposed to credit risk of some of its customers.

The Company has experienced demands for customer financing and facilitation of leasing arrangements, which it typically refers to leasing companies unrelated to the Company.

The Company’s exposure to the credit risks may increase during an economic slowdown. Although the Company has programs in place that are designed to monitor and mitigate the associated risk, there can be no assurance that such programs will be effective in reducing its credit risks. Future credit losses, if incurred, could harm its business and have a material adverse effect on its operating results and financial condition. The Company maintains estimated accruals and allowances for its business terms. However, distributors tend to have more limited financial resources than other resellers and end-user customers and therefore represent potential sources of increased credit risk because they may be more likely to lack the reserve resources to meet payment obligations.

If the Company may need to raise additional funds to pursue its growth strategy or continue its operations, we may be unable to raise capital when needed.

From time to time, the Company may seek additional equity or debt financing to provide for capital expenditures, finance working capital requirements, continue its expansion, increase liquidity, develop new products and services or make acquisitions or other investments. In addition, if its business plans change, general economic, financial or political conditions in its markets change, or other circumstances arise that have a material negative effect on its cash flow, the anticipated cash needs of its business as well as its conclusions as to the adequacy of its available sources of capital could change significantly.

Any of these events or circumstances could result in significant additional funding needs, requiring the Company to raise additional capital, and we cannot predict the timing or amount of any such capital requirements at this time. If financing is not available on satisfactory terms, or at all, the Company may be unable to expand its business or to develop new business at the rate desired and its results of operations may suffer.

If the Company does not continue to develop and commercialize new products and identify new markets for its products and technologies, the Company may not remain competitive, and its revenues and operating results could suffer.

The medical and cosmetic industry is subject to continuous technological development and product innovation. If the Company does not continue to innovate in developing new products and applications, its competitive position will likely deteriorate as other companies successfully design and commercialize new products and applications. Accordingly, its success depends in part on developing innovative applications of its technology and identifying new markets for, and applications of, existing products and technology. The Company is primarily focused on collecting the remaining payments, if any, from the sale of substantially all of its assets and has relatively immaterial remaining assets from which to develop innovative products for sale.

The markets for the Company’s products are intensely competitive and we may not be able to compete effectively against the larger, more well-established companies that dominate this market or emerging, and small, innovative companies that may seek to obtain or increase their share of the market.

The markets for the Company’s products are intensely competitive and many of our competitors are much larger and have substantially more financial and human resources than we do. Many have long histories and strong reputations within the industry and a relatively small number of companies dominate these markets.

We face direct competition from large pharmaceutical companies, including, for example, Biogen, Inc., Centocor, Inc., and Abbott Laboratories, which are engaged in the research, development and commercialization of treatments for psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and leukoderma. In some cases, those companies have already received FDA approval or commenced clinical trials for such treatments. Many of these companies have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, conducting pre-clinical studies and clinical trials and marketing than we do.

Other competitors include well-established pharmaceutical, cosmetic and healthcare companies such as Allergan, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and Estee Lauder Inc. These companies may enjoy significant competitive advantages over us, including:

Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated if we are unsuccessful in convincing physician and patient customers and consumers to use our products or if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer and more effective than any products that we may develop.

The Company’s LHE products and any of the Company’s future products or services may fail to gain market acceptance, which could adversely affect the Company’s competitive position.

The Company has generated limited commercial distribution for certain of its other products. The Company may be unsuccessful in continuing its existing or developing new, strategic selling affiliates and alternate channels in order to maintain or expand the markets for the existing or future products of the LHE business.

Even if adequate financing is available and such products are ready for market, the Company cannot assure you that its products and services will find sufficient acceptance in the marketplace under its sales strategies.

The Company also faces a risk that other companies in the market for dermatological products and services may be able to provide dermatologists a higher overall yield on investment and therefore compromise the Company’s ability to increase its base of users and ensure they engage in optimal usage of its products. If, for example, such other companies have products (such as Botox or topical creams for disease management) that require less time commitment from the dermatologist and yield an attractive return on a dermatologist’s time and investment, we may find that our efforts to increase our base of users are hindered.

The Company therefore cannot assure you that the marketplace will be receptive to its skincare products over competing products, services and therapies. Failure of the Company’s products to achieve market acceptance could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Many of the Company’s expenses are fixed and many are based, in significant part, on its expectations of its future revenue and are incurred prior to the sale of its products and services. Therefore, any significant decline in revenue for any period could have an immediate negative impact on its margins, net income and financial results for the period.

The Company’s expense levels are based, in significant part, on its estimates of future revenue and many of these expenses are fixed in the short term. As a result, the Company may be unable to adjust its spending in a timely manner if its revenue falls short of its expectations. Accordingly, any significant shortfall of revenue in relation to its estimates could have an immediate negative effect on its profitability. In addition, as its business grows, the Company anticipates increasing its operating expenses to expand its product development, technical support, sales and marketing and administrative organizations. Any such expansion could cause material losses to the extent the Company does not generate additional revenue sufficient to cover the additional expenses.

The Company’s failure to maintain its relationships with its key distributors (none of which have an ongoing obligation to sell our products) on acceptable terms would have a material adverse effect on its results of operations and financial condition, or if the Company fails to effectively manage or, retain its distribution network, its business, prospects and brand may be materially and adversely affected.

Sales made through distributors have represented a significant part of the Company’s sales revenue from the LHE product line. The Company’s LHE remaining assets are relatively immaterial and since these distributors are not obligated to sell our products, and they likely may choose to end their relationship with us. Even if we maintain a business relationship with such distributors, they may sell competing products or may not be able to sell our products.

Furthermore, the Company has a limited ability to manage the activities of its independent third-party distributors. The Company’s distributors could take one or more of the following actions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on its business, prospects and brand:

Failure to adequately manage the Company’s distribution network, or the non-compliance of this network with its obligations under agreements with us, could harm the Company’s corporate image among end users of its products and disrupt its sales, or result in fines or other legal action against the Company.

The Company has a new distributor in the Japanese market, and the delay or failure to re-implement sales in this market may have an adverse effect on its business.

On April 7, 2015 the Company announced the signing of an exclusive distribution agreement by its Radiancy Inc. subsidiary with Synergy Trading Corporation for certain no!no!™ products in Japan. Synergy Trading Corporation, based in Osaka, has been a leading Japanese importer of consumer products for more than a decade, managing multinational brands from the U.S. and Europe. This agreement includes Radiancy’s no!no! 8800 and no!no! PRO. In addition, Synergy will launch two new no!no! models during 2016 and has a right of first refusal to market additional Radiancy consumer products. The agreement runs through December 31, 2016 and is renewable thereafter. Synergy placed an initial stocking order of $1.2 million. Synergy is best known for bringing SodaStream to Japanese consumers.

On November 21, 2013 the Company’s majority-owned subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., had terminated the exclusive distribution agreement between itself and Ya-Man Ltd., Radiancy’s independent distributor for the no!no!® brand products in the Japanese market. Sales in Japan represented approximately 5% of the revenues related to the sale of the no!no! products for the year ended December 31, 2013; those sales were largely generated in the first six months of the year. Ya-Man failed to meet its minimum purchasing commitments under the distribution agreement in the third and fourth quarters of 2013, due to a restructuring of its methods of business operations. Radiancy and Ya-Man also disputed the responsibility for the payment of marketing expenses for that country of approximately $1 million.

Other factors that could impact the Company’s results in the market include:

The Company’s operating results could be negatively impacted by economic, political or other developments in foreign countries in which it or its subsidiaries do business.

The Company transports some of its goods across international borders, primarily those of the U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan and Israel. Since September 11, 2001, there has been more intense scrutiny of goods that are transported across international borders. As a result, some of our and our subsidiaries’ products may face delays, and increase in costs due to such delays in delivering goods to its customers. Any events that interfere with, or increase the costs of the transfer of goods across international borders, could have a material adverse effect on its business.

Further, global economic conditions continue to be challenging. Although the economy appears to be recovering in some countries, it is not possible for us to predict the extent and timing of any improvement in global economic conditions. Even with continued growth in many of our and our subsidiaries’ markets during this period, the economic downturn could adversely impact its business in the future by causing a decline in demand for our and our subsidiaries’ products, particularly if the economic conditions are prolonged or worsen.

The international nature of the Company’s business exposes us to certain business risks that could limit the effectiveness of the Company’s growth strategy and cause our results of operations to suffer.

Continued expansion into international markets is an element of the Company’s growth strategy. Introducing and marketing the Company’s services internationally, developing direct and indirect international sales and support channels and managing foreign personnel and operations will require significant management attention and financial resources. The Company faces a number of risks associated with expanding the Company’s business internationally that could negatively impact the Company’s results of operations, including:

The Company may not succeed in its efforts to expand its international presence as a result of the factors described above or other factors that may have an adverse impact on the Company’s overall financial condition and results of operations

Conditions in Israel may affect our ability to collect royalty stream related to the consumer products division.

The Company sold its consumer products division to ICTV Brands, Inc. on January 23, 2017, for which it is to receive up to a $4.5 million in royalty over the next several years from the sale of those products by ICTV. All of that division’s research and development activities, a portion of the manufacturing operations and other critical business activities are located in Israel, a country that has experienced terrorist attacks. Political, economic and military conditions in Israel could adversely affect its operations, including a disruption of such operations due to terrorist attacks or other hostilities. Although the current hostilities in Israel have had no immediate and direct impact on the consumer products division to date, the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its trading partners, or a significant downturn in the economic or financial condition of Israel, may adversely affect the flow of vital components to ICTV for sale to consumers. We cannot assure you that ongoing hostilities related to Israel will not have a material adverse effect on ICTV’s business, and thus our royalty stream or our share price.

The Company’s Israeli-based facilities and/or manufacturing subcontractors could also be subject to catastrophic loss such as fire, flood, or earthquake. Any such loss at any of these facilities could disrupt operations, delay production, shipments and revenue and result in significant expense to repair and replace those facilities.

The Israeli operations may be disrupted by the obligation of its personnel to perform military service.

Many of the employees of ICTV that are located in Israel are legally obligated to perform annual military reserve duty in the Israeli Defense Forces and may be called to active duty under emergency circumstances at any time without substantial notice to their employer. If a military conflict or war arises, these individuals could be required to serve in the military for extended periods of time. As a result, the Israeli-based operations could be disrupted by the absence, for a significant period of time, of one or more of its executive officers or a significant number of its other employees due to such reserve duty.

If the Company fails to manage its distribution partners or to market and distribute its products effectively, the Company may experience diminished revenues and profits.

There are significant risks involved in building and managing the Company’s sales and marketing distribution network and marketing its products, including the Company’s ability:

The Company cannot predict how successful it may be in marketing its LHE skin health products in the U.S., nor can the Company predict the success of any new skin health products that it may introduce. Despite an increased focus on developing alternate channels for many of the Company’s skin health products, the Company may find that channels that are attractive to the Company are unavailable because they already carry competitive products. No assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in marketing and selling its skin health products.

The Company may encounter difficulties in quality testing and the manufacturing of its products in commercial quantities, which could adversely impact the rate at which the Company grows.

There can be no guarantee that the Company’s quality assurance testing programs will be adequate to detect all defects, either ones in individual products or ones that could affect numerous shipments, which might interfere with customer satisfaction, reduce sales opportunities, or affect gross margins. In the future, the Company may need to replace certain product components and provide remediation in response to the discovery of defects or bugs in such products that it has shipped. There can be no assurance that such a remediation, depending on the product involved, would not have a material impact. An inability to cure a product defect could result in the failure of a product line, temporary or permanent withdrawal from a product or market, damage to its reputation, inventory costs or product reengineering expenses, any of which could have a material impact on the Company’s revenue, margins and net income.

Further, the Company may encounter difficulties manufacturing its line of products because it has limited experience manufacturing such products in significant commercial quantities. As a result, the Company will, in order to increase its manufacturing output significantly, have to attract and retain qualified employees for such assembly and testing operations.

Some of the components necessary for the assembly of the Company’s products are currently provided to the Company by third-party suppliers. While alternative suppliers exist and could be identified, the disruption or termination of the supply of components could cause a significant increase in the costs of these components, which could affect our operating results. The Company’s dependence on a limited number of third-party suppliers and the challenges the Company may face in obtaining adequate supplies involve several risks, including limited control over pricing, availability, quality and delivery schedules. A disruption or termination in the supply of components could also result in the Company’s inability to meet demand for its products, which could harm its ability to generate revenues, lead to customer dissatisfaction and damage its reputation. Furthermore, if the Company is required to change the manufacturer of a key component of its products, the Company may be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines including Quality Systems Regulations, or QSR requirements and performance standards. Failure to do so could result in the FDA taking legal or regulatory enforcement action against the Company and/or its products (e.g. recalls, fines, penalties, injunctions, seizures, prosecution or other adverse actions). The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could delay the Company’s ability to manufacture its products in a timely manner or within budget. The Company faces the risk that there will be supply chain problems if the volumes do not match to the margins, as certain of the Company’s consumer market products are intended to be high-volume, lower-margined products.

Although the Company believes that its current manufacturing facilities are adequate to support its commercial manufacturing activities for the foreseeable future, the Company may be required to expand or restructure its manufacturing facilities to increase capacity substantially. In addition, if the Company is unable to provide customers with high-quality products in a timely manner, the Company may not be able to achieve market acceptance and growth for its consumer, skincare and other products. The Company’s inability to manufacture or commercialize its devices successfully could have a material adverse effect on its revenue.

If the Company fails to manage and protect its and its subsidiaries’ network security and underlying data effectively, its businesses could be exposed to a cyber-attack or other disruption which could harm its operating results.

Like other large corporations, the Company relies upon a variety of information technology systems to transmit, process and store information in an electronic format for use in daily operations. In particular, the Company possesses and uses both personal health information and personal identification information in the conduct of its business, including credit card, insurance and banking information of our customers. The size, inter-relationship and complexity of these systems, and the possession of such information, makes us vulnerable to a cyber-attack, malicious intrusion, breakdown, destruction, theft or loss of data privacy or other significant interference with the use and possession of such information, that could harm our business. Unauthorized disclosure or manipulation of such data, whether through breach of network security or other interception of this information, could expose the Company to costly litigation, damage its reputation and result in a lower revenue stream and the loss of some of its customers.

Our information systems require a constant and ongoing dedication of significant resources to maintain, protect, and enhance our existing systems as well as keep pace with changes in information processing technology and regulatory standards. In particular, maintaining the Company’s network security is of critical importance because the online e-commerce systems used by our consumer product lines store proprietary and confidential customer data such as names, addresses, other personal information and credit card numbers. The Company uses commercially available encryption technology to transmit personal information when taking orders. However, third parties may be able to circumvent these security and business measures by developing and deploying viruses, worms and other malicious software programs that are designed to attack or attempt to infiltrate its systems and networks. Employee error, malfeasance or other mistakes in the storage, use or transmission of personal information could result in a breach of customer or employee privacy. The Company employs contractors who may have access to the personal information of customers and employees. It is possible such individuals could circumvent the Company’s data security controls, which could result in a breach of customer privacy. In addition, third parties may attempt to hack into our systems to obtain data relating to our products or our proprietary technology. Any failure to maintain or protect these information technology systems and data integrity, including from cyber-attacks, intrusions or other breaches, could result in the unauthorized access to patient data and personally identifiable information, theft of intellectual property or other misappropriation of assets, or otherwise compromise our confidential or proprietary information and disrupt our operations.

The possession and use of personal information in conducting its business subject the Company to legislative and regulatory burdens regarding the safeguarding of this information and the processes to be followed in the event of a data breach. Any interference with or unauthorized access to this information may cause us to lose existing customers; have difficulty preventing, detecting, and controlling fraud; cause disputes with customers, physicians, and other health care professionals; render us subject to legal claims and liability; result in regulatory sanctions or penalties; increase our operating expenses and cause us to incur additional significant expenses or lose revenues; render us unable to accept and process credit card transactions in our consumer businesses; or suffer other adverse consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

If the Company fails to manage its and its subsidiaries’ growth effectively, its businesses could be disrupted which could harm its operating results.

The Company has experienced, and may in the future experience, growth in its business, both organically and through the acquisition of businesses and product lines. The Company expects to make significant investments to enable its future growth through, among other things, new product innovation and clinical trials for new applications and products.

Such growth may place a strain on the Company’s management and operations. The Company’s ability to manage this growth will depend upon, among other factors, its ability to broaden its management team; its ability to attract, hire, train, motivate and retain skilled employees; and the ability of its officers and key employees to continue to implement and improve its operational, financial and other systems, to manage multiple, concurrent customer relationships and different products and to respond to increasing compliance requirements. The Company’s future success is heavily dependent upon achieving such growth and acceptance of its products. Any failure to effectively manage future growth could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

The Company is exposed to risks associated with credit card and payment fraud and with credit card processing, which could cause the Company to lose revenue.

A significant part of the payments for its products and services are processed by the Company through credit cards or automated payment systems. The Company has suffered losses, and may continue to suffer losses, as a result of orders placed with fraudulent credit cards or other fraudulent payment data. For example, under current credit card practices, the Company may be liable for fraudulent credit card transactions if it does not obtain a cardholder’s signature, a frequent and accepted practice in internet sales. In addition, charges under these payment methods may be challenged as fraudulent or unauthorized for a significant period of time after the purchase of the goods and services, often up to 18 months after the transactions. While the Company employs technology solutions to help it detect fraudulent transactions, those solutions are not guaranteed to uncover all fraudulent transactions. Therefore, the failure to detect or control payment fraud could cause the Company to lose sales and revenue and incur additional costs in managing fraud-control processes.

The Company’s failure to respond to rapid changes in technology and its applications in the medical devices industry or the development of a cure for skin conditions treated by its products could make its treatment system obsolete.

The medical device industry is subject to rapid and substantial technological development and product innovations. To be successful, the Company must respond to new developments in technology, new applications of existing technology and new treatment methods. The Company may also encounter greater pressure for innovation in order to satisfy a demand for novelty in the consumer market. The Company’s financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected if the Company fails to be responsive on a timely and effective basis to competitors’ new devices, applications, treatments or price strategies.

As the Company develops new products or improves its existing products, the Company may accelerate the economic obsolescence of the existing, unimproved products and their components. The obsolete products and related components may have little to no resale value, leading to an increase in the reserves the Company has against its inventory. Likewise, there is a risk that the new products or improved existing products may not achieve market acceptance and therefore may also lead to an increase in the reserves against the Company’s inventory.

The Company’s marketing campaigns and advertising may be attacked as false and misleading, and our media spending might not result in increased net sales or generate the levels of product and brand name awareness that the Company desires. The Company might not be able to increase its net sales at the same rate as it increases its advertising and marketing expenditures.

The Company’s future growth and profitability will depend in part on the effectiveness and efficiency of its marketing campaigns and media spending, including its ability to:

The Company’s former no!no!® Hair and other consumer product’s portfolio of infomercials advertising, and other forms of media may not result in increased sales or generate desired levels of product and brand name awareness, and may be attacked as false and misleading. The Company may be required to defend against inaccurate claims of false advertising. The Company is currently the subject of certain legal proceedings relating to its advertising claims in the U.S. The Company has voluntarily made changes to its advertising as part of its usual process for reviewing and updating its advertising through the various media and sales channels we rely upon, and which address certain of the claims made in these matters. These changes have not adversely affected the Company’s sales of the no!no!® Hair products in the U.S. to date; however the Company may be required to make other changes in the future in response to existing or potential legal proceedings that could materially and adversely affect such sales.

A higher than anticipated level of product returns may adversely affect the Company’s business and its customers, or physicians and technicians, as the case may be, may misuse certain of its products, and product and other damages imposed on the Company may exceed its insurance coverage, or the Company may be subject to claims that are not covered by insurance.

The Company offers consumers who purchase its consumer products, including its no!no!^® brands directly from the Company a money-back guarantee, subject to time and certain other limitations. Retailers and home shopping channels are also permitted to return the consumer products, subject to certain limitations. The Company establishes revenue reserves for product returns based on historical experience, estimated channel inventory levels and other factors. If product returns exceed estimates, the excess would offset reported revenue, which could negatively affect the Company’s financial results. Product returns and the potential need to remedy defects or provide replacement products or parts for items shipped in volume could result in substantial costs, the requirement to conduct an FDA recall and/or submit an FDA-required report of a correction/removal and have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations.

The Company may be subject to product liability claims from time to time. A number of the Company’s products are highly complex and some are used to treat delicate skin conditions on and near a patient’s face. In addition, the clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing and use of certain of the Company’s products and procedures may also expose the Company to product liability, FDA regulatory and/or legal actions, or other claims. Certain indications for use for the Company’s PTL light-based devices, though approved outside the U.S., are not approved in the U.S. If a physician elects to apply an off-label use and the use leads to injury, the Company may be involved in costly litigation. The Company presently maintains liability insurance with coverage limits of at least $10 million per occurrence and overall aggregate, which the Company believes is an adequate level of product liability insurance, but product liability insurance is expensive and the Company might not be able to obtain product liability insurance in the future on acceptable terms or in sufficient amounts to protect the Company, if at all. A successful claim brought against the Company in excess of its insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, continuing insurance coverage may also not be available at an acceptable cost, if at all. Therefore, the Company may not be able to obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy a liability that may arise. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in decreased demand for a product, injury to its reputation, withdrawal of clinical trial volunteers and loss of revenues. As a result, regardless of whether the Company is insured, a product liability claim or product recall may result in losses that could result in the FDA taking legal or regulatory enforcement action against the Company and or its products including recall, and could have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company’s costs could substantially increase if it experiences a significant number of warranty claims.

The Company provided 12-month embedded product warranties, and offers longer warranties available for separate purchase, against technical defects of its former consumer products division. Its product warranty requires the Company to repair defective parts of its products, and if necessary, replace defective components; the Company is still responsible for such claims under the Asset Purchase Agreement by which this division was sold to ICTV Brands, Inc. on January 23, 2017. Historically, the Company has received a limited number of warranty claims for these products and the costs associated with such warranty claims have also historically been relatively low. Thus, the Company generally does not accrue a significant liability contingency for potential warranty claims.

If the Company experiences an increase in warranty claims for products sold to consumers before the sale of that division, or if its repair and replacement costs associated with such warranty claims increase significantly, we will begin to incur liabilities for potential warranty claims after the sale of its products at levels that the Company has not previously incurred or anticipated. In addition, an increase in the frequency of our warranty claims or amount of warranty costs may harm our reputation and could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations.

The Company may be subject to litigation that will be costly to defend or pursue and uncertain in its outcome.

The Company’s business may bring it into conflict with its licensees, licensors, or others with whom the Company have contractual or other business relationships, or with its competitors or others whose interests differ from it. If the Company is unable to resolve those conflicts on terms that are satisfactory to all parties, the Company may become involved in arbitration and/or litigation brought by or against it. Such actions are likely to be expensive and may require a significant amount of management’s time and attention, at the expense of other aspects of our business. The outcome of arbitration or litigation is always uncertain, and in some cases could include judgments against the Company that require it to pay damages, enjoin it from certain activities, or otherwise affect its legal or contractual rights, which could have a significant adverse effect on its business. In addition, while the Company maintains insurance for certain risks, the amount of its insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover the total amount of all insured claims and liabilities. It also is not possible to obtain insurance against all potential risks and liabilities. The Company cannot predict what the outcome will be in any ongoing or threatened arbitrations and/or litigations, and any adverse results in any such actions may also materially and negatively impact its business, the market price of its common stock, cash flow, prospects, revenues, profitability or capital expenditures, or have other material adverse effects on its business, reputation, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

From time to time, the Company may be threatened with material litigation.

From time to time, the Company is threatened with individual and class action litigations involving its business, products, advertisements, packaging, labeling, consumer claims, contracts, agreements, intellectual property, SEC or FDA matters, licenses and other areas involving it and its business. The outcome or effect on its business, the market price of the Company’s common stock, cash flows, prospects, revenues, profitability, capital expenditures, reputation, demand for its products, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity of any future litigation cannot be predicted by the Company. Except as disclosed in Item. 3. Legal Proceedings, no such current pending matters, if any, are believed to be significant.

Litigation is inherently unpredictable and may:

While the Company maintains insurance for certain risks, the amount of its insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover the total amount of all insured claims and liabilities. It also is not possible to obtain insurance against all potential risks and liabilities. If any litigation were to have a material adverse result, there could be a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

The Company has outstanding litigation which it may not be able to settle, or which it may not be able to settle on terms favorable to the Company.

The Company is involved in certain litigation, including suits brought by the Company against DS Healthcare, and suits brought against the Company and/or its one or more of its subsidiaries including suits brought by Mouzon and April Cantley, and a suit brought by a consumer regarding the no!no! product, as further described in Item 3. Legal Proceedings. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself and its subsidiaries against claims brought against it, and to prosecute such suits to recoup sums owed to the Company. However, the Company may seek to settle such matters in order to avoid excessive legal fees and costs and the lengthy time such litigation may require in order to reach a resolution. However, there is no guarantee that the Company may be able to reach a settlement or resolution of such litigation, or that such a settlement or resolution will be reached in a manner that is advantageous to the Company, and in such cases the Company will need to proceed with litigation. Regardless of its outcome, litigation may result in substantial costs and expenses, and significantly divert the attention of management. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to prevail in, or achieve a favorable settlement of, pending matters. In addition to the pending matters, future litigation, government proceedings, labor disputes, or environmental matters could lead to increased costs or interruption of the Company’s normal business operations, which could involve a costly and lengthy draw upon the Company’s resources and could result in a resolution to the litigation which may be detrimental to the Company.

The Company is the subject of certain tax audits which may not be resolved without impacting the Company’s operations.

The Company has in the past, and is currently, the subject of certain audits by state agencies for various tax matters including sales and use and corporate income taxes, and unclaimed property reporting. While past audits have been resolved without significant impact upon the Company or its operations, there is no guarantee that future audits will be resolved in a manner that is satisfactory to the Company or that has no material impact upon the Company’s operations. Such results could include the payment of assessments which could impact the Company’s remaining resources and affect the Company’s ability to continue its operations in the existing manner.

The Company depends on its executive officers and key personnel to implement its business strategy and could be harmed by the loss of their services and the inability to attract personnel for these positions.

The Company believes that its growth and future success will depend in large part upon the skills of its key management, technical and scientific personnel. Certain members of the Company’s management staff as well as other key employees may voluntarily terminate their employment with the Company at any time, with or without notice. There is substantial competition for personnel in the industries in which we operate, and we may face increased competition for such employees, resulting in the need to compensate these personnel at a higher-than-anticipated rate, a delay in replacing such personnel and integrating them into the Company’s operations, and the possibility that we may be unable to attract and retain these personnel. The loss of the services of key personnel, or the inability to attract and retain additional qualified personnel, could result in delays to product development or approval, loss of sales and diversion of management resources, and may have an adverse effect on our business and our ability to grow that business.

In particular, the Company’s success depends in part upon the continued service and performance of Dr. Dolev Rafaeli and Dennis M. McGrath. The Company has fixed-term employment agreements with Dr. Rafaeli and Mr. McGrath; however, there are no assurances that the services of these individuals will be available to the Company for any specified period of time. The loss of the services of one or both of these officers could adversely affect the Company’s ability to develop and introduce its new products.

Additionally, the Company does not currently maintain “key person” life insurance on the lives of Dr. Rafaeli, Mr. McGrath, its other executives or any of its employees. The Company’s lack of insurance means that it may not have adequate compensation for the loss of the services of its key employees, which could affect the Company’s ability to maintain the level of services formerly provided by those persons.

In our industry, there is substantial competition for key personnel in the regions in which we operate and we may face increased competition for such employees, particularly in emerging markets as the trend toward globalization continues. If we are unable to attract key personnel in a timely manner, including key sales and other personnel who have critical industry experience and relationships in the regions in which we operate, including in emerging markets, it may have an adverse effect on our business and our ability to drive growth, including through execution of our strategic initiatives. Furthermore, some of the key personnel for whom we compete have post-employment arrangements with their current or former employer that may impact our ability to hire them or expose us and them to claims. In addition, if we are unable to retain and focus our existing key personnel it may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results from operations. Changes in our senior management structure could lead to inefficiencies in our ability to execute our strategic, cost-reduction and efficiency initiatives, which may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

It may be difficult for any of the Company’s stockholders to effect service of process and enforce their rights against the Company or its officers and directors in foreign courts.

Certain of the Company’s operating subsidiaries’ assets are located outside the United States, including locations in Israel and the United Kingdom. As a result, the Company’s stockholders may find it difficult to enforce their legal rights in the courts of these countries based on the civil liability provisions of the United States federal securities laws as applied in the courts of the United States or these countries, even if civil judgments are obtained in courts of the United States. In addition, it is unclear if extradition treaties in effect between the United States and these countries would permit effective enforcement against any of the Company’s officers and directors that reside outside the United States of criminal penalties, whether sought under the United States federal securities laws or other applicable laws.

Currency exchange rate fluctuations could adversely affect the Company’s operating results.

Some of the Company’s operating expenses are denominated in New Israeli Shekel (“NIS”). Any significant fluctuation in the value of the NIS may materially and adversely affect its cash flows, earnings and financial position. For example, an appreciation of NIS against the U.S. dollar would make any new NIS denominated investments or expenditures more costly to the Company, to the extent that it needs to convert U.S. dollars into NIS for such purposes. Furthermore, because certain parts of our business include international business transactions, costs and prices of its products or components in overseas countries, such transactions are affected by foreign exchange rate changes.

The majority of sales invoicing for the Company’s PTL business is done in Pounds Sterling, Euros or U.S. dollars, while product costs and the overhead of the offices in the United Kingdom are denominated in Pounds Sterling. The sales invoicing for the LK Technology business is done in Brazilian Real. The Company’s U.S. operations, with U.S. dollar operating costs, serve to reduce the exposure to fluctuations in the value of the Pound Sterling, the Euro, or the Brazilian Real. To the extent that the Company adjusts its invoicing practices for its PTL and LK Technology businesses, or if the remainder of its business (or any portion thereof) ceases to be conducted primarily in U.S. dollars, the Company’s exposure to the market’s currency conditions could present a greater risk to it.

As a result, foreign exchange rate fluctuations may adversely affect the Company’s business, operating results and financial condition.

The Company’s ability to use its net operating loss carryforwards to offset future taxable income for U.S. federal income and U.K. business tax purposes may be limited as a result of “ownership changes” of PhotoMedex caused by the merger. In addition, the amount of such NOL carryforwards could be subject to adjustment in the event of an IRS examination.

If a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” under Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the amount of its pre-change net operating losses, which we refer to in this report as “NOLs”, that may be utilized to offset future taxable income is subject to an annual limitation. In general, an ownership change occurs if the aggregate stock ownership of certain stockholders increases by more than 50 percentage points over such stockholders’ lowest percentage ownership during the applicable testing period (generally three years).

The annual limitation generally is determined by multiplying the value of the corporation’s stock immediately before the ownership change by the applicable long-term tax-exempt rate. Any unused annual limitation may, subject to certain limits, be carried over to later years, and the limitation may under certain circumstances be increased by recognized built-in gains or reduced by recognized built-in losses in the assets held by the corporation at the time of the ownership change. Similar rules and limitations may apply for state income tax purposes.

The reverse merger, effected on December 13, 2011, did result in an ownership change of PhotoMedex. At the time, the Company estimated that it would have approximately $56.8 million of U.S. net operating loss carryforwards that could be utilized through the annual limitations and also through the realization of its built-in gains through amortization in the first 5 years following December 13, 2011. The balance of the net operating loss carryforwards of pre-merged PhotoMedex amounts was estimated to be approximately $53.5 million. This balance could only be utilized through realization of the built-in gains other than by means of amortization. Therefore, on December 27, 2012, PhotoMedex made an internal realignment of its operations by selling its operating businesses to a wholly-owned, non-consolidated U.S. subsidiary, and thereby realized sufficient gain to offset approximately $45 million of the $53.5 million remaining balance of net operating losses.

In addition, the amount of the NOL carryforwards is subject to review and audit by the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”). There can therefore be no assurance that the benefit of such NOL carryforwards will be fully realized.

Likewise, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” and/or a “change in trade or business” under various standards of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC, U.K.), the amount of a company’s pre-change NOLs that may be utilized to offset future taxable income in the U.K. may be limited or not available for offset against that income. After evaluating the effects of the reverse merger and integration of Radiancy’s business on its U.K. NOLs; management determined that the NOLs remain usable against future income of the UK subsidiary. However, the amount of the NOL carryforwards remains subject to review and audit by the HMRC. There can therefore be no assurance that the benefit of such NOL carryforwards will be fully realized.

Risks Related to the Company’s Intellectual Property Matters

If the Company is unable to adequately protect or enforce its rights to intellectual property or secure patents right to technologies that it develops, the Company may, experience reduced market share, assuming any, or incur costly litigation to enforce, maintain or protect such rights.

The Company’s success depends in part on its ability to maintain and defend patent protection for its products, to preserve its trade secrets and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. However, the Company cannot guarantee that the patents covering certain of its technologies and processes will not be contested, found to be invalid, unenforceable or owned by another or circumventable. There can be no assurance that its pending patent applications will result in patents being issued, or that its competitors will not circumvent, or challenge the validity of, any patents issued to the Company. Any such objections and rejections may adversely affect the Company’s other patents and patent applications. There can be no assurance that measures taken by the Company to protect its proprietary information will prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of this information or that others will not be able to independently develop such information. In addition, in the event that another party infringes its patent rights or other proprietary rights, the enforcement of such rights can be a lengthy and costly process, with no guarantee of success. Moreover, there can be no assurance that claims alleging infringement by the Company of the proprietary rights of others will not be brought against the Company in the future or that any such claims will not be successful. If the Company is unable to maintain the proprietary nature of its technologies, its ability to market or be competitive with respect to some or all of its products may be affected, which could reduce its sales and affect its profitability. Also, as the Company’s patents expire, competitors may utilize the technology found in such patents to commercialize their own products. Moreover, while the Company seeks to secure additional patents on commercially desirable improvements, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in securing such patents, or that such additional patents will adequately offset the effect of expiring patents. Further, pending patent applications are not enforceable.

The Company’s policy is to file patent applications and to protect certain technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of the Company’s business. The Company’s strategy has been to apply for and maintain patent protection for inventions and their applications which it believes has potential commercial value in countries that offer significant market potential. Because of the high costs of applying for, procuring and maintaining patents, the Company is unable to file patent applications covering all of its products in every country and as a result its patents are limited in scope and geographic coverage and may not protect the Company from competing products in those markets.

The Company’s success may depend, in part, on its ability to continue to use certain software in its products and in its business. This software may have been created by contractors to the Company or may include third-party software such as open source software. There is a possibility that claims will be made that this software infringes the copyright and/or trade secret rights of one or more third parties and that such claims may affect the Company’s right to use the software.

From an international perspective, protection of intellectual property outside of the U.S. is uncertain to the Company. The laws of some countries may not protect the Company’s intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the U.S. The intellectual property rights the Company enjoys in one country or jurisdiction may be rejected in other countries or jurisdictions, or, if recognized there, the rights may be significantly diluted. This may affect the Company’s ability to commercialize its products, grow its product sales and maintain market share in countries outside the U.S. It may be necessary or useful for the Company to participate in proceedings to determine the validity of its foreign intellectual property rights, or those of its competitors, which could result in substantial cost and divert its resources, efforts and attention from other aspects of its business.

The Company’s trademarks on its consumer products lines were limited in scope and geographic coverage and therefore may not significantly distinguish these products from their competition. These products’ trade secrets were also limited in scope and geographic coverage and therefore may not adequately protect these products from products offered by competitors.

The Company owned several key federal and international trademark registrations, and has federal trademark applications pending in the United States and abroad for additional trademarks, that cover its consumer products, including the no!no! Hair products. That product line has been sold to a third-party buyer; a substantial amount of the purchase price for the consumer products division which is due to be paid to the Company depends upon the purchaser’s ability to sell those products to consumers. Even though those federal registrations were granted to the Company, those trademark rights may still be challenged by other parties. Furthermore, as registration is usually a requirement for protection in most foreign countries, if those marks were not registered in certain countries, the purchaser may not have any enforceable rights against competitors in those countries. It is also possible that competitors to these products will adopt and register trademarks similar to the marks already registered by the Company for these product lines, thus impeding the ability of the purchasers to build brand identity and possibly leading to customer confusion between the consumer products and the products of competitors.

The requirement to protect and enforce these registrations could result in the purchaser incurring substantial costs in prosecuting or defending trademark infringement suits. It can be difficult and costly to defend trademarks from encroachment, especially on the Internet, or misappropriation overseas; the consumer products’ customers may become confused and direct their purchases to competitors. If the purchaser of this product line fails to effectively enforce these trademark rights, its competitive position and brand recognition may be diminished.

Additionally, third parties may independently discover trade secrets and proprietary information that allow them to develop technologies and products that are substantially equivalent or superior to those in the Company’s former consumer products line. The Company attempted to protect its trade secrets by, among other steps, entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, employees and consultants. However, those steps may prove to be ineffective and may be found to be invalid by the laws of a particular state or country. Moreover, these agreements can be breached and, if they are and even if the purchaser is able to prove the breach or that the technology has been misappropriated under applicable state law, there may not be an adequate remedy available to the purchaser. Without the protection afforded by patent, trade secret and proprietary information rights, the purchaser of this line may face direct competition from others commercializing their products using the Company’s technology, which may have a material adverse effect on the purchaser’s business and its prospects and thus on its ability to pay the royalty on sales of these products which is due to the Company.

The Company must monitor and protect its internet domain names to preserve their value. The Company may be unable to prevent third parties from acquiring domain names that are similar to, infringe on or otherwise decrease the value of its trademarks.

Third parties may acquire substantially similar domain names that decrease the value of the Company’s domain names and trademarks and other proprietary rights which may hurt its business. Moreover, the regulation of domain names in the United States and foreign countries is subject to change. Governing bodies could appoint additional domain name registrars or modify the requirements for holding domain names. Governing bodies could also establish additional “top-level” domains, which are the portion of the Web address that appears to the right of the “dot,” such as “com,” “gov” or “org.” As a result, the Company may not maintain exclusive rights to all potentially relevant domain names in the United States or in other countries in which the Company conducts business, which could harm its business or reputation.

Claims that the Company misuses the intellectual property of others could subject the Company to significant liability and disrupt its business.

The Company may become subject to material legal proceedings and claims relating to intellectual property matters, including claims of infringement by competitors and other third parties with respect to current or future products, e-commerce and other web-related technologies, online business methods, trademarks, copyrights or other proprietary rights. Its competitors, some of which may have substantially greater resources than the Company has and may have made significant investments in competing products and technologies, may have, or seek to apply for and obtain, patents, copyrights or trademarks that will prevent, limit or interfere with the Company’s ability to make, use and sell its current and future products and technologies. The Company may not be successful in defending allegations of infringement of these patents, copyrights or trademarks. Further, the Company may not be aware of all of the patents and other intellectual property rights owned by third parties that may be potentially adverse to its interests. The Company may need to resort to costly and time-consuming litigation to protect and/or enforce its proprietary rights or to determine the scope and validity of a third party’s patents or other proprietary rights, including whether any of its products, technologies or processes infringe the patents or other proprietary rights of third parties. Any failure to enforce or protect its rights could cause the Company to lose the ability to exclude others from using its technologies to develop or sell competing products. The Company may incur substantial expenses in defending against third-party infringement claims regardless of the merit of such claims. In addition, while the Company maintains insurance for certain risks, the amount of its insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover the total amount of all insured claims and liabilities. It also is not possible to obtain insurance against all potential risks and liabilities. The outcome of any such proceedings is uncertain and, if unfavorable, could force the Company to discontinue sales of the affected products or impose significant penalties or restrictions on its business. The Company does not conduct comprehensive patent searches to determine whether the technologies used in its products infringe upon patents held by others. In addition, product development is inherently uncertain in a rapidly evolving technological environment in which there may be numerous patent applications pending, many of which are confidential when filed, with regard to similar technologies.

If the Company is unable to defend its intellectual property rights internationally, it may face increased competition outside the U.S., which could materially and adversely affect its future business, prospects, operating results and financial results and financial condition.

Risks Related to the Company’s Regulatory Matters

The Company’s failure to obtain and maintain FDA clearances or approvals on a timely basis, or at all, would prevent the Company from commercially distributing and marketing current or upgraded products in the United States, which could severely harm our business.

The Company’s products, including its LHE product line and the products marketed through the now-sold skincare and consumer products divisions, were and are subject to rigorous regulation by the FDA and numerous other federal, state and foreign governmental authorities. The process of obtaining regulatory clearances or approvals to market a medical device can be costly and time consuming, and we may not be able to obtain these clearances or approvals on a timely basis, if at all. In particular, the FDA permits commercial distribution of a new medical device only after the device has received clearance under Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or is the subject of an approved premarket approval application, or PMA, unless the device is specifically exempt from those requirements. Should the FDA require, or a change in current regulations occur, that our products be FDA-cleared for marketing and sale in the U.S. we may be required to incur significant expense and engage in a time consuming process seeking such approvals. If we were unable to obtain the required FDA approvals for these products or as necessary to make certain claims about the efficacy of the products, our sales of these products in the U.S. could be materially adversely affected.

The FDA clears marketing of lower-risk medical devices through the 510(k) process if the manufacturer demonstrates that the new product is substantially equivalent to other 510(k)-cleared products. High risk devices deemed to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting, or implantable devices, or devices not deemed substantially equivalent to a previously cleared device, require the pre-market approval (PMA). The PMA process is more costly, and much longer, than the 510(k) clearance process. A PMA application must be supported by extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and efficacy of the device for its intended use.

The Company does not currently have any products approved for market through the PMA process. Several products are cleared for market through the 510(k) pathway or are class I products which have been designated as exempt from premarket 510(k) notification requirements. The marketing and sale of the no!no!® family of consumer products in the United States (excluding no!no! Skin and no!no! Glow which have FDA clearance), a market that accounted for approximately 89% of the total sales of this line of products for the year ended December 31, 2016, does not currently require FDA marketing clearance. Accordingly, the no!no!® line of products does not currently have any FDA-cleared indications as to their efficacy in terms of long-term or permanent hair removal or reduction in hair re-growth. Accordingly, the sale of these products is subject to limitations on the advertising claims allowed to be made regarding the hair removal and hair reduction effects of these products. This product line was sold to ICTV Brands on January 23, 2017; $4.5 million of the purchase price is in the form of a continuing royalty to be paid by the purchaser post-closing. The ability of ICTV Brands to effectively market the no!no! family of consumer products, and thus to pay the royalty to the Company, may be affected by the limitations on advertising inherent to these products and on any changes to the regulation of these products by the FDA.

The Company’s failure to comply with U.S. federal, state and foreign governmental regulations could lead to the issuance of warning letters or untitled letters, the imposition of injunctions, suspensions or loss of regulatory clearance or approvals, product recalls, or corrective action, termination of distribution, product seizures or civil penalties. In the most extreme cases, criminal sanctions or closure of the manufacturing facility are possible.

If required, clinical trials necessary to support a 510(k) notice or PMA application will be expensive and will require the enrollment of large numbers of patients, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit. Delays or failures in our clinical trials will prevent us from commercializing any modified or new products and will adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects.

Initiating and completing clinical trials necessary to support a 510(k) notice or a PMA application will be time-consuming and expensive and the outcome uncertain. Moreover, the results of early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, and any product the Company advances into clinical trials may not have favorable results in early or later clinical trials.

Conducting successful clinical studies will require the enrollment of large numbers of patients, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit. Patient enrollment in clinical trials and completion of patient participation and follow-up depend on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the attractiveness of, or the discomforts and risks associated with, the treatments received by patients enrolled as subjects, the availability of appropriate clinical trial investigators, support staff, and proximity of patients to clinical sites and ability to comply with the eligibility and exclusion criteria for participation in the clinical trial and patient compliance. For example, patients may be discouraged from enrolling in our clinical trials if the trial protocol requires them to undergo extensive post-treatment procedures or follow-up to assess the safety and effectiveness of our products or if they determine that the treatments received under the trial protocols are not attractive or involve unacceptable risks or discomforts. Patients may also not participate in our clinical trials if they choose to participate in contemporaneous clinical trials of competitive products. In addition, patients participating in clinical trials may die before completion of the trial or suffer adverse medical events unrelated to investigational products.

Development of sufficient and appropriate clinical protocols to demonstrate safety and efficacy may be required and the Company may not adequately develop such protocols to support clearance and approval. Further, the FDA may require the Company to submit data on a greater number of patients than it originally anticipated and/or for a longer follow-up period or change the data collection requirements or data analysis for any clinical trials. Delays in patient enrollment or failure of patients to continue to participate in a clinical trial may cause an increase in costs and delays in the approval and attempted commercialization of our products or result in the failure of the clinical trial. The FDA may not consider our data adequate to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Such increased costs and delays or failures could adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects.

The Company’s medical device operations are subject to pervasive and continuing FDA regulatory requirements.

Medical devices regulated by the FDA are subject to “general controls” which include: registration with the FDA; listing commercially distributed products with the FDA; complying with good manufacturing practices under the quality system regulations; filing reports with the FDA of and keeping records relative to certain types of adverse events associated with devices under the medical device reporting regulation; assuring that device labeling complies with device labeling requirements; reporting certain device field removals and corrections to the FDA; and obtaining premarket notification 510(k) clearance for devices prior to marketing. Some devices known as “510(k)-exempt” can be marketed without prior marketing clearance or approval from the FDA. In addition to the “general controls,” some Class II medical devices are also subject to “special controls,” including adherence to a particular guidance document and compliance with the performance standard. Instead of obtaining 510(k) clearance, some Class III devices are subject to premarket approval (PMA). In general, obtaining premarket approval to achieve marketing authorization from the FDA is a more onerous process than seeking 510(k) clearance.

Many medical devices are also regulated by the FDA as “electronic products.” In general, manufacturers and marketers of “electronic products” are subject to certain FDA regulatory requirements intended to ensure the radiological safety of the products. These requirements include, but are not limited to, filing certain reports with the FDA about the products and defects/safety issues related to the products as well as complying with radiological performance standards.

The medical device industry is now experiencing greater scrutiny and regulation by Federal, state and foreign governmental authorities. Companies in our industry are subject to more frequent and more intensive reviews and investigations, often involving the marketing, business practices, and product quality management including standards for device recalls and product labeling. Such reviews and investigations may result in the civil and criminal proceedings; the imposition of substantial fines and penalties; the receipt of Warning Letters, untitled letters, demands for recalls or the seizure of our products; the requirement to enter into corporate integrity agreements, stipulated judgments or other administrative remedies, and result in our incurring substantial unanticipated costs and the diversion of key personnel and management’s attention from their regular duties, any of which may have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity, and may result in greater and continuing governmental scrutiny of our business in the future.

The Company must also have the appropriate FDA clearances and/or approvals from other governmental entities in order to lawfully market devices and or/drugs. The FDA, federal, state or foreign governments and agencies may disagree that the Company has such clearance and/or approvals for all of its products and may take action to prevent the marketing and sale of such devices until such disagreements have been resolved.

Additionally, Federal, state and foreign governments and entities have enacted laws and issued regulations and other standards requiring increased visibility and transparency of our Company’s interactions with healthcare providers. For example, the U.S. Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires us to disclose payments and other transfers of value to all U.S. physicians and U.S. teaching hospitals at the U.S. federal level made after August 1, 2013. Failure to comply with these legal and regulatory requirements could impact our business, and we have had and will continue to spend substantial time and financial resources to develop and implement enhanced structures, policies, systems and processes to comply with these legal and regulatory requirements, which may also impact our business.

Healthcare policy changes may have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Healthcare costs have risen significantly over the past decade. As a result, there have been and continue to be proposals Federal, state and foreign governments and regulators as well as third-party insurance providers to limit the growth of these costs. Among these proposals are regulations that could impose limitations on the prices the Company will be able to charge for its products, the amounts of reimbursement available for its products from governmental agencies or third-party payors, requirements regarding the usage of comparative studies, technology assessments and healthcare delivery structure reforms to determine the effectiveness and select the products and therapies used for treatment of patients. While we believe our products provide favorable clinical outcomes, value and cost efficiency, the resources necessary to demonstrate this value to our customers, patients, payors, and regulators is significant and may require longer periods of time and effort in which to obtain acceptance of our products. There is no assurance that our efforts will be successful, and these limitations could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

These changes and additional proposed changes in the future could adversely affect the demand for the Company’s products as well as the way in which the Company conducts its business. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 were enacted into law in the U.S. in March 2010. The law imposed on medical device manufacturers a 2.3 percent excise tax on U.S. sales of Class I, II and III medical devices beginning in January 2013, which includes certain products marketed and sold by the Company, as well as requiring research into the effectiveness of treatment modalities and instituting changes to the reimbursement and payment systems for patient treatments. In addition, governments and regulatory agencies continue to study and propose changes to the laws governing the clearance or approval, manufacture and marketing of medical devices, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. The FDA is currently exploring ways to modify its 510(k) clearance process. In addition, due to changes at the FDA in general, it has become increasingly more difficult to obtain 510(k) clearance as data requirements have increased. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed, and what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. However, any changes could make it more difficult for the Company to maintain or attain clearance or approval to develop and commercialize our products and technologies.

Various healthcare reform proposals have also emerged at the state level. The Company cannot predict what healthcare initiatives, if any, will be implemented at the federal or state level, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on the Company. However, an expansion in government’s role in the U.S. healthcare industry may lower reimbursements for the Company’s products, reduce medical procedure volumes and adversely affect the Company’s business, possibly materially. In addition, if the excise taxes contained in the House or Senate health reform bills are enacted into law, the Company’s operating expenses resulting from such an excise tax and results of operations would be materially and adversely affected.

If the effectiveness and safety of the Company’s devices are not supported by long-term data, the Company’s revenues could decline.

The Company’s products may not be accepted in the market if the Company does not produce clinical data supported by the independent efforts of clinicians, and if that data indicates that treatment with the Company’s products does not provide patients with sustained benefits or that treatment with the Company’s products is less effective or less safe than the Company’s current data suggests, the Company’s revenues could decline. In addition, the FDA could then bring legal or regulatory enforcement actions against the Company and/or its products including, but not limited to, recalls or requirements for pre-market 510(k) authorizations. The Company can give no assurance that its data will be substantiated in studies involving more patients. In such a case, the Company may never achieve significant revenues or profitability, and with regard to its consumer products line, which was sold to ICTV Brands on January 23, 2017, the Company may not collect the $4.5 million of the purchase price which is in the form of a continuing royalty from the sale of these products by ICTV Brands, due to the inability of ICTV Brands to effectively market the no!no! family of consumer products.

If the Company is found to be promoting the use of its devices for unapproved or “off-label” uses or engaging in other noncompliant activities, the Company may be subject to recalls, seizures, fines, penalties, injunctions, adverse publicity, prosecution, or other adverse actions, resulting in damage to its reputation and business.

The Company’s labeling, advertising, promotional materials and user training materials must comply with the FDA and other applicable laws and regulations, including the prohibition of the promotion of a medical device for a use that has not been cleared or approved by the FDA. Obtaining 510(k) clearance or PMA approval only permits the Company to promote its products for the uses specifically cleared by the FDA. Use of a device outside its cleared or approved indications is known as “off-label” use. Physicians and consumers may use the Company’s products off-label because the FDA does not restrict or regulate a physician’s choice of treatment within the practice of medicine nor is there oversight on patient use of over-the-counter devices. Although the Company may request additional cleared indications for our current products, the FDA may deny those requests, require additional expensive clinical data to support any additional indications or impose limitations on the intended use of any cleared product as a condition of clearance. Even if regulatory clearance or approval of a product is granted, such clearance or approval may be subject to limitations on the intended uses for which the product may be marketed and reduce our potential to successfully commercialize the product and generate revenue from the product.

If the FDA determines that the Company’s labeling, advertising, promotional materials, or user training materials, or representations made by Company personnel, include the promotion of an off-label use for the device, or that the Company has made false or misleading or inadequately substantiated promotional claims, or claims that could potentially change the regulatory status of the product, the agency could take the position that these materials have misbranded the Company’s devices and request that the Company modifies its labeling, advertising, or user training or promotional materials and/or subject the Company to regulatory or legal enforcement actions, including the issuance of an Untitled Letter or a Warning Letter, injunction, seizure, recall, adverse publicity, civil penalties, criminal penalties, or other adverse actions. It is also possible that other federal, state, or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider the Company’s labeling, advertising, promotional, or user training materials to constitute promotion of an unapproved use, which could result in significant fines, penalties, or other adverse actions under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. In that event, we would be subject to extensive fines and penalties and the Company’s reputation could be damaged and adoption of the products would be impaired. Although the Company intends to refrain from statements that could be considered off-label promotion of its products, the FDA or another regulatory agency could disagree and conclude that the Company has engaged in off-label promotion. For example, the Company has made statements regarding some of its devices that the FDA may view as off-label promotion. In addition, any such off-label use of the Company’s products may increase the risk of injury to patients, and, in turn, the risk of product liability claims, and such claims are expensive to defend and could divert the Company’s management’s attention and result in substantial damage awards against the Company.

The Company currently markets the no!no!® product for hair removal. Based on previous feedback received from the FDA, this product is not considered a medical device so long as the Company does not promote the product for medical claims. Promotion of this product for claims beyond those agreed upon by the FDA may subject the product to regulation by the FDA, and may require clearance of a 510(k) notice to continue marketing the product.

The Company may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and could face substantial penalties if the Company is unable to fully comply with such laws.

While the Company does not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, many healthcare laws and regulations apply to the Company’s business. For example, the Company could be subject to healthcare fraud and abuse and patient privacy regulation and enforcement by both the federal government and the states in which the Company conducts its business. The healthcare laws and regulations that may affect the Company’s ability to operate include:

Recently, the medical device industry has been under heightened scrutiny as the subject of government investigations and regulatory or legal enforcement actions involving manufacturers who allegedly offered unlawful inducements to potential or existing customers in an attempt to procure their business, including arrangements with physician consultants. If the Company’s operations or arrangements are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to the Company, the Company may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the curtailment or restructuring of its operations. Any penalties, damages, fines, exclusions, curtailment or restructuring of the Company’s operations could adversely affect its ability to operate its business and its financial results. The risk of the Company being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of these laws are broad and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Any action against the Company for violation of these laws, even if the Company successfully defends against that action and the underlying alleged violations, could cause the Company to incur significant legal expenses and divert its management’s attention from the operation of its business. If the physicians or other providers or entities with whom the Company does business are found to be non-compliant with applicable laws, they may be subject to sanctions, which could also have a negative impact on the Company’s business.

The Company or its subsidiaries’ failure to obtain or maintain necessary FDA clearances or approvals, or equivalents thereof in the U.S. and relevant foreign markets, could hurt our ability to distribute and market our products.

In both the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ United States and foreign markets, the Company and its subsidiaries are affected by extensive laws, governmental regulations, administrative determinations, court decisions and similar constraints. Such laws, regulations and other constraints may exist at the federal, state or local levels in the United States and at analogous levels of government in foreign jurisdictions.

For example, certain of the Company’s skincare products and product candidates may fall under the regulatory purview of various centers at the FDA and in other countries by similar health and regulatory authorities.

In addition, the formulation, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, distribution, importation, sale and storage of the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ products are subject to extensive regulation by various federal agencies, including, but not limited to, the FDA, the FTC, State Attorneys General in the United States, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in Japan, as well as by various other federal, state, local and international regulatory authorities in the countries in which its products are manufactured, distributed or sold. If the Company or its manufacturers fail to comply with those regulations, the Company and its subsidiaries could become subject to significant penalties or claims, which could harm its results of operations or its ability to conduct its business. In addition, the adoption of new regulations or changes in the interpretations of existing regulations may result in significant compliance costs or discontinuation of product sales and may impair the marketing of its products, resulting in significant loss of net sales. The Company’s failure to comply with federal or state regulations, or with regulations in foreign markets that cover its product claims and advertising, including direct claims and advertising by the Company or its subsidiaries, may result in enforcement actions and imposition of penalties or otherwise harm the distribution and sale of its products. Further, the Company and its subsidiaries’ businesses are subject to laws governing our accounting, tax and import and export activities. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in legal and/or financial consequences that might adversely affect its sales and profitability. Each medical device that the Company wishes to market in the U.S. must first receive either 510(k) clearance or premarket approval from the FDA unless an exemption applies. Either process can be lengthy and expensive. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process may take from three to twelve months, or longer, and may or may not require human clinical data. The premarket approval process is much more costly and lengthy. It may take from eleven months to three years, or even longer, and will likely require significant supporting human clinical data. Delays in obtaining regulatory clearance or approval could adversely affect the Company’s revenues and profitability. Although the Company has obtained 510(k) clearances for its LHE devices as these clearances may be subject to revocation if post-marketing data demonstrates safety issues or lack of effectiveness. Similar clearance processes may apply in foreign countries. Further, more stringent regulatory requirements or safety and quality standards may be issued in the future with an adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Although cosmetic products such as those contained in the Company’s former Neova product division are not subject to any FDA premarket approval or clearance process, they must, nonetheless, comply with the FDA’s formulation, manufacturing and labeling requirements or such products may be considered adulterated or misbranded by the agency which could subject the Company to potential regulatory or legal enforcement actions. Similar, or more stringent, requirements may apply in foreign jurisdictions as well. The Company may also find that if its cosmetic products compete with a third-party’s drug product, competitive and regulatory pressure may be applied against the cosmetic products. Some cosmetic products may be viewed by the FDA or international regulatory agencies as drugs or devices to a large extent based upon the promotional claims or ingredients. Because there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether marketing materials or statements constitute product claims and whether they involve drug claims, the Company’s claims and interpretation of applicable regulations may be challenged, which could harm its business.

Sunscreen products such as those contained in the Company’s former Neova product division that contain ingredients or make claims beyond those identified by the FDA in its sunscreen monograph and corresponding guidance documents are considered over-the-counter drugs. The cosmetics containing sunscreen ingredients are required to conform with the FDA’s sunscreen monograph as well as other international regulatory requirements for sunscreen products. The FDA may view some of the Company’s sunscreen products as new drugs if the FDA determines that its formula and/or claims are not in compliance with the monograph or applicable guidance. In addition, certain countries may impose additional regulatory requirements upon these products in order for these products to be marketed and sold in those countries.

The Company has modified some of its products and sold them under prior 510(k) clearances. The FDA could decide the modifications required new 510(k) clearances and require the Company to cease marketing and/or recall the modified products.

Any modification to one of the Company’s 510(k) cleared devices that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, requires a new 510(k) clearance or a pre-market approval. The Company may be required to submit pre-clinical and clinical data depending on the nature of the changes and the product. The Company may not be able to obtain additional 510(k) clearances or pre-market approvals for modifications to, or additional indications for, its existing products in a timely fashion, or at all. Delays in obtaining future clearances or approvals would adversely affect its ability to introduce new or enhanced products into the market in a timely manner, which in turn would harm its revenue and operating results. The Company has modified some of its marketed devices, but the Company has determined, and may make such additional determinations in the future, that new 510(k) clearances or pre-market approvals are not required. The FDA requires every manufacturer to make this determination in the first instance, but the FDA may review the manufacturer’s decision. The Company cannot be certain that the FDA would agree with any of its prior or future decisions not to seek new 510(k) clearances or pre-market approvals. If the FDA requires the Company to seek new 510(k) clearance or a pre-market approval for any modification, the Company also may be required to cease marketing, distributions and/or recall the modified device until the Company obtains such 510(k) clearance or pre-market approval, and may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties. The FDA could also bring legal or regulatory enforcement action against the Company or its products.

Any recall or FDA requirement that the Company seek additional approvals or clearances could result in significant delays, fines, increased costs associated with modification of a product, loss of revenue and potential operating restrictions imposed by the FDA. New submissions to obtain 510(k) clearance or PMA approval could require additional pre-clinical and/or clinical testing which could be expensive and time consuming.

There is no guarantee that the FDA will grant 510(k) clearance or PMA approval of our future products and failure to obtain necessary clearances or approvals for our future products would adversely affect our ability to grow our business.

Some of the Company’s new or modified products may require the FDA clearance of a 510(k) notice. In addition some of the products may require clinical trials to support regulatory approval and we may not successfully complete these clinical trials. The FDA may not approve or clear these products for the indications that are necessary or desirable for successful commercialization. Indeed, the FDA may refuse requests for 510(k) clearance or premarket approval of new products. Failure to receive clearance or approval for new products would have an adverse effect on the Company’s ability to expand our business.

The results of the Company’s clinical trials may not support our product candidate claims or may result in the discovery of adverse side effects.

Even if any of the Company’s clinical trials are completed as planned, it cannot be certain that study results will support product candidate claims or that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will agree with our conclusions regarding them. Success in pre-clinical evaluation and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the later trials will replicate the results of prior trials and pre-clinical studies. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for the proposed indicated uses, which could cause us to abandon a product candidate and may delay development of others. Any delay or termination of our clinical trials will delay the filing of our product submissions and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenues. It is also possible that patients enrolled in clinical trials will experience adverse side effects that are not currently part of the product candidate’s profile.

The Company’s market acceptance in international markets requires regulatory approvals from foreign governments and may depend on third party reimbursement of participants’ cost.

Even if the Company obtains and maintains the necessary foreign regulatory registrations or approvals, market acceptance of the Company’s products in international markets may be dependent, in part, upon the availability of reimbursement within applicable healthcare payment systems. Reimbursement and healthcare payment systems in international markets vary significantly by country, and include both government-sponsored healthcare and private insurance. The Company may seek international reimbursement approvals for its products, but the Company cannot assure you that any such approvals will be obtained in a timely manner, if at all. Failure to receive international reimbursement approvals in any given market could have a material adverse effect on the acceptance or growth of the Company’s products in that market or others.

If the Company or its third-party manufacturers or suppliers fail to comply with the FDA’s Quality System Regulation or any applicable state equivalent, the Company’s manufacturing operations could be interrupted and the Company’s potential product sales and operating results could suffer.

The Company and some of its third-party manufacturers and suppliers are required to comply with some or all of the FDA’s drug Good Manufacturing Practices or its QSR, which delineates the design controls, document controls, purchasing controls, identification and traceability, production and process controls, acceptance activities, nonconforming product requirements, corrective and preventive action requirements, labeling and packaging controls, handling, storage, distribution and installation requirements, records requirements, servicing requirements, and statistical techniques potentially applicable to the production of the Company’s medical devices. The Company and its manufacturers and suppliers are also subject to the regulations of foreign jurisdictions regarding the manufacturing process if the Company markets its products overseas. The FDA enforces the QSR through periodic and announced or unannounced inspections of manufacturing facilities. The Company’s facilities have been inspected by the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and the Company anticipates that it and certain of its third-party manufacturers and suppliers will be subject to additional future inspections. If the Company’s facilities or those of its manufacturers or suppliers are found to be in non-compliance or fail to take satisfactory corrective action in response to adverse QSR inspectional findings, FDA could take legal or regulatory enforcement actions against the Company and/or its products, including but not limited to the cessation of sales or the recall of distributed products, which could impair the Company’s ability to produce its products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet its customers’ demands. The Company may also be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on its future sales and its ability to generate profits.

Current regulations depend heavily on administrative interpretation. If the FDA does not believe that the Company is in substantial compliance with applicable FDA regulations, the agency could take legal or regulatory enforcement actions against the Company and/or its products. The Company is also subject to periodic inspections by the FDA, other governmental regulatory agencies, as well as certain third-party regulatory groups. Future interpretations made by the FDA or other regulatory bodies made during the course of these inspections may vary from current interpretations and may adversely affect the Company’s business and prospects. The FDA’s and foreign regulatory agencies’ statutes, regulations, or policies may change, and additional government regulation or statutes may be enacted, which could increase post-approval regulatory requirements, or delay, suspend, prevent marketing of any cleared / approved products or necessitate the recall of distributed products. The Company cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of adverse governmental regulation that might arise from future legislative or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad.

Recently, the medical device industry has been under heightened FDA scrutiny as the subject of government investigations and enforcement actions. If the Company’s operations and activities are found to be in violation of any FDA laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to the Company, the Company may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines and other legal and/or agency enforcement actions. Any penalties, damages, fines, or curtailment or restructuring of the Company’s operations or activities could adversely affect its ability to operate its business and its financial results. The risk of the Company being found in violation of FDA laws is increased by the fact that many of these laws are broad and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Any action against the Company for violation of these laws, even if the Company successfully defends against that action and its underlying allegations, could cause the Company to incur significant legal expenses and divert its management’s attention from the operation of its business. Where there is a dispute with a federal or state governmental agency that cannot be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all relevant parties, the Company may determine that the costs, both real and contingent, are not justified by the commercial returns to the Company from maintaining the dispute or the product.

Various claims, design features or performance characteristics of Company drugs, medical devices and cosmetic products, that the Company regarded as permitted by the FDA without marketing clearance or approval, may be challenged by the FDA or state regulators. The FDA or state regulatory authorities may find that certain claims, design features or performance characteristics, in order to be made or included in the products, may have to be supported by further studies and marketing clearances or approvals, which could be lengthy, costly and possibly unobtainable.

The Company has no outstanding Warning Letters from the FDA.

If the Company fails to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements, or if it experiences unanticipated problems with products, these products could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market.

The Company is also subject to similar state requirements and licenses. Failure by the Company to comply with statutes and regulations administered by the FDA and other regulatory bodies, discovery of previously unknown problems with its products (including unanticipated adverse events or adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency), manufacturing problems, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, or failure to adequately respond to any FDA observations concerning these issues, could result in, among other things, any of the following actions:

If any of these actions were to occur, it would harm the Company’s reputation and adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company’s medical products may in the future be subject to product recalls that could harm its reputation, business and financial results.

The FDA has the authority to require the recall of commercialized medical device products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture. In the case of the FDA, the authority to require a recall must be based on an FDA finding that there is a reasonable probability that the device would cause serious injury or death. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by the Company or one of its distributors could occur as a result of component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues. Recalls of any of the Company’s products would divert managerial and financial resources and have an adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. The FDA requires that certain classifications of recalls be reported to the FDA within ten (10) working days after the recall is initiated. Companies are required to maintain certain records of recalls, even if they are not reportable to the FDA. The Company may initiate voluntary recalls involving its products in the future that the Company determines do not require notification of the FDA. If the FDA disagrees with the Company’s determinations, they could require the Company to report those actions as recalls. A future recall announcement could harm the Company’s reputation with customers and negatively affect its sales. In addition, the FDA could take enforcement action for failing to report the recalls when they were conducted. No recalls of the Company’s medical products have been reported to the FDA.

If the Company’s medical products cause or contribute to a death or a serious injury, or malfunction in certain ways, we will be subject to medical device reporting regulations, which can result in voluntary corrective actions or agency enforcement actions.

Under the FDA medical device reporting regulations, medical device manufacturers are required to report to the FDA information that a device has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or has malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury if the malfunction of the device or one of our similar devices were to recur. If the Company fails to report these events to the FDA within the required timeframes, or at all, the FDA could take enforcement action against the Company. Any such adverse event involving its products also could result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection or enforcement action. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, as well as defending ourselves in a lawsuit, will require the dedication of the Company’s time and capital, distract management from operating our business, and may harm its reputation and financial results.

Risk Factors Relating to an Investment in our Securities

Potential fluctuations in the Company’s operating results could lead to fluctuations in the market price for the Company’s common stock.

The Company’s results of operations are expected to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter, depending upon numerous factors, including:

Variations in the above operating factors could lead to significant fluctuations in the market price of the Company’s stock.

The Company’s stock price has been and continues to be volatile.

The market price for the Company’s common stock could fluctuate due to various factors. In addition to other factors described in this section, these factors may include, among others:

In addition, the stock markets have, in recent years, experienced significant volume and price fluctuations. These fluctuations often have been unrelated to the operating performance of the specific companies whose stock is traded. Market prices and the trading volume of our stock may continue to experience significant fluctuations due to matters described in this Item 1A, as well as economic and political conditions in the United States and worldwide, investors’ attitudes towards our business prospects and products, and changes in the interests of the investing community. As a result, the market price of the Company’s common stock has been and may continue to be adversely affected and our shareholders may not be able to sell their shares or to sell them at desired prices.

Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing.

 On September 29, 2015, the Company received written notification from The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC that the closing bid price of its common stock had been below the minimum $1.00 per share for the previous 30 consecutive business days, and that the Company is therefore not in compliance with the requirements for continued listing on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 5450(a)(1). The Notice provides the Company with an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until March 28, 2016, to regain compliance with the listing rules. The Company would regain compliance if the closing bid price of its common stock is $1.00 per share or higher for a minimum period of ten consecutive business days during this compliance period, as confirmed by written notification from NASDAQ. If the Company does not achieve compliance by March 28, 2016, NASDAQ would provide notice that its securities were subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Global Select Market. As of March 28, 2016, the Company’s bid price remained under $1.00 per share.

On March 10, 2016, trade in the Company’s common stock transferred to the NASDAQ Capital Market. This move to the Capital Market will not affect the trading of the Company's common stock. The NASDAQ Capital Market is a continuous trading market that operates in substantially the same manner as the NASDAQ Global Select Market, but with less stringent listing requirements. The Company's common shares will continue to trade on NASDAQ under the symbol "PHMD."

On March 30, 2016, the Company was notified by NASDAQ that its request for a six month extension of time in which to comply with the bid price requirement had been granted. The transfer of its stock from the NASDAQ Global Select Market to the NASDAQ Capital Market was part of the process to request and receive such an extension. PhotoMedex considered a range of available options to regain compliance with this continued listing standard, and had provided written notice to NASDAQ of its intention to cure the minimum bid price deficiency during a second grace period by carrying out a reverse stock split, if necessary. At its 2015 annual meeting, PhotoMedex shareholders granted authority to the board of directors to implement, as needed, a reverse split in a ratio up to one common share for each five shares outstanding.

On September 7, 2016 the Company’s Board of Directors approved a reverse split in a ratio of 1-for-five.  The 2016 reverse split was implemented on September 23, 2016 (the “2016 Reverse Split”).  The amount of authorized Common Stock as well as the par value for the Common Stock were not effected.  Any fractional shares resulting from the 2016 Reverse Split were rounded up to the nearest whole share.

All Common Stock, warrants, options and per share amounts set forth herein are presented to give retroactive effect to the 2016 Reverse Split for all periods presented.

On September 23, 2016, the Company’s Common stock and warrants approved for listing on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol PHMD.  Shares were previously listed on the NASDAQ Global Market under the same symbol.

On November 18, 2016, the Company received written notification (the “Notice”) from NASDAQ that the Company’s stockholder equity reported on its Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2016 had fallen below the minimum requirement of $2.5 million, and that the Company is therefore not in compliance with the requirements for continued listing on the NASDAQ Capital Market under NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 5550(b)(1). The Notice provided the Company with a period of 45 calendar days, or until January 2, 2017, to submit a plan to regain compliance with the listing rules; that plan was filed with NASDAQ on January 10, 2017 under a one-week extension due to the holiday period.

NASDAQ has granted the Company an extension of time to comply with the Rule until March 10, 2017, by which time the Company must complete its review and reconciliation of the post-Asset Sale financials and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and NASDAQ a report on Form 8-K evidencing compliance with the Rule by disclosing:

(i)        the original deficiency letter from NASDAQ dated November 17, 2004;

(ii)        a description of the completed transaction or event that enabled the Company to satisfy the stockholders’ equity requirement for continued listing;

(iii)        either an affirmative statement that, as of the date of the report the Company believed that it had regained compliance with the stockholders’ equity requirement based upon the completed transaction or event OR a balance sheet no older than 60 days with pro forma adjustments for any significant transactions or event occurring on or before the report date that evidences compliance with the stockholders' equity requirement, as well as a disclosure that the Company believes it also satisfies the stockholders’ equity requirement as of the report date; and

(iv)        a disclosure stating that NASDAQ will continue to monitor the Company’s ongoing compliance with the stockholders’ equity requirement and, if at the time of the Company’s next periodic report the Company does not evidence compliance, the Company may be subject to delisting.

On March 15, 2017, the Company received notice from NASDAQ that it had granted the Company an additional extension of time to comply with the Rule until March 31, 2017, at which time it was expected to enter into an agreement regarding a transaction with First Capital Real Estate Operating Partnership, L.P. and its affiliates. NASDAQ may grant a further extension to May 17, 2017, by which time the Company must complete its review and reconciliation of the post-Asset Sale financials, complete the pending transaction with First Capital, and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and NASDAQ a report on Form 8-K evidencing compliance with the Rule, as set forth above.

If the Company fails to evidence compliance with the Rule upon filing its periodic report for the period ended March 31, 2017 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and NASDAQ, the Company may be subject to delisting. In the event the Company does not satisfy the terms, NASDAQ will provide written notification to the Company that its securities will be delisted. At that time, the Company may appeal the delisting notice to a Listing Qualifications Panel.

Because our business will be smaller following the sale of the Consumer Products Division, there is a possibility that our common stock may be delisted from The NASDAQ Capital Market if we fail to satisfy the continued listing standards of that market.

As noted above, the Company received notice from NASDAQ that the Company no longer satisfied the $2.5 million stockholders’ equity requirement for continued listing on The NASDAQ Capital Market. Following the sale of the Radiancy Business the Company’s business will be smaller and, therefore, it may fail to satisfy or regain the continued listing standards of The NASDAQ Capital Market. In the event that the Company is unable to satisfy the continued listing standards of The NASDAQ Capital Market, its common stock may be delisted from that market. Any delisting of its common stock from the NASDAQ Capital Market could adversely affect the Company’s ability to attract new investors, decrease the liquidity of its outstanding shares of common stock, reduce the Company’s flexibility to raise additional capital, reduce the price at which the common stock trades and increase the transaction costs inherent in trading such shares with overall negative effects for the Company’s shareholders. In addition, delisting of the Company’s common stock could deter broker-dealers from making a market in or otherwise seeking or generating interest in the common stock, and might deter certain institutions and persons from investing in those securities at all. For these reasons and others, delisting could adversely affect the price of the Company’s common stock and its business, financial condition and results of operations.

We will continue to incur the expenses of complying with public company reporting requirements following the sale of the Neova and Consumer Products divisions.

After the sale of the Neova products and Consumer Products divisions, the Company will continue to be required to comply with the applicable reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ Exchange Act ”), even though compliance with such reporting requirements is economically burdensome.

Shares eligible for future sale by the Company’s current or future stockholders may cause the Company’s stock price to decline.

If the Company’s stockholders or holders of the Company’s other securities sell substantial amounts of the Company’s common stock in the public market, including shares issued in completed acquisitions or upon the exercise of outstanding options and warrants, then the market price of the Company’s common stock could fall.

Issuance of shares of the Company’s common stock upon the exercise of options or warrants will dilute the ownership interest of the Company’s existing stockholders and could adversely affect the market price of the Company’s common stock.

As of March 30, 2017, the Company had outstanding stock options to purchase an aggregate of 134,150 shares of common stock and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 64,500 shares of common stock. The exercise of the stock options and warrants and the sales of stock issuable pursuant to them would further reduce a stockholder’s percentage voting and ownership interest. Further, the stock options and warrants are likely to be exercised when the Company’s common stock is trading at a price that is higher than the exercise price of these options and warrants and the Company would be able to obtain a higher price for the Company’s common stock than the Company would receive under such options and warrants. The exercise, or potential exercise, of these options and warrants could adversely affect the market price of the Company’s common stock and the terms on which the Company could obtain additional financing. The ownership interest of the Company’s existing stockholders may be further diluted through adjustments to certain outstanding warrants under the terms of their anti-dilution provisions.

Securities analysts may not initiate coverage for the Company’s common stock or may issue negative reports and this may have a negative impact on the market price of the Company’s common stock.

The trading market for the Company’s common stock may be affected in part by the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about the Company or the Company’s business. It may be difficult for companies such as the Company, with smaller market capitalizations, to attract a sufficient number of securities analysts that will cover the Company’s common stock. If one or more of the analysts who elect to cover the Company downgrades the Company’s stock, the Company’s stock price would likely decline rapidly. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of the Company, the Company could lose visibility in the market, which in turn could cause its stock price to decline. This could have a negative effect on the market price of the Company’s stock.

Our management will have broad discretion over the use of the proceeds from the future sale of the securities.

In connection with the future sale of our securities, our management will have broad discretion to use the net proceeds from such sale, and investors will be relying on the judgment of our management regarding the application of such proceeds. Our management might not be able to yield a significant return, if any, on any investment of the net proceeds.

The Company has not paid dividends in the past and does not expect to pay dividends in the future.

The Company has never declared or paid cash dividends on its capital stock. The Company currently intends to retain all future earnings for the operation and expansion of its business and, therefore, does not anticipate declaring or paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

The payment of dividends will be at the discretion of the Company’s board of directors and will depend on the Company’s results of operations, capital requirements, financial condition, prospects, contractual arrangements, any limitations on payments of dividends present in any of the Company’s future debt agreements and other factors the Company’s board of directors may deem relevant. If the Company does not pay dividends, a return on your investment will only occur if the Company’s stock price appreciates.

The Company’s future capital needs could result in dilution of your investment.

The Company’s board of directors may determine from time to time that there is a need to obtain additional capital through the issuance of additional shares of the Company’s common stock or other securities. These issuances would likely dilute the ownership interests of the Company’s current investors and may dilute the net tangible book value per share of the Company’s common stock. Investors in subsequent offerings may also have rights, preferences and privileges senior to the Company’s current stockholders which may adversely impact the Company’s current stockholders.

Our directors, executive officers and principal stockholders currently have substantial control over us and could delay or prevent a change in corporate control.

As of March 30, 2017, our directors, executive officers and holders of more than 5% of our common stock, together with their affiliates, beneficially own, in the aggregate, approximately 22.4% of our outstanding common stock. As a result, these stockholders, if they were to act together, could have significant influence over the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, these stockholders, if they were to act together, could have significant influence over the management and affairs of our company. Accordingly, this concentration of ownership might harm the market price of our common stock by:

Nevada law and the Company’s charter documents contain provisions that could delay or prevent actual and potential changes in control, even if they would benefit stockholders.

As of December 30, 2010, the Company became a corporation chartered in the State of Nevada. The Company is subject to provisions of the Nevada corporate statutes which prohibit a business combination between a corporation and an interested stockholder, which is generally a stockholder holding 10% or more of a company’s stock.

The Company’s articles of incorporation authorize the issuance of preferred shares which may be issued with dividend, liquidation, voting and redemption rights senior to our common stock without prior approval by the stockholders. The preferred stock may be issued for such consideration as may be fixed from time to time by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors may issue such shares of preferred stock in one or more series, with such designations, preferences and rights or qualifications, limitations or restrictions thereof as shall be stated in the resolution of resolutions.

The issuance of preferred stock could adversely affect the voting power and other rights of the holders of common stock. Preferred stock may be issued quickly with terms calculated to discourage, make more difficult, delay or prevent a change in control of the Company or make removal of management more difficult. As a result, the Board of Directors’ ability to issue preferred stock may discourage the potential hostile acquirer, possibly resulting in beneficial negotiations. Negotiating with an unfriendly acquirer may result in, among other things, terms more favorable to the Company and its stockholders. Conversely, the issuance of preferred stock may adversely affect any market price of, and the voting and other rights of the holders of the common stock. The Company presently has no plans to issue any preferred stock.

These and other provisions in the Nevada corporate statutes and our charter documents could delay or prevent actual and potential changes in control, even if they would benefit the Company’s stockholders.

There are no unresolved comments from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

We lease a 5,581 sq. ft. facility in New York that houses parts of sales and operations. The term of the lease runs until December 31, 2017.

We lease office space at a facility in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania that currently houses part of our finance and legal departments. The term of the lease runs until April 30, 2017.

We lease a 17,222 sq. ft. building in Hod-Hasharon, Israel, that is used for marketing, operations and research and development. The term of the lease runs until April 30, 2017.

We lease a 3,200 sq. ft. building in London, England that is used for marketing and operations. The term of the lease runs until March 24, 2018.

During the year ended December 31, 2013, Radiancy, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of PhotoMedex, commenced legal action against Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc., over Viatek’s Pearl and Samba hair removal products which Radiancy believes infringe the intellectual property covering its no!no! hair removal devices. The first suit, which was filed in the United States Federal Court, Southern District of New York, includes claims against Viatek for patent infringement, trademark and trade dress infringement, and false and misleading advertising. A second suit against Viatek was filed in Canada, where the Pearl is offered on that country’s The Shopping Channel, alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, and false and misleading advertising. Viatek’s response contains a variety of counterclaims and affirmative defenses against both Radiancy and its parent company PhotoMedex, including, among other counts, claims regarding the invalidity of Radiancy’s patents and antitrust allegations regarding Radiancy’s conduct.

Radiancy, and PhotoMedex, had moved to dismiss PhotoMedex from the case, and to dismiss the counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserted by Viatek. On March 28, 2014, the Court granted the Company’s motion and dismissed PhotoMedex from the lawsuit. The Court also dismissed certain counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserted by Viatek, including Viatek’s counterclaims against Radiancy for antitrust, unfair competition, and tortuous interference with business relationships and Viatek’s affirmative defenses of unclean hands and inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring its patent. Radiancy had also moved for sanctions against Viatek for failure to provide meaningful and timely responses to Radiancy’s discovery requests; on April 1, 2014, the Court granted that motion. Viatek appealed both the sanctions ruling and the dismissal of Viatek’s counterclaims and defenses from the case, as well as PhotoMedex dismissal as a plaintiff; the Court has denied those appeals. The Court has appointed a Special Master to oversee discovery. A Markman hearing on the patents at issue was held on March 2, 2015. Viatek has requested an opportunity to supplement its patent invalidity contentions in the US case; Radiancy opposes that request. Radiancy has been granted permission by the US Court to supplement its earlier sanctions motion to include the legal fees and costs associated with preparing and prosecuting that motion; to date, Viatek has paid $83 in sanctions to Radiancy.

On October 4, 2016, PhotoMedex, Inc., Radiancy, Inc. and Viatek Consumer Products, Inc. entered into General Releases under which the parties and the former and present corporations in which they were or are shareholders; each and every one of their corporations; and such corporations’ predecessors, former and present subsidiaries, parent entities, affiliates, divisions, licensees, receivers, distributors, successors and assigns, and the present, former and future officers, directors, employees and shareholders of the foregoing entities, and their heirs, executors, administrators, attorneys, associates, agents, successors, assigns, and anyone affiliated with or acting on behalf of any of them, from all actions, claims, liabilities, causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, extents, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever, in law, admiralty or equity, that a party or its affiliate ever had, now has or hereafter can, shall or may have, from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of the General Release including, but not limited to, the claims and counterclaims in the United States and Canadian litigation, as well as all claims and rights of Viatek arising out of or related to the Letter of Intent, dated August 5, 2016, between Photomedex, Radiancy and Viatek entitled Proposal to Acquire Certain Assets of Radiancy, Inc. As a result of these General Releases, both the United States and the Canadian litigation were dismissed without costs effective October 11, 2016.

On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company’s subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy’s President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who purchased Radiancy’s no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date, Radiancy, has not been served. A mediation was scheduled in this matter for November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached. On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business Law §349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; the other counts against Radiancy were dismissed without prejudice. The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's motion to dismiss the actions against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him by the Court. The Court denied the plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery with respect to Dr. Rafaeli and plaintiffs request to amend the complaint. Radiancy and its officers intend to continue to vigorously defend themselves against any attempts to continue this lawsuit.

On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs’ attorneys refiled their putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against only the Company’s subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. The claims of the suit are virtually identical to the claims originally considered, and dismissed without prejudice, by the same Court. A companion suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, raising the same claims on behalf of plaintiffs from New York and West Virginia against Radiancy and its President, Dr. Dolev Rafaeli. That New York case was removed to the D.C. Court and the cases were consolidated into one action. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint against Dr. Rafaeli and Radiancy; on August 1, 2016, the D.C. Court granted the dismissal of the case against Dr. Rafaeli, with prejudice, and decided to allow the action against Radiancy to proceed. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against this suit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters.

On June 30, 2014, the Company’s subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy’s no!no! hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification of the class, which consists of customers in the State of California who purchased the no!no! hair devices. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint; the case is now in the discovery phase. On October 30, 2015, Radiancy filed to remove this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; as a result of that filing, all discovery in this case has now been stayed. That removal was granted, and the Company has now filed to remove this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the district with jurisdiction over Jan Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states, including California, who purchased Radiancy’s no!no! hair products and alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states... The Company’s Motion to Remove the Cantley case had been stayed pending resolution of the Mouzon litigation; now that the Court in Mouzon has issued its opinion regarding the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, the California Court has granted the Company’s Motion to Remove the Cantley case to the Federal Court for the District of Columbia. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters.

On February 19, 2016, the Company and its subsidiaries entered into Agreements and Plans of Merger and Reorganization with DS Healthcare Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“DSKX”), under which DSKX would acquire the Company’s subsidiaries Radiancy, Inc. and PhotoMedex Technology, Inc. in exchange for shares of stock in DSKX as well as cash payments and notes for future cash payments. Subsequent to the signing of those Agreements, on March 23, 2016, DSKX filed a Current Report on Form 8-K (the “DSKX March 23 Form 8-K”) with the SEC reporting its audit committee, after discussion with its independent registered public accounting firm, concluded that the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of DSKX for the two fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 should no longer be relied upon because of certain errors in such financial statements. Also, DSKX reported that its audit committee, consisting of all members of its board of directors other than Daniel Khesin (at the time DSKX’s President and Chairman of the Board and a member of its board of directors), had engaged independent counsel to conduct an investigation regarding certain transactions involving Mr. Khesin and other individuals; the committee’s investigation had begun earlier in February. The board also reported that it had terminated the employment of Mr. Khesin as DSKX’s president and as an employee of DSKX, and also terminated Mr. Khesin’s employment agreement, dated December 16, 2013, for cause.

The Company was not advised of this investigation during its negotiations with DSKX or after signing the Merger Agreements until the evening of March 21, 2016. On April 12, 2016, the Company sent a Reservation of Rights letter to DSKX. The Notice states that, based upon the disclosures set forth in DSKX’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 23, 2016 and subsequent press releases and filings by DSKX with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (collectively, the “DSKX Public Disclosure”), DSKX is in material breach of various representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth in the Agreements; had failed to provide to the Company the information contained in the DSKX Public Disclosures during the discussions relating to the negotiation and execution of the Agreements; and continues to be in material breach under the Agreements. As a result, the conditions precedent to the closing of these transactions as set forth in the Agreements may not be able to occur. The Notice also declares that the Company reserves all its rights and remedies under the Agreements, including, without limitation, the right to terminate the Agreements and collect a termination fee from DSKX of $3.0 million. The Notice further asserts that the Company regards certain provisions of the Agreements to have been waived by DSKX and to no longer be in effect, including the non-solicitation and no-shop provisions, negative covenants, and termination events, as applicable solely to the PHMD Group, as well as the payment of any termination fee by PHMD to DSKX. Finally, the Notice provided that the Company has the right to terminate the Agreements to pursue, consider and enter into any acquisition proposal or other transaction without the payment of fees and expenses to DSKX. 

On May 27, 2016, the Company and its subsidiaries Radiancy, Inc., an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“Radiancy”), and Photomedex Technology, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“P-Tech”), terminated: (a) the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of February 19, 2016 (the “Radiancy Merger Agreement”), among the Company, Radiancy, DS Healthcare Group, Inc. (“DSKX”) and PHMD Consumer Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of DSKX (“Merger Sub A”), and (b) the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of February 19, 2016 (the “P-Tech Merger Agreement” and together with the Radiancy Merger Agreement, the “Merger Agreements”), among the Company, P-Tech, DSKX, and PHMD Professional Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of DSKX (“Merger Sub B”). Pursuant to the Merger Agreements, Radiancy was to merge with Merger Sub A, with Radiancy as the surviving corporation in such merger, P-Tech was to merge with Merger Sub B, with P-Tech as the surviving corporation in such merger, and DSKX was to become the holding company for Radiancy and P-Tech.

Given the material breaches identified in the Company’s notice to DSKX, and other disclosures and communications by DSKX, in connection with the Company’s termination of the Merger Agreements and pursuant to their terms, the Company is seeking to recover a termination fee of $3.0 million, an expense reimbursement of up to $750,000 and its liabilities and damages suffered as a result of DSKX’s failures and breaches in connection with each of the Merger Agreements. On May 27, 2016, the Company, Radiancy and P-Tech filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging breaches of the Merger Agreements by DSKX and seeking the damages described in the foregoing sentence. On August 1, 2016, DSKX filed its answer to the complaint, denying the allegations stated in the complaint and alleging its own counterclaims including, among others, the Company’s alleged failure to disclose the Mouzon and Cantley cases filed against Radiancy.

At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters.

During 2016, Linda Andrews, an alleged user of the no!no! Hair device, filed a product liability claim against the Company, its subsidiary Radiancy, Inc., and Dr. Dolev Rafaeli, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, alleging that use of the device had caused a relapse of and complication to a pre-existing medical condition resulting from her treatment for cancer.  The complaint alleges, among other claims, that Radiancy failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the operation of the device.  The Company and Dr. Rafaeli have filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them; Radiancy filed an answer to the Complaint.  Ms. Doe then sought leave to amend her complaint to clarify the claims; the Company, Radiancy and Dr. Rafaeli have filed appropriate responses and renewed the motion to dismiss the claims against the Company and Dr. Rafaeli.  Those motions are now pending before the Court.  The company otherwise has denied the allegations of a defect and intends to defend itself vigorously against this suit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and discovery has not been fully conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters.

None.

PART II

As of March 30, 2017, we had 4,361,094 shares of common stock issued and outstanding, including 129,250 shares of nonvested restricted stock. This did not include (i) options to purchase 134,150 shares of common stock, of which 105,511 were vested as of March 30, 2017, or (ii) warrants to purchase up to 64,500 shares of common stock, all of which warrants were vested.

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market (“Nasdaq”) under the symbol "PHMD." The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low closing sale prices per share of our common stock:

On March 30, 2017, the last reported sale price for our common stock on Nasdaq was $1.81 per share. As of March 30, 2017, we had approximately 1,095 stockholders of record, without giving effect to determining the number of stockholders who held shares in “street name” or other nominee accounts. This table has been updated to reflect the reserve stock split effected September 23, 2016.

Dividend Policy

We have not declared or paid any dividend on our common stock, since our inception. We do not anticipate that any dividends on our common stock will be declared or paid in the future.

Overview of Equity Compensation Plans

The following is a summary of all of our equity compensation plans, including plans that were assumed through acquisitions and individual arrangements that provide for the issuance of equity securities as compensation, as of December 31, 2016. See Notes 1 and 12 to the consolidated financial statements for additional discussion.

Options have been granted to employees and/or consultants out of our 2005 Equity Compensation Plan. Restricted stock awards of 129,250 were issued but not vested as of December 31, 2016. Options to our outside directors will be made from our 2000 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan. Most warrants issued by us have been to investors or placement agents, and no warrants have been issued pursuant to equity compensation plans. Additionally, all outstanding options were granted as compensation for benefits inuring to us other than for benefits from capital-raising activities. With limited exceptions under Nasdaq membership requirements, we intend in the future to issue options pursuant to equity compensation plans which have already been approved by our stockholders. This table has been updated to reflect the reserve stock split effected September 23, 2016.

Recent Issuances of Unregistered Securities

None.

Purchases of Equity Securities

None.

Not required.

The following financial data, in this narrative, are expressed in thousands, except for the earnings per share. The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Report.

Introduction, Outlook and Overview of Business Operations

After a period of significant growth and profitability following the PhotoMedex-Radiancy merger and concurrent with entering into the Chase Credit Agreement and the merger with LCA-Vision, Inc., the Company began to face a number of factors that caused the operating profitability of its consumer business to suffer. These factors included competition from consumer device companies claiming similar product functionality, the inability to purchase cost effective advertising to promote our consumer product portfolio, and the inability to effectively expand operations into foreign markets. Furthermore, after satisfying on June 23, 2015 the bank covenant defaults of our senior credit facility, we continued to face a challenging media environment to purchase cost effective advertisement in the USA, our largest product distribution market. Coupled with our inability to attract sufficient financial resources to quickly increase our advertisement to overcome the market confusion created by competitors and quickly ramp new and innovative product launches in the second half of the 2015, the Company entertained a variety of inquiries to sell-off the remainder of its assets. The Company began to restructure its operations and redirect its efforts in a manner that management expected would result in improved results of operations and address certain defaults in its commercial bank loan covenants. During this time the Company has also sold off certain business units and product lines to support this restructuring culminating in the sale of its consumer products division on January 23, 2017, which represented the sale of substantially all of the Companies remaining assets See ITEM 1. Business – Our Company.

Following the sale of the consumer products division, the Company collected the initial $3 million payment from ICTV on January 23, 2017. The Company plans to primarily focus on collecting the remaining payments, if any, from ICTV under the Letter of Credit, with the payment of $2 million under that Letter of Credit being due on April 23, 2017, as well as any ongoing royalty payments (up to a maximum of $4.5 million in royalty payments from ICTV). We will also continue to defend and prosecute the existing litigation involving the Company (including the claim by the Company against DS Healthcare regarding the failed acquisition earlier in 2016), and will consider other strategic investments or alternatives for the Company including merger opportunities to build shareholder value as well as determine what can be done to create shareholder value out of the remaining LHE assets despite their relatively immaterial value at December 31, 2016.

Until the sale of the product portfolios underlying our consumer products division and our skin care product line, our revenue generation was categorized as Consumer, Physician Recurring or Professional. Each of our segments benefit from the combination of our proprietary global consumer marketing engine with our direct sales force for U.S. physicians, and are described below:

Consumer

The global consumer market was our largest business unit due to our success at bringing professional technologies into the home-use arena. Cumulatively, we have sold more than 5 million no!no!® products to consumers, the majority of whom have been in North America, Japan and Europe.

We continued to develop and add to our marketing programs (in types of creative, languages, and media formats – print, online, radio, and TV) to effectively reach the large population groups where we have expanded our sales efforts, including: the United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Hong Kong

Our consumer marketing platform was built upon a proprietary direct-to-consumer sales engine and creative marketing programs that drive brand awareness. It was highly dependent upon the ability to procure cost effective advertising media to reach our targeted customer, particularly short-form TV advertising.

Sales Channels

Our multi-channel marketing and distribution model consisted of television, online, print and radio direct-response advertising, as well as high-end retailers. We believed that this marketing and distribution model, through which each channel complements and supports the others, provides:

Direct to Consumer. Our direct-to-consumer channel consisted of sales generated through commercials, infomercials, websites and call centers. We utilize several forms of advertising to drive our direct-to-consumer sales and brand awareness, including print, online, television and radio.

Retailers and Home Shopping Channels. Our retailers and home shopping channels enabled us to provide additional points of contact to educate consumers about our solutions, expand our presence beyond our direct to consumer activity and further strengthen and enhance our brand image.

Distributors. In some territories, we operated through exclusive distribution agreements with leading distribution companies that are dominant in their respective market and have the ability to promote our products through their existing retail and home shopping networks.

Markets

North America. Our consumer distribution segment in North America had sales of approximately $21 million, and $45 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. We use a mix of direct-to-consumer advertising that includes infomercials, commercials, catalog and internet-based marketing campaigns, coupled with select retail resellers, such as Bed, Bath & Beyond and others; home shopping channels such as HSN; and online retailers such as Dermadoctor.com and MedAltus.com. We believe these channels complement each other, as consumers that have seen our direct-to-consumer advertising may purchase directly from these retail resellers, and those who have seen our solutions demonstrated by these retail resellers may purchase solutions through our websites or call centers.

International (excluding North America). Outside North America consumer segment sales were approximately $13 million and $22.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We utilize various sales and marketing methods including sales by direct-to-consumer, sales to retailers and home shopping channels. Our main international targeted markets include Asia Pacific, Europe and South America.

The asset sale of the consumer product lines was completed January 23, 2017 (see Item 1. Acquisitions and Dispositions).

Physician Recurring

Physician recurring sales primarily include those generated from our NEOVA® skin care product line. NEOVA® skin care is a topical therapy combining DNA repair enzymes and copper peptide complexes to prevent premature skin aging. NEOVA represents a recurring revenue stream with significant market opportunities. In addition, our expertise in direct-to-consumer advertising and innovative marketing programs is anticipated to drive greater brand awareness and adoption for NEOVA products.

NEOVA®

Sales of the NEOVA skin care products at present are driven by physicians, who act as spokespersons to their patients in support of the NEOVA line. We have historically marketed to physicians in the dermatology and plastic surgery field, but plan to supplement these efforts with a direct-to-consumer approach to lead consumers into those physician practices. NEOVA addresses a sizeable global market for anti-aging skin care products. In addition, we have increased marketing exposure to NEOVA by offering an introduction to the product line as an added-value purchase to consumers responding to our no!no! brand advertising.

The asset sale of the Neova product line was completed on September 15, 2016 (see Item 1. Acquisitions and Dispositions).

Professional

Sales under the professional business segment are generated from our LHE® brand products. The value of the assets in this segment and the ongoing operations derived from the LHE products are relatively insignificant at December 31, 2016.

We distribute the LHE-based professional products through a network of third party distributors, and directly to physicians, dermatologists, salons, spas, and other aesthetic practitioners.

Sales and Marketing

As of December 31, 2016, our products are sold through a network of third party distributors and directly to physicians, dermatologists, salons, spas, and other aesthetic practitioners. Furthermore, until the sale of the consumer products division to ICTV on January 23, 2017, we sold products directly to individual consumers thru various channels including online, television and radio advertising, live home shopping, and independent retailers.

Critical Accounting Policies

The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations in this Report are based upon our Consolidated Financial Statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of financial statements requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses and disclosures at the date of the financial statements. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our estimates, including, but not limited to, those related to revenue recognition, accounts receivable, inventories, impairment of property and equipment and of intangibles and accruals for warranty claims. We use authoritative pronouncements, historical experience and other assumptions as the basis for making estimates. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Management believes that the following critical accounting policies affect our more significant judgments and estimates in the preparation of our Consolidated Financial Statements. These critical accounting policies and the significant estimates made in accordance with these policies have been discussed with our Audit Committee.

Revenue Recognition. We recognize revenues from the product sales when the following four criteria have been met: (i) the product has been shipped and we have no significant remaining obligations; (ii) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (iii) the price to the buyer is fixed or determinable; and (iv) collection is probable. Revenues from product sales are recorded net of provisions for estimated chargebacks, rebates, expected returns and cash discounts.

We ship most of our products FOB shipping point, although from time to time certain customers, for example governmental customers, will insist upon FOB destination. Among the factors we take into account when determining the proper time at which to recognize revenue are when title to the goods transfers and when the risk of loss transfers. Shipments to distributors or physicians that do not fully satisfy the collection criterion are recognized when invoiced amounts are fully paid or fully assured.

For revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables within a single contractually binding arrangement (usually sales of products with separately priced extended warranty), each element of the contract is accounted for as a separate unit of accounting when it provides the customer value on a stand-alone basis and there is objective evidence of the fair value of the separate, but related, unit.

With respect to sales arrangements under which the buyer has a right to return the related product, revenue is recognized only if all the following are met: the price is fixed or determinable at the date of sale; the buyer has paid, or is obligated to pay and the obligation is not contingent on resale of the product; the buyer's obligation would not be changed in the event of theft or physical destruction or damage of the product; the buyer has economic substance; we do not have significant obligations for future performance to directly bring about resale of the product by the buyer; and the amount of future returns can be reasonably estimated.

We provide a provision for product returns based on the experience with historical sales returns, in accordance with ASC Topic 605-15 with respect to sales of product when right of return exists. As of December 31, 2016, accrued sales returns provision was $1,975 or 5.1% of total recognized revenues of $38,397. As of December 31, 2015, accrued sales returns provision was $4,179 or 5.5% of total recognized revenues of $75,890. The return provisions are influenced by product mix. In 2016, Direct Response revenues, which typically result in higher product return activity, are a lower portion of Consumer revenues as compared to 2015.

Revenues received with respect to the separately priced extended warranty on consumer products are recognized over the duration of the extended warranty period. As of December 31, 2016, deferred revenues for the extended warranties amounted to $1,141 or 3.0% on total recognized revenues. As of December 31, 2015, deferred revenues for the extended warranties amounted to $2,489 or 3.3% on total recognized revenues. Extended warranty sales are directly influenced by the volume of Direct Response revenues which were higher in 2015.

Inventories. We carry inventories at the lower of cost or market. Cost is determined to be purchased cost for raw materials and the production cost (materials, labor and indirect manufacturing cost) for work-in-process and finished goods. For our consumer and LHE products, cost is determined on the weighted-average method. For the Physician market products, cost is determined on the first-in, first-out method.

Reserves for slow-moving, excess and obsolete inventories reduce the historical carrying value of our inventories, and are provided based on historical experience and product demand. Management evaluates the adequacy of these reserves periodically based on forecasted sales and market trends.

All of our remaining inventories as of December 31, 2016 were classified as assets held for sale.

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts. Accounts receivable are reduced by an allowance for amounts that may become uncollectible in the future. From time to time, our customers dispute the amounts due to us, and, in other cases, our customers experience financial difficulties and cannot pay on a timely basis. In certain instances, these factors ultimately result in uncollectible accounts. The determination of the appropriate reserve needed for uncollectible accounts involves significant judgment. Such factors include changes in the financial condition of our customers as a result of industry, economic or customer-specific factors. A change in the factors used to evaluate collectability could result in a significant change in the allowance needed. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the allowance for doubtful accounts was $1,192 and $14,959 or 3.1% and 19.7%, respectively of the total recognized revenues of each year. The allowance for doubtful accounts provisions are highly influenced by product mix and in 2015 there was significantly higher revenue generated by the direct to consumer sales channel. Furthermore, by the last quarter of 2016, advertising for direct response customers was significantly limited which meant that receivable balances for the year end, were from larger, more credit-worthy customers (hence lower need for an allowance for doubtful provision) versus the less credit-worthy direct response individual customers.

Goodwill and Intangibles Assets. Our balance sheet included goodwill and other intangible assets which affect the amount of future period amortization expense and possible impairment expense that we will incur. Management’s judgments regarding the existence of impairment indicators, on an interim or annual basis, are based on various factors, including market conditions and operational performance of our business. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, we had $0 and $5,435 of goodwill and other intangibles, accounting for 0% and 15.9% of our total assets, respectively. The goodwill is not amortizable; the other intangibles are. The determination of the value of such intangible assets requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect our consolidated financial statements. We test our goodwill for impairment, which was recognized as part of the reverse acquisition on December 13, 2011, at least annually. This test is conducted in December of each year in connection with the annual budgeting and forecast process. Also, on a quarterly basis, we evaluate whether events or changes in circumstances have occurred that would negatively impact the realizable value of our intangibles or goodwill which could require us to test goodwill for impairment as of an interim date.

During the fourth quarter of 2015, we recorded goodwill and other intangible asset impairment charges of $21,481, as we determined that a portion of the value of our goodwill and other intangible assets was impaired in connection with its annual test impairment test. A number of factors contributed to decreased earnings projections including, competition from consumer device companies claiming similar product functionality, our inability to attract sufficient financial resources to quickly increase our advertisement to overcome the market confusion created by competitors, the inability to effectively expand operations into foreign markets and quickly ramp product launches new and innovative products in the second half of the year after satisfying on June 23, 2015 the bank covenant defaults of our senior credit facility, and a continuing challenging media environment to purchase cost effective advertisement in the USA, our largest product distribution market. The fair value of Goodwill associated with the operating and reporting units were estimated using a combination of Income and Market Approach methodologies to valuation. The Income method of valuation explicitly recognizes the current value of future economic benefits developed by discounting future net cash flows to their present value at a rate that reflects both the current return requirements of the market and the risks inherent in the market. The Market approach measures the value of an asset through the analysis of recent sales or offerings of comparable property.

Our business was organized into three operating and reporting units which were defined as Consumer, Physician Recurring, and Professional Equipment. Upon completion of our annual goodwill impairment analysis as of December 31, 2015 the Company recorded an impairment of Consumer segment goodwill in the amount of $15,654 and an impairment of Physician Recurring segment goodwill of $876.

In 2016 we performed our evaluation of the fair value of goodwill associated with the consumer operating and reporting units in connections with announced sale of that business unit after considering the contract sale price of the consumer business from ICTV Brands, Inc. (see Item 1. Business - Our Company and Note 18 Subsequent Event). Upon completion of our goodwill impairment analysis in connection with the pending transaction with ICTV Brands, as of September 30, 2016 the Company recorded an impairment of the entire remaining balance of Consumer segment goodwill in the amount of $2,257.

Furthermore, pursuant to ASC 360 long-lived assets should be tested when events or changes in circumstances indicate that its carrying value may not be recoverable. The carrying amount of the assets is considered recoverable if it exceeds the sum of undiscounted cash flows expected from the use or eventual disposition of the asset. As of December 2015 in connection with its annual budgeting process, management undertook a review of its acquired intangible assets due to indications that the cash flows related to the acquired assets were substantially riskier and subject to shortfalls in revenues and profits relative to original expectations. While management continues to view the prospects for its business positively, the Company’s internal operating forecast has been revised downward in terms of revenue growth and profitability for the foreseeable future. The analysis entailed comparing the carrying amount of the long-lived assets as of December 31, 2015 with the sum of their respective projected undiscounted cash flows. The Company recognized and recorded an impairment of Physician Recurring segment intangibles for its trademark, tradename, and customer relationships in the amount of $3,527 and licensed technology in the amount of $1,424.

In connection with the pending transaction with ICTV Brands, as of September 30, 2016, the Company recorded an impairment of the Consumer segment intangibles for its Licensed Technology in the amount of $1,261.

Income taxes. As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our income taxes in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate. This process requires us to estimate our actual current tax exposure and make an assessment of temporary differences resulting from differing treatment of items, for tax and accounting purposes. These differences result in deferred tax assets and liabilities, which are included within our consolidated balance sheet. We must then assess the likelihood that our deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income and, to the extent we believe that recovery is more likely than not, we establish a valuation allowance. At year end December 31, 2015, material amounts of valuation allowances were recorded representing: 100% of the net deferred tax assets in the US; in excess of 60% of the net deferred tax assets in the UK company; and a 100% valuation allowance against losses of subsidiaries in Brazil, Colombia, and India. Our assessment for the year ended December 31, 2016, is that a 100% valuation allowance is still required, including the UK company. To the extent we establish a valuation allowance or increase this allowance in a period, we must include an expense within the tax provision in the consolidated statement of operations. Significant management judgment is required in determining our deferred tax assets and liabilities and any valuation allowance recorded against our net deferred tax assets. In the event that we generate taxable income in the jurisdictions in which we operate and in which we have net operating loss carry-forwards that we can utilize to offset all or part of this taxable income, we may be required to adjust our valuation allowance.

In the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we reported financial results for both operations and discontinued operations. ASC 740-20-45 sets down the general rule for allocating income tax expense or benefit between operations and discontinued operations. The general rule requires the computation of tax expense or benefit by entity taking into consideration all items of income, expense, and tax credits. Next, a computation is made taking into consideration only those items related to continuing operations. Any difference is allocated to items other than continuing operations e.g. discontinued operations. Under these general rules, no tax expense or benefit would be allocated to discontinued operations.

An exception to these rules apply under ASC 740-20-45-7 where an entity has 1) a loss from continuing operations and income related to other items such as discontinued operations and 2) the entity would not otherwise recognize a benefit for the loss from continuing operations under the approach described in ASC 740-20-45. This fact pattern applies for the year ended December 31, 2015 for entities in the US and the UK. Application of this rule exception results in the allocation of tax expense to discontinued operations with an offsetting amount of tax benefit reported by the US and UK companies.

We follow ASC Topic 740-10, “Income Taxes” which clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in tax positions. ASC Topic 740-10 requires that we recognize in our financial statements the impact of a tax position, if that position will more likely than not be sustained upon examination, based on the technical merits of the position, without regard the likelihood that the tax position may be challenged. If an uncertain tax position meets the “more-likely-than-not” threshold, the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50% likely to be recognized upon ultimate settlement with the taxing authority is recorded.

Stock-based compensation. We account for stock based compensation to employees in accordance with the “Share-Based Payment” accounting standard. The standard requires estimating the fair value of equity-based payment awards on the date of grant using an option-pricing model. The value of the portion of the award that is ultimately expected to vest is recognized as an expense over the requisite service periods in our consolidated statement of operations.

The fair value of employee stock options is estimated using a Black-Scholes valuation model. The fair value of restricted shares is based on the quoted market price of our common stock on the date of issuance. Compensation costs for share-based payment awards are recorded using the graded vesting attribution method over the vesting period, net of estimated forfeitures. The total share-based compensation expense was $1,969 and $6,309 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Litigation. The Company is involved in certain litigation, as noted above in Item 3, Legal Proceedings. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated in the cases stated above, particularly the class action case identified as Mouzon/Cantley, as the cases have, as yet, had insufficient discovery conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. As a result, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as these cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for one or more of these matters.

Results of Operations

Revenues

The following table illustrates revenues by type from our three business segments for the periods listed below:

Consumer Segment

The following table illustrates the key changes in the revenues of the Consumer segment, by sales channel, for the periods reflected below:

For the year ended December 31, 2016, consumer segment revenues were $34,331 compared to $67,569 in the year ended December 31, 2015. The revenues decreased between the years mainly due to the following reasons:

The following table illustrates the key changes in the revenues of the Consumer segment, by markets (determined by ship to locations), for the periods reflected below:

Physician Recurring Segment

The following table illustrates the key changes in the revenues of the Physician Recurring segment for the periods reflected below:

NEOVA skincare

For the year ended December 31, 2016 revenues were $3,202 compared to $5,003 for the year ended December 31, 2015. These revenues are generated from the sale of various skin, hair and wound care products to physicians in both the domestic and international markets. The asset sale of the Neova product line was completed on September 15, 2016; see Item 1. Business – Our Company Acquisitions and Dispositions, above for more information.

The following table illustrates the key changes in the revenues of the Physicians Recurring segment, by markets (determined by ship to locations), for the periods reflected below:

The physician dispensed skin care market for our NEOVA products is very competitive and is highly dependent upon maintaining a consistent level of skilled sales professionals. In 2016, sales were negatively affected due to sales staff vacancies in certain geographies for periods of time.

Professional Segment

The following table illustrates the key changes in the revenues of the Professional segment for the periods reflected below:

LHE® brand products

LHE® brand products revenues include revenues derived from the sales of mainly Mistral™, Kona™, FSD™, SpaTouch Elite™ and accessories. These devices are sold to physicians, spas and beauty salons.

For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, LHE® brand products revenues were $764 and $1,194, respectively. LHE sales decreased in 2016 from 2015 as a result of the decrease in the number of sales professionals selling the LHE product line caused by the movement of certain sales professionals to the company that acquired the XTRAC division and the Neova product line.

The following table illustrates the key changes in the revenues of the Professional segment, by markets (determined by ship to locations), for the periods reflected below:

The USA professional market for our LHE products is directly tied to the sales efforts of our dedicated NEOVA direct sales force. Sales for our NEOVA products were lower in 2016 than in 2015 for the reasons cited above and negatively affected our LHE product sales.

Cost of Revenues: all segments

The following table illustrates cost of revenues from our three business segments for the periods listed below:

Overall, cost of revenues changed in each segment due to the related changes in revenues. Included in cost of revenues above are inventory excess and obsolete provisions of $486 and $205 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 respectively.

Gross Profit Analysis

Gross profit decreased to $30,311 for the year ended December 31, 2016 from $57,465 during the same period in 2015. As a percentage of revenues, the gross margin increased to 78.9% for the year ended December 31, 2016 from 75.7% for the same period in 2015.

The following table analyzes changes in our gross margin for the periods presented below:

The primary reasons for the changes in gross profit and the gross margin percentage for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to the same period in 2015, were due to a decrease in consumer revenues.

Consumer Direct Response revenues have the highest individual gross margin percent of all of our product sales. Direct Response revenues represented a higher percentage of overall revenues in 2015 versus 2016; 40% in 2016 and 67% in 2015. The following table analyzes the gross profit for our Consumer segment for the periods presented below:

The Consumer segment gross profit for the year ended December 31, 2016 decreased by $24,367 from the comparable period in 2015. The Consumer segment gross margin percentage for the year ended December 31, 2016 was 82.9%, compared to 78.2% for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Consumer segment had a decrease in revenues in the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to the prior year largely related to the reduced spending on direct response type advertising. This segment provides the highest gross margin of our segments, so changes to these revenues can significantly impact our overall gross margin.

Furthermore, Direct Response revenues have a substantially higher gross margin percent since these revenues represent retail prices charged directly to the end user versus wholesale prices we charge our retail resellers. As Direct Response revenues decrease as a percent of total revenue, an expected decrease in the overall gross margin is generally expected unless offset by favorable product mix factors which occurred in 2016, mostly from fulfilling direct response sales orders from local assembly type consumer products which carry a very high margin and a very profitable one-time sale of consumer product to a distributor in Japan. Direct Response Revenues were a higher percentage of overall sales in 2015 versus 2016.

The following table analyzes the gross profit for our Physician Recurring segment for the periods presented below:

The Physician Recurring Segment gross profit for the year ended December 31, 2016 decreased by $2,192 from the year ended December 31, 2015. The Physician Recurring segment had a decrease in revenue due to the asset sale of the Neova product line completed on September 15, 2016 (See Item 1. Business – Our Company, Acquisitions and Dispositions above for more information). The gross margin at lower levels of sales is negatively affected by the higher mix of fixed costs vs variable product costs.

The following table analyzes the gross profit for our Professional segment for the periods presented below:

The Professional Segment gross profit for the year ended December 31, 2016 decreased from 2015 by $595 as a result of lower sales volume of our professional equipment. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the gross margin percentage was 50.7% compared to 40.9% for the year ended December 31, 2015.

Engineering and Product Development

Engineering and product development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 decreased to $1,249 from $1,313 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The majority of this expense relates to the salaries of our worldwide engineering and product development team and reflect a decrease in total personnel.

Selling and Marketing Expenses

For the year ended December 31, 2016, selling and marketing expenses decreased to $21,729 from $57,412 for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the following reasons:

General and Administrative Expenses

For the year ended December 31, 2016, general and administrative expenses decreased to $13,233 from $17,484 for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the following reasons:

Goodwill and Intangibles Assets Impairment

Our balance sheet included goodwill and other intangible assets which affect the amount of future period amortization expense and possible impairment expense that we will incur. Management’s judgments regarding the existence of impairment indicators, on an interim or annual basis, are based on various factors, including market conditions and operational performance of our business. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, we had $0 and $5,435 of goodwill and other intangibles, accounting for 0% and 15.9% of our total assets, respectively. The goodwill is not amortizable; the other intangibles are. The determination of the value of such intangible assets requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect our consolidated financial statements. We test our goodwill for impairment, which was acquired as part of the reverse acquisition on December 13, 2011, at least annually. This test is conducted in December of each year in connection with the annual budgeting and forecast process. Also, on a quarterly basis, we evaluate whether events or changes in circumstances have occurred that would negatively impact the realizable value of our intangibles or goodwill.

During the fourth quarter of 2015, we recorded goodwill and other intangible asset impairment charges of $21,481, as we determined that a portion of the value of our goodwill and other intangible assets was impaired in connection with its annual test impairment test. A number of factors contributed to decreased earnings projection including, competition from consumer device companies claiming similar product functionality, our inability to attract sufficient financial resources to quickly increase our advertisement to overcome the market confusion created by competitors, the inability to effectively expand operations into foreign markets and quickly ramp product launches new and innovative products in the second half of the year after satisfying on June 23, 2015 the bank covenant defaults of our senior credit facility, and a continuing challenging media environment to purchase cost effective advertisement in the USA, our largest product distribution market. The fair value of Goodwill associated with the operating and reporting units were estimated using a combination of Income and Market Approach methodologies to valuation. The Income method of valuation explicitly recognizes the current value of future economic benefits developed by discounting future net cash flows to their present value at a rate that reflects both the current return requirements of the market and the risks inherent in the market. The Market approach measures the value of an asset through the analysis of recent sales or offerings of comparable property.

Our business was organized into three operating and reporting units which were defined as Consumer, Physician Recurring, and Professional Equipment. Upon completion of our annual goodwill impairment analysis as of December 31, 2015 the Company recorded an impairment of Consumer segment goodwill in the amount of $15,654 and an impairment of Physician Recurring segment goodwill of $876.

In 2016, we performed our evaluation of the fair value of goodwill associated with the consumer operating and reporting units in connection with announced sale of that business unit after considering the contract sale price of the consumer business from ICTV Brands, Inc. (see Item 1. Business - Our Company and Note 18 Subsequent Event). Upon completion of our goodwill impairment analysis in connection with the pending transaction with ICTV Brands, as of September 30, 2016 the Company recorded an impairment of the entire remaining balance of Consumer segment goodwill in the amount of $2,257.

Furthermore, pursuant to ASC 360 long-lived assets should be tested when events or changes in circumstances indicate that its carrying value may not be recoverable. The carrying amount of the assets is considered recoverable if it exceeds the sum of undiscounted cash flows expected from the use or eventual disposition of the asset. As of December 2015 in connection with its annual budgeting process, management undertook a review of its acquired intangible assets due to indications that the cash flows related to the acquired assets were substantially riskier and subject to shortfalls in revenues and profits relative to original expectations. While management continues to view the prospects for its business positively, the Company’s internal operating forecast has been revised downward in terms of revenue growth and profitability for the foreseeable future. The analysis entailed comparing the carrying amount of the long-lived assets as of December 31, 2015 with the sum of their respective projected undiscounted cash flows. The Company recognized and recorded an impairment of Physician Recurring segment intangibles for its trademark, tradename, and customer relationships in the amount of $3,527 and licensed technology in the amount of $1,424. Also in connection with the pending transaction with ICTV Brands, as of September 30, 2016, the Company recorded an impairment of the Consumer segment intangibles for its Licensed Technology in the amount of $1,261.

Interest and Other Financing Expense, Net

Net interest and other financing expense for the year ended December 31, 2016 decreased to $385, as compared to net interest and other financing income of $1,402 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The decrease of $1,017 is due to the interest expense that was related to the long-term debt and the amortization of the related debt costs for debt that was entered into in May 2014 and paid in full June 2015. The remaining change was due to currency fluctuation of the U.S. Dollar versus the New Israeli Shekel, the Euro, the GBP and the Australian Dollar. The functional currency of all U.S. members of the group, as well as Radiancy Ltd. (Israel), is the U.S. Dollar. The other foreign subsidiaries’ functional currency is each subsidiaries’ respective local currency.

Taxes on Income, Net

For the year ended December 31, 2016, net taxes on operating income amounted to an expense of $762 as compared to $1,794 tax benefit for the year ended December 31, 2015.

Loss

The factors discussed above resulted in a net loss, including discontinued operations, of $13,264 during the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to net loss of $34,554 during the year ended December 31, 2015.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At December 31, 2016, our current ratio was 0.88 compared to 1.31 at December 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2016 we had a deficit $2,354 of working capital compared to a surplus of $6,460 as of December 31, 2015. Cash and cash equivalents were $2,677 as of December 31, 2016, as compared to $3,302 as of December 31, 2015.

Cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2016 were $2,677, including restricted cash of $342. The Company has historically financed its activities with cash from operations, the private placement of equity and debt securities, borrowings under lines of credit and, in the most recent periods with sale of certain assets and business units. The Company will be required to obtain additional liquidity resources in order to support its operations. The Company is addressing its liquidity needs by seeking additional funding from lenders as well as collecting amounts due from past sales of business assets and amounts due from asset sales that occurred after the year ending December 31, 2016 (see Acquisitions below). There are no assurances, however, that the Company will be able to obtain an adequate level of financial resources required for the short and long-term support of its operations. In light of the Company’s recent operating losses and negative cash flows, the termination of a pending merger agreement (see Item 1: Acquisitions and Dispositions) and the uncertainty of completing further sales of its product lines, there is no assurance that the Company will be able to continue as a going concern.

These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on recoverability and classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

On January 6, 2016, PhotoMedex, Inc. received an advance of $4 million, less a $40 financing fee (the “January 2016 Advance”), from CC Funding, a division of Credit Cash NJ, LLC, (the "Lender"), pursuant to a Credit Card Receivables Advance Agreement (the "Advance Agreement"), dated December 21, 2015. The Company’s domestic subsidiaries, Radiancy, Inc.; PTECH; and Lumiere, Inc., were also parties to the Advance Agreement (collectively with the Company, the “Borrowers”). Each Advance was secured by security interest in defined collateral representing substantially all the assets of the Company. Concurrent with the funding of the loan agreement, the Company established a $500 cash reserve account in favor of the lender to be used to make loan payments in the event that weekly remittances, net of sales return credits and other bank charges or offsets, were insufficient to cover the weekly repayment amount due the lender.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the Advance Agreement, the Lender was to make periodic advances to the Company (collectively with the January 2016 Advance and the April 2016 Advance described below, the “Advances”). The proceeds were used for general corporate purposes.

All outstanding Advances were repaid through the Company’s existing and future credit card receivables and other rights to payment arising out of our acceptance or other use of any credit or charge card (collectively, “Credit Card Receivables”) generated by activities based in the United States.

On April 29, 2016, the Company received an advance of $1 million, less a $10 financing fee (the “April 2016 Advance”), from the Lender pursuant to the Advance Agreement.

On June 17, 2016, the Company received an advance of $550, less a $50 financing fee (the “June 2016 Advance”), from the Lender pursuant to the Advance Agreement.

The above described advances were paid in full on July 29, 2016 and the security interest in the defined collateral was released from lien.

The restricted cash account includes $253 from the Neova Escrow Agreement (see Acquisitions and Dispositions below). Restricted cash also includes $89 reflecting certain commitments connected to our leased office facilities in Israel. Additionally the Company gained access to previously restricted cash amounts of $724 that were held in escrow as of the one year anniversary of the sale of the XTRAC and VTRAC business on June 22, 2015, from which $125 was paid to MELA Science, the purchaser of that business which amount was reflected within the loss from discontinued operations.

On August 30, 2016, the Company entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of its Neova product line. The sale was completed on September 15, 2016 resulting immediate proceeds to the company of $1.5 million and the Company recorded a loss of $1,731 from the transaction during the three months ended September 30, 2016. (See Acquisitions and Dispositions below)

On October 4, 2016, the Company entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of its Consumer Division for $9.5 million, including $5 million in cash plus a $4.5 million royalty agreement. (See Note 18 Subsequent Event and Acquisitions and Dispositions below). On January 23, 2017, the Company entered into a First Amendment (the “First APA Amendment”) to the Asset Purchase Agreement which revised the definition of Business Assets and Assumed Liabilities, provided for the establishment of employee benefit plans by the Purchaser and substituted a new Disclosure Letter for the one delivered concurrently with the signing of the original Asset Purchase Agreement.  The amendment also extended the term of the Letter of Credit issued in connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement to 100 days after the Closing Date.   The Company also entered into a First Amendment (the “First TSA Amendment”) to the Transition Services Agreement between the Company and its subsidiaries and the Purchaser of the Consumer Products division, pursuant to which the Company and its subsidiaries will provide the Purchaser with certain accounting, benefit, payroll, regulatory, IT support and other services for periods ranging from approximately three to up to one year following the Closing Date, during which time the Purchaser will arrange to transition the services it receives to its own personnel.  The First TSA Amendment revised references in the Transition Services Agreement from “Effective Date” to “Closing Date”, and clarified specifications regarding the lease for certain premises in Israel by and between Radiancy Israel and the landlord for those premises. 

On September 1, 2015, PhotoMedex, Inc. and its subsidiary PhotoMedex Technology, Inc. (“PTECH”) entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement and a Supplemental Agreement (together, the “Asset Purchase Agreement”) with DaLian JiKang Medical Systems Import & Export Co., LTD, (“JIKANG”). Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, JIKANG is to acquire the SLT® surgical laser business (the “Transferred Business”) from PTECH, for a total purchase price of $1.5 million (the “Purchase Price”). The Company will receive net cash of approximately $1.2 million after payment of closing and ancillary costs. The Purchase Price is payable to the Company in three installments. An initial deposit of $300 was made on September 2, 2015. JIKANG will provide two letters of credit to the Company for the remainder of the Purchase Price. The $1 million Letter of Credit will become payable to the Company on or about November 17, 2015, at which time substantially all the assets will be then be transferred to JIKANG in consummation of the transaction. The proceeds of the $1 million letter of credit were collected in December 2015. The remaining Letter of Credit for $200 was payable to the Company after certain post-closing steps; that amount was collected in 2016.

On January 6, 2016, PhotoMedex, Inc. (the “Company”) received an advance of $4 million, less a $40 financing fee (the “January 2016 Advance”) from CC Funding, a division of Credit Cash NJ, LLC, (the "Lender"), pursuant to a Credit Card Receivables Advance Agreement (the "Advance Agreement"), dated December 21, 2015.  The Company’s domestic subsidiaries, Radiancy, Inc.; PhotoMedex Technology, Inc.; and Lumiere, Inc., are also parties to the Advance Agreement (collectively with the Company, the “Borrowers”). 

Subject to the terms and conditions of the Advance Agreement, the Lender will make periodic advances to the Company (collectively with the January 2016 Advance, the “Advances”). The proceeds of the Advances may be used to conduct the ordinary business of the Company only.

All outstanding Advances will be repaid through the Borrowers’ existing and future credit card receivables and other rights to payment arising out of the Borrowers’ acceptance or other use of any credit or charge card (collectively, “Credit Card Receivables”) generated by activities based in the United States. The Company’s processor for those Credit Card Receivables (the “Processor”) has been instructed to remit, via electronic funds transfer, to the Lender all of the Borrowers’ Credit Card Receivables collected by the Processor (net of any discounts, fees and/or similar amounts legally owed to the Processor by the Borrowers and any charge-backs, offsets and/or other amounts which the Processor is entitled to deduct from the proceeds) until the Lender gives written notice that all Advances then outstanding and associated fees and expenses have been received by Lender.

Each Advance is to be secured by a security interest in favor of the Lender in certain defined Collateral, including but not limited to all of the Borrowers’ Credit Card Receivables; inventory, merchandise and materials; equipment, machinery, furniture, furnishings and fixtures; patents, trademarks and tradenames; and all other intangibles and payment rights arising out of the provision of goods or services by the Borrowers.

We believe our existing balances of cash and cash equivalents as well as advances from our credit card receivable agreement and expected proceeds from asset sales will be sufficient to satisfy our working capital needs, capital asset purchases, outstanding commitments and other liquidity requirements associated with our existing operations through the first quarter of 2017. However, there is no guarantee that we will be able to meet the continuing conditions of the credit card receivable agreement or obtain a renewal, if needed, or that the costs of such renewal may not be prohibitive or amounts from certain asset sales will be collectible when due. Such a result could have a material adverse effect on us and our financial condition.

Net cash and cash equivalents provided by operating activities was $358 for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to cash used in operating activities of $6,462 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The cash used in 2015 was mainly due to reduction of accounts receivable balances and inventory levels offset by a net loss for the year.

Net cash and cash equivalents provided by investing activities was $2,148 for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to net cash provided by investing activities of $77,129 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The primary reason for the change was cash received from the sales of XTRAC and VTRAC business and LCA-Vision for the year ended December 31, 2015.

Net cash and cash equivalents used in financing activities was $684 for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to net cash used in financing activities of $77,590 for the year ended December 31, 2015. In the year ended December 31, 2015, we had payments on credit facilities of $76,500 and $914 for certain notes payable.

Contractual Obligations

Set forth below is a summary of our current obligations as of December 31, 2016 to make future payments due by the period indicated below, excluding payables and accruals. We expect to be able to meet our obligations in the ordinary course. Operating lease and rental obligations are respectively for personal and real property which we use in our business.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

At December 31, 2016, we had no off-balance sheet arrangements.

Impact of Inflation

We have not operated in a highly inflationary period, and we do not believe that inflation has had a material effect on our revenues or expenses.

Foreign Exchange Risk

We are exposed to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations related to the operation of our international subsidiaries. The Company’s United Kingdom subsidiary’s main operating currency is pounds sterling. The Company’s Brazilian, LK Technology, subsidiary’s main operating currency is Brazilian Real. The Company’s other foreign subsidiaries’ functional currency is the respective local currency for each subsidiary, except Radiancy Ltd. At the end of each reporting period, revenue and expense of the foreign subsidiaries are converted into U.S. dollars using the average currency rate in effect for the period and assets and liabilities are converted into U.S. dollars using the exchange rate in effect at the end of the period.

The functional currency for our Israeli subsidiary, Radiancy, Ltd. Is the US Dollar, but certain day-to-day transactions in Israel (for example, payment of salaries to Israeli employees) are transacted in New Israeli Shekels, therefore, we face some risk from fluctuations in the foreign exchange rates when accounting for these transactions. Additionally, we are exposed to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations relating to payments we make to vendors and suppliers using foreign currencies. We currently do some hedging against the New Israeli Shekels. Fluctuations in exchange rates may impact our financial condition and results of operations.

See our Risk Factors regarding foreign currency exchange related risks.

The financial statements required by this Item 8 are included in this Report and begin on page F-1.

None.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)), as of December 31, 2016. Based on that evaluation, management has concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level described below.

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

In designing and evaluating our disclosure controls and procedures, management recognized that disclosure controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the disclosure controls and procedures are met. Additionally, in designing disclosure controls and procedures, our management necessarily was required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible disclosure controls and procedures. The design of any disclosure controls and procedures also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Our management conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on the framework established in the 2013 Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on this assessment, our management has determined that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2016.

This annual report does not include an attestation report of our registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by our registered public accounting firm pursuant to the rules of the SEC that permit us to provide only management’s report in this annual report.

Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, no evaluation of internal control over financial reporting can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our Company have been detected. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Management does not expect that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures or its internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud.

The design of any system of controls is based in part on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Projections of any evaluation of controls effectiveness to future periods are subject to risks. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies or procedures.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting in our most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing.

On September 29, 2015, the Company received written notification from The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC that the closing bid price of its common stock had been below the minimum $1.00 per share for the previous 30 consecutive business days, and that the Company is therefore not in compliance with the requirements for continued listing on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 5450(a)(1). The Notice provides the Company with an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until March 28, 2016, to regain compliance with the listing rules. The Company would regain compliance if the closing bid price of its common stock is $1.00 per share or higher for a minimum period of ten consecutive business days during this compliance period, as confirmed by written notification from NASDAQ. If the Company does not achieve compliance by March 28, 2016, NASDAQ would provide notice that its securities were subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Global Select Market. As of March 28, 2016, the Company’s bid price remained under $1.00 per share.

On March 10, 2016, trade in the Company’s common stock transferred to the NASDAQ Capital Market. This move to the Capital Market will not affect the trading of the Company's common stock. The NASDAQ Capital Market is a continuous trading market that operates in substantially the same manner as the NASDAQ Global Select Market, but with less stringent listing requirements. The Company’s common shares will continue to trade on NASDAQ under the symbol "PHMD."

On March 30, 2016, the Company was notified by NASDAQ that its request for a six month extension of time in which to comply with the bid price requirement had been granted. The transfer of its stock from the NASDAQ Global Select Market to the NASDAQ Capital Market was part of the process to request and receive such an extension. PhotoMedex considered a range of available options to regain compliance with this continued listing standard, and had provided written notice to NASDAQ of its intention to cure the minimum bid price deficiency during a second grace period by carrying out a reverse stock split, if necessary. At its 2015 annual meeting, PhotoMedex shareholders granted authority to the board of directors to implement, as needed, a reverse split in a ratio up to one common share for each five shares outstanding.

On September 7, 2016 the Company’s Board of Directors approved a reverse split in a ratio of 1-for-five.  The 2016 reverse split was implemented on September 23, 2016 (the “2016 Reverse Split”).  The amount of authorized Common Stock as well as the par value for the Common Stock were not effected.  Any fractional shares resulting from the 2016 Reverse Split were rounded up to the nearest whole share.

All Common Stock, warrants, options and per share amounts set forth herein are presented to give retroactive effect to the 2016 Reverse Split for all periods presented.

On September 23, 2016, the Company’s Common stock and warrants approved for listing on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol PHMD.  Shares were previously listed on the NASDAQ Global Market under the same symbol.

On November 18, 2016, PhotoMedex, Inc. (the “Company”) (NasdaqGS and TASE: PHMD) received written notification (the “Notice”) from The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) that the Company’s stockholder equity reported on its Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2016 had fallen below the minimum requirement of $2.5 million, and that the Company is therefore not in compliance with the requirements for continued listing on the NASDAQ Capital Market under NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 5550(b)(1). The Notice provided the Company with a period of 45 calendar days, or until January 2, 2017, to submit a plan to regain compliance with the listing rules; that plan was filed with NASDAQ on January 10, 2017 under a one-week extension due to the holiday period.

NASDAQ has granted the Company an extension of time to comply with the Rule until March 10, 2017, by which time the Company must complete its review and reconciliation of the post-Asset Sale financials and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and NASDAQ a report on Form 8-K evidencing compliance with the Rule by disclosing) the original deficiency letter from NASDAQ dated November 17, 2004;

(ii) a description of the completed transaction or event that enabled the Company to satisfy the stockholders’ equity requirement for continued listing;

(iii) either an affirmative statement that, as of the date of the report the Company believed that it had regained compliance with the stockholders’ equity requirement based upon the completed transaction or event OR a balance sheet no older than 60 days with pro forma adjustments for any significant transactions or event occurring on or before the report date that evidences compliance with the stockholder’s' equity requirement, as well as a disclosure that the Company believes it also satisfies the stockholders’ equity requirement as of the report date; and

(iv) a disclosure stating that NASDAQ will continue to monitor the Company’s ongoing compliance with the stockholders’ equity requirement and, if at the time of the Company’s next periodic report the Company does not evidence compliance, the Company may be subject to delisting.

If the Company fails to evidence compliance with the Rule upon filing its periodic report for the period ended March 31, 2017 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and NASDAQ, the Company may be subject to delisting. In the event the Company does not satisfy the terms, NASDAQ will provide written notification to the Company that its securities will be delisted. At that time, the Company may appeal the delisting notice to a Listing Qualifications Panel.

On March 15, 2017, the Company received notice from NASDAQ that it had granted the Company an additional extension of time to comply with the Rule until March 31, 2017, at which time it was expected to enter into an agreement regarding a transaction with First Capital Real Estate Operating Partnership, L.P. and its affiliates. NASDAQ may grant a further extension to May 17, 2017, by which time the Company must complete its review and reconciliation of the post-Asset Sale financials, complete the pending transaction with First Capital and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and NASDAQ a report on Form 8-K evidencing compliance with the Rule, as set forth above.

If the Company fails to evidence compliance with the Rule upon filing its periodic report for the period ended March 31, 2017 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and NASDAQ, the Company may be subject to delisting. In the event the Company does not satisfy the terms, NASDAQ will provide written notification to the Company that its securities will be delisted. At that time, the Company may appeal the delisting notice to a Listing Qualifications Panel.

PART III

Our directors currently have terms which will end at our next annual meeting of the stockholders or until their successors are elected and qualify, subject to their prior death, resignation or removal. Officers serve at the discretion of the Board of Directors. There are no family relationships among any of our directors and executive officers. Members of our Board of Directors are encouraged to attend meetings of the Board of Directors and the Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The Board of Directors held nine meetings and executed five unanimous written consents in lieu of a meeting in 2016.

The following sets forth certain biographical information concerning our current directors and our executive officers as of March 30, 2017.

Dr. Dan Amiram did not stand for re-election due to a relocation out of the country; any information relating to him is included for historical comparison only and as a reference component of the overall compensation awarded to the Company’s board for its services.

Directors and Executive Officers

Lewis C. Pell was appointed to our Board of Directors and was unanimously elected to serve as Non-Executive Chairman of the Board on December 12, 2011 and is the Chairman of the Compensation Committee. Mr. Pell was a member of Radiancy’s Board since 1998. Mr. Pell has founded over a dozen successful medical technology companies during the past three decades. In 1979, he founded Pentax Precision Instruments, which was sold to Asahi Optical Co. in 1990. In 1983, he founded American Endoscopy Inc., which was sold to C.R. Bard, Inc. (BCR-NYSE) in 1986. In 1984, he founded Versaflex Inc., which was sold to Medtronic in 1988. In 1989, he founded Heart Technology Corp., which went public in the U.S. in 1992 and was sold to Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX-NYSE) in 1995. In 1991, he founded InStent Inc., which became a public company in 1995 and was sold to Medtronic in 1996. In 1994, he founded Influence Inc., which was sold to American Medical Systems Inc. in 1999. Working with Dr. Shlomo Ben-Haim, Mr. Pell founded Biosense Inc. in 1994, which was sold to Johnson & Johnson in 1997. He is currently chairman and an investor for a number of private medical device companies. In 1992, he founded Vision-Sciences, Inc. which merged with Urolplasty, Inc. in 2015 to become Cogentix Medical, Inc. (CGNT NASDAQ) for which he is a director. Mr. Pell has a B.S. in political science from Brooklyn College and over 20 years of experience in the medical technology industry. Mr. Pell was selected to serve on the Company’s board because of his over thirty-years’ experience in leadership roles in the medical device industry.

Yoav Ben-Dror was appointed to our Board of Directors and was elected to serve as Non-Executive Vice Chairman on December 12, 2011. Dr. Ben-Dror was the chairman of Radiancy’s Board since 2006. He is an entrepreneur with more than 30 years of experience in technology, medical devices and financial innovations. He currently serves on the Board of Dagon Batey-Mamguroth Le-Israel Ltd (silo houses), Final Inc. (high-frequency financial algorithm technology), Fitango Inc. (social network), Neurotech Solutions Ltd. (human cognition and behavior with an emphasis on attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)), Travelsys4u Ltd. (a personal mobility system for senior citizens), Impact First Investments Ltd. (investment management firm that specializes in social investing), and Tabit Technologies Ltd. (Formerly: My InPact Solutions Ltd.) (Mobile solutions for restaurant management). He is a director at Keren Shemesh Foundation for the Encouragement of Young Entrepreneurs (in association with YBI (Youth Business International), a foundation assisting young entrepreneurs in transforming an idea into a successful sustainable small business), a director at ANU – making change LTD. (HLZ) (social activity), a director at Hatnuah Hezrachit Hachadasha Ltd. (social activity), and a trustee at the Hecht-Zilzer Trust (charity). Dr. Ben Dror previously served on the Board of Cellcom Israel Ltd. (CEL-NYSE), Dubek Ltd. (tobacco), Magic Box Ltd. (financial algorithm technology) and Holon Institute of Technology (H.I.T.), and was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Holon Institute of Technology (H.I.T.). He was one of the founders of Amphorae Vineyard Ltd. (Winery - Israel). He was also involved with InStent Inc., Influence Medical Technologies Ltd. and Disc-O-Tech Medical Technologies Ltd. Dr. Ben Dror is a member of the Israel Bar and holds a Doctor of the Science of Jurisprudence (J.S.D.) from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Ben-Dror was selected to serve on the Company’s board because of his extensive background in business and financial entrepreneurship.

Dolev Rafaeli was appointed as our Chief Executive Officer and director in December 2011. Dr. Rafaeli joined Radiancy in February 2006 as president and CEO. He has over 23 years of experience managing international operations. Prior to joining Radiancy, Dr. Rafaeli served from 2004 to 2006 as president and CEO of the USR Group, a consumer electronics products manufacturer, managing operations in Israel, China, Hong Kong and the U.S. Between 2000 and 2004, Dr. Rafaeli founded and served as general manager of Orbotech Ltd. (ORBK-NASDAQ), an automated optical inspection capital equipment manufacturer for the electronics industry in China and Hong Kong, where he was instrumental in building these operations into a $100 million a year business. Between 1997 and 2000, Dr. Rafaeli served as CEO of USR Ltd., a global electronics contract manufacturing company providing design, supply chain and manufacturing services to dozens of clients in the communications, consumer and medical device fields. USR Ltd. employed approximately 1,000 individuals. Dr. Rafaeli previously served as director of operations and manager of the Arad manufacturing facility for Motorola in its Land Mobile Product Solutions division, manufacturing and distributing communications, consumer and other infrastructure electronics products in excess of $400 million annually. Dr. Rafaeli graduated with a B.Sc. in industrial engineering and management cum laude and a M.Sc. in operations management from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, and holds a Ph.D. in business management from Century University. Dr. Rafaeli was selected to serve on the Company’s board because of his over twenty-years’ experience in consumer marketing and international sales and operations.

Dennis M. McGrath, upon completion of the merger with Radiancy, reassumed his role of Chief Financial Officer in addition to President and director of PhotoMedex, to which he was appointed in July 2009. Mr. McGrath had previously served as CFO and Vice President, finance and administration from January 2000 through June 2009 and as Chief Executive Officer from July 2009 until the merger date with Radiancy. He has held several senior-level positions in prior endeavors, including, from February 1999 to January 2000, serving as the COO of Internet Practice, the largest division for AnswerThink Consulting Group, Inc., a company specializing in business consulting and technology integration. Concurrently, from August 1999 until January 2000, Mr. McGrath served as CFO of Think New Ideas, Inc., a company specializing in interactive marketing services and business solutions. In addition to the financial reporting responsibilities, he was responsible for the merger integration of Think New Ideas, Inc. and AnswerThink Consulting Group, Inc. Prior to that, from September 1996 to February 1999, Mr. McGrath was CFO and executive vice-president, operations of TriSpan, Inc., an internet commerce solutions and technology consulting company that was acquired by AnswerThink Consulting Group, Inc. in 1999. Mr. McGrath is currently a director of Noninvasive Medical Technologies, Inc., LabStyle, Inc. and Cagent Vascular, Inc. In addition, Mr. McGrath serves on the Board of Trustees for Manor College and the Board of Visitors for Taylor University. Mr. McGrath graduated with a B.S. in accounting from LaSalle University in 1979 and became a Certified Public Accountant in 1981 and holds inactive licenses in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Mr. McGrath was selected to serve on the Company’s board because of his thirty years’ experience in the development and implementation of innovative business and marketing practices.

Dan Amiram is a Professor of Accounting, Taxation and Business Law at Columbia Business School of Columbia University. He has won multiple awards for teaching and research, including the Columbia Business School Dean’s Award for Excellence in Teaching. He has several publications in finance and accounting academic journals to his credit and has made numerous presentations at top universities and financial institutions around the world. A respected consultant on national and international financial matters, he is repeatedly asked by corporations, financial institutions, government and the media (including the Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine) to provide advice as an expert on accounting, finance, business and taxation issues. Dr. Amiram serves, and has served, as director and chairman of the audit and/or finance committees on several boards, including as director and chairman of the audit and finance committee of the financial technology company Opportunity Network. He was part of the controller’s team for Makhteshim Agan Industries (MAIN-TLV), the largest generic agrochemical company in the world, and was a senior auditor at PwC. Dr. Amiram holds a Master in Economics and Bachelor in Accounting and Economics degrees from Ben Gurion University, as well as a doctorate in Business from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Amiram is also a Certified Public Account (C.P.A) in Israel. Dr. Harris introduced Dr. Amiram to the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee as a potential new Board member. The Board determined that he satisfied the independence and other composition requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) and NASDAQ and as an “audit committee financial expert” under Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K and has the requisite accounting or related financial expertise required by applicable NASDAQ rules. Dr. Amiram was selected to serve on the Company’s board and as the chairman of the audit committee because of his 15 years financial and international business experience and his background in national and international finance, accounting and taxation matters.

Stephen P. Connelly was appointed to our Board of Directors on May 3, 2007. Mr. Connelly joined Viasys Healthcare, Inc., a medical technology and device company in August 2001 and served as President and Chief Operating Officer from November 2002 until August 2004. In addition, Mr. Connelly was formerly Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Americas as well as a member of the Executive Committee of Rhone Poulenc Rorer. Mr. Connelly’s broad background includes over twenty-five years of experience in the planning, development and management of rapid-growth marketing-driven businesses in the medical device and pharmaceutical fields. Since 1999, Mr. Connelly has been an adjunct professor at St. Joseph’s University, teaching international management and global strategy in the MBA program in the Haub School of Business. In addition, Mr. Connelly has a diverse and comprehensive business background, with expertise in such areas as strategic and tactical business development, joint ventures, mergers, acquisitions and corporate partnering, structuring and finance. Mr. Connelly is well-versed in every aspect of marketing, sales, general management, research and development of high-technology products and processes. Mr. Connelly possesses extensive international experience, having lived in Asia and having had operational P&L responsibility in many developed countries. Mr. Connelly was selected to serve on the Company’s board because of his twenty-five years’ background in the medical device industry and his experience in business development. Mr. Connelly has a Bachelor’s in Business Administration with a concentration in Marketing from The University of Notre Dame and a Master’s in Business Administration from Syracuse University, and was selected to serve on the Company’s board because of his twenty-five years’ background in the medical device industry and his experience in business development.

With respect to the incumbent members of the Board of Directors, none of the members has, in the past 10 years, been subject to a federal or state judicial or administrative order, judgment, decree or finding, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, relating to any legal proceedings, which include judicial or administrative proceedings resulting from involvement in mail or wire fraud or fraud in connection with any business entity or based on violations of federal or state securities, commodities, banking, or insurance laws and regulations, or any settlement to such actions, and any disciplinary sanction or order imposed by a stock, commodities or derivatives exchange other self-regulatory organization.

Board Leadership Structure

In accordance with the provisions of our Bylaws, the total number of directors who may serve on our Board of Directors is currently set at a maximum of eight. Five persons currently serve on our board.

We choose to separate the position of our Chief Executive Officer from that of our Chairman of the Board of Directors. Our Board of Directors has made this decision based on their belief that an independent Chairman of the Board can act as a balance to the Chief Executive Officer, who also serves as a non-independent director. The Board of Directors also has provided for the post of Vice Chairman, who will fulfill the duties of the Chairman when circumstances preclude the Chairman from fulfilling the duties of the chairmanship.

Our Board of Directors administers its risk oversight function as a whole by making risk oversight a matter of collective consideration. While management is responsible for identifying risks, our Board of Directors has charged the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors with evaluating financial and accounting risk, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors with evaluating risks associated with employees and compensation. Investor-related risks are usually addressed by the Board as a whole. We believe an independent Chairman of the Board adds an additional layer of insight to our Board of Directors’ risk oversight process.

Compensation, Nominations and Corporate Governance and Audit Committees

General.    Our Board of Directors maintains charters for select committees. In addition, our Board of Directors has adopted a written set of corporate governance guidelines and a code of business conduct and ethics and a code of conduct for our chief executive and senior financial officers that generally formalize practices that we already had in place. We have adopted a Code of Ethics on Interactions with Health Care Professionals, an Anti-Fraud Program and a policy for compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. To view the charters of our Audit, Compensation and Nominations and Corporate Governance Committees, Code of Ethics, corporate governance guidelines, codes of conduct and whistle blower policy, please visit our website at www.photomedex.com, under the Corporate Governance section of the Investor Relations page (this website address is not intended to function as a hyperlink and the information contained on our website is not intended to be a part of this Report). In compliance with NASDAQ rules, the majority of our Board of Directors is comprised of independent directors. The Board of Directors determined in 2016 that, except for Messrs. Rafaeli and McGrath, who are our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, all current members of the Board of Directors are independent under the revised listing standards of NASDAQ.

Compensation Committee.    Our Compensation Committee discharges the Board of Directors’ responsibilities relating to compensation of our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers, produces an annual report on executive compensation for inclusion in our annual proxy statement and this Report and provides general oversight of compensation structure. Other specific duties and responsibilities of the Compensation Committee include:

Our Board of Directors has adopted a written charter for the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee is currently composed of Messrs. Ben-Dror, Connelly and Pell. Mr. Pell serves as the Chairman of the Compensation Committee. Our Board of Directors determined that each member of the Compensation Committee in 2016 satisfies the independence requirements of NASDAQ. The Compensation Committee held three formal meetings during 2016.

The Compensation Committee reviews executive compensation from time to time and reports to the Board of Directors, which makes all final decisions with respect to executive compensation. The Compensation Committee adheres to several guidelines in carrying out its responsibilities, including performance by the employees, our performance, enhancement of stockholder value, growth of new businesses and new markets and competitive levels of fixed and variable compensation. See Item 11 for the report of the Compensation Committee for 2016 as presented below.

Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee.    Our Board of Directors has established a Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee for the purpose of reviewing all Board of Director-recommended and stockholder-recommended nominees, determining each nominee’s qualifications and making a recommendation to the full Board of Directors as to which persons should be our Board of Directors’ nominees. Our Board of Directors has adopted a written charter for the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee is composed of Messrs. Connelly, Amiram, and Pell. Mr. Connelly serves as the Chairman of the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee held one meeting during 2016 in conjunction with a meeting of the full Board of Directors.

The duties and responsibilities of the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee include:

The Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee considers these requirements when recommending nominees to our Board of Directors. Our Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee utilizes a variety of methods for identifying and evaluating nominees for our directors. Our Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee will regularly assess the appropriate size of our Board of Directors and whether any vacancies on the Board of Directors are expected due to retirement or other circumstances. When considering potential director nominees, the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee also considers the candidate’s character, judgment, diversity, age, skills, including financial literacy and experience in the context of the needs of PhotoMedex and of our existing directors. The Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee also seeks director nominees who are from diverse backgrounds and who possess a range of experiences as well as a reputation for integrity. The Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee considers all of these factors to ensure that our Board of Directors as a whole possesses a broad range of skills, knowledge and experience useful to the effective oversight and leadership of the Company.

Audit Committee.    Our Board of Directors has established an Audit Committee to assist it in fulfilling its responsibilities for general oversight of the integrity of our consolidated financial statements, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, the independent auditors’ qualifications and independence, the performance of our independent auditors and an internal audit function and risk assessment and risk management. The duties of our Audit Committee include:

The Audit Committee works closely with management as well as our independent auditors. The Audit Committee has the authority to obtain advice and assistance from, and receive appropriate funding from us for, outside legal, accounting or other advisors as the Audit Committee deems necessary to carry out its duties.

Our Board of Directors has adopted a written charter for the Audit Committee that meets the applicable standards of the Commission and NASDAQ. The current members of the Audit Committee are Mr. Pell, Dr. Ben-Dror and Mr. Connelly. Dr. Amiram served as the Chairman of the Audit Committee since October 29, 2015 thru January 19, 2017; Dr. Trevor S. Harris previously served as Chairman and member of the Committee. The Audit Committee meets regularly and held seven meetings during 2016 and executed one unanimous written consent as part of a meeting. Effective January 19, 2017, and in connection with the Company’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders, Mr. Connelly began serving as Chairman of the Audit Committee.

The Board of Directors determined in 2016 that each member of the Audit Committee satisfies the independence and other composition requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) and NASDAQ. Our Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K and has the requisite accounting or related financial expertise required by applicable NASDAQ rules.

Stockholder Communications with the Board of Directors

Our Board of Directors has established a process for stockholders to communicate with the Board of Directors or with individual directors. Stockholders who wish to communicate with our Board of Directors or with individual directors should direct written correspondence to Michele Pupach, Corporate Counsel at mpupach@photomedex.com or to the following address (our principal executive offices): Board of Directors, c/o Corporate Secretary, 2300 Computer Drive, Building G, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania 19090. Any such communication must contain:

Ms. Pupach or the Corporate Secretary, as the case may be, will forward such communications to our Board of Directors or the specified individual director to whom the communication is directed unless such communication is unduly hostile, threatening, illegal or similarly inappropriate, in which case Ms. Pupach or the Corporate Secretary, as the case may be, has the authority to discard the communication or to take appropriate legal action regarding such communication.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors and executive officers and beneficial holders of more than 10% of our common stock to file with the Commission initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of our equity securities. As of March 30, 2017, we believe, based solely on a review of the copies of such reports furnished to us and representations of these persons that no other reports were filed and that all reports needed to be filed have been filed for the year ended December 31, 2016.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes our compensation program and objectives for our Named Executive Officers for our fiscal year ending December 31, 2016, or fiscal 2016. Our Named Executive Officers for fiscal 2016 were Dr. Dolev Rafaeli, our Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, our President and Chief Financial Officer.

The Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors is responsible for reviewing and approving the annual compensation of our Named Executive Officers. The Compensation Committee is composed solely of directors who are not our current or former employees, and each is independent under the revised listing standards of NASDAQ. Our Board of Directors has delegated to the Compensation Committee the responsibility to review and approve our compensation and benefits plans, programs and policies, including the compensation of our Chief Executive Officer and our President and Chief Financial Officer as well as middle-level management and other key employees. The Compensation Committee administers all of our executive compensation programs, incentive compensation plans and equity-based plans and provides oversight for all of our other compensation and benefit programs.

The key components of the compensation program for our Named Executive Officers are base salary, bonus and long-term incentives, which for fiscal 2016 was granted to the Named Executive Officers in the form of stock options under our 2005 Equity Plan. These components are administered with the goal of providing total compensation that is competitive in the marketplace, recognizes meaningful differences in individual performance and offers the opportunity to earn superior rewards when merited by individual and corporate performance.

Objectives of Compensation Program

The Compensation Committee governs and administers our compensation plans with the intent to support the achievement of our long-term strategic objectives, to enhance stockholder value, to attract, motivate and retain highly qualified employees by paying them competitively and rewarding them for their own success and ours. Included in this evaluation is an analysis whether the Company’s incentive compensation arrangements, including short-term (annual cash incentive) and long-term (equity awards) components, encourage unnecessary or excessive risks. Although incentive compensation is discretionary, the Compensation Committee typically considers overall performance of the Company when granting cash incentive awards and considers several factors, including each Named Executive Officer’s contributions to the growth of the Company for the benefit of the stockholders when granting incentive equity awards. We have no retirement plans or deferred compensation programs in effect for our Named Executive Officers, except for our 401(k) plan in which our Named Executive Officers are eligible to participate and is made generally available to all of our employees. We do not have a specific formula for allocating between cash and non-cash compensation, which has been in the form of stock options and awards of restricted stock.

In order to assess whether our compensation program is competitive and effective, the Compensation Committee relies on its own comparative review of peer companies. As an ongoing matter, the Compensation Committee does not regularly engage third-party consultants to advise on our compensation policies. Furthermore, our Compensation Committee does not delegate its responsibilities for reviewing and approving Named Executive Officer compensation.

What Our Compensation Program is Designed to Reward

The key components of the compensation program for our Named Executive Officers are base salary, bonus and long-term incentives under the 2005 Equity Plan. These components are administered with the goal of providing total compensation that is competitive in the marketplace, recognizes meaningful differences in individual performance and offers the opportunity to earn superior rewards when merited by individual and corporate performance.

Stock price performance has not been a factor in determining annual compensation insofar as the price of our common stock is subject to a number of factors outside of our control. We have endeavored through grants of stock options to our Named Executive Officers to incentivize individual and team performance by providing a meaningful stake in us that links their compensation to our overall success.

Elements of Company’s Compensation Plan and How Each Element Relates to Objectives

There are three primary elements in the compensation package of our executive officers: base salary, bonus and long-term incentives. Compensation payable in the event of the termination of an executive’s employment with the Company is a secondary but material element in the package.

Base Salaries.    Base salaries for our Named Executive Officers are designed to provide a base pay opportunity that is appropriately competitive within the marketplace. As an officer’s level of responsibility increases, a greater proportion of his or her total compensation will be dependent on our financial performance and stock price appreciation rather than base salary. Adjustments to each individual’s base salary are made in connection with annual performance reviews and an assessment of market competitiveness. In fiscal 2016 the base salaries of Dr. Rafaeli and Mr. McGrath were $495,000 and $395,000, respectively.

Bonus.    Generally, at the outset of a fiscal year, the Compensation Committee establishes a bonus program for our Named Executive Officers and other managers and key employees eligible to participate in the program. The program is generally based on a financial plan for the fiscal year and other business factors, and certain management objectives that could be updated throughout the year to address and incentivize management relating to changing macro-economic, environmental and business issues. The amount of bonus, if any, hinges on corporate performance, financial condition, and on the performance against management objectives of the participant in the program. A program will typically allow partial or discretionary awards based on an evaluation of the relevant factors. Provision for bonus expense is typically made over the course of a fiscal year. The provision becomes fixed, based on the final review of the Compensation Committee, which is usually made after the financial results of the fiscal year have been reviewed by our independent accountants.

On March 10, 2015, Dr. Rafaeli and Mr. McGrath entered into new Employment Agreements with the Company; as a result, updated objectives for Mr. McGrath were established by the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors that were directly related to the Mr. McGrath’s management of the Companies banking relationships and debt compliance related tasks. Dr. Rafaeli was guaranteed a quarterly cash bonus for each quarter equal to the greater of $300,000 or 1% of the quarterly recognized US GAAP sales reported in the Company's consolidated quarterly financial reports in excess of a target threshold amount set by the compensation committee of the Board. Mr. McGrath was guaranteed an annual minimum bonus for 2015 in an amount not less than $316,000, and was also eligible for additional annual bonus amounts based on the attainment of certain individual and corporate performance goals and targets as determined and set by the Board. All or a portion of such bonuses may be paid in shares of Company stock to the extent mutually agreed by the Board and the executive.

For the years 2016 and 2015, Dr. Rafaeli earned a quarterly bonus, each quarter, of $300,000, and Mr. McGrath earned his guaranteed minimum annual bonus of $316,000. These amounts were unpaid as of December 31, 2016.

Long-Term Incentives.    Grants of stock options and restricted stock awards under our employee stock plans are designed to provide our Named Executive Officers and other managers and key employees with an opportunity to share, along with stockholders, in our long-term performance. Stock option grants or restricted stock awards are generally made annually to all Named Executive Officers, with additional grants being made following a significant change in job responsibility, scope or title or a significant achievement. The size of the grant to each Named Executive Officer is set by the Compensation Committee at a level that is intended to create a meaningful opportunity for stock ownership based upon several factors, including the individual’s current position with us, the individual’s personal performance in recent periods and his or her potential for future responsibility and promotion over the option term, but the Compensation Committee has the flexibility to make adjustments to those factors at its discretion. The Compensation Committee also takes into account the number of unvested stock options and restricted stock awards held by the Named Executive Officer in order to maintain an appropriate level of equity incentive for that individual. The relevant weight given to each of these factors varies from individual to individual.

We generally grant stock options with a five-year vesting schedule and 10 year term from the date of grant. The exercise price of options granted is at no less than 100% of the fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant. The options granted to Named Executive Officers as a rule have provisions by which vesting and exercisability are accelerated in the event of a change of control or a termination of employment initiated by us other than for cause. Such provisions are found in Dr. Rafaeli’s and Mr. McGrath’s employment agreements.

Similar criteria are applied in making awards of restricted shares of our common stock under the 2005 Equity Plan, but in the case of restricted stock, we base the vesting schedule of the restricted stock on the price performance of our common stock. Such awards generally carry a three-or-four year vesting schedule.

Compensation on Termination of Employment or Change of Control.  We have employment agreements with Dr. Rafaeli and Mr. McGrath. Each of these agreements provides for severance upon termination of employment, whether in context of a change of control or not. See “Potential Payments on Termination of Employment or Change of Control” below. In connection with the sale of the consumer products division to ICTV Brands, Inc. on January 23, 2017 (see ITEM 1: Acquisitions and Dispositions) substantially all of the remaining assets of the company were sold and thereby triggered a Change of Control as defined in the employment agreements of Dr. Rafaeli and Mr. McGrath.

Perquisites. We provide our Named Executive Officers with certain perquisites that we do not consider to be a significant part of their compensation. Under their employment agreements, we provide Dr. Rafaeli and Mr. McGrath with an automobile allowance of $1,000 per month. In addition, we provide Dr. Rafaeli with, and pay all expenses for, a telephone for his residence and he is eligible to receive the equivalent of economy round trip airfare tickets for all of his family members for an annual home leave between the US and Israel.

The Company pays the premiums for supplementary life insurance policies for both Dr. Rafaeli and Mr. McGrath. Both also receive a matching contribution from the Company to their 401(k) under the Company’s 401(k) Plan which is available to all employees.

How Amounts Were Selected for Each Element of an Executive’s Compensation

Each executive’s current and prior compensation is considered in setting future compensation. In addition, the Compensation Committee reviews from time to time the compensation practices of other companies, particularly our peer companies. To some extent, our compensation plan is based on the market and the companies we compete against for executives. Base salary and the long-term incentives are not set with reference to a formula.

An executive’s target bonus amount is set by an executive’s employment agreement, which was negotiated at arm’s length. A target bonus, or a portion thereof, is earned, based on fulfillment of conditions, which are set by the Compensation Committee at the outset of a fiscal year.

As a general rule, options and restricted stock awards are made after the financial results for the prior year have been audited and reported to our Board of Directors. Grants and awards are valued, and exercise prices are set, as of the date the grant or award is made. Exceptions to the general rule may arise for grants made to recognize a promotion or to address the effect of expiring options. The Compensation Committee may elect to defer a grant until after the Company has made public disclosure of its financial results, typically in a conference call on earnings. In such a case, the exercise price is set at the higher of the closing price on the approval date or the fixed grant date. In these deliberations, the Compensation Committee does not delegate any related function, unless to the Board of Directors as a whole, and the grants or awards made to the Named Executive Officers are valued under the same measurement standards as grants made to other grantees.

For fiscal 2014, our Compensation Committee granted restricted stock awards of our common stock of 225,000 and 165,000 to Dr. Rafaeli and Mr. McGrath, respectively; the awards were for 45,000 and 33,000 shares, respectively, after giving effect to the Company’s reverse stock split of September 23, 2016. The stock has a par value of $0.01. These ownership interests in our Company are intended to incentivize our Named Executive Officers and align their interests with those of our stockholders. The restricted stock will vest and become exercisable in three equal installments on each of the first three anniversaries of the date of grant subject to the individuals continued employment with the Company, with accelerated vesting upon a change in control.

Accounting and Tax Considerations

We have adopted accounting standard, FASB ASC Topic 718 under which, we are required to value stock options granted and restricted stock awarded.

Under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, there is a limit placed on tax deductions of any publicly-held corporation for individual compensation to certain executives of such corporation (other than its chief financial officer) exceeding $1,000,000 in any taxable year, unless the compensation is performance-based. Compensation resulting from options is indexed as performance-based. To the extent consistent with the objectives of our compensation program, we intend to maximize the deductibility of compensation for tax purposes. The Compensation Committee may however, decide to exceed the tax deductible limits established under Section 162(m) of the Code, when such a decision appears to be warranted based upon competitive and other factors.

Overview of Executive Employment Agreements and Option Awards

Employment Agreement with Dolev Rafaeli.    We are party to an employment agreement with Dolev Rafaeli, pursuant to which he serves as the Chief Executive Officer of PhotoMedex and the Chief Executive Officer and President of Radiancy. The initial employment agreement had a term of three years that commenced on December 13, 2011, the date of the closing of our merger with Radiancy. The Company and Dr. Rafaeli entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, which had a term of four years and commenced on August 5, 2014; the Company entered into a further Amended and Restated Employment Agreement on March 10, 2015. The Agreement will automatically terminate on December 18, 2018 unless the parties reach a written accord upon an extension or renewal of the Employment Agreement. Under the employment agreement, Dr. Rafaeli's salary is $495,000 per annum. In addition, Dr. Rafaeli is entitled to a guaranteed quarterly bonus equal to the greater of $300,000 or 1% of the Company’s sales (calculated as 1% of recognized U.S. GAAP sales reported in our consolidated quarterly financial reports presented to our Board of Directors), which bonus, when combined with all other applicable employee remuneration under I.R.C. Section 162(m)(4) from the Company may not exceed a $1,000,000 annual threshold. Such bonuses are to be paid quarterly. Upon the termination of Dr. Rafaeli's employment by PhotoMedex without cause or by Dr. Rafaeli for good reason, he will be entitled to severance benefits as described in the section below entitled “Potential Payments on Termination of Employment or Change of Control”.

Employment Agreement with Dennis M. McGrath.    We are party to an employment agreement with Dennis M. McGrath pursuant to which he serves as our President and Chief Financial Officer. The employment agreement had an initial term of three years that commenced on December 13, 2011, the date of the closing of our merger with Radiancy. The Company and Mr. McGrath had entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, which had a term of four years and commenced on August 5, 2014; the Company entered into a further Amended and Restated Employment Agreement on March 10, 2015. The Agreement will automatically terminate on December 18, 2018 unless the parties reach a written accord upon an extension or renewal of the Employment Agreement. Mr. McGrath’s 2016 annual base salary under his employment agreement is $395,000 and he is eligible to receive a guaranteed minimum annual bonus of $316,000. He is also eligible for additional bonuses up to 80% of his base salary based on the attainment of individual and corporate goals determined and set by our Board of Directors. In addition, he is entitled to participate in the long-term equity incentive programs established by the Company for its senior level executives generally commensurate with his position. The severance arrangements contained in Mr. McGrath’s employment agreement are summarized in the section below entitled “Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control.”

Under the Second Amended Forbearance Agreement, commencing on February 28, 2015, the Company and its subsidiaries agreed not to pay in cash any compensation to either Mr. Rafaeli or Mr. McGrath that is based on a percentage of sales or another metric other than the officer's base salary, perquisites and standard benefits provided to or on behalf of those executives under the terms of their employment agreements. Those payments were to be accrued or deferred and paid in cash only after the repayment of the Facilities in full. As of year-end 2016, Dr. Rafaeli’s total bonuses for the fiscal year 2016 of $1,200,000 and 2015 of $1,200,000 together with $300,000 from 2014 remains accrued but unpaid. As of year-end 2016, Mr. McGrath’s total bonus for fiscal year 2016 of $316,000 and 2015 of $62,400 remains accrued but unpaid.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

The following table includes information for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 concerning compensation for our Named Executive Officers.

Potential Payments on Termination of Employment or Change of Control

Potential payments to our Named Executive Officers on termination of employment or upon a change of control of the Company are governed by their respective employment agreements and by the terms of their option agreements and restricted stock agreements or plan document.

Pursuant to the terms of their employment agreements as of December 31, 2016, should (1) the Company terminate Dr. Rafaeli’s or Mr. McGrath’s employment without cause, (2) Dr. Rafaeli or Mr. McGrath resign for good reason or (3) the Company fail to renew the applicable employment agreement (in each instance, whether in the context of a change in control or otherwise), then the affected individual would become entitled to the following benefits upon his delivery of an effective release to the Company:

If the Named Executive Officer does not timely execute and deliver a release, then in lieu of the foregoing payments and benefits he will only be entitled to any payments and benefits then available under the Company’s then current severance pay plan or arrangement for employees without delivery of a release.

In addition, pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, upon termination Dr. Rafaeli's employment for any reason, we will pay for his household relocation costs between the US and Israel and reimburse him for all reasonable out of pocket relocation expenses. Additionally, we will pay for the equivalent of economy class airfare tickets of all family members between the US and Israel.

If any of the events set forth in the table below had occurred by December 31, 2016, then we estimate the value of the benefits that would have been triggered and thus accrued to Dr. Rafaeli and Mr. McGrath and had the triggering event occurred on December 31, 2016 and they timely delivered a release, would be as set forth below.

POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL TABLE

Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table

There were no options or restricted stock awarded to our Named Executive Officers in 2016. The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the options granted and restricted stock awarded during or for the year ended December 31, 2014 to our Named Executive Officers. The stock awards and option grants reflected below were awarded under the 2005 Equity Plan.

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS TABLE

Outstanding Equity Awards Value at Fiscal Year-End Table

The following table includes certain information with respect to the value of all unexercised options and unvested shares of restricted stock previously awarded to the executive officers named above at the fiscal year end, December 31, 2016.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END TABLE