GlucoTrack, Inc. - Annual Report: 2018 (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, 2018

For the transition period from _________________________ to _________________________

Commission file number 000-54785

INTEGRITY APPLICATIONS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code 972 (8) 675-7878

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common stock, par value $0.001 per share

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 Act.

Yes [  ] No [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) 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 (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

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 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 [X].

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 the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates is $12,571,325 based on the closing price of $1.65 per share of the registrant’s common stock, as reported on the OTCQB on June 30, 2018, the last business day of the registrants most recently completed second fiscal quarter of 2018.

As of April 15, 2019, 146,689,805 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

None.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL

Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “we”, “our”, “ours” “us” and “Integrity”, refer to A.D. Integrity Applications, Ltd., an Israeli corporation (“Integrity Israel”), for all periods prior to July 15, 2010 and to Integrity Israel and Integrity Applications, Inc., a Delaware corporation, on a combined basis, for all periods from and including July 15, 2010.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include statements about our expectations, beliefs or intentions regarding our product development efforts, business, financial condition, results of operations, strategies or prospects. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our future activities, events or developments, including such things as future revenues, product development, clinical trials, regulatory approval, market acceptance, responses from competitors, capital expenditures (including the amount and nature thereof), business strategy and measures to implement strategy, competitive strengths, goals, expansion and growth of our business and operations, plans, references to future success, projected performance and trends, and other such matters, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “plan,” “may,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should” and other similar words and phrases or the negative of such terms, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are based on certain historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors we believe are appropriate in the circumstances. These statements relate only to events as of the date on which the statements are made and we undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. All of the forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are qualified by these cautionary statements and there can be no assurance that the actual results anticipated by us will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that they will have the expected consequences to or effects on us or our business or operations. Whether actual results will conform to our expectations and predictions is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially. Risks and uncertainties, the occurrence of which could adversely affect our business, include the risks identified in this Annual Report on Form 10-K under the caption “Risk Factors,” beginning on page 30. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date of this report unless required by law.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

Incorporated in Delaware in May 2010, we are a medical device company focused on the design, development and commercialization of non-invasive glucose monitoring devices for use by people with diabetes and pre-diabetics. On July 15, 2010, we completed a reverse triangular merger with Integrity Israel and Integrity Acquisition Corp. Ltd., an Israeli corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of ours, pursuant to which Integrity Acquisition Corp. Ltd. merged with and into Integrity Israel and all of the stockholders and option holders of Integrity Israel became entitled to receive shares and options in us in exchange for their shares and options in Integrity Israel (the “Reorganization”). Following the Reorganization, the former equity holders of Integrity Israel were entitled to the same proportional ownership in us as they had in Integrity Israel prior to the Reorganization. As a result of the Reorganization, Integrity Israel became a wholly owned subsidiary of ours. We operate primarily through Integrity Israel.

Integrity Israel was founded in 2001 with a mission to develop, produce and market non-invasive glucose monitors for home use by diabetics. We have developed a non-invasive glucose monitor, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F glucose monitoring device, which is designed to help people with diabetes and pre-diabetics obtain glucose level readings without the pain, inconvenience, cost and difficulty of conventional (invasive) spot finger stick devices. The GlucoTrack® model DF-F utilizes a patented combination of ultrasound, electromagnetic and thermal technologies to obtain glucose measurements in less than one minute via a small sensor that is clipped onto one’s earlobe and connected to a small, handheld control and display unit, all without drawing blood or interstitial fluid.

In June 2013, we received the initial Conformité Européene (CE) Mark (indicating the conformity of the Company’s product with health, safety, and environmental protection standards for products sold within the European Economic Area) approval for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F non-invasive glucose monitoring device from DEKRA Certification B.V., our European notified body (the “Notified Body”), which is an entity that has been accredited by a member state of the European Union (“EU”) to assess whether a product to be placed on the market meets certain preordained standards.

This original approval required that the device be re-calibrated every 30 days, with each such re- calibration taking between 2.5 and 3 hours to complete. In March 2014, we received CE Mark approval for six months’ calibration validity of the same device. This approval eliminates the need for monthly re-calibrations and enables the calibration process to be conducted only when the sensor is replaced, once every 6 months. We believe that this is a significant feature of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F. On August 31, 2015, we received a further approval from the Notified Body for improvements to the GlucoTrack® model DF-F to simplify and shorten the initial calibration process for the device (from approximately 2.5 hours to approximately half an hour). All these improvements enhance the competitiveness of the device and its commercial viability. In addition, we received approval from the Notified Body on the updated intended use for the device, which expands the intended user population to include not only Type 2 diabetics, but also people suffering from pre-diabetes conditions, which we believe represents a material expansion of the potential market for the device. In December 2015, we received approval from the Notified Body for further improvements to the GlucoTrack® model DF-F that increase the accuracy and efficacy of the device. As a result of these incremental, but important, enhancements to the performance of the device we believe that the product is ready for commercial launch in specific market segments.

Receipt of the CE Mark allows us to market and sell the GlucoTrack® model DF-F glucose monitoring device in EU member countries that have adopted the European Medical Device Directive (the “MDD”) without being subject to additional national regulations with regard to demonstration of performance and safety. However, although the MDD is applicable throughout the EU, in practice it does not ensure uniform regulation throughout the EU. Accordingly, member countries may apply and enforce the MDD’s terms differently, and certain EU member countries may request or require performance and/or safety data in addition to the MDD’s requirements from time to time, on a case-by-case basis. The CE Mark also permits the sale in countries that have an MDD Mutual Recognition Agreement with the EU. This would include some countries in South East Asia as well as Latin America opening new potential markets for Integrity on a global basis.

Safety and quality are non-negotiables in the medical devices industry. Regulatory requirements are increasingly stringent throughout every step of a product’s life cycle, including service and delivery. More and more, organizations in the industry are expected to demonstrate their quality management processes and ensure best practice in everything they do. ISO 13485, is an internationally agreed standard that sets out the requirements for a quality management system specific to the medical devices industry. On February 19, 2016, we received an extension of our ISO 13485:2003 certificate and Annex II certification from the EU. The ISO 13485:2003 certification signifies that we have met the standards required for company-wide implementation of device quality management system(s). The scope of the certification is design, development, manufacture and service of non-invasive glucose monitoring systems for home use. Annex II also addresses quality control systems. The certification allows us to self-certify certain modifications and changes and simplifies some of the reporting to and review by the relevant Notified Body. This can shorten the CE-mark review process of future GlucoTrack® model DF-F enhancements or revisions, including software updates and other improvements of the device that do not affect the intended use and/or safety performance. The ISO 13485:2003 and Annex II certifications enable us to potentially reduce the time to market for product sales on new, enhanced or modified GlucoTrack® model DF-F devices.

The GlucoTrack® model DF-F has not yet been approved for commercial sale in the United States. On August 10, 2015, we submitted pre- submission documents to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) in connection with our proposed future application for FDA approval of our U.S. clinical trial protocol. The pre-submission documentation was submitted to the FDA in order to obtain the FDA’s guidance regarding the U.S. regulatory pathway for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, the proper approach to refining the trial protocol and preparing the pre-marketing application. On October 19, 2015, we met with the FDA to discuss the pre-submission documents, including the approach to and details of the clinical trial protocol for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F. On May 10, 2016, we submitted a pre-submission supplement (including clinical trial protocol) to the FDA which reflects the feedback received from the FDA at our October 2015 meeting. On July 18, 2016, we completed a teleconference with the FDA to further discuss our pre-submission supplement. At the end of this discussion, we received verbal confirmation from the FDA that clinical trials of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F constitute non-significant risk device studies, which allows the trials to proceed without an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) application. Such trials are assessed by the FDA and not considered to present a potential for serious risk to the health, safety or the welfare of subjects. We expect that the regulatory pathway would be that of a de novo 510k, requiring a clinical trial design based on feedback from the agency. The initiation of clinical trials in the USA is subject to raising adequate financing to fund the clinical program through completion. If we are unable to raise additional capital of at least $10 million, we do not expect to commence such clinical trials.

Clinical trials conducted in Germany by Pfutzner Science & Health Institute, GmbH, headed by Prof. Dr. Andreas Pfutzner, on subjects with Type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetics, as well as at Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel, demonstrated favorable results, which were presented on November 10, 2016 by the Company at the 16th annual Diabetes Technology Meeting (DTM), Bethesda, MD in an invited presentation. Most notably, the presentation included data validating that GlucoTrack’s accuracy has increased significantly. Results from the trials show 99.7% of the study data points within the clinically accepted A and B zones of the Consensus Error Grid (which is a new tool for evaluating the accuracy of a blood glucose meter) (Type 2), 99.3% of the study data points were within the clinically accepted A and B zones of the Clarke Error Grid (which is a tool used to quantify the clinical accuracy of blood glucose estimates generated by meters as compared to a reference value), 17.0% Mean Absolute Relative Difference, and 12.9% Median Absolute Relative Difference. In addition, the German trial concluded that the data confirms the performance of the GlucoTrack® among its intended users, including pre-diabetic patients.

In September 2016, we had a booth at the 52nd annual conference of the European Association for Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Munich.

In December 2016, we had a poster at the 9th Annual World Congress on Prevention of Diabetes and its Complications (WCPD, in Atlanta, GA). This Congress provided the Company with an opportunity to showcase GlucoTrack® model DF-F as a tool to fight diabetes and its complications, as well as using GlucoTrack® model DF-F as a tool to assist pre-diabetics.

In February 2017, the Company presented at the 10th International Conference on Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD 2017) in Paris, France. The Company presented key findings including (1) the latest generation GlucoTrack® algorithm, which compensates for the tissue-lagging effect relative to blood glucose changes post-meal intake, significantly improves GlucoTrack® accuracy at different post-prandial (post- meal) states, and equalizes accuracy for pre- and post-meal glucose readings; (2) GlucoTrack® clinical accuracy as measured by Consensus Error Grid (CEG) showed 100% of the pre-prandial readings in the A+B zones, and 98.2% of the post-prandial readings in the A+B zones; (3) GlucoTrack® Model DF-F demonstrates consistent glucose measurement repeatability between different GlucoTrack® devices and on each earlobe of the same subject; (4) the repeatability of different GlucoTrack® devices is similar at all tested glucose ranges and post-prandial time periods; and (5) the GlucoTrack® mean precision absolute relative difference (PARD) of 8.2% is equivalent or better than the independently reported PARD values of commercially available continuous glucose monitoring systems.

In the second half of 2017 we conducted a strategic review of our previous commercial activities. We established a cross-functional task force with the goal of reviewing the current commercial performance in all countries and identifying the critical success factors (CSF’s) necessary for successful commercialization. The CSF’s that were determined to be most important to our future commercial success include: 1) selecting the right distribution partner within countries that have knowledge and experience in diabetes, the appropriate capabilities and proven performance in the sales, marketing, and customer service in support of medical devices, and a commitment to investing the appropriate resources required for a successful launch and building of the business; 2) segmenting and targeting the right customers including key opinion leaders, treating physicians, and diabetes nurses within the healthcare provider communities as well as those patient groups that will benefit most from the use of a non-invasive device; 3) revising the cost structure for GlucoTrack® so that it will be more affordable on a monthly basis for patients; and 4) working with government authorities and health insurance companies to achieve full or partial reimbursement for GlucoTrack® within covered medical plans.

We have started the implementation of this new commercial program by selecting two countries where we will pilot this approach as our proof-of-concept; the Netherlands and Israel. These countries were chosen based on the relatively smaller size of these marketplaces that will allow us to be able to rapidly assess our performance and make adjustments as necessary. On December 22, 2017 we signed an exclusive distribution agreement with a new partner in the Netherlands (MediReva B.V.) and are underway. We have been working closely with our new distributor and have accomplished: product and disease area training across the organization; segmentation of the local target audiences including key opinion leaders, treating physicians, and diabetes nurses. During the second quarter of 2018 we received our first order of 30 units from MediReva and this has been shipped and received in their warehouse. The most important aspect of our launch preparations are the discussions being held with many health insurance companies. Approval of full or partial reimbursement by the health insurance companies will be a key factor in enabling us to achieve significant sales volume. We are currently working with several of these companies to initiate pilots with GlucoTrack® before the end of 2019 as the first step towards reimbursement approval.

On June 12, 2017, we announced new data demonstrating the clinical performance of GlucoTrack®, further supporting its suitability for people with type 2 diabetes across various medication regimes. The data was presented at the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) 77^th Scientific Sessions in San Diego, CA.

In September 2017, we presented key findings at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes Congress (EASD) in Lisbon, Portugal. The study evaluated GlucoTracker accuracy in 172 adults with type 2 diabetes who were prescribed one or more medications for major medical conditions associated with diabetes. The experiment stratified participants into five medication groups, focusing on anti-cholesterolemia, anti-hypertension, anti-thrombotic, and anti-diabetic (prolonged duration and short and mixed duration) medications. The study demonstrated that the use of these common concomitant medications in diabetes had no effect on the performance of GlucoTrack®. We also had a display booth at this conference that was well attended by hundreds of treating physicians and diabetes nurses.

In February 2018, the Company presented at the 11th International Conference on Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD 2018) in Vienna, Austria. The Company presented data on the performance of a non-invasive glucose monitoring device (GlucoTrack®) with regard to accuracy and precision. Device accuracy data was presented for 37 people with type 2 diabetes using the consensus error grid analysis for type 2 diabetes and measuring the median absolute relative difference (ARD). The results showed that 99.6% of 257 measurements were in zones A and B of the Consensus error grid, with 90.3% of the measurements in zone A, the mean and median ARD were 17.2% and 12.9%, respectively, and at various glucose levels, mean PARD ranged from 7.7%-8.7%. Data was also presented on sensor to sensor precision in 20 people with type 2 diabetes where ~19 simultaneous measurements using two GlucoTrack® devices, one on each earlobe. The results show that GlucoTrack® is highly accurate with sensor-to-sensor precision is comparable to that of CGMs (GlucoTrack: 8.1%, Dexcom G6: 9.0%, Freestyle Navigator: 9.6%).

On July 3, 2018 we signed a new exclusive distribution agreement for GlucoTrack® with CuraTec Nordic for the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland). We anticipate that they will be a strong partner due to their previous experience in diabetes, strong sales presence in all four countries, and established relationships with key opinion leaders. Launch preparations are underway to enter the markets in the first half of 2019. On August 6, 2018 we received our first order of 100 units, some of which were delivered in the first quarter of 2019 and are available for the start of our commercialization in the Scandinavian countries.

In the meantime, we have assessed the performance of all of our current distributors in Europe and Asia. A number of these agreements have been terminated given that they did not perform in the past and had minimal or no sales over the course of 2017. We are also initiating discussions with our distributors in the remaining countries to focus on changes needed to address the CSF’s for future success with implementation plans foreseen in the second half of 2019.

On October 2, 2018, John Graham notified the Company of his resignation as CEO and Chairman of the Company for personal reasons, to be effective as of October 31, 2018. David Podwalski was appointed as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company by its Board, effective October 9, 2018, and was appointed as a Director effective as of October 31, 2018 to fill the vacancy created by Mr. Graham’s resignation.

Effective November 1, 2018, the Board approved an increase in David Podwalski’s annual base salary to $275,000; and the Board will re-evaluate his bonus payout as part of the annual compensation review at a January 2019 Board meeting, with new goals to be effective January 1, 2019. With respect to his $70,000 salary due in arrears, $50,000 was issued in RSUs, based on the price of the conversion of the outstanding preferred stock, and $20,000 shall be paid in cash as soon as practicable; and he shall be granted an addition 75,000 stock options with a three year term and three year vesting schedule with an exercise price based upon the price for the conversion of the existing preferred stock.

The Board also approved that no later than December 30, 2018, the Company shall pay to John Graham his salary arrears as follows: (i) $320,000 in RSUs based on the price of the conversion of the existing preferred stock already isuued, and (ii) $61,335 to be paid in cash; and all of his existing options expired on January 30, 2019, in accordance with the Company’s Employee Stock Option Plan, and as a result of his former contractual provisions.

We do not own commercial manufacturing facilities and do not intend to build commercial manufacturing facilities of our own in the foreseeable future. We currently utilize a third-party manufacturer in Israel to manufacture the GlucoTrack® model DF-F. Moreover, in July 2014, we entered into a manufacturing agreement with Wistron Corp. (“Wistron”), a Taiwanese entity and the manufacturing arm of Acer Inc. Pursuant to such agreement, Wistron has agreed to mass produce and service, on a non-exclusive basis, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F and any future products, if any, introduced by us. Pursuant to such agreement, Wistron has also agreed to provide full turn-key manufacturing services for the GlucoTrack® model DF- F, including components procurement, unit assembly, device integration, testing, packaging and delivery to customers (distributors). In November 2015, we sent a delegation to Wistron’s main production facility in Taiwan to, among other things, inspect the readiness of Wistron’s production line for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F. Wistron has produced a small pilot batch and recently produced a second pilot batch of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F device. Following the receipt of an official clearance from the Taiwanese authorities on January 11, 2017 and the successful completion of a GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) audit by the local regulatory authorities in July 2017, the production line for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F is now operational. We intend to utilize the services of both Wistron and the Israeli third-party manufacturer to produce the GlucoTrack® model DF-F.

We have not yet generated any material revenues from our operations and, as of December 31, 2018, have incurred an accumulated deficit of $87,186,783 stockholders’ deficit of $2,873,301 and negative operating cash flows. We currently have no material sources of recurring revenue and therefore are dependent upon external sources for financing our operations. There can be no assurance that we will succeed in obtaining the necessary financing to continue our operations. As a result, substantial doubt exists regarding our ability to continue as a going concern.

Market Opportunity

Diabetes

Diabetes is a chronic, life-threatening disease for which there is no known cure. Diabetes is caused by the body’s inability to produce or effectively utilize the hormone insulin. This inability prevents the body from adequately regulating blood glucose levels. Glucose, the primary source of energy for cells, must be maintained at certain concentrations in the blood in order to permit optimal cell function and health. Normally, the pancreas provides control of blood glucose levels by secreting the hormone insulin to decrease blood glucose levels when concentrations are too high. In people with diabetes, blood glucose levels fluctuate between very high levels, a condition known as hyperglycemia, and very low levels, a condition known as hypoglycemia. Hyperglycemia can lead to serious long-term complications, such as blindness, kidney disease, nervous system disease, amputations, stroke and cardiovascular disease. Hypoglycemia can lead to confusion, loss of consciousness or death.

Diabetes is typically classified into two major groups: Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 diabetes is characterized by the body’s inability to produce insulin, resulting from destruction of the insulin producing cells of the pancreas. Individuals with Type 1 diabetes must rely on frequent insulin injections in order to regulate and maintain blood glucose levels. Type 1 diabetes is frequently diagnosed during childhood or adolescence, although disease onset can occur at any age. Type 2 diabetes, the more common form of diabetes, is characterized by the body’s inability to either properly utilize insulin or produce enough insulin. Type 2 diabetes is associated with older age, obesity, family history of diabetes, history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose metabolism, physical inactivity and race or ethnicity. Depending on the severity of Type 2 diabetes, individuals may require diet and nutrition management, exercise, oral medications or insulin injections to regulate blood glucose levels.

According to the Diabetes Atlas (Eighth Edition) published by the International Diabetes Federation in 2017, approximately 425 million adults worldwide, between the ages of 20 and 79, or over 9% of the world’s adult population, were estimated to suffer from diabetes in 2017 (not including those persons who suffer from impaired glucose tolerance or gestational diabetes, diabetic conditions first arising during pregnancy). The International Diabetes Federation estimates that this number will grow to approximately 629 million adults worldwide by 2045, a 48% increase from 2017. By 2045, the number of adults suffering from diabetes is estimated to increase by 156% in Africa, 110% in the Middle East and North Africa, 84% in Southeast Asia, 62% in South and Central America, 15% in the Western Pacific, 35% in North America and the Caribbean and 16% in Europe, over such regions’ respective 2017 levels.

Glucose Monitoring

Blood glucose levels can be affected by many factors, including the carbohydrate and fat content of meals, exercise, stress, illness or impending illness, hormonal releases, variability in insulin absorption and changes in the effects of insulin in the body. Given the many factors that affect blood glucose levels, maintaining glucose within a normal range can be difficult. Diabetics generally manage their blood glucose levels by administering insulin or ingesting carbohydrates throughout the day to maintain blood glucose within normal ranges. Normal ranges in diabetics vary from person to person. In order to maintain blood glucose levels within normal ranges, diabetics must first measure their blood glucose levels so that they can make the proper therapeutic adjustments. As adjustments are made, additional blood glucose measurements may be necessary to gauge the individual’s response to the adjustments. More frequent testing of blood glucose levels provides patients with information that can be used to better understand and manage their diabetes. Testing of blood glucose levels is usually done before meals, after meals and before going to sleep. Diabetics who take insulin usually need to test more often than those who do not take insulin.

Clinical data supports the recommendation that frequent monitoring of blood glucose levels is an important component of effective diabetes management. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial¹, consisting of patients with Type 2 diabetes, and the 1993 UK Prospective Diabetes Study², consisting of patients with Type 2 diabetes, demonstrated that patients who intensely managed blood glucose levels delayed the onset and slowed the progression of diabetes-related complications. In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial, a major component of intensive management was monitoring blood glucose levels at least four times per day using conventional spot finger stick blood glucose meters. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial demonstrated that intensive management reduced the risk of complications by 76% for eye disease, 60% for nerve disease and 50% for kidney disease. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis of over 25 prospective studies concluded that chronic hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes is associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes independently from other conventional risk factors.³ However, despite the evidence that intensive glucose management reduces the long-term complications associated with diabetes, Karter et al. reported in the 2000 issue of Diabetes Care that 67% of people with type 2 diabetes fail to routinely monitor their glucose levels.⁴

Spot finger stick devices are the most prevalent devices for blood glucose monitoring. These devices require users to insert a strip into a glucose meter, take a blood sample with a finger stick and place a drop of blood on a test strip that yields a single point in time blood glucose measurement. Despite continued developments in the field of blood glucose monitors, the routine measurement of glucose levels remains invasive, painful, inconvenient, difficult and costly. This has resulted in a sub-optimal and irregular measurement regimen for many diabetics.

¹ Group, U. P. D. S. (UKPDS); others Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). The Lancet 1998, 352, 837–853.

² Diabetes Control and Complications Research Group; others The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993, 329, 977–986.

³ hang, Y.; Hu, G.; Yuan, Z.; Chen, L. Glycosylated Hemoglobin in Relationship to Cardiovascular Outcomes and Death in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE 2012, 7, e42551, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042551.

⁴ Karter, A. J.; Ferrara, A.; Darbinian, J. A.; Ackerson, L. M.; Selby, J. V. Self-monitoring of blood glucose: language and financial barriers in a managed care population with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000, 23, 477–483.

The FDA has approved continuous glucose monitoring system (“CGMS”) devices for blood glucose monitoring, when prescribed by a doctor. CGMS devices use sensors inserted under the skin to check glucose levels in interstitial fluid. The sensor stays in place for up to ten days and then must be replaced. A transmitter sends information about glucose levels via radio waves from the sensor to a pager-like wireless monitor. According to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, CGMS device users must check blood samples with a conventional glucose meter to calibrate the CGMS devices, and because currently approved CGMS devices are not as accurate as standard blood glucose meters, users should confirm glucose levels with a conventional glucose meter when making treatment decisions.

To our knowledge, with the exception of one other device, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F is currently the only approved device for use in the EU for spot non-invasive blood glucose measurement. The FDA has previously approved a single non-invasive product for glucose trend analysis, the GlucoWatch®, so long as the device was used with conventional finger stick glucose monitoring devices. However, the device is no longer available commercially. We are not aware of any other devices that have been approved for use in either the United Stated or the EU for spot or continuous non-invasive blood glucose measurement.

We believe that a significant market opportunity exists for a reliable, inexpensive, non-invasive blood glucose measurement device and that such a device could greatly increase compliance with blood glucose measurement recommendations and help many diabetics better manage their disease, providing significant benefits to both patients and payors.

The Product

Our non-invasive blood glucose monitor, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, utilizes a patented combination of ultrasound, electromagnetic and thermal technologies to obtain blood glucose measurements in less than one minute via a small sensor that is clipped onto one’s earlobe and connected to a handheld control and display unit. See Figure A, below.

Figure A

We believe that the GlucoTrack® model DF-F addresses the unmet need for more frequent monitoring of blood glucose among people with diabetes by overcoming two of the most significant challenges facing the market:

We believe that the overall costs associated with owning and using a GlucoTrack® model DF-F device are expected to be substantially lower than the cost of purchasing and using single use invasive devices over an extended period of time. Nonetheless, the significant initial purchase price of a GlucoTrack® model DF-F might present a barrier to adoption of the GlucoTrack® system among some patients. In light of this fact, we are suggesting to distributors of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F that they consider offering end users financing and/or leasing options to lessen the initial financial burden associated with purchasing a GlucoTrack® model DF-F. There can be no assurance that any such alternatives will be made available to end users. In addition, we intend to seek reimbursement approval for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F from third-party payors, including government payors (such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the United States, in the event the GlucoTrack® model DF-F is approved for commercial sale in the United States), managed care organizations and other third-party payors. There can be no assurance that such third party-payors will provide reimbursement coverage for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or, if so, whether such reimbursement coverage will be adequate. See “Risk Factors - If the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, fail to achieve market acceptance or reimbursement coverage from managed care organizations or third-party payors, we may not be able to generate significant revenue or achieve or sustain profitability”.

Instead of directly measuring the glucose level of a user’s blood, as conventional spot finger stick devices do, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F uses a small, non-invasive sensor that is clipped onto a user’s earlobe to obtain certain body measurements using three technologies, which are then analyzed using a proprietary algorithm on a small, handheld control and display unit. Within one minute, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F will produce a blood glucose measurement that can be simultaneously audibly announced and displayed on the control unit, as well as recorded on internal flash memory. The two units of the device (main unit and personal ear-clip) are connected through a multi-wire flexible cable.

Since the GlucoTrack® model DF-F non-invasive measurement does not directly measure glucose levels in the blood, but rather measures a series of physiological characteristics that correlate with glucose levels, each patient must be calibrated by using a reference to a measurement obtained from an invasive device. Calibration consists of comparing an individual patient’s physiological measurements obtained using the GlucoTrack® model DF-F to measurements obtained from an invasive device under different circumstances over a defined period 30-minute period (three measurements that require approximately 10 minutes each).

The three different technologies used by GlucoTrack® model DF-F, ultrasound, electromagnetic and thermal, simultaneously measure three independent criteria. These three measurements (criteria) are combined together by a unique (on line) algorithm to produce an acceptable measurement of a user’s blood glucose level.

The technologies operate as follows:

Non-invasive devices (under different stages of development) generally require frequent recalibration. The main reasons for calibration are that tissue parameters generally fluctuate in the area of the measurement and are sensitive to the location of the sensor and the impact of potential disturbances. Disturbances are less frequent in the earlobes, where the GlucoTrack® model DF-F takes its measurements. Utilizing three channels simultaneously reduces the noise contribution in the measurement. In addition, the personal ear-clip contains sensors to help users attach the device to the proper part of the ear lobe. The Notified Body for our CE Mark approval has determined that the initial calibration of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F device is valid for a period of six months which we believe is a significant competitive advantage, while to our knowledge, competing products require recalibration significantly much more frequently. Therefore, we expect the GlucoTrack® model DF-F will require only an initial calibration upon use of a new personal ear-clip (to be replaced every six months) and will not require further recalibration.

The GlucoTrack® model DF-F does not use any optical method (either Infra-Red (IR) or Near Infra-Red (NIR) technology), which we understand are being used by other developers of non-invasive blood glucose measurement devices. We believe that optical technologies are less reliable than the GlucoTrack® model DF-F’s combination of ultrasound, electromagnetic and thermal technologies due to inherent physiological limitations with optical technology. More specifically, optical technology is based on dispersion of a beam that is analyzed by spectrometric methods. As such devices are non-invasive, the beam passes through other components in the fingertip, such as skin, bone, muscle and fat tissue, which interfere with the measurements. Generally, most of these interferences have been overcome, but not the epidermis, primarily due to roughness, pigmentation and perspiration, which act like lenses in optical wavelengths.

Unlike conventional spot finger stick devices, which require single-use glucose test strips, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F requires no short- term disposables. We believe that the personal ear-clip that accompanies each GlucoTrack® model DF-F will need to be replaced only once every six months, although regulatory authorities may require that replacement occur more frequently. Since there is no additional cost or pain involved with each blood glucose measurement using the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, we believe that users of our device would be encouraged to take multiple blood glucose measurements per day, significantly increasing compliance with blood glucose measurement recommendations and helping diabetics better manage their disease. More frequent testing of blood glucose levels may provide a patient with information that can be used to determine optimal timing and dosage for corrective treatments such as insulin, and can also direct a patient to seek a clinical analysis or detailed testing and diagnosis.

The GlucoTrack® model DF-F has received CE Mark approval, which allows us to market and sell the GlucoTrack® model DF-F glucose monitoring device in EU member countries that have adopted the MDD without being subject to additional national regulations with regard to demonstration of performance and safety. While the MDD is applicable throughout the EU, it requires only a minimum level of harmonization among member countries. Accordingly, member countries may apply and enforce the MDD’s terms differently, and certain EU member countries may request or require performance and/or safety data additional to the MDD’s requirements from time to time, on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the MDD notwithstanding, because the regulatory regimes of the EU member countries are significantly diverse, it is difficult to predict future regulatory developments and risks. The GlucoTrack® model DF-F has not yet been cleared or approved for commercial sale in the United States. See “Government Regulatory - Regulation of the Design, Manufacture and Distribution of Medical Devices” below for a discussion of the approval process for commercial sale in the United States. There can be no assurance that approval for commercial sale in any additional jurisdiction will be obtained on a timely basis or at all.

We do not have commercial manufacturing facilities and do not intend to build commercial manufacturing facilities of our own in the foreseeable future. We currently utilize a third-party manufacturer in Israel and a manufacturer in Taiwan to manufacture the GlucoTrack® model DF-F. Our suppliers and their manufacturing facilities must comply with applicable regulations in the jurisdictions in which the GlucoTrack® model DF-F is being marketed (including ISO 13485 in the EU), current quality system regulations, which include current good manufacturing practices, and to the extent laboratory analysis is involved, current good laboratory practices. There can be no assurance that we will be able to enter into agreements with qualified manufacturers on terms acceptable to us, or at all, or that, once contracted, such manufacturers will perform as expected.

Furthermore, the manufacturing of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F may be impacted by the Recast Directive on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, 2011/65/EU (“RoHS 2”). RoHS 2 is a new EU directive that came into force on July 22, 2014. Like the MDD, RoHS 2, a recast of Directive 2002/95/EC that will cover electrical and electronic medical devices, is relevant in order to obtain CE Marking for certain products. RoHS 2 compliance requires medical device manufacturers to: draw up required technical documentation; conduct an internal control procedure in accordance with Module A of Annex II to Decision No. 768/2008/EC; prepare a Declaration of Conformity; and affix CE Marking to a finished product. Although these requirements are similar to those of the MDD, RoHS 2 does not require a Notified Body assessment of compliance. However, if they are not compliant with RoHS 2, medical device manufacturers face the risk of being barred from selling medical devices in the EU after July 22, 2014.

Sales & Marketing

We have a limited number of dedicated sales and marketing personnel, as we intend to collaborate with third parties with established sales and marketing operations in the medical device industry (such as the distributors described below) to market and sell the GlucoTrack® model DF-F to point of sale end users and/or local distributors.

The GlucoTrack® model DF-F has been cleared and approved for commercial sale in the following jurisdictions: EU (subject to registration by the local distributors with the respective countries), Israel, Turkey, South Korea, Hong Kong, New Zealand and some Arab countries. We cannot provide any assurance that we will receive the required local regulatory approvals in any of the countries in which such approvals are required, and therefore we may never be permitted to commence commercial sales of our products in such territories. Further discussions with other potential distributors are in different stages. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to enter into additional distribution agreements on terms acceptable to us or at all or that, once contracted, our distributors will perform as expected.

Our distribution agreements entered into to date generally appoint the counterparty as the exclusive distributor of the GlucoTrack® model DF- F in a stated territory. Where local regulatory approval of the device is required, such appointment is generally conditioned upon receipt of such approval.

Research & Development

We focus significant time and resources on research and development in connection with our efforts to continue to develop, improve and commercialize the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, as well as in connection with our development of other GlucoTrack® models. Our continuing research and development activities are primarily focused on software and algorithm improvements intended to improve the accuracy of the device, clinical trials to test the performance of the GlucoTrack® device when used by children and teenagers between the ages of six and 18, preparation for future FDA trials, testing new characteristics of the device, development of a new device in the GlucoTrack® family and seeking to streamline and continue to simplify the calibration process. See “Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Results of Operation” below for a discussion of the research and development expenses for the fiscal years ended 2018 and 2017.

Our strategic priorities include the research and development of product enhancements that will improve the ease and usability of GlucoTrack for patients with a future generation of products. We are focusing our research and development activities around 4 main strategic pillars:

We have developed a wireless module (“GlucoTrack Link”) with embedded Bluetooth Low-Energy (BLE), which enables the transmission of measurement data captured by the GlucoTrack® model DF-F to a cloud-based server or a smart device. This module and the related applications facilitate the viewing of glucose related data and correlate it closely with lifestyle choices made by the users, be that dietary choices or activity-based choices, among other things. The wireless module will facilitate sharing, viewing and analysis of GlucoTrack® measurements and glucose profiles by clinicians and other caregivers.

We intend to develop smart device applications (“Apps”) to facilitate the interaction of users with Glucotrack® DF-F and the glucose data collected. The Apps will be compatible with both IOS and Android operating systems. We intend to develop Apps that support the management of Type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetic patients by providing immediate feedback and insights that can be derived from glucose measurements. Enhanced capabilities within the Apps may include goal setting, alarms and reminders, and diabetes management tips and tools. It will also be designed to provide analyses of trends over multiple time periods. The goal is to provide relevant information to guide patients in their journey to change behaviors and improve the management of their condition. The Apps are expected to have a user-directed capability to connect with third party healthcare providers (physicians, dieticians, and nurse practitioners) in order to receive professional guidance based on the accumulated information leading to improved management of the condition and better disease outcomes.

The current version of Glucotrack® DF-F requires each patient to be calibrated in a face-to-face session with a certified trained calibrator. The calibration requires patients to participate in a one-hour session when first using their new device and again every six months when the personal ear clip is replaced. We are developing a self-calibration module for Glucotrack® DF-F which will allow all patients to set up the device on their own without the need for a trained calibrator. This enhancement will allow patients to set up Glucotrack® DF-F themselves easier and faster without support from a calibrator. For our distributors, this will lower patient initiation and support costs allowing them to re-deploy these funds into their marketing and sales efforts. It will also provide them with a substantial opportunity to open up additional distribution channels including pharmacies, clinics and online.

The objective of this project is to transform the existing device into a simple, easy to use wireless ear-clip which would measure glucose and communicate the results seamlessly to any other platform through a wireless connection or a Bluetooth connection to a smart device such as a smartphone, tablet or computer, eliminating the current handheld display. The result would be a user-friendly, inconspicuous measuring device for the management of diabetes and pre-diabetes. We expect this new device to have much greater patient desire to purchase and user acceptance. We also expect this new device will have a significantly lower cost to manufacture than our current device.

Government Regulatory

Healthcare is heavily regulated by federal, state and local governments in the United States, and by similar authorities in other countries. Any product that we develop must receive all relevant regulatory approvals or clearances, as the case may be, before it may be marketed in a particular country. The laws and regulations affecting healthcare change regularly, thereby increasing the uncertainty and risk associated with any healthcare- related venture. The United States government has in the past considered, is currently considering and may in the future consider healthcare policies and proposals intended to curb rising healthcare costs, including those that could significantly and adversely affect reimbursement for healthcare products such as GlucoTrack® devices. These policies have included, and may in the future include: basing reimbursement policies and rates on clinical outcomes, the comparative effectiveness and costs of different treatment technologies and modalities; imposing price controls and taxes on medical device providers; and other measures. Future significant changes in the healthcare systems in any jurisdiction in which the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future products, if any, may be cleared for sale could also have a negative impact on the demand for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future products, if any. These include changes that may reduce reimbursement or payment rates for such products.

In the United States, the federal government regulates healthcare through various agencies, including but not limited to the following: (i) the FDA, which administers the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as well as other relevant laws; (ii) the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), which administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs; (iii) the Office of Inspector General, which enforces various laws aimed at curtailing fraudulent or abusive practices including, by way of example, the Anti-Kickback Law, the Anti-Physician Referral Law, commonly referred to as the Stark Law, the Anti-Inducement Law, the Civil Money Penalty Law, and the laws that authorize the Office of Inspector General to exclude health care providers and others from participating in federal healthcare programs; and (iv) the Office of Civil Rights which administers the privacy and security aspects of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). All of the aforementioned are agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services. Healthcare is also provided or regulated, as the case may be, by the Department of Defense through its TriCare program, the Department of Veterans Affairs under, among other laws, the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, the Public Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services under the Public Health Service Act, the Department of Justice through the Federal False Claims Act and various criminal statutes, and state governments under the Medicaid program and their internal laws regulating all healthcare activities. If and when we receive FDA approval to market the GlucoTrack® DF-F in the United States, we will be subject to regulation by some or all of the foregoing agencies.

The applicable regulatory schemes in the EU are significantly more diverse than those in the United States and do not lend themselves to similar summary. Although the CE Mark system and the MDD require a minimum level of harmonization in the EU, each EU member country may impose additional regulatory requirements. Because there are numerous EU member countries with distinct legal systems, the scope of potential regulatory requirements in each of the EU countries (additional to the harmonized EU requirements) is difficult to summarize or predict.

Regulation of the Design, Manufacture and Distribution of Medical Devices

Any product that we develop must receive all relevant regulatory clearances or approvals, as the case may be, before it may be marketed in a particular country.

Sales of medical devices outside the United States are subject to foreign regulatory requirements that vary widely from country to country. These laws and regulations range from simple product registration requirements in some countries to complex clearance and production controls in others. As a result, the processes and time periods required to obtain foreign marketing approval may be longer or shorter than those necessary to obtain FDA approval (as described below). These differences may affect the efficiency and timeliness of international market introduction of GlucoTrack® model DF-F. For countries in the EU, medical devices must display a CE Mark before they may be imported or sold and must comply with the requirements of the MDD or the Active Implantable Medical Device Directive. On June 4, 2013, we received our CE Mark approval for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F non-invasive glucose monitoring device from the Notified Body. Receipt of the CE Mark allows us to market and sell the GlucoTrack® model DF-F glucose monitoring device in EU member countries that have adopted the MDD without being subject to additional national regulations with regard to demonstration of performance and safety. However, although the MDD is applicable throughout the EU, in practice it does not ensure uniform regulation throughout the EU. Rather, the MDD requires only a minimum level of harmonization in the EU. Accordingly, member countries may apply and enforce the MDD’s terms differently, and certain EU member countries may request or require performance and/or safety data in addition to the MDD’s requirements from time to time, on a case-by-case basis. The CE Mark also permits the sale in countries that have an MDD Mutual Recognition Agreement with the EU. On August 31, 2015, we received approval from the Notified Body for improvements to the GlucoTrack® model DF-F which simplify and shorten (from approximately 2.5 hours to approximately half an hour) the initial calibration process for the device. These improvements are intended to reduce the backlog created as purchasers of the device await calibration. In addition, we received approval from the Notified Body on the updated intended use for the device, which expands the intended user population to include not only Type 2 diabetics, but persons suffering from pre-diabetes conditions as well, which we believe represents a material expansion of the potential market for the device. In December 2015, we received approval from the Notified Body for further improvements to the GlucoTrack® model DF-F that increase the accuracy and efficacy of the device. On February 19, 2016, we received an extension of our ISO 13485:2003 certificate and Annex II certification from the EU. The ISO 13485:2003 certification signifies that we have met the standards required for company-wide implementation of device quality management system(s). The scope of the certification is design, development, manufacture and service of non-invasive glucose monitoring systems for home use. Annex II also addresses quality control systems. The certification allows us to self-certify certain modifications and changes and simplifies some of the reporting to and review by the relevant Notified Body. This can shorten CE-mark review process of future GlucoTrack® model DF-F enhancements or revisions. Without an Annex II certification, each new device enhancement or modified version would be subject to the full EU CE-mark review process. The ISO 13485:2003 and Annex II certifications enable us to potentially improve the time to market for product sales on new, enhanced or modified GlucoTrack® model DF-F devices.

On May 4, 2016 we received regulatory approval from the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (KMFDS, formerly KFDA) for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F. In October 2016, we received the final approval from South Korea, which enables us to commence sales of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F in South Korea.

We are in the process of seeking regulatory approval for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F in China where we are in the process of negotiating our distribution agreement and are awaiting local regulatory approval. If the negotiation is unsuccessful, we plan to seek another distributor in China which may further significantly delay the process of obtaining regulatory approval in China. We currently are not seeking regulatory approval in Japan. We may also seek regulatory approval to market the GlucoTrack® devices in other foreign countries that do not rely on the CE Mark. To the extent that we seek to market our devices in other non-CE Mark countries in the future, we will be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements in each such country. Such regulatory requirements vary by country and may be onerous. As a result, no assurance can be given that we will be able to satisfy the regulatory requirements to sell our products in any such country.

In the United States, under Section 201(h) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a medical device is an article which, among other things, is intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man or other animals. We believe that GlucoTrack® devices will be classified as medical devices and subject to regulation by numerous agencies and legislative bodies, including the FDA and its foreign counterparts. Devices are subject to varying levels of regulatory control, the most comprehensive of which requires that a clinical evaluation be conducted before a device receives approval for commercial distribution. The FDA classifies medical devices into one of three classes. Class I devices are relatively simple and can be manufactured and distributed with general controls. Class II devices are somewhat more complex and require greater scrutiny. Class III devices are new and frequently help sustain life.

In the United States, a company generally can obtain permission to distribute a new device in two ways – through a so-called “510(k)” premarket notification application or through a Section 515 premarket approval (“PMA”) application. The 510(k) submission applies to any device that is substantially equivalent to a device first marketed prior to May 28, 1976 or to another device marketed after that date, but which was substantially equivalent to a pre-May 28, 1976 device. These devices are either Class I or Class II devices. Under the 510(k) submission process, the FDA will issue an order finding substantial equivalence to a predicate device (pre-May 28, 1976 or post-May 28, 1976 device that was substantially equivalent to a pre- May 28, 1976 device) and permitting commercial distribution of that device for its intended use. A 510(k) submission must provide information supporting its claim of substantial equivalence to the predicate device. The FDA permits certain low risk medical devices to be marketed without requiring the manufacturer to submit a premarket notification. In other instances, the FDA may require that a premarket notification not only be submitted, but also be accompanied by clinical data. If clinical data from human experiments are required to support the 510(k) submissions, these data must be gathered in compliance with investigational device exemption regulations for investigations performed in the United States. The FDA review process for premarket notifications submitted pursuant to section 510(k) should take about 90 days, but it can take substantially longer if the FDA has concerns, and there is no guarantee that the FDA will clear the device for marketing, in which case the device cannot be lawfully distributed in the United States. If the FDA finds that the device subject to the premarket notification is substantially equivalent to a proper predicate device, then the FDA may “clear” that device for marketing. These devices are not “approved” by the FDA. There is no guarantee, however, that the FDA will deem the device subject to the 510(k) process, as opposed to the more time-consuming, resource intensive and problematic PMA application process described below.

The more comprehensive PMA process applies to a new device that either is not substantially equivalent to a pre-May 28, 1976 product or is to be used in supporting or sustaining life or preventing impairment. These devices are normally Class III devices and can only be marketed following approval of a PMA application. For example, most implantable devices are subject to the PMA approval process. Two steps of FDA approval generally are required before a company can market a product in the U.S. that is subject to Section 515 PMA approval, as compared to a Section 510(k) clearance. First, a company must comply with investigational device exemption regulations in connection with any human clinical investigation of the device; however, those regulations permit a company to undertake a clinical study of a “non-significant risk” device without formal FDA approval. Prior express FDA approval is required if the device is a significant risk device. If there is any doubt as to whether a device is a “non-significant risk” device, companies normally seek prior approval from the FDA. Normally, clinical studies of new diagnostic products are conducted in tandem with a cleared or approved device and treatment decisions are based on the results from the existing diagnostic device. In such a setting, the FDA may consider the clinical trial as one not posing a significant risk. However, FDA action is always uncertain and dependent on the contours of the design of the clinical trial and the device and there is no assurance that the FDA would consider any proposed clinical trial as one posing a non-significant risk. Moreover, before undertaking any clinical trial, the company sponsoring the trial and the investigator conducting the trial are required by federal law to seek and obtain the approval of institutional review boards (“IRB”). An IRB weighs the risks and benefits of a proposed trial to ensure that the human subjects are not exposed to unnecessary risk and reviews the informed consent form to ensure that it meets federal requirements and accurately describes the risks and benefits, if any, of the clinical trial. IRB review occurs annually, and annual re-approval is required. University medical centers as well as other entities maintain and operate IRB. Second, the FDA must review a company’s PMA, which contains, among other things, clinical information acquired under the investigational device exemption. The FDA will approve the PMA if it finds there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its intended use. The premarket approval process takes substantially longer than the 510(k) process.

The GlucoTrack® model DF-F has not yet been approved for commercial sale in the United States. In discussions with the FDA regarding the regulatory pathway, the FDA is not yet entirely sure whether a de novo pathway is acceptable and recommended that the Company should plan to support this approach through risk analysis and an explanation of why the new measurement paradigm it is proposing does not introduce greater risks. FDA noted that no decision has been made that a PMA will be required.

On August 10, 2015, we submitted pre-submission documents to the FDA in connection with our proposed future application for FDA approval of our U.S. clinical trial protocol. The pre-submission documentation was submitted to the FDA in order to obtain the FDA’s guidance regarding the U.S. regulatory pathway for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, the proper approach to refining the trial protocol, and preparing the pre-marketing application. On October 19, 2015, we met with the FDA to discuss the pre-submission documents, including the approach to and details of the clinical trial protocol for the GlucoTrack® Model DF-F. On May 10, 2016, we submitted a pre-submission supplement (including clinical trial protocol) to the FDA which modifies the pre-submission documentation to reflect the feedback received from the FDA at the meeting. On July 18, 2016, we completed a teleconference with the FDA to further discuss our pre-submission supplement. At the end of this discussion, we received verbal confirmation from the FDA that clinical trials of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F constitute non-significant risk device studies, which allows the trials to proceed without an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) application. Such trials are assessed by the FDA and not considered to present a potential for serious risk to the health, safety or the welfare of subjects. Subject to raising adequate financing, we would expect to be able to begin clinical trials in the United States quite rapidly thereafter.

Even when a clinical study has been approved or cleared by the FDA or a notified body or deemed approved, the study is subject to factors beyond a manufacturer’s control, including, but not limited to the fact that the IRB at a given clinical site might not approve the study, might decline to renew approval which is required annually, or might suspend or terminate the study before the study has been completed. Also, the interim results of a study may not be satisfactory, in which case the sponsor may terminate or suspend the study on its own initiative or the FDA or a notified body may terminate or suspend the study. There is no assurance that a clinical study at any given site will progress as anticipated; there may be an insufficient number of patients who qualify for the study or who agree to participate in the study, or the investigator at the site may have priorities other than the study. Also, there can be no assurance that the clinical study will provide sufficient evidence to assure the FDA or a notified body that the product is safe and effective, a prerequisite for FDA approval of a PMA, or substantially equivalent in terms of safety and effectiveness to a predicate device, a prerequisite for clearance under 510(k). Even if the FDA or a notified body approves or clears a device, it may limit its intended uses in such a way that manufacturing and distributing the device may not be commercially feasible.

After clearance or approval to market is given, the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies, upon the occurrence of certain events, are authorized under various circumstances to withdraw the clearance or approval or require changes to a device, its manufacturing process or its labeling or additional proof that regulatory requirements have been met.

A manufacturer of a device approved through the PMA process is not permitted to make changes to the device which affects its safety or effectiveness without first submitting a supplement application to its PMA and obtaining FDA approval for that supplement. In some instances, the FDA may require clinical trials to support a supplement application. A manufacturer of a device cleared through a 510(k) submission must submit another premarket notification if it intends to make a change or modification in the device that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, such as a significant change or modification in design, material, chemical composition, energy source or manufacturing process. Any change in the intended uses of a PMA device or a 510(k) device requires an approval supplement or cleared premarket notification. Exported devices are subject to the regulatory requirements of each country to which the device is exported, as well as certain FDA export requirements.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law on March 23, 2010, and on March 30, 2010, a reconciliation bill that modifies certain provisions of the same was signed into law. These two laws are jointly referred to as the “Affordable Care Act” or “ACA.”

The principal aim of the ACA was to expand health insurance coverage to approximately 32 million Americans who were uninsured. The law’s most far-reaching changes did not take effect until 2014, including a requirement that most Americans carry health insurance. The consequences of these significant coverage expansions on the sales of our products is still unknown and speculative at this point, although the ACA and certain state initiatives may compel private insurers to reduce coverage or reimbursement for various items and services, including medical devices of the type that we contemplate distributing.

This legislation contains many provisions designed to generate the revenues necessary to fund the coverage expansions. The most relevant of these provisions are those that impose fees or taxes on certain health-related industries, including medical device manufacturers. Beginning in 2013, each medical device manufacturer is required to pay an excise tax (or sales tax) in an amount equal to 2.3% of the price for which such manufacturer sells its medical devices. The tax applies to all medical devices, including our products and product candidates. The ACA also provides for increased enforcement of the fraud and abuse regulations previously mentioned.

In January 2017, Congress voted in favor of a budget resolution that will produce legislation that would repeal certain aspects of the ACA if enacted into law. Congress is also considering subsequent legislation to replace or repeal elements or all of the ACA. In addition, there have been recent public announcements by members of Congress and the new presidential administration regarding their plans to repeal and replace the ACA. Further, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. At this time, it is not clear whether the ACA will be repealed in whole or in part, and, if it is repealed, whether it will be replaced in whole or in part by another plan, and what impact those changes will have on coverage and reimbursement for healthcare items and services covered by plans that were authorized by the ACA. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, and also indirectly affect the amounts that private payers are willing to pay. In addition, any healthcare reforms enacted in the future may be phased in over a number of years but, if enacted, could impact our revenue, increase our costs, or require us to revise the ways in which we conduct business or put us at risk for loss of business. In addition, our future results of operations, financial position and cash flows could be materially adversely affected by changes under the ACA and changes under any federal or state legislation adopted in the future.

There are ongoing discussions in the EU regarding amending the relevant regulatory framework. It is difficult to predict what effect any amendments to the existing EU legislation may have. Furthermore, each individual EU member country has the authority to amend its regulations and requirements additional to the minimum harmonization required by the MDD. Because the EU member countries have diverse legal systems, it is difficult to predict what, if any, amendments may be implemented in each of the EU member countries and whether they may adversely affect us.

We anticipate that sales volumes and prices of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F and any other products we commercialize will depend in large part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include governmental programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private insurance plans and workers’ compensation plans. These third-party payors may deny reimbursement for a product or therapy if they determine that the product was not medically appropriate or necessary. Also, third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. Some third-party payors must also approve coverage for new or innovative devices before they will reimburse health care providers who use the products. Even though a new product may have been cleared for commercial distribution, it may find limited demand for the device until reimbursement approval has been obtained from governmental and private third-party payors.

Inasmuch as a percentage of the projected patient population that could potentially benefit from the GlucoTrack® model DF-F is elderly, Medicare would likely be a potential source of reimbursement in the United States. Medicare is a federal program that provides certain hospital and medical insurance benefits to persons age 65 and over, certain disabled persons, persons with end-stage renal disease and those suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease. In contrast, Medicaid is a medical assistance program jointly funded by United States federal and state governments and administered by each state pursuant to which benefits are available to certain indigent patients. The Medicare and Medicaid statutory framework is subject to administrative rulings, interpretations and discretion that affect the amount and timing of reimbursement made under Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicare reimburses for medical devices in a variety of ways depending on where and how the device is used. However, Medicare only provides reimbursement if CMS determines that the device should be covered and that the use of the device is consistent with the coverage criteria. A coverage determination can be made at the local level by the Medicare administrative contractor (formerly called carriers and fiscal intermediaries) or a private contractor that processes and pays claims on behalf of CMS for the geographic area where the services were rendered, or at the national level by CMS. There are new statutory provisions intended to facilitate coverage determinations for new technologies under the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 §731 and §942, but it is unclear how these new provisions will be implemented. Coverage presupposes that the device has been cleared or approved by the FDA and, further, that the coverage will be no broader than the approved intended uses of the device (i.e., the device’s label) as cleared or approved by the FDA, but coverage can be narrower. In that regard, a narrow Medicare coverage determination may undermine the commercial viability of a device.

Obtaining a coverage determination, whether local or national, is a time-consuming, expensive and highly uncertain proposition, especially for a new technology, and inconsistent local determinations are possible. On average, according to an industry report, Medicare coverage determinations for medical devices lag 15 months to five years or more behind FDA approval for respective devices. Moreover, Medicaid programs and private insurers are frequently influenced by Medicare coverage determinations. A key component in the reimbursement decision by most private insurers will be whether the GlucoTrack® model DF-F is reimbursed by virtue of a national coverage determination by CMS. We may negotiate contracted rates for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F with private insurance providers for the purchase of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F by their members pending a coverage determination by CMS. Our inability to obtain a favorable coverage determination for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F may adversely affect our ability to market the GlucoTrack® model DF-F and thus, the commercial viability of the product. In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific product lines. Distributors expressly support the reimbursement process and, depending on the distribution agreement and geographic area, may assume responsibility for the process.

We believe that the overall escalating cost of medical products and services has led to, and will continue to lead to, increased pressures on the healthcare industry to reduce the costs of products and services. Furthermore, deficit reduction and austerity measures in the United States and abroad may put further pressure on governments to limit coverage of, and reimbursement for, our products. There can be no assurance that third-party reimbursement and coverage will be available or adequate, or that future legislation, regulation, or reimbursement policies of third-party payors will not adversely affect the demand for our products or our ability to sell these products on a profitable basis. The unavailability or inadequacy of third-party payor coverage or reimbursement could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition. Until reimbursement or insurance coverage is established, patients will have to bear the financial cost of GlucoTrack®. Third-party coverage may be particularly difficult to obtain while the GlucoTrack® model DF-F is not approved by the FDA as a replacement for existing single-point finger stick devices.

Outside the United States, availability of reimbursement from third parties varies widely from country to country. Within the EU, member countries’ medical reimbursement and healthcare coverage regulations and systems differ significantly. It is, therefore, difficult to analyze and predict the prospect of consistent availability of adequate reimbursement in the various EU member countries.

Until a reimbursement code is achieved, in order to reduce out of pocket expenses for users and increase the number of devices sold, we are suggesting to distributors of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F in the United States (and would anticipate suggesting to our distributors in the United States in the future if and when we receive FDA approval to market the GlucoTrack® model DF-F in the United States) that they consider offering end users financing and/or leasing options to lessen the initial financial burden associated with purchasing a GlucoTrack® device. There can be no assurance that any such alternatives will be made available to end users.

Anti-Fraud and Abuse Rule

There are extensive United States federal and state laws and regulations prohibiting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry that can result in significant criminal and civil penalties that can materially affect us, if and when we receive FDA approval to market the GlucoTrack® model DF-F in the United States. These federal laws include, by way of example, the following:

Sanctions for violating these federal laws include criminal and civil penalties that range from punitive sanctions, damage assessments, monetary penalties, imprisonment and/or denial of Medicare and Medicaid payments or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs, or both. These laws also impose an affirmative duty on those receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding to ensure that they do not employ or contract with persons excluded from the Medicare and other government programs.

Many states have adopted or are considering legislative proposals similar to the federal fraud and abuse laws, some of which extend beyond the Medicare and Medicaid programs, to prohibit the payment or receipt of remuneration for the referral of patients and physician self-referrals regardless of whether the service was reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid. Many states have also adopted or are considering legislative proposals to increase patient protections, such as limiting the use and disclosure of patient specific health information. These state laws also impose criminal and civil penalties similar to the federal laws.

Similarly, the EU and EU member countries may have similar fraud and abuse laws which would regulate our business in those jurisdictions. However, given the diversity of legal systems within the EU, it is difficult to predict with specificity what anti-fraud legislation and regulations may be implemented and the penalties that they impose.

In the ordinary course of their business, medical device manufacturers and suppliers have been and are subject regularly to inquiries, investigations and audits by federal and state agencies that oversee these laws and regulations. Recent federal and state legislation has greatly increased funding for investigations and enforcement actions, which have increased dramatically over the past several years. This trend is expected to continue. Private enforcement of healthcare fraud also has increased due in large part to amendments to the civil False Claims Act in 1986 that were designed to encourage private persons to sue on behalf of the government. These whistleblower suits by private persons, known as qui tam relators, may be filed by almost anyone, including present and former patients or nurses and other employees, as well as competitors. HIPAA, in addition to its privacy provisions, created a series of new healthcare-related crimes.

As federal and state budget pressures continue, federal and state administrative agencies may also continue to escalate investigation and enforcement efforts to root out waste and to control fraud and abuse in governmental healthcare programs. A violation of any of these federal and state fraud and abuse laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on a supplier’s liquidity and financial condition. An investigation into the use of a device by physicians may dissuade physicians from recommending that their patients use the device. This could have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize the GlucoTrack® model DF-F.

The Privacy Provisions of HIPAA

In the United States, HIPAA, among other things, protects the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information by limiting its use and disclosure. HIPAA directly regulates “covered entities,” such as healthcare providers, insurers and clearinghouses, and regulates “business associates,” with respect to the privacy of patients’ medical information. All entities that receive and process protected health information are required to adopt certain procedures to safeguard the security of that information. It is uncertain whether we would be deemed to be a covered entity under HIPAA and, owing to changes in the law, it is uncertain, based on our current business model, whether we would be a business associate. Nevertheless, we will likely be contractually required to physically safeguard the integrity and security of any patient information that we receive, store, create or transmit in the United States. If we fail to adhere to our contractual commitments, then our physician, hospital or insurance customers may be subject to civil monetary penalties, which could adversely affect our ability to market our devices. Changes in the law wrought by the provisions of Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, increase the duties of business associates and covered entities with respect to protected health information that thereby subject them to direct government regulation, increasing its compliance costs and exposure to civil monetary penalties and other government sanctions. While HITECH does not alter the definition of a business associate, it makes it more likely that covered entities with whom we are likely to do business in the United States, if and when we receive FDA approval to market the GlucoTrack® model DF-F in the United States, will require us to enter into business associate agreements.

Intellectual Property

We have received the following patents:

A Method Of Monitoring Glucose Level

Device For Non-Invasively Measuring Glucose

Individual Measuring Channels For Non-Invasively Measuring Glucose

Ear Clip For Medical Monitoring Device

Design Registrations

Hinge Pin Joint

Ear Clip

Measuring Device

Temperature Sensor

We believe that intellectual property is important to our business and to the medical device industry overall. We rely on a combination of patent, copyright and other intellectual property laws, trade secrets, nondisclosure agreements and other measures to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights.

We understand the importance of obtaining patent and trade secret protection for new technologies, products and processes. Our success will depend in large part on our ability to file for and obtain patent protection of our principal products and procedures, to defend existing or future patents, to maintain trade secrets and to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others.

We have obtained the above-mentioned issued patents covering our technologies related to the GlucoTrack® measurement process and our devices in the United States, and depending on the patent, in various countries in Europe, the Far East, the Pacific, Africa and Latin America. Our patents expire between 2023 and 2031. Patent applications for these products are pending in several jurisdictions. We have also obtained a patent for our ear clip in a smaller number of jurisdictions and have applications pending for this product in a number of jurisdictions. We also have design patents granted and pending for various aspects of our device.

We have obtained trademark registrations for GlucoTrack® in 24 countries, including the US, Europe, China and Israel, and also own an allowed trademark applications for GlucoTrack® in Canada. Trademark registrations were issued in ten countries for “JUST CLIP IT,” including France and China, and additional applications are pending in three countries, including the United States. In addition, trademark registrations were issued in seven countries for “YOUR TRACK TO HEALTH,” including France and China, and additional applications are pending in three countries, including the United States. Trademark registrations have been issued in Israel to register “Integrity,” the Company’s logo and the GlucoTrack logo. Registration have issued in Hong Kong and Taiwan and are pending in China and Singapore to register GlucoTrack in Chinese characters. Our application in South Korea to register GlucoTrack in Korean characters has been allowed.

We believe that our patents and products do not and will not infringe patents or violate proprietary rights of others, although it is possible that our existing patent rights may not be valid or that infringement of existing or future patents or proprietary rights may occur. Litigation may be necessary to defend or enforce our patent rights or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights of others. Defense and enforcement of patent claims can be expensive and time consuming, even in those instances in which the outcome is favorable, and could result in the diversion of substantial resources and management time and attention from our other activities. An adverse outcome could subject us to significant liability to third parties, require us to obtain licenses from third parties, require us to alter our products or processes, or require that we cease altogether any related research and development activities or product sales.

Patent protection is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions and issues. The patent application and issuance process can be expected to take several years and entails considerable expense. There can be no assurance that patents will be issued as a result of any applications or that any patents resulting from such applications or our existing patents will be sufficiently broad to afford protection against competitors with similar or competing technology. Patents that we obtain may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, or the rights granted under such patents may not provide us with any competitive advantages.

Competition

The market for blood glucose monitoring devices is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change and significantly affected by new product introductions. Four companies, Roche; LifeScan, Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson; Abbott Laboratories; and Ascensia, a spin off from the Bayer Corporation, currently account for substantially all of the worldwide sales of self-monitored glucose testing systems.These competitors’ products use a meter and disposable test strips to test blood obtained by pricking the finger or, in some cases, the palm or forearm.

Within the last few years, Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) devices have been introduced into the market and will compete with the GlucoTrack® model DF-F and our future devices. Currently, three different brands have obtained FDA clearance to market and are selling CGM devices in the U.S. and EU markets. These brands are sold by Medtronic plc. Abbott Laboratories and Dexcom, Inc. CGM devices are invasive devices, in which a needle is inserted under the skin (either in the abdomen or the upper arm) and measures interstitial fluid. Although we cannot predict what standards will be employed by applicable regulatory authorities as we seek FDA clearance, the results achieved by the GlucoTrack® model DF-F in our safety and performance clinical trial conducted in 2012 and 2013 were similar to the results obtained from the CGM devices that have been introduced to the market, as of the time of their introduction. Abbott FreeStyle Libre is a device which was introduced to the market during 2014 and is targeted for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics. It comprises a disk-shaped glucose sensor that is inserted into the upper arm and must be replaced every two weeks. In order to receive a reading, the user scans the device over the sensor and receives an immediate reading.

In addition, other companies are developing non-invasive glucose testing devices and technologies that could compete with our devices. There are also a number of academic and other institutions involved in various phases of technology development regarding blood glucose monitoring devices. We believe that the majority of non-invasive glucose monitors in development require frequent calibrations (from a few hours to a few days, compared to the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, which has a demonstrated efficacy period of six months from the initial calibration). Other companies developing continuous measurement devices, based on minimally invasive methods, such as implants or subdermal needles include Medtronic, Inc., Abbot Laboratories and Dexcom, Inc.

Some of our competitors are either publicly traded or are divisions of publicly-traded companies, and they enjoy several competitive advantages, including:

Some of our other non-publicly traded competitors also enjoy these competitive advantages. As a result, we cannot assure that we will be able to compete effectively against these companies or their products.

To our knowledge, a summary of potential competitors with non-invasive products in development is set forth below in Figure B.

Figure B

The GlucoTrack® model DF-F does not directly measure the glucose level concentration in the blood. Rather, it measures several physiological phenomena that are correlated with the glucose level. In order to correlate between the measured signal and the glucose level, a translation is needed. This translation is accomplished through the individual calibration of the device by reference to a measurement obtained from an invasive device.

Non-invasive devices under different stages of development generally require frequent recalibration. For example, GlucoWatch, a single non-invasive product for glucose trend analysis that was previously approved for sale by the FDA, but which is no longer available commercially, required recalibrations approximately every 13 hours. The main reasons for calibration are that tissue parameters generally fluctuate in the area of the measurement and are sensitive to the location of the sensor and the impact of potential disturbances. Disturbances are less frequent in the earlobes, where the GlucoTrack® model DF-F takes its measurements. Utilizing three channels simultaneously reduces the noise contribution in the measurement. In addition, the personal ear clip contains sensors to help users attach the device to the proper part of the ear lobe.

The GlucoTrack® model DF-F has received CE Mark approval, which allows us to market and sell the GlucoTrack® model DF-F glucose monitoring device in EU member countries that have adopted the MDD without being subject to additional national regulations with regard to demonstration of performance and safety. While the MDD is applicable throughout the EU, it requires only a minimum level of harmonization among member countries. Accordingly, member countries may apply and enforce the MDD’s terms differently, and certain EU member countries may request or require performance and/or safety data additional to the MDD’s requirements from time to time, on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the MDD notwithstanding, because the regulatory regimes of the EU member countries are significantly diverse, it is difficult to predict future regulatory developments and risks. The GlucoTrack® model DF-F has not yet been cleared or approved for commercial sale in any other jurisdiction, including the United States. See “Government Regulation - Regulation of the Design, Manufacture and Distribution of Medical Devices” below for a discussion of the approval process for commercial sale in the United States. There can be no assurance that approval for commercial sale in any additional jurisdiction will be obtained on a timely basis or at all.

Recent Corporate Developments

During 2018 and 2017, we received aggregate net proceeds of approximately $5.3 million (net of related cash expenses), from the issuance and sale in a private placement transaction of 1,367,557 Series D Units. As of December 31, 2018, the Series D Warrants (issued on December 1, 2017 and during 2018) are exercisable for an aggregate of 4,102,667 shares of Common Stock, in each case subject to adjustment in certain circumstances.

Pursuant to a placement agent agreement (the “Placement Agent Agreement”) with the placement agent, the Company paid the placement agent, as a commission, an amount equal to 10% of the aggregate sales price of the Series D Units sold in each closing, plus a non-accountable expense allowance equal to 3% of the aggregate sales price of the Series D Units sold in such closing. In addition, pursuant to the Placement Agent Agreement, in connection with the closings during 2017 and 2018, the Company is required to issue to the placement agent: (a) 5-year warrants to purchase up to 273,511 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $4.50 per share, (b) 5-year warrants to purchase up to 136,756 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $5.75 per share, and (c) 5-year warrants to purchase up to 136,756 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $7.75 per share. The terms of such warrants are substantially similar to the Series D Warrants except that the warrants issued to the placement agent are exercisable on a cashless basis and include full ratchet anti-dilution protection. The total fair value of the Series D warrants that the Company is required to issue to the placement agent in connection with the 2018 and 2017 issuances is $394,256.

On December 31, 2018 as a result of the Forced Conversion all of the outstanding warrants with down round protection (approximately 2,787,323) were exchanged. As of December 31, 2018, the number of warrants with down round protection held by the Placement Agent and two parties associated with the Placement Agent was 51,001,332 at an exercise price of $0.258. In addition, subsequent to December 31, 2018, the Placement Agent, elected to transfer 28,463,398 warrants to two parties associated with the Placement Agent.

On March 23, 2018, the Company held its 2018 Special Meeting of Stockholders. At the Meeting, the Company’s stockholders voted on the proposal to approve and ratify the increase of the total number of shares authorized for issuance under the Company’s Compensation Plan to 7,000,000 shares, including an amendment to the Incentive Plan on April 7, 2017 to increase from 1,000,000 shares to 5,625,000 shares and another amendment on February 15, 2018 to increase from 5,625,000 shares to 7,000,000 shares.

On July 3, 2018, the Company entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with CuraTec Nordic, a Scandinavian medical device distributor, for the sale of GlucoTrack®, the Company’s non-invasive glucose monitor for people with type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes, in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway.

On October 2, 2018 John Graham notified the Company of his resignation as CEO and Chairman of the Company for personal reasons, to be effective as of October 31, 2018. David Podwalski was appointed as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company by its Board, effective October 9, 2018, and is appointed as a Director effective as of October 31, 2018 to fill the vacancy to be created by Mr. Graham’s resignation.

Effective November 1, 2018, the Board approved an increase in David Podwalski’s annual base salary to $275,000; and the Board will re-evaluate his bonus payout as part of the annual compensation review at its January 2019 Board meeting, with new goals to be effective January 1, 2019. With respect to his $70,000 salary due in arrears, $50,000 were issued in RSUs, based on the price of the conversion of the outstanding preferred stock, and $20,000 shall be paid in cash as soon as practicable; and he was granted an addition 75,000 stock options with a three year term and three year vesting schedule with an exercise price based upon the price for the conversion of the existing preferred stock.

The Board also approved that no later than December 30, 2018, the Company shall pay to John Graham his salary arrears as follows: (i) $320,000 in RSUs based on the price of the conversion of the existing preferred stock, issued and (ii) $61,335 to be paid in cash; and all of his existing options expired on January 30, 2019, if not exercised by that date based on his contract.

On December 21, 2018, the Company held an annual meeting of shareholders (the “Meeting”). The number of shares of the Corporation’s capital stock outstanding, as of November 23, 2018, the Record Date, was (1) 7,748,586 shares of Common Stock; (2) 376 shares of Series A Preferred Stock; (3) 15,031 shares of Series B Preferred Stock; and (4) 12,004 shares of Series C Preferred Stock on the Record Date, with shares of Series A Preferred Stock convertible into an aggregate of 83,556 shares of Common Stock, shares of Series B Preferred Stock convertible into an aggregate of 3,340,251 shares of Common Stock and shares of Series C Preferred Stock convertible into an aggregate of 2,667,511 shares of Common Stock.

The number of shares represented at the Meeting in person or by proxy was as follows: 5,443,047 shares of Common Stock; (2) 250 shares of Series A Preferred Stock; (3) 8,845 shares of Series B Preferred Stock; and (4) 8,026 shares of Series C Preferred Stock on the Record Date, with shares of Series A Preferred Stock convertible into an aggregate of 55,556 shares of Common Stock, shares of Series B Preferred Stock convertible into an aggregate of 1,965,556 shares of Common Stock and shares of Series C Preferred Stock convertible into an aggregate of 1,783,556 shares of Common Stock. The number of shares present constituted a quorum for the business to be conducted at the Meeting.

At the Meeting, the Company’s stockholders approved the following proposals:

After review and tabulation, the ballots and proxies’ case for and against granting authority to the Board of Directors to effect a reverse split:

After review and tabulation, the ballots and proxies cast for and against the increase in authorized shares:

After review and tabulation, the ballots and proxies cast for and against the reelection of each of the following current directors of the Company, who were candidates for reelection:

After review and tabulation, the ballots and proxies case for and against the ratification of the appointment of Fahn Kanne as the Corporations independent registered public accountants for fiscal 2018:

After review and tabulation, the ballots and proxies case for and against a non-binding, advisory basis, at least once every three years, the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in the Corporation’s Proxy Statement:

After review and tabulation, the ballots and proxies cast for and against the amendment of the Corporation’s certificate of incorporation to permit holders of designated series of its preferred stock to amend their certificates of designation without the approval of holders of our common stock:

After review and tabulation, the ballots and proxies cast for and against the amendment of the Series A Certificate of Designation by replacing Section 8 in its entirety with a forced conversion at the sole discretion of the Corporation:

Common and Series A Preferred as One Class

Series A Preferred

After review and tabulation, the ballots and proxies cast for and against the amendment of the Series B Certificate of Designation by replacing Section 8 in its entirety with a forced conversion at the sole discretion of the Corporation:

Common and Series B Preferred as One Class

Series B Preferred

After review and tabulation, the ballots and proxies cast for and against the amendment of the Series C Certificate of Designation by replacing Section 8 in its entirety with a forced conversion at the sole discretion of the Corporation:

Common and Series C Preferred as One Class

Series C Preferred

On December 21, 2018, the Company’s shareholders approved amendments to its Series A, Series B and Series C Preferred Stock, to permit a forced conversion of those instruments into shares of its common stock at a conversion price equal to the lower of $1.00 and the volume average weighted price of the Company’s common stock on the forty five (45) prior trading days, which, as of the Forced Conversion Date of December 31, 2018, was $.258 (the “Forced Conversion Price”).

Furthermore, the purchase price for common stock issued by the Company in a series of private placement transactions since December 1, 2017 in an amount of $6,154,000 and the remaining $3,846,000 intended to be sold in connection therewith (known as the “D Round”) will also be reset to reflect the Forced Conversion Price. As a result, for each share of stock sold in the D Round, additional shares of common stock will be issued to the purchaser in an amount equal to the number of shares required so that the average per share price is reduced from $4.50 to the per share Forced Conversion Price, less the one (1) share already issued. For each unit purchased by a shareholder of the Corporation in each of the rounds in which Series A preferred stock was issued (the “A Round”, in which Series B preferred stock was issued (the “B Round”, in which Series C preferred stock was issued (the “C Round”) and in the D Round, the warrants issued with respect to that unit (i.e.: for the A Round, the A Warrants, for the B Round, the B-1 and B-2 Warrants, for the C Round, the C-1 and C-2 Warrants and for the D Round, the D-1, D-2 and D-3 Warrants), shall be cancelled, and instead the investor will receive per unit, three warrants, one with an exercise price of $1.80, one with an exercise price of $3.60 and one with an exercise price of $5.40, which warrants will otherwise contain the same terms and conditions as the warrants issued in the D Round. Lastly, as disclosed in the Company’s Definitive Schedule 14A, filed on November 23, 2018, the warrants issued to Andrew Garrett, Inc. (“AGI Warrants”) by the Company contain full ratchet provisions pursuant to which as a result of the Forced Conversion Price, the exercise price of those warrants will be decreased, and the number of warrants increased proportionately.

Director Appointments

On March 17, 2016, the Board approved an increase in the size of the Board from four directors to five directors and appointed Leslie Seff and Angela Strand to serve as directors of the Company to fill the vacancies created by the resignation of Zvi Cohen and by the increase in the size of the Board, effective upon their acceptance of such appointments. Mr. Seff and Ms. Strand accepted their appointments effective March 23, 2016.

On November 9, 2016, the Board approved an increase in the size of the Board from five directors to seven directors and appointed Philip Darivoff and Revan Schwartz to serve as directors of the Company to fill the vacancies created by the increase in the size of the Board, effective on that date.

There are no arrangements or understandings between Mr. Darivoff, Ms. Strand and Mr. Seff and any other person pursuant to which Mr. Darivoff, Ms. Strand and Mr. Seff were selected as directors. Mr. Schwartz was appointed to the Board by Andrew Garrett, Inc. (“AGI”), the placement agent for the Company’s ongoing private placement, pursuant to the terms of a letter agreement executed by AGI and the Company.

The Company entered into letter agreements with each of Ms. Strand, Mr. Seff, Mr. Darivoff and Mr. Schwartz establishing their compensation.

On March 20, 2017, the Board unanimously voted to appoint John Graham as the Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company commencing on March 20, 2017. On March 26, 2017, the Board voted to appoint Mr. Graham as the Chairman of the Board of the Company.

On May 23, 2017, the Board appointed Michael Hauck to serve as a director of the Company, effective on that date. The Board further appointed Mr. Hauck to serve as a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board as well as on the Compensation Committee of the Board. There are no arrangements or understandings between Mr. Hauck and any other person pursuant to which Mr. Hauck was selected as a director. There are no relationships between Mr. Hauck and the Company that would require disclosure under Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K of the Exchange Act.

On May 23, 2017, the Board established an Audit Committee of the Board and appointed each of Leslie Seff and Revan Schwartz to serve as members of the committee. Mr. Schwartz will serve as chairperson of the Audit Committee. The Board determined that each of the members of the Audit Committee designated above is independent pursuant to the required standards set forth in Rule 10A-3(b) of the Exchange Act, based on an evaluation of the relationships between the Company and each of the members.

On October 2, 2018, David Podwalski was appointed as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company by its Board, effective October 9, 2018, and is appointed as a Director effective as of October 31, 2018 to fill the vacancy to be created by Mr. Graham’s resignation.

On January 22, 2019, the Board appointed Dr. Robert Fischell to the audit committee.

Director Resignations

On March 20, 2017, David Malka resigned from his position as a director of the Company. Mr. Malka will continue as the Vice President of Operations and as a director of Integrity Israel. Mr. Malka will also act as an observer to all Board meetings, except as may be prohibited by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law. Mr. Malka resigned as part of the reorganization of management and his resignation is not a result of any disagreement with the Company regarding its operations, policies or practices.

On March 26, 2017, Philip Darivoff resigned as a director of the Company, effective immediately. Mr. Darivoff’s resignation was not a result of any disagreement with the Company regarding its operations, policies or practices.

On October 2, 2018, John Graham notified the Company of his resignation as CEO and Chairman of the Company for personal reasons, to be effective as of October 31, 2018.

Leslie Seff, who has decided to not stand for reelection and his resignation was effective on the day of the shareholder’s meeting which was held on December 26, 2018.

As of the date of this report, the Company’s Board is comprised of the following five members: Robert Fischell, Angela Strand, Revan Schwartz, Michael Hauck and David Podwalski, of whom all are independent except for David Podwalski.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

Offering of Series D Units

During 2017, 2018 and through the date of this report in 2019, the Company raised funds in an aggregate amount of approximately $6.2 M (net of related cash expenses) through the issuance of 1,583,764 units (the “Series D Units”) each consisted (until the force conversion described in more details in the next paragraph) of a) one share of Common Stock, Par Value $0.001 b) a five year warrant to purchase, at an exercise price of $4.50 per share, one share of Common Stock; c) a five year warrant to purchase, at an exercise price of $5.75 per share, one share of Common Stock; and d) a five year warrant to purchase, at an exercise price of $7.75 per share.

On December 21, 2018, the Company’s shareholders approved amendments to its Series A, Series B and Series C Preferred Stock, to permit a forced conversion of those instruments into shares of its common stock at a conversion price equal to the lower of $1.00 and the volume average weighted price of the Company’s common stock on the forty five (45) prior trading days, which, as of the Forced Conversion Date of December 31, 2018, was $.258 (the “Forced Conversion Price”). Furthermore, the purchase price for common stock issued by the Company in a series of private placement transactions since December 1, 2017 (and until April 15, 2019) in an amount of $7,056,920 and the remaining $2,943,080 intended to be sold in connection therewith (known as the “D Round”) will also be reset to reflect the Forced Conversion Price. As a result, for each share of stock sold in the D Round, additional shares of common stock will be issued to the purchaser in an amount equal to the number of shares required so that the average per share price is reduced from $4.50 to the per share Forced Conversion Price, less the one (1) share already issued. For each unit purchased by a shareholder of the Corporation in each of the rounds in which Series A preferred stock was issued (the “A Round”, in which Series B preferred stock was issued (the “B Round”, in which Series C preferred stock was issued (the “C Round”) and in the D Round, the warrants issued with respect to that unit (i.e.: for the A Round, the A Warrants, for the B Round, the B-1 and B-2 Warrants, for the C Round, the C-1 and C-2 Warrants and for the D Round, the D-1, D-2 and D-3 Warrants), shall be cancelled, and instead the investor will receive per unit, three warrants, one with an exercise price of $1.80, one with an exercise price of $3.60 and one with an exercise price of $5.40, which warrants will otherwise contain the same terms and conditions as the warrants issued in the D Round. Lastly, as disclosed in the Company’s Definitive Schedule 14A, filed on November 23, 2018, the warrants issued to Andrew Garrett, Inc. (“AGI Warrants”) by the Company contain full ratchet provisions pursuant to which as a result of the Forced Conversion Price, the exercise price of those warrants were decreased, and the number of warrants increased proportionately.

All shares issued in the Forced Conversion shall be released on a monthly basis on the monthly anniversary of the date of Forced Conversion, commencing on the six (6) month anniversary of the date of Forced Conversion, in amounts (“Release Amount”) equal to the greater of five percent (5%) of all shares issuable upon a Forced Conversion of all then outstanding shares of preferred stock of the Corporation or fifteen percent (15%) of the aggregate volume of sales of the Corporation’s common stock on the OTCQB for the twenty two (22) trading days prior to each date of release under this paragraph (b) (“Lookback Period”). The Release Amount shall be increased proportionately by the amount during the applicable Lookback Period by which the volume weighted average price (“VWAP”) of the Corporation’s common stock during the Lookback Period equals or exceeds two hundred percent (200%) of the conversion price for the preferred stock of the Corporation

The Corporation shall file a registration statement for resale of the shares issued under any and all Forced Conversions for all shares of preferred stock of the Corporation, with any cutbacks pursuant to Rule 415 or otherwise required by the Securities Exchange Commission, to be applied pro rata against all then outstanding Forced Conversion Shares owned by the holders thereof. With respect to any Shares subject to a cutback, further registration statements shall be filed as permitted by the United Securities and Exchange Commission.

The holders of the Preferred Stock waive any rights for “most favored nation” status and any anti-dilution protection on any equity issuances issued prior to the date of this Amendment or subsequent to the date of this Amendment, and also consent to the issuance of other securities by this Corporation at or below the Forced Conversion Price as well as the reset of the exercise and/or conversion price of other securities previously issued by this Corporation.

The holders agree that the percentage for the Beneficial Ownership Limitation is hereby increased to 9.99% and that the holders may also waive the Beneficial Ownership Limitation in order to comply with the Forced Conversion; provided, however, that in the event the holder determines to not waive under this subparagraph (e), a Forced Conversion with respect to its shares of Preferred Stock will only be effected up to the Beneficial Ownership Limitation, and any shares of Preferred Stock not initially converted, shall be converted as a Forced Conversion as the holder’s beneficial ownership of the Corporation’s equity securities falls below the Beneficial Ownership Limitation

Subject to the beneficial ownership limitation described below, holders of the Series D Warrants will not be permitted to exercise their Series D Warrants if such exercise would cause such holder to beneficially own more than 4.99% of the outstanding Common Stock (subject to increase to 9.99%, at the option of the holder, upon no less than 61 days prior written notice to the Company).

In connection with the sale of the Series D Units, the Company entered into a series of registration rights agreements with the Series D Unit Purchasers (the “Series D Registration Rights Agreement”) pursuant to which, subject to certain exceptions, the Company has agreed to file with the SEC, no later than 90 days after the final issuance of Series D Units, a registration statement covering the resale of all of (a) the shares of Common Stock, (b) the shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of the Series D Warrants in full; (c) any additional shares of Common Stock issuable in connection with any anti-dilution provisions in the Series D Warrants; and (d) any securities issued or then issuable upon any stock split, dividend or other distribution, recapitalization or similar event with respect to the foregoing. Subject to certain exceptions and limitations specified in the Series D Registration Rights Agreement, the Company will be required to pay each holder monthly partial liquidated damages in the amount of 2% of the aggregate purchase price paid by such holder pursuant to the Series D Purchase Agreement, if the Company fails to timely file a registration statement; timely file a request for acceleration of a registration statement; timely respond to SEC comments with respect to a registration statement; obtain the effectiveness of a registration statement within 120 days from the filing thereof; or maintain the effectiveness of a registration statement for the periods required under the Series D Registration Rights Agreement.

Pursuant to a placement agent agreement with the placement agent for the Offering (the “Series D Placement Agent”), at the closing of the sale of the Series D Units the Company paid the Series D Placement Agent, as a commission, a cash amount equal to 7% of the aggregate sales price of the Series D Units, plus 3% of the aggregate sales price as a management fee plus a non-accountable expense allowance equal to 3% of the aggregate sales price of the Series D Units. In addition, pursuant to the placement agent agreement, the Company is required to issue to the Series D Placement Agent warrants to purchase up to such number of shares of Common Stock equal to 10% of the aggregate shares of Common Stock sold in the offering plus warrants equal to 10% of the total number of the Series D Warrants issued to the Series D Unit Purchasers in the offering (collectively, the “Placement Agent Warrants”). The terms of the Placement Agent Warrants will be substantially similar to the Series D Warrants except that the Placement Agent Warrants will also be exercisable on a cashless basis and will include full ratchet anti-dilution protection.

Issuance of Securities to Advisor

On August 1, 2017 the Company entered into an advisory agreement with AGI, pursuant to which the Company retained AGI on a non-exclusive basis to provide certain advisory services to the Company for a period of 9 months which was subsequently extended twice and is now in effect to October 31, 2019. As consideration for the advisory services, the Company agreed to pay AGI $20,000 per month, payable in a cash payment of $10,000, and the balance in shares of the Company’s Common Stock valued at $4.50 per share, (which were reduced to $.258 retrospectively as part of the force conversion). In addition, in recognition of the advisory services previously provided by AGI prior to the advisory agreement, the Company also agreed to issue to AGI 8,889 shares of Common Stock, which was subsequently adjusted to the issuance of 155,041 Shares of Common Stock as a result of the forced conversion.

As disclosed in the Company’s Definitive Schedule 14A, filed on November 23, 2018, the warrants issued to Andrew Garrett, Inc. (“AGI Warrants”) by the Company contain full ratchet provisions pursuant to which as a result of the Forced Conversion Price, the exercise price of those warrants will be decreased, and the number of warrants increased proportionately.

Corporate Information

Our principal offices are located at 19 Ha’Yahalomim St., Ashdod, Israel 7760049 and our telephone number is 972-8-675-7878. Our website address is http://www.integrity-app.com; the reference to such website address does not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website and such information should not be considered part of this report. There is no relationship between us and Integrity Applications, Incorporated, the engineering and software services company based in Chantilly, Virginia.

Board and Committees

We have five members on our Board, four of whom are independent. The Board has an Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, each consisting solely of independent directors. We are continuing to consider expansion of the Board and the establishment of additional appropriate Board committees to support the Company.

Employees

As of December 31, 2018, we had 19 full-time employees. None of our employees are represented by a collective bargaining agreement. In addition, as of December 31, 2018, we had four two-time consultants.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

An investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the following risk factors. If any of these risks actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially harmed. In addition, risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. If this were to happen, the value of our common stock could decline significantly, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

We will need to secure additional financing in 2019 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.

Our cash on hand was approximately $152,000 as of March 23, 2019. Based on our current cash burn rate, strategy and operating plan, we believe that our cash and cash equivalents will enable us to operate for a period of less than one month from the date of this report. In order to fund our anticipated liquidity needs beyond such period (or possibly earlier if our current cash burn rate, strategy or operating plan change in a way that accelerates or increases our liquidity needs), we will need to raise additional capital.

Until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance future cash needs primarily through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or strategic collaborations. We do not know whether additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to: curtail or abandon our existing business plans; limit or terminate our applications for the regulatory approvals or clearances, as the case may be, in the countries in which we intend to market the GlucoTrack® model DF-F; reduce our headcount; default on our debt obligations; file for bankruptcy; seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or cease our operations. If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our securities may be worthless. To the extent that we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience significant dilution, and debt financing, if available, may involve restrictive covenants. In addition to the dilution normally attendant to an equity offering, holders of our shares of Common Stock may experience additional dilution as a result of the anti-dilution and most favored nation provisions of our Preferred Stock and Warrants.

We have a history of operating losses, and there is no assurance that we will generate material revenues or become profitable in the near future.

We are a medical device company with a limited operating history. We are not profitable and have incurred losses since our inception. To date we have not generated material revenue from the sale of products, and we do not anticipate that we will report operating income in the near future. Our initial product, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, has not been approved for marketing in the United States and may not be sold or marketed without FDA clearance or approval in the United States. While our GlucoTrack® model DF-F received CE Mark approval in 2013, there is no assurance that we will be able to generate any material revenues from sales of such model in the EU or any other jurisdictions. We continue to incur research and development and selling, marketing and general and administrative expenses related to our operations, development and commercialization of our first product. Our operating losses for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 were approximately $6.5 million and $10.6 million, respectively, and we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $87.2 million as of December 31, 2018. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and these losses will likely increase as we prepare for and begin to commercialize the GlucoTrack® model DF-F. If we are not successful in manufacturing and distributing the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, or if the GlucoTrack® model DF-F does not achieve market acceptance, we may never become profitable. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods.

Our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our independent registered public accounting firm noted in its report accompanying our financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 that we had suffered significant accumulated deficit and had negative operating cash flows and that the development and commercialization of our product is expected to require substantial expenditures. We have not yet generated any material revenues from our operations to fund our activities, and are therefore dependent upon external sources for financing our operations. There can be no assurance that we will succeed in obtaining the necessary financing to continue our operations. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. If we cannot successfully continue as a going concern, our stockholders may lose their entire investment in our common stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our Common Stock and do not anticipate paying any dividends on our Common Stock in the foreseeable future.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our Common Stock and do not anticipate paying any dividends on our Common Stock in the foreseeable future. Any cash that might be available for payment of dividends will be used to expand our business. Payments of any cash dividends in the future will depend on our financial condition, results of operation and capital requirements, as well as other factors deemed relevant to our Board of Directors.

Economic crises and market instability may materially and adversely affect the demand for our products, as well as our ability to obtain credit or secure funds through sales of our stock, which may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and ability to fund our operations.

Economic crises may reduce the demand for new and innovative medical devices, resulting in delayed market acceptance of our products, if and when they are approved. Such a delay could have a material adverse impact on our business, expected cash flows, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, we have funded our operations to date primarily through private sales of securities, including common stock and other securities convertible into or exercisable for shares of our common stock. Economic turmoil and instability in the world’s equity and credit markets and in the unstable world may materially adversely affect our ability to sell additional securities and/or borrow cash. There can be no assurance that we will be able to raise additional working capital on acceptable terms or at all, and any failure to do so may materially adversely affect our ability to continue operations.

 The GlucoTrack® model DF-F may not be approved for sale in the United States or other (non-CE Mark) jurisdictions.

We will likely be required to undertake significant clinical trials to demonstrate to the FDA that the GlucoTrack® model DF-F is either safe and effective for its intended use or is substantially equivalent in terms of safety and effectiveness to an existing, lawfully marketed non-Section 515 premarket approval (PMA) device (refer to “Management Discussion and Analysis - Government Regulatory”). We may also be required to undertake clinical trials by non-U.S. regulatory agencies in non-CE Mark jurisdictions. Clinical trials are expensive and uncertain processes that may take years to complete. Failure can occur at any point in the process and early positive results do not ensure that the entire clinical trial will be successful. Product candidates in clinical trials may fail to show desired efficacy and safety traits despite early promising results. A number of companies in the medical device industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after their product candidates demonstrated promising results at earlier points.

Positive results from the limited pre-clinical trials and safety and performance clinical trial that we have conducted should not be relied upon as evidence that later-stage or large-scale clinical trials will succeed. These trials involved limited patient populations and there is no assurance that the experimental protocol or protocols, as the case may be, used in these informal trials will be methodologically similar to ones submitted to the FDA or any other regulatory body for its approval. Because of the sample size, possible variation in methodology, differences in exclusion/inclusion criteria, or differences in endpoints, the results of these pre-clinical trials may not be indicative of future results. We will likely be required to demonstrate through well-controlled clinical trials that the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or future product candidates, if any, are safe and effective for their intended uses. In the event that the FDA deems GlucoTrack® model DF-F to be a Class II device, which we do not believe is likely at this point, then we would be required to demonstrate that it is substantially equivalent in terms of safety and effectiveness to a device lawfully marketed either through a premarket notification or prior to May 28, 1976.

Additionally, although we have received our CE Mark approval for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F non-invasive glucose monitoring device, EU member countries may request or require additional performance and/or safety data from time to time, on a case-by-case basis. We have also received final approval from South Korea to commence sales of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F in South Korea.

Further, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, may not be cleared or approved, as the case may be, even if the clinical data are satisfactory and support, in our view, its or their clearance or approval. The FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial design or interpretation of the clinical data. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may change requirements for the clearance or approval of a product candidate even after reviewing and providing comment on a protocol for a pivotal clinical trial that has the potential to result in FDA approval. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may also clear or approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited uses than we request or may grant clearance or approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA or other non-regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any.

We are highly dependent on the success of our initial product candidate, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, and cannot give any assurance that it will receive regulatory approval or clearance or be successfully commercialized.

We are highly dependent on the success of our initial product candidate, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F. We cannot give any assurance that the FDA will permit us to clinically test the device, nor can we give any assurance that the clinical trials will be successful or that the GlucoTrack® model DF-F will receive regulatory clearance or approval or be successfully commercialized, for a number of reasons, including, without limitation, the potential introduction by our competitors of more clinically-effective or cost-effective alternatives, failure in our sales and marketing efforts, or the failure to obtain positive coverage determinations or reimbursement. Any failure to obtain approval to conduct clinical trials, favorable clinical data, clearance or approval of or to successfully commercialize the GlucoTrack® model DF-F would have a material adverse effect on our business.

If our competitors develop and market products that are more effective, safer or less expensive than GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, our commercial opportunities will be adversely affected.

The life sciences industry is highly competitive and we face significant competition from many medical device companies that are researching and marketing products designed to address the needs of persons suffering from diabetes. We are currently developing medical devices that will compete with other medical devices that currently exist or are being developed. Some of our competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing and product development resources than we do. Large medical device companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing and in obtaining regulatory clearances or approvals for medical devices. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than us. Some of the medical device companies that we expect to compete with include Roche; LifeScan, Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson; the MediSense and TheraSense divisions of Abbott Laboratories; Ascensia, a spin off from Bayer Corporation; and Medtronic, Inc. In addition, many other universities and private and public research institutions are or may become active in research involving blood glucose measurement devices.

We believe that our ability to successfully compete will depend on, among other things:

If our competitors market products that are more effective, safer, easier to use or less expensive than GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, or that reach the market sooner than GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, we may not achieve commercial success. In addition, the medical device industry is characterized by rapid technological change. It may be difficult for us to stay abreast of the rapid changes in each technology. If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we may be unable to compete effectively. Technological advances or products developed by our competitors may render our technologies or product candidates obsolete or less competitive.

Our product development activities could be delayed or stopped.

We do not know whether our future clinical trials will begin on time, or at all, and whether ongoing and/or future clinical trials will be completed on schedule, or at all.

The commencement of future clinical trials could be substantially delayed or prevented by several factors, including:

The completion of clinical trials in connection with our application for FDA approval could also be substantially delayed or prevented by several factors, including:

Our clinical trials may be suspended or terminated at any time by the FDA, other regulatory authorities, the IRB for any given site, or us. Any failure or significant delay in completing clinical trials for GlucoTrack® or future product candidates, if any, could materially harm our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

The regulatory approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing and distribution of medical devices are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities, which regulations differ from country to country. We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the United States until we receive a clearance letter under the 510(k)-premarket notification process or approval of a Section 515 premarket approval, from the FDA, depending on the nature of the device. We have not submitted an application or premarket notification for or received marketing clearance or approval for any of our product candidates. Obtaining approval of any premarket approval can be a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. While the FDA normally reviews, and clears a premarket notification in three months, there is no guarantee that our products will qualify for this more expeditious regulatory process, which is reserved for Class I and II devices, nor is there any assurance that, even if a device is reviewed under the 510(k)-premarket notification process, the FDA will review it expeditiously or determine that the device is substantially equivalent to a lawfully marketed non-premarket approval device. If the FDA fails to make this finding, then we cannot market the device. In lieu of acting on a premarket notification, the FDA may seek additional information or additional data which would further delay our ability to market the product. In addition, failure to comply with FDA, non-U.S. regulatory authorities or other applicable U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory requirements may, either before or after product clearance or approval, if any, subject us to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

Regulatory approval of a PMA or PMA supplement or clearance pursuant to a 510(k)-premarket notification is not guaranteed, and the approval or clearance process, as the case may be, is expensive and may, especially in the case of the PMA, take several years. The FDA also has substantial discretion in the medical device clearance or approval processes. Despite the time and expense exerted, failure can occur at any stage and we could encounter problems that cause us to abandon clinical trials or to repeat or perform additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. The number of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for FDA clearance or approval varies depending on the medical device candidate, the disease or condition that the medical device candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular medical device candidate. The FDA can delay, limit or deny clearance or approval of a medical device candidate for many reasons, including:

Further, while we have received CE Mark approval for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, the MDD requires only minimum harmonization. In practice, uniform regulation throughout the EU is not ensured. Rather, member countries may apply and enforce the MDD’s terms differently, and certain EU member countries may request or require performance and/or safety data additional to the MDD’s requirements from time to time, on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, we cannot predict whether we will be able to successfully commercialize the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, in the EU.

Failure to recruit and enroll patients for clinical trials may cause the development of our product candidates to be delayed.

We may encounter delays if we are unable to recruit and enroll and retain enough patients to complete clinical trials. Patient enrollment depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites and the eligibility criteria for the trial. Delays in patient enrollment are not unusual. Any such delays in planned patient enrollment may result in increased costs, which could harm our ability to develop products.

The terms of clearances or approvals and ongoing regulation of our products may limit how we manufacture and market our product candidates, which could materially impair our ability to generate anticipated revenues.

Once regulatory clearance or approval has been granted, the cleared or approved product and its manufacturer are subject to continual review. Any cleared or approved product may only be promoted for its indicated uses. In addition, if the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities clear or approve GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, the labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising and promotion for the product will be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. We, and the manufacturers of our products, if other than us, also will be required to comply with the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, which includes requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance, as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation. Moreover, device manufacturers are required to report adverse events by filing Medical Device Reports with the FDA, which are publicly available. Further, regulatory agencies must approve our manufacturing facilities before they can be used to manufacture products, and these facilities are subject to ongoing regulatory inspection. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements of the FDA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities, or if previously unknown problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes are discovered, we could be subject to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

In addition, the FDA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities, including the EU and each of the EU member countries individually, may change their policies and additional regulations may be enacted that could prevent or delay regulatory clearance or approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we will likely not be permitted to market future product candidates and may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Even if we receive regulatory clearance or approval to market the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, the market may not be receptive to our products.

Even if GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, obtain regulatory clearance or approval, resulting products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, health care payors or the medical community. We believe that the degree of market acceptance will depend on a number of factors, including:

If the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, fail to achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to generate significant revenue or achieve or sustain profitability.

The coverage and reimbursement status of newly cleared or approved medical devices is uncertain, and failure to obtain adequate coverage and adequate reimbursement could limit our ability to market GlucoTrack® model DF-F or future product candidates, if any, and may inhibit our ability to generate revenue from GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, that may be cleared or approved.

There is significant uncertainty related to the third-party coverage and reimbursement of newly cleared or approved medical devices. The commercial success of GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, in both domestic and international markets will depend in part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, managed care organizations and other third-party payors. Government and other third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain health care costs by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement for new products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any. These payors may conclude that our products are not as safe or effective as existing devices or that the overall cost of using one of our devices exceeds the overall cost of the competing device, and third-party payors may not approve GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, for coverage and adequate reimbursement. Furthermore, deficit reduction and austerity measures in the United States and abroad may put further pressure on governments to limit coverage of, and reimbursement for, our products. The failure to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement for GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any, or health care cost containment initiatives that limit or restrict reimbursement for such products may reduce any future product revenue.

We may not obtain insurance coverage to adequately cover all significant risk exposures.

We will be exposed to liabilities that are unique to the products we provide. We currently maintain premises insurance and there can be no assurance that we will acquire or maintain insurance for certain risks, that the amount of our insurance coverage will be adequate to cover all claims or liabilities, or that we will not be forced to bear substantial costs resulting from risks and uncertainties of business. It is also not possible to obtain insurance to protect against all operational risks and liabilities. The failure to obtain adequate insurance coverage on terms favorable to us, or at all, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities.

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

Our inability to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop. We currently maintain product liability insurance up to $5,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Although we have product liability coverage, we may have to pay amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.

If we fail to attract and retain key management and scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize the GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any.

We will need to expand and effectively manage our managerial, operational, financial, development and other resources in order to successfully pursue our research, development and commercialization efforts for GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any. Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and pre-clinical and clinical personnel. The loss of the services of any of our senior management could delay or prevent the development or commercialization of GlucoTrack® model DF-F or our future product candidates, if any. At present, we do not have key man insurance policies with respect to any of our employees. We will need to hire additional personnel as we continue to expand our research and development activities and build a sales and marketing function. Although we currently have employment agreements with each of Messrs., Malka, Sassoun and Podwalski, those agreements provide that they may be terminated by Mr. Malka, Mr. Sassoun and Mr. Podwalski, as applicable, upon 90 days written notice to us, respectively.

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management and scientific personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among medical device and other businesses. If we are not able to attract and retain the necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our research and development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy. In particular, if we lose any members of our senior management team, we may not be able to find suitable replacements in a timely fashion or at all and our business may be harmed as a result.

As we continue to evolve from a company primarily involved in development to a company also involved in commercialization, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

As the GlucoTrack® model DF-F has received a CE Mark, we have begun to expand our manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities by contracting with third parties to provide these capabilities. We anticipate that, as our operations expand, we will need to manage additional relationships with such third parties. Maintaining these relationships and managing our future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of our management. We must be able to manage our development efforts effectively; manage our clinical trials effectively; hire, train and integrate additional management, development, administrative and sales and marketing personnel; improve managerial, development, operational and finance systems; and expand our facilities, all of which may impose a strain on our administrative and operational infrastructure.

We rely on third parties to manufacture and supply our product.

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for clinical or commercial production of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, other than a prototype lab. We have no experience in medical device manufacturing and lack the resources and the capability to manufacture the GlucoTrack® model DF-F on a commercial scale. We currently manufacture the GlucoTrack® model DF-F with a third-party manufacturer in Israel. In July 2014, we entered into a manufacturing agreement with Wistron. Wistron is in the process of preparing a production line for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F. Wistron has produced a small pilot batch and is in the process of producing a second pilot batch of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F device. Following the receipt of an official clearance from the Taiwanese authorities on January 11, 2017 and the successful completion of a GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) audit by the local regulatory authorities in July 2017, the production line for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F is now operational. We intend to utilize the services of both Wistron and the Israeli third-party manufacturer to produce the GlucoTrack® model DF-F.

If our manufacturing partners are unable to produce our products in the amounts, timing or pricing that we require, we may not be able to establish a contract and obtain a sufficient alternative supply from another supplier on a timely basis and in the quantities or pricing we require. We expect to depend on third-party contract manufacturers for the foreseeable future.

The GlucoTrack® model DF-F does, and our future product candidates, if any, likely will require precise, high quality manufacturing. Any of our contract manufacturers will be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities to ensure strict compliance with quality system regulations, including current good manufacturing practices and other applicable government regulations and corresponding standards. If our contract manufacturers fail to achieve and maintain high manufacturing standards in compliance with quality system regulations, we may experience manufacturing errors resulting in patient injury or death, product recalls or withdrawals, delays or interruptions of production or failures in product testing or delivery, delay or prevention of filing or approval of marketing applications for our products, cost overruns or other problems that could seriously harm our business.

Any performance failure on the part of our contract manufacturers could delay clinical development or regulatory clearance or approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our future product candidates, depriving us of potential product revenue and resulting in additional losses. In addition, our dependence on a third-party for manufacturing may adversely affect our future profit margins. Our ability to replace an existing manufacturer may be difficult because the number of potential manufacturers is limited and the FDA must approve any replacement manufacturer before it can begin manufacturing our product candidates. Such approval would require additional non-clinical testing and compliance inspections. It may be difficult or impossible for us to identify and engage a replacement manufacturer on acceptable terms in a timely manner, or at all.

We are dependent on third-party distributors to market and sell our products.

We have limited internal marketing, sales or distribution capabilities and currently we do not intend to develop extensive internal marketing, sales or distribution capabilities in the future. Rather, we intend to utilize third-party distributors to market our products, and have entered into exclusive distribution agreements with respect to certain territories. There is no assurance that third party distributors will achieve acceptable levels of sales or that, if any of our existing arrangements expire or terminate, we will be able to replace any distributors on terms advantageous to us, or at all. Further, there is no assurance that we will be able to expand our distribution network by adding additional distributors. If third party distributors cease to promote our products, or if we are unable to make acceptable arrangements with distributors or sales personnel in other markets, our business prospects, operating results or financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Independent clinical investigators and contract research organizations that we engage to conduct our clinical trials may not be diligent, careful or timely.

We will depend on independent clinical investigators to conduct our clinical trials. Contract research organizations may also assist us in the collection and analysis of data. These investigators and contract research organizations will not be our employees and we will not be able to control, other than by contract, the amount of resources, including time that they devote to products that we develop. If independent investigators fail to devote sufficient resources to the clinical trials, or if their performance is substandard, it will delay the approval or clearance and commercialization of any products that we develop. Further, the FDA requires that we comply with standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practice, for conducting, recording and reporting clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial subjects are protected. If our independent clinical investigators and contract research organizations fail to comply with good clinical practice, the results of our clinical trials could be called into question and the clinical development of our product candidates could be delayed. Failure of clinical investigators or contract research organizations to meet their obligations to us or comply with federal regulations could adversely affect the clinical development of our product candidates and harm our business.

If we are unable to obtain and enforce patent protection for our products, our business could be materially harmed.

Our success depends, among other things, on our ability to protect proprietary methods and technologies that we develop under the patent and other intellectual property laws of the United States and other countries, so that we can prevent others from unlawfully using our inventions and proprietary information. However, we may not hold proprietary rights to some patents required for us to commercialize proposed products. For this and other reasons, we may be unable to secure desired patent rights, thereby losing desired exclusivity. Although we do not believe that we need any licenses for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F, we may need to obtain licenses in the future for other products or in certain circumstances, such as if one of our patents were declared invalid in the future. If such licenses are not available to us on acceptable terms, we will not be able to market the affected products or conduct the desired activities, unless we successfully challenge the validity, enforceability or infringement of the third-party patent or otherwise circumvent the third-party patent.

Our strategy depends on our ability to rapidly identify and seek patent protection for our discoveries. The process of obtaining patent protection is expensive and time-consuming. Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary rights, unauthorized parties may be able to obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary.

The issuance of a patent does not guarantee that it is valid or enforceable. Any patents we have obtained, or which we may obtain in the future, may be challenged, invalidated, unenforceable or circumvented. Moreover, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) may commence interference proceedings involving our patents or patent applications. Any challenge to, finding of unenforceability or invalidation or circumvention of our patents or patent applications would be costly, would require significant time and attention of our management and could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, court decisions may introduce uncertainty in the enforceability or scope of patents owned by medical device companies.

Our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents. The patent position of medical device companies, including us, is generally uncertain and involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards that the USPTO and its foreign counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change. There is also no uniform, worldwide policy regarding the subject matter and scope of claims granted or allowable in medical device patents. Accordingly, we do not know the degree of future protection for our proprietary rights or the breadth of claims that will be allowed in any patents issued to us or to others. The legal systems of certain countries do not favor the aggressive enforcement of patents, and the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Therefore, the enforceability or scope of our patents in the United States or in foreign countries cannot be predicted with certainty, and, as a result, any patents that we own may not provide sufficient protection against competitors. We may not be able to obtain or maintain patent protection for our pending patent applications or those we may file in the future.

We cannot assure you that any patents that will issue, that may issue or that may be licensed to us will be enforceable or valid or will not expire prior to the commercialization of our product candidates, thus allowing others to more effectively compete with us. Therefore, any patents that we own may not adequately protect our product candidates or our future products.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information and know-how, the value of our technology and products could be adversely affected.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on other proprietary rights, including protection of trade secrets, know-how and confidential and proprietary information. To maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information, we will seek to enter into confidentiality and non- disclosure agreements with our employees, consultants and collaborators upon the commencement of their relationships with us. These agreements generally require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. Our agreements with employees also generally provide and will generally provide that any inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for trade secrets or other confidential information. To the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use technology or know-how owned by third parties in their work for us, disputes may arise between us and those third parties as to the rights in related inventions.

Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our confidential information. The disclosure of trade secrets would impair our competitive position and may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Some jurisdictions may require us to grant licenses to third parties. Such compulsory licenses could be extended to include some of our product candidates, which may limit potential revenue opportunities.

Many countries, including certain countries in Europe, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, most countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may be limited to monetary relief and may be unable to enjoin infringement, which could materially diminish the value of the patent. Compulsory licensing of life-saving products is also becoming increasingly popular in developing countries, either through direct legislation or international initiatives. Such compulsory licenses could be extended to include some of our product candidates, which may limit our potential revenue opportunities.

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to manufacture, use, sell, offer for sale or import products or impair our competitive position. In addition, to the extent that a third party develops new technology that covers our products, we may be required to obtain licenses to that technology, which licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If licenses are not available on acceptable terms, we will not be able to market the affected products or conduct the desired activities unless we successfully challenge the validity, enforceability or infringement of the third-party patent or circumvent the third-party patent, which would be costly and would require significant time and attention of our management. Third parties may have or obtain valid and enforceable patents or proprietary rights that could block us from developing products using our technology. Our failure to obtain a license to any technology that we require may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we become involved in patent litigation or other proceedings related to a determination of rights, we could incur substantial costs and expenses, substantial liability for damages or be required to stop our product development and commercialization efforts.

Third parties may sue us for infringing their patent rights. Likewise, we may need to resort to litigation to enforce a patent issued or licensed to us or to determine the scope and validity of proprietary rights of others. In addition, a third party may claim that we have improperly obtained or used our confidential or proprietary information. The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding relating to intellectual property rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and the litigation would divert management’s efforts. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could limit our ability to continue our operations.

If any parties successfully claim that our creation or use of proprietary technologies infringes upon their intellectual property rights, we might be forced to pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have willfully infringed on such parties’ patent rights. In addition to any damages we might have to pay, a court could require us to stop the infringing activity or obtain a license. Any license required under any patent may not be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, such licenses are likely to be non-exclusive and, therefore, our competitors may have access to the same technology. If we fail to obtain a required license and are unable to design around a patent, we may be unable to effectively market some of our technology and products, which could limit our ability to generate revenues or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain operations.

Failure to obtain additional regulatory approvals outside the United States will prevent or limit us from marketing our product candidates abroad.

We intend to market our product candidates in non-U.S. markets. In order to market product candidates in the EU and many other non-U.S. jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. In December 2012, we submitted our technical file to the Notified Body in connection with our application to obtain CE Mark approval for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F non-invasive glucose monitoring device. On June 4, 2013, we received CE Mark approval for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F non-invasive glucose monitoring device from the Notified Body. Receipt of the CE Mark allows us to market and sell the GlucoTrack® model DF-F glucose monitoring device in EU member countries that have adopted the MDD without being subject to additional national regulations with regard to demonstration of performance and safety. The CE Mark also permits the sale in countries that have an MDD Mutual Recognition Agreement with the EU. However, member countries may apply and enforce the MDD’s terms differently, and certain EU member countries may request or require that we provide performance and/or safety data additional to the MDD’s requirements from time to time, on a case-by-case basis, in order to be cleared to market and sale the GlucoTrack® model DF-F in such countries. Receipt of FDA approval does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in countries, and approval by one or more non-U.S. regulatory authorities (including receipt of the CE Mark) does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or by the FDA. The non-U.S. regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval or clearance. We may not obtain additional non-U.S. regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. We may not be able to file for additional non-U.S. regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our product candidates in any market.

Non-U.S. governments often impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

We intend to seek approval to market GlucoTrack® model DF-F and our future product candidates, if any, in both the U.S. and in non-U.S. jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more non-U.S. jurisdictions, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions relating to our products. In some countries, particularly countries of the EU, each of which has developed its own rules and regulations, pricing may be subject to governmental control under certain circumstances. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a medical device candidate. Each of the EU member states has its own unique legal system and thus it is difficult to predict the particular requirements to which we may be subject. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available products. If reimbursement of our product candidates is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, we may be unable to achieve or sustain profitability.

Our business may become subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations, which could harm our business.

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business internationally. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

It may be difficult to enforce a United States judgment against us or our officers and directors to the extent they are located in Israel based upon asserted United States securities law claims.

Three of our executive officers and one of our directors are non-residents of the United States and a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of these persons will be located outside of the United States. Therefore, it may be difficult for an investor, or any other person or entity, to enforce a United States court judgment, including a judgment based upon the civil liability provisions of the Securities Act, and the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), in original actions instituted in an Israeli court against any of these persons. Furthermore, service of process upon these persons may be difficult to obtain within the United States.

We may not be able to enforce covenants not-to-compete under current Israeli law, which might result in added competition for our products.

We have non-competition agreements or provisions with all of our employees and executive officers, all of which are governed by Israeli law. These agreements or provisions prohibit our employees from competing with us or working for our competitors, generally during, and for up to nine months after termination of, their employment with us. However, Israeli courts are reluctant to enforce non-compete undertakings of former employees and tend, if at all, to enforce those provisions for only relatively brief periods of time or in restricted geographical areas. In addition, Israeli courts typically require the presence of additional circumstances, such as a demonstration of an employer’s legitimate interest which was damaged; breach of fiduciary duties, loyalty and acting not in good faith; a payment of a special consideration for employee’s non-compete obligation; material concern for disclosing employer’s trade secrets; or a demonstration that an employee has unique value to the employer specific to that employer’s business, before enforcing a non-competition undertaking against such employee.

The funding that we received through the Office of the Chief Scientist (the “OCS”) for research and development activities restricts our ability to manufacture products or to transfer technology outside of Israel.

On March 4, 2004, the OCS agreed to provide us with a grant of 420,000 New Israeli Shekels (“NIS”), or approximately $93,300 at an exchange rate of 4.502 NIS/dollar (the exchange rate in effect on such date), for our plan to develop a non-invasive blood glucose monitor (the “development plan”). This grant constituted 60% of our research and development budget for the development plan at that time. Due to our acceptance of this grant, we are subject to the provisions of the Israeli Law for the Encouragement of Industrial Research and Development, 1984 (the “R&D Law”). Among other things, the R&D Law restricts our ability to sell or transfer rights in technology or know-how developed with OCS funding or transfer any Means of Control (as defined in the R&D Law) of us to non-Israeli entities. The Industrial Research and Development Committee at the OCS (the “research committee”) may, under special circumstances, approve the transfer outside of Israel of rights in technology or know-how developed with OCS funding subject to certain conditions, including the condition that certain payments be made to the OCS. Additionally, we may not manufacture products developed with OCS funding outside of Israel without the approval of the research committee. The restrictions regarding the sale or transfer of technology or manufacturing rights out of Israel could have a material adverse effect on our ability to enter into strategic alliances or enter into merger or acquisition transactions in the future that provide for the sale or transfer of our technology or manufacturing rights.

If we are successful in bringing the GlucoTrack® model DF-F to market, we will be required to use a portion of our net sales to repay certain loans and to pay royalties to the OCS, which will have a negative impact on our profitability.

Integrity Israel is required to pay royalties to the OCS on the proceeds from the sale of our systems resulting from research and development projects for which the OCS provided a grant. During the first three years of sales, we will be required to pay royalties of 3% of the sales of such products. In the fourth, fifth and sixth years of sales, we will be required to pay royalties of 4% of such sales and from the seventh year on we will be required to pay royalties of 5% of such sales, in all cases, up to 100% of the amount of grants received by us from the OCS plus interest at the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”). We do not have any other future performance obligations related to the OCS grants. As of December 31, 2018, the contingent liabilities with respect to OCS grants subject to repayment under these royalty agreements equaled $49,879, not including interest. To the extent that we are required to pay royalties to the OCS, such payments will increase our expenses for the year(s) in which such payment(s) are accrued, and, as a result, will reduce our profits (or increase our losses, as applicable) for such periods. Payments made to the OCS in lieu of royalties and repayment of the loans described above will reduce our free cash-flow and our cash balance for the year(s) in which such payment(s) are made.

Messrs. Avner Gal and Zvi Cohen collectively loaned us NIS 176,000 ($40,010 based on the exchange rate of 3.748 NIS/dollar as of December 31, 2018) in May 2002 pursuant to an oral agreement (the “Gal/Cohen Loan”). Messrs. Nir Tarlovsky, Yitzhak Fisher and Asher Kugler loaned us NIS 336,300 ($89,728 based on the same exchange rate) on March 16, 2004 (the “Tarlovsky/Fisher/Kugler Loan”). These loans are not required to be repaid until the first year in which we realize profits in our statement of operations. At such time, the loans are to be repaid on a quarterly basis in an amount equal to 10% of our total sales after deduction of VAT in the relevant quarter, beginning the quarter following the first year in which we realize profits in our annual statement of operations. The total amount to be repaid by us to each lender shall be an amount equal to the aggregate principal amount loaned by such lender to us, plus an amount equal to the product of the amount of each payment made by us in respect of such loan multiplied by the percentage difference between the Israeli Consumer Price Index on the date on which the loan was made and the Israeli Consumer Price Index on the date of such payment. However, notwithstanding the abovementioned mechanism, we will not be required to repay the loans during any time when such repayment would cause a deficit in our working capital. The Israeli Consumer Price Index was 177.6386, and 178.5793, respectively, as of the dates of the Gal/Cohen Loan and the Tarlovsky/Fisher/Kugler Loan. As of December 31, 2018, the Israeli Consumer Price Index was 223.9951 Our Board of Directors is entitled to modify the repayment terms of these loans, so long as such modification does not discriminate against any particular lender, and provided that all payments must be allocated among the lenders on a pro-rata basis.

We are subject to certain employee severance obligations, which may result in an increase in our expenditures.

Under Israeli law, employers are required to make severance payments to dismissed employees and employees leaving employment in certain other circumstances, on the basis of the latest monthly salary for each year of service. This obligation results in an increase in our expenses, including accrued expenses. Integrity Israel currently makes monthly deposits to insurance policies and severance pay funds in order to provide for this liability.

The Company’s and its Israeli subsidiary’s agreements with all of their Israeli employees are in accordance with Section 14 of the Israeli Severance Pay Law -1963 (“Section 14”). Payments in accordance with Section 14 release the Company from any other future severance payments in respect of those employees. Deposits under Section 14 are not recorded as an asset in the Company’s balance sheet.

There is a limited trading market for our common stock, which may make it difficult for our stockholders to sell their shares.

Although our stock is quoted on the OTCQB, few trades in our stock have taken place, to-date, and an active trading market in our securities may not develop, or if developed, may not be sustained. If no active market is ever developed for our Common Stock, it will be difficult for you to sell any shares you purchase in our Company at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable or at all. In such a case, you may find that you are unable to achieve any benefit from your investment or liquidate your shares without considerable delay, if at all. In the absence of an active public trading market, an investor may be unable to liquidate an investment in our Common Stock. As a result, investors: (i) may be precluded from transferring their shares of Common Stock; (ii) may have to hold their shares of Common Stock for an indefinite period of time; and (iii) must be able to bear the complete economic risk of losing their investment in us. In the event a market should develop for the Common Stock, there can be no assurance that the market price will equal or exceed the price paid for such share by any of our stockholders.

There may be limitations on the effectiveness of our internal controls, and a failure of our control systems to prevent error or fraud may materially harm our company.

Proper systems of internal controls over financial accounting and disclosure are critical to the operation of a public company. If we are unable to effectively establish such systems, this would leave us without the ability to reliably assimilate and compile financial information about our company and significantly impair our ability to prevent error and detect fraud, all of which would have a negative impact on our company from many perspectives.

Moreover, we do not expect that disclosure controls or internal control over financial reporting will prevent all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. Failure of our control systems to prevent error or fraud could materially adversely impact us.

The market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly.

The market price of the common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to numerous factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as:

Further, in recent years, the stock market in general, and the market for medical device companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. Continued or renewed market fluctuations could result in extreme volatility in the price of our common stock, which could cause a decline in the value of the common stock. Price volatility of our common stock might be significant if the trading volume of the common stock is low, which often occurs with respect to newly traded securities on the OTCQB.

Future sales of common stock could reduce our stock price.

As of April 15, 2019, we had 146,689,805 shares of common stock outstanding. In addition, warrants and employees’ stock options outstanding on such date were convertible into, or exercisable for, an aggregate of 76,109,089 shares of common stock.

Because our common stock is a “penny stock,” it may be more difficult for investors to sell shares of the common stock, and the market price of the common stock may be adversely affected.

Our common stock may be a penny stock if, among other things, the stock price is below $5.00 per share, it is not listed on a national securities exchange or approved for quotation on the Nasdaq Stock Market or any other national securities exchange or it has not met certain net tangible asset or average revenue requirements. Broker-dealers who sell penny stocks must provide purchasers of these stocks with a standardized risk- disclosure document prepared by the SEC. This document provides information about penny stocks and the nature and level of risks involved in investing in the penny-stock market. A broker must also give a purchaser, orally or in writing, bid and offer quotations and information regarding broker and salesperson compensation, make a written determination that the penny stock is a suitable investment for the purchaser and obtain the purchaser’s written agreement to the purchase. Broker-dealers must also provide customers that hold penny stock in their accounts with such broker-dealer a monthly statement containing price and market information relating to the penny stock. If a penny stock is sold to an investor in violation of the penny stock rules, the investor may be able to cancel its purchase and get its money back.

If applicable, the penny stock rules may make it difficult for investors to sell their shares of common stock. Because of the rules and restrictions applicable to a penny stock, there is less trading in penny stocks and the market price of the common stock may be adversely affected. Also, many brokers choose not to participate in penny stock transactions. Accordingly, investors may not always be able to resell their shares of common stock publicly at times and prices that they feel are appropriate.

Compliance with changing regulations concerning corporate governance and public disclosure may result in additional expenses.

There have been changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, new regulations promulgated by the SEC and rules promulgated by the national securities exchanges. These new or changed laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies, which could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. As a result, our efforts to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards are likely to continue to result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. Our directors, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer could face an increased risk of personal liability in connection with the performance of their duties. As a result, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining qualified directors and executive officers, which could harm our business. If our efforts to comply with new or changed laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies, we could be subject to liability under applicable laws or our reputation may be harmed.

Because a certain portion of our expenses is incurred in currencies other than the NIS, our results of operations may be harmed by currency fluctuations and inflation.

The functional currency of Integrity Israel is the NIS, and we pay a substantial portion of our expenses in NIS. However, we expect a portion of our future revenues to be denominated in U.S. dollars or in Euros. As a result, we will be exposed to the currency fluctuation risks relating to the recording of our revenues in NIS. For example, if the NIS strengthens against either the U.S. dollar or the Euro, our reported expenses in NIS may be higher than anticipated. The Israeli rate of inflation has not offset or compounded the effects caused by fluctuations between the NIS and the U.S. dollar or the Euro. To date, we have not engaged in hedging transactions. Although the Israeli rate of inflation has not had a material adverse effect on our financial condition to date, we may, in the future, decide to enter into currency hedging transactions to decrease the risk of financial exposure from fluctuations in the exchange rates of the currencies mentioned above in relation to the NIS. These measures, however, may not adequately protect us from material adverse effects.

The adoption of the “Conflict Minerals” regulations may adversely affect the manufacturing of our current and future products.

Recent regulatory requirements regarding the use of “conflict minerals” could affect the sourcing and availability of the raw materials used by our third-party manufacturers. We may be subject to costs associated with the new regulations, including for the diligence pertaining to the presence of any conflict minerals used in our products and the cost of remediation and other changes to products, processes, or sources of supply as a consequence of such verification activities. The impact of the regulations may result in a limited pool of suppliers who provide conflict free minerals, and we cannot assure that we will be able to obtain products in sufficient quantities or at competitive prices. We may face reputational challenges with our customers and other stakeholders if we are unable to sufficiently verify the origins for the metals used in the products we sell. As a result, we may not be able to obtain the materials necessary to manufacture our products, which could force us to cease production or search for alternative supply sources, possibly at a higher cost. Such disruptions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties.

Until mid-December 2015, Integrity Israel leased approximately 3,100 square feet of office space in the city of Ashkelon, Israel as its principal offices and prototype laboratory. Pursuant to a verbal agreement with the landlord, Integrity Israel leased this facility on a monthly basis at a cost of approximately $2,934 (NIS 11,500 based on an exchange rate of $.2868:1 NIS as of March 28, 2018). Currently, Integrity Israel leases approximately 5,500 square feet of office space in the city of Ashdod, Israel for its principal offices. The lease term began on December 1, 2015 for a period of 5 years which can be extended for an additional 5 years at the option of the Company. Monthly lease payments including maintenance are approximately $10,000. The Company estimates that its minimal rent and maintenance payments will be approximately $120,000 per year over each of the next 5 years. In connection with the lease agreement, Integrity Israel provided the landlord a bank guarantee in the amount of approximately $36,596 (NIS 137,162 based on the exchange rate of $.2668:1 NIS as of December 31, 2018) that can be exercised by the landlord in the case Integrity Israel fails to pay the monthly rent payments. The guarantee is renewed on an annual basis for a period of 5 years and is secured by funds on deposit with the bank, which generally must be sufficient to cover the principal amount guarantee.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

We are not presently a party to any material litigation. We may, however, become involved in litigation from time to time relating to claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. These claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer

Holders

As of April 15, 2019, there were approximately 378 holders of record of our Common Stock.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our Common Stock and do not anticipate paying any dividends on our Common Stock in the foreseeable future. Any cash that might be available for payment of dividends will be used to expand our business.

As a result of the forced conversion approved by our shareholders as discussed above, all dividends and interest due as a result of the late payment were paid if full on December 31, 2018 through the issuance of common shares at the forced conversion price.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

Not required for smaller reporting companies.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Prospective investors should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our financial statements and the related notes and other financial information included elsewhere in this report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business and related financing, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. You should review the “Risk Factors” section of this report for a discussion of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis.

Overview

We are a medical device company focused on the design, development and commercialization of non-invasive glucose monitoring devices for use by people with diabetes. Integrity Israel was founded in 2001 with a mission to develop, produce and market non-invasive glucose monitors for home use by diabetics. We have developed a non-invasive blood glucose monitor, the GlucoTrack® model DF-F glucose monitoring device, which is designed to help people with diabetes obtain blood glucose level readings without the pain, inconvenience, cost and difficulty of conventional (invasive) spot finger stick devices. The GlucoTrack® model DF-F utilizes a patented combination of ultrasound, electromagnetic and thermal technologies to obtain blood glucose measurements in less than one minute via a small sensor that is clipped onto one’s earlobe and connected to a small, handheld control and display unit, all without drawing blood.

On June 4, 2013, we received initial CE Mark approval for the GlucoTrack® model DF-F non-invasive glucose monitoring device from DEKRA Certification B.V., our European notified body (the “Notified Body”). In March 2014, we received CE Mark approval for six months’ calibration validity of the same device. Receipt of the CE Mark allows us to market and sell the GlucoTrack® model DF-F glucose monitoring device in European Union (“EU”) member countries that have adopted the European Medical Device Directive (the “MDD”) without being subject to additional national regulations with regard to demonstration of performance and safety. However, although the MDD is applicable throughout the EU, in practice it does not ensure uniform regulation throughout the EU. Accordingly, member countries may apply and enforce the MDD’s terms differently, and certain EU member countries may request or require performance and/or safety data additional to the MDD’s requirements from time to time, on a case-by-case basis. The CE Mark also permits the sale in countries that have an MDD Mutual Recognition Agreement with the EU.

On August 31, 2015, we received approval from the Notified Body for improvements to the GlucoTrack® model DF-F which simplify and shorten (from approximately 2.5 hours to approximately half an hour) the initial calibration process for the device. These improvements are intended to reduce the backlog created as purchasers of the device await calibration. In addition, we received approval from the Notified Body on the updated intended use for the device, which expands the intended user population to include not only Type 2 diabetics, but persons suffering from pre-diabetes conditions as well, which we believe represents a material expansion of the potential market for the device. In December 2015, we received approval from the Notified Body for further improvements to the GlucoTrack® model DF-F that increase the accuracy and efficacy of the device. On February 19, 2016, we received an extension of our ISO 13485:2003 certificate and Annex II certification from the EU. The ISO 13485:2003 certification signifies that we have met the standards required for company-wide implementation of device quality management system(s). The scope of the certification is design, development, manufacture and service of non-invasive glucose monitoring systems for home use. Annex II also addresses quality control systems. The certification allows us to self-certify certain modifications and changes and simplifies some of the reporting to and review by the relevant Notified Body. This can shorten CE-mark review process of future GlucoTrack® model DF-F enhancements or revisions. Without an Annex II certification, each new device enhancement or modified version would be subject to the full EU CE-mark review process. The ISO 13485:2003 and Annex II certifications enable us to potentially improve the time to market for product sales on new, enhanced or modified GlucoTrack® model DF-F devices.

In addition to the improvements to the GlucoTrack® model DF-F described above, we have also continued to work on additional improvements to the device and the development of new devices and, subject to our raising sufficient funds to do so, intend to continue these efforts in 2019. Specifically, we developed wireless communication module (WLM) with embedded Bluetooth Low-Energy (BLE) and Wi-Fi technologies, which we expect will enable transmission of measurement data captured by the GlucoTrack® model DF-F to a cloud-based server. We also started to design the next generation of GlucoTrack®.

Going Concern

We have not yet generated material revenues from our operations and, as of December 31, 2018, the Company has incurred accumulated deficit of $87,186,783, stockholder’s deficit of $2,873,301 and negative operating cash flows. We currently have no material sources of recurring revenue and therefor are dependent upon external sources for financing our operations. There can be no assurance that we will succeed in obtaining the necessary financing to continue our operations. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Critical Accounting Policies

This Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations discuss our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). In connection with the preparation of our financial statements, we are required to make assumptions and estimates about future events, and apply judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue, expenses and the related disclosures. We base our assumptions, estimates and judgments on historical experience, current trends and other factors that management believes to be relevant at the time our consolidated financial statements are prepared. On a regular basis, management reviews the accounting policies, assumptions, estimates and judgments to ensure that our financial statements are presented fairly and in accordance with U.S. GAAP. However, because future events and their effects cannot be determined with certainty, actual results could differ from our assumptions and estimates, and such differences could be material. As applicable to the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report, the most significant estimates and assumptions relate to (i) the fair value estimate of the Warrants with down-round protection, until December 31,2017 and the measurement of the benefit to warrants with down round protection upon trigger event commencing January 1,2018, (ii) the going concern assumptions, (iii) measurement of stock based compensation, and (iv) determination of net realizable value of inventory.

Our significant accounting policies are discussed in Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report. Our management believes that, as for the financial statements for the periods included in this report, the going concern assessment is a critical accounting policy. However, due to the early stage of operations of the Company, there are no other accounting policies that are considered to be critical accounting policies by management.

Going Concern Uncertainty

The development and commercialization of our product will require substantial expenditures. We have not yet generated any material revenues and have incurred substantial accumulated deficit and negative operating cash flows. We currently have no sources of recurring revenue and are therefore dependent upon external sources for financing our operations. There can be no assurance that we will succeed in obtaining the necessary financing to continue our operations. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

1. Accounting Standard Update 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers”

Commencing January 1, 2018, the Company adopted Accounting Standard Update 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”).

ASU 2014-09 outlines a single comprehensive model to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes most current revenue recognition guidance, including industry-specific guidance. ASU 2014-09 also requires entities to disclose sufficient information, both quantitative and qualitative, to enable users of financial statements to understand the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers.

An entity should apply the amendments in ASU 2014-09 using one of the following two methods: 1. Retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented with a possibility to elect certain practical expedients, or, 2. Retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying ASU 2014-09 recognized at the date of initial application. If an entity elects the latter transition method, it also should provide certain additional disclosures.

During 2016, the FASB issued several ASUs that focus on certain implementation issues of the new revenue recognition guidance including Narrow-Scope Improvements, Practical Expedients and technical corrections.

In accordance with an amendment to ASU 2014-09, introduced by Accounting Standard 2015-14, “Revenue from contracts with Customers – Deferral of the Effective Date”, for a public entity, the amendments in ASU 2014-09 became effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period (the first quarter of fiscal year 2018 for the Company).

Since the Company did not report significant revenues, the adoption of ASU 2014-09 did not have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.

2. Accounting Standard Update (ASU) No. 2017-11, “Earnings Per Share”

In July 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-11, Earnings Per Share (Topic 260); Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (Topic 480); Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): (Part I) Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Down Round Features, (Part II) Replacement of the Indefinite Deferral for Mandatorily Redeemable Financial Instruments of Certain Nonpublic Entities and Certain Mandatorily Redeemable Noncontrolling Interests with a Scope Exception (“ASU 2017-11”).

Among others, Part I of ASU 2017-11 simplifies the accounting for certain financial instruments with down round features, which is a provision in an equity-linked financial instrument (or embedded feature) that provides a downward adjustment of the current exercise price based on the price of future equity offerings. Current accounting guidance creates cost and complexity for organizations that issue financial instruments with down round features by requiring, on an ongoing basis, fair value measurement of the entire instrument or conversion option.

ASU 2017-11 require companies to disregard the down round feature when assessing whether the instrument is indexed to its own stock, for purposes of determining liability or equity classification. Companies that provide earnings per share (EPS) data will adjust their basic EPS calculation for the effect of the feature when triggered (i.e., when the exercise price of the related equity-linked financial instrument is adjusted downward because of the down round feature) and will also recognize the effect of the trigger within equity.

ASU 2017-11 also addresses navigational concerns within the FASB Accounting Standards Codification related to an indefinite deferral available to private companies.

The provisions of the new ASU related to down rounds are effective for public business entities for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018 (fiscal 2019 for the Company). Early adoption is permitted for all entities.

The amendments in Part 1 of ASU 2017-11 should be applied in either retrospectively to outstanding financial instruments with a down round feature by means of a cumulative-effect adjustment to the statement of financial position as of the beginning of the fiscal year of adoption (‘Modified retrospective approach’), or retrospectively to outstanding financial instruments with a down round feature for each prior reporting period presented (‘Full Retrospective approach’) with a cumulative-effect adjustment to the statement of financial position as of the beginning of the earliest fiscal year presented.

The Company elected to early apply ASU 2017-11, using the Modified retrospective approach. Accordingly, the Company recognized, a cumulative-effect adjustment to the statement of financial position as of January 1, 2018. The company reclassified to Additional paid-in capital (APIC) the remaining balance related to outstanding warrants with down round that was presented as a derivative liability at December 31, 2017 (in the amount of $768,249). Further, the company recorded an increase to APIC in an amount of 2,505,723 and a decrease in the same amount to accumulated deficit, in order to reflect the amount that would have been reported if ASU 2017-11 was in effect at the issuance and throughout the term of the financial instruments outstanding, that are subject to the provisions of ASU 2017-11. Such amount reflects the cancelation of the aggregate periodic changes in fair value of the warrants with down-round protection that were previously recognized as financing expense or financing income and recognition of the value of the effect of the round down feature when it was triggered.

Under the application approach applied by the Company, comparative periods were not required to be restated.

3. Accounting Standard Update 2018-07, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting

In June 2018, the FASB issued Accounting Standard Update 2018-07, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting (ASU 2018-07). ASU 2018-07 aligns the measurement and classification guidance for share-based payments to nonemployees with the guidance for share-based payments to employees, with certain exceptions.

Consistent with the accounting requirement for employee share-based payment awards, nonemployee share-based payment awards within the scope of Topic 718 will be measured at grant-date fair value of the equity instruments that an entity is obligated to issue when the good has been delivered or the service has been rendered and any other conditions necessary to earn the right to benefit from the instruments have been satisfied. Equity-classified nonemployee share-based payment awards will be measured at the grant date.

With respect to awards with performance conditions ASU 2018-07 concludes that, consistent with the accounting for employee share-based payment awards, an entity will consider the probability of satisfying performance conditions when nonemployee share-based payment awards contain such conditions.

ASU 2018-07 also requires that the classification of equity classified nonemployee share-based payment awards will continue to be subject to the requirements of Topic 718 unless the award was modified after the good has been delivered, the service has been rendered, any other conditions necessary to earn the right to benefit from the instruments have been satisfied, and the nonemployee is no longer providing goods or services. This eliminates the requirement to reassess classification of such awards upon vesting.

In addition, ASU 2018-07 includes certain Non-public Entity-Specific Amendments

ASU 2018-07 is effective for Public entities in annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within those years (first quarter of 2019 for the company). Early adoption is permitted, including in an interim period, but not before an entity adopts the new revenue guidance (which was adopted by the Company in its interim financial statements for 2018).

An entity should only remeasure liability-classified awards that have not been settled by the date of adoption and equity-classified awards for which a measurement date has not been established through a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the fiscal year of adoption. Upon transition, the entity is required to measure these nonemployee awards at fair value as of the adoption date.

The Company is evaluating the impact of ASU 2018-07 on its financial statements.

4. Accounting Standards Update 2016-02, "Leases"

In February 2016, the FASB issued its new lease accounting guidance in Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842).

Under the new guidance, lessees will be required to recognize the following for all leases (with the exception of short-term leases) at the commencement date: 1. A lease liability, which is a lessee‘s obligation to make lease payments arising from a lease, measured on a discounted basis; and, 2. A right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee’s right to use, or control the use of, a specified asset for the lease term.

Under the new guidance, lessor accounting is largely unchanged. Certain targeted improvements were made to align, where necessary, lessor accounting with the lessee accounting model and Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The new lease guidance simplified the accounting for sale and leaseback transactions primarily because lessees must recognize lease assets and lease liabilities. Lessees will no longer be provided with a source of off-balance sheet financing.

Public business entities should apply the amendments in ASU 2016-02 for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years (i.e., January 1, 2019, for a calendar year Company). Early application is permitted for all public business entities upon issuance.

Lessees (for capital and operating leases) and lessors (for sales-type, direct financing, and operating leases) must apply a modified retrospective transition approach for leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements. The modified retrospective approach would not require any transition accounting for leases that expired before the earliest comparative period presented. Lessees and lessors may not apply a full retrospective transition approach.

The Company has completed an initial assessment of the potential impact on its consolidated financial statements. The Company expects that following adoption of the new standard to recognize additional operating liabilities in an estimated amount of $250 thousand, with corresponding right-of-use assets of approximately the same amount based on the present value of the remaining minimum rental payments under current leasing standards for existing operating leases

Results of Operations

The following discussion of our operating results explains material changes in our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017. The discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this report.

Year Ended December 31, 2018 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2017

During the year ended December 31, 2018, we had revenues of $43,488 from orders for our GlucoTrack® model DF-F glucose monitoring device and personal ear-clip (“PEC”) that are replaced every six months, as compared with $589,462 for the prior-year period. The decrease in revenues is attributed to initial sales to a new distributor at the end of 2017. The company expects to receive recurring revenues from new distributors in the near future.

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses were $3,032,863 for the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to $3,207,466 for the prior-year period. The decrease is mainly attributable to the completion of our clinical trials for the current version of the DF-F.

Research and development expenses consist primarily of salaries and other personnel-related expenses, including stock-based compensation expenses, materials, (including provision for slow inventory), travel expenses, clinical trials and other expenses. Subject to the receipt of additional funds to finance our operations (of which there can be no assurance), we expect research and development expenses to increase in 2019 and beyond, primarily due to hiring additional personnel and developing our product line, as well as improvement of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F; however, we may adjust or allocate the level of our research and development expenses based on available financial resources and based on our commercial needs, including the FDA registration process, specific requirements from customers, development of new GlucoTrack® models and others.

Selling and marketing expenses

Selling and marketing expenses were $1,092,462 for the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to $1,525,168 for the prior-year period. The decrease is primarily attributable to the Company’s decision to reduce its business development personnel in the European market until such a time when the proof of concept of obtaining reimbursement for the product in test markets is realized.

Selling and marketing expenses consist primarily of professional services, salaries, travel expenses and other related expenses. Subject to the receipt of additional funds to finance our operations (of which there can be no assurance), we expect selling and marketing expenses to increase in 2019 and beyond as we continue our focus on marketing and sales of the GlucoTrack® model DF-F.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses were $2,456,763 for the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to $6,432,679 for the prior-year period. The decrease is attributable to the departure of our CEO during 2018 which resulted in a reversal of stock based compensation in the amount of approximately $1.1 Million, In addition, the decrease is attributable to a one time signing bonus of $412,500 including employer payroll taxes and stock-based compensation in the amount of approximately $1,591,000 paid to our former Chairman and CEO, recruiting fees of $195,000 and the related professional fees associated with the changes in management which occurred during 2017. The Company also incurred approximately $327,000 related to stock-based compensation and fees paid to our Board members and $193,000 to key executives paid in 2017. We also incurred higher legal fees related to the filing of an S-1 in November of 2017 to register the Series C units and additional fees related to the AGI agreement described above.

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of professional services, salaries, travel expenses and other related expenses for executive, finance and administrative personnel, including stock-based compensation expenses. Other general and administrative costs and expenses include facility-related costs not otherwise included in research and development costs and expenses, and professional fees for legal and accounting services.

Financing (Income) expenses, net

Financing expense, net was $176,820 for the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to financing income, net of $247,045 for the prior-year period. For the year ended December 31, 2018 the Company incurred a penalty related due to late payment of dividends in the amount of 127,057. The income during the year ended December 31, 2017 mainly relates to the decrease in the value of the Placement Agent Warrants. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, we marked the Placement Agent Warrants to market on a quarterly basis based on the fair value estimate derived by using a Black and Scholes model, with the changes in fair value recognized as finance expense or income, as applicable, in our consolidated statement of operations.

As a result of the early adoption of ASU 2017-11 the company reclassified all the warrants with down round protection (warrants held by the placement agent) from long term liabilities to stockholder’s deficit and as a result we stopped measuring the Placement Agent Warrants to fair value through earnings since January 1, 2018

Net Income (Loss)

Net loss was $6,715,420 for the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to a net loss of $10,328,806 for the prior-year period. The decrease in net loss is attributable primarily to the decrease in our general and administrative expenses, as described above.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2018, and December 31, 2017, cash on hand was $97,079 and $53,782, respectively. During 2018 and 2017, we received aggregate net proceeds of approximately $5.0 million and $377 thousand (net of related cash expenses) from the issuance and sale of Series D Units. During 2017, we received aggregate net proceeds of approximately $5.4 million (net of related cash expenses) from the issuance and sale of Series C Units. During 2018, we did not collect a material amount in cash proceeds from the fulfillment of orders for our improved GlucoTrack® model DF-F. While we expect to generate additional cash from sales, we do not anticipate that our income from operations will be sufficient to sustain our operations in the next 12 months. Based on our current cash burn rate, strategy and operating plan, we believe that our cash and cash equivalents will enable us to operate for a period of less than one month from the date of this report. In order to fund our anticipated liquidity needs beyond such period (or possibly earlier if our current cash burn rate, strategy or operating plan change in a way that accelerates or increases our liquidity needs), we will need to raise additional capital.

Messrs. Avner Gal and Zvi Cohen collectively loaned us NIS 176,000 ($46,958 based on the exchange rate of 3.748 NIS/dollar as of December 31, 2018) in May 2002 pursuant to an oral agreement. Messrs. Nir Tarlovsky, Yitzhak Fisher and Asher Kugler loaned us NIS 336,300 ($89,728 based on the same exchange rate) on March 16, 2004. These loans are not required to be repaid until the first year in which we realize profits in our statement of operations. At such time, the loans are to be repaid on a quarterly basis in an amount equal to 10% of our total sales after deduction of VAT in the relevant quarter, beginning the quarter following the first year in which we realize profits in our annual statement of operations. The total amount to be repaid by us to each lender shall be an amount equal to the aggregate principal amount loaned by such lender to us, plus an amount equal to the product of the amount of each payment made by us in respect of such loan multiplied by the percentage difference between the Israeli Consumer Price Index on the date on which the loan was made and the Israeli Consumer Price Index on the date of such payment. However, notwithstanding the abovementioned mechanism, we will not be required to repay the loans during any time when such repayment would cause a deficit in our working capital. The Israeli Consumer Price Index was 177.6386, and 178.5793, respectively, as of the dates of the Gal/Cohen Loan and the Tarlovsky/Fisher/Kugler Loan. As of December 31, 2018, the Israeli Consumer Price Index, was 223.9951. Our Board is entitled to modify the repayment terms of these loans, so long as such modification does not discriminate against any particular lender, and provided that all payments must be allocated among the lenders on a pro-rata basis.

We are required to pay royalties to the Office of the Chief Scientist at a rate ranging between 3-5% of the proceeds from the sale of the Company’s products arising from the development plan up to an amount equal to $93,300, plus interest at LIBOR from the date of grant. As of December 31, 2018, the contingent liability with respect to royalty payment on future sales equals to approximately $49,879, excluding interest.

Year Ended December 31, 2018 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2017

Net Cash Used in Operating Activities for the Years Ended December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017

Net cash used in operating activities was $4,892,277 and $5,895,014 for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Net cash used in operating activities primarily reflects the net loss for those periods of $6,715,420 and $10,328,806, respectively. In addition, the company incurred a reduction in the stock based compensation of approximately $2.0 for the year ended December 31, 2018 of which approximately $1.1M was related to the departure of its former CEO.

Net Cash Used in Investing Activities for the Years Ended December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017

Net cash used in investing activities was $5,371 and $19,467 for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, cash used in investment activities consisted of equipment purchases (such as computers, research and development and office equipment) in the amount of $5,371 and $19,467, respectively.

Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities for the Years Ended December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017

Net cash provided by financing activities was $4,961,862 and $5,750,736 for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2018 reflected net capital raised from the issuance of Series D Units. Cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2017 reflected net capital raised from the issuance of Series C Units and Series D Units in the amounts of $5,379,217 and $377,250, respectively, offset partially by dividends paid to the holders of our Preferred Stock in the amounts of $5,731.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of December 31, 2018, we did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in Item 303(a)(4) of Regulation S-K.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Not required for smaller reporting companies.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

The financial statements required by this Item 8 are filed herewith commencing on page F-1 hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9. Change in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2018. The term “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d- 15(e) under the Exchange Act, means controls and other procedures of a company that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost- benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2018, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level.

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 assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”) in Internal Control — the 2013 Integrated Framework. Management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2018, its internal control over financial reporting was effective based on these criteria.

Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our Company have been detected.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm

This Annual Report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to the rules of the SEC, applicable to emerging growth companies that permit the Company to provide only management’s report in this Annual Report.

Item 9B. Other Information.

None.

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

OUR DIRECTORS

The table below sets forth (1) the names and ages of our Directors as of the date of this Registration Statement, (2) all positions with the Company presently held by each such person and (3) the positions held by, and principal areas of responsibility of, each such person during the last five years.

Dr. Robert Fischell has served as one of Integrity’s directors since 2010. He also serves on Integrity’s Compenation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and a member of the Audit Committee. Dr. Fischell is an inventor and serial entrepreneur with over 160 issued U.S. patents. Starting in 1959, Dr. Fischell spent over 30 years with the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, which resulted in 53 patents in both aerospace and biomedical technology. His interests at Johns Hopkins then turned to the invention of new medical devices such as pacemakers and implantable heart defibrillators. Starting in 1969, Dr. Fischell began the formation of 14 private companies that licensed his patents on medical devices. These companies include Pacesetter Systems, Inc. (purchased by Siemens and now part of St. Jude Medical, Inc.), IsoStent, Inc. (merged with Cordis Company, a Johnson and Johnson Company), NeuroPace, Inc., Neuralieve, Inc., Angel Medical Systems, Inc., and Svelte Medical Systems, Inc. As it relates to diabetes management devices, he was the inventor of the first implantable insulin pump (which became Minimed, which was sold to Medtronic). Dr. Fischell’s honors include Inventor of the Year for the USA in 1984, election to the National Academy of Engineering in 1989, the Distinguished Physics Alumnus Award of the University of Maryland, and several medals for distinguished accomplishments in science, engineering and innovation. In 2004, Discover magazine gave Dr. Fischell their annual Technology for Humanity award. In 2008, Dr. Fischell received the honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters from the Johns Hopkins University in recognition of his many lifesaving inventions. From June 2009 until March 2011, Dr. Fischell was a director of InspireMD, Inc. (OTCBB: NSPR), a medical device company focusing on the development and commercialization of its proprietary stent system, MGuard. Dr. Fischell received his BSME degree from Duke University and MS and Sc.D. degrees from the University of Maryland. At the White House on May 16, 2016, former President Obama presented to Dr. Fischell the National Medical of Technology and Innovation, the highest award in the USA for achievements in innovative technology.

David Podwalski joined Integrity in June 2017 as its Chief Commercial Officer. David is a seasoned pharmaceutical and life sciences executive with more than 20 years of experience in global commercial leadership, most notably with insulin-based therapies. Before joining Integrity, from February 2005 to June 2017, he served at Ernst & Young as Senior Consultant and Subject Matter Expert, Life Sciences, where he assisted major pharmaceutical, animal health, diagnostic, and medical device companies in developing innovative go-to-market commercial strategies, sales and marketing excellence programs, product launch roadmaps, commercial operations and analytics support, and enhanced patient and physician support services. Previously, from September 1976 to February 2005, Mr. Podwalski was Senior Director of Global Commercial Effectiveness at Aventis Pharmaceuticals, where he designed and established leading practices in sales and marketing capabilities in the US, Europe, Asia and Latin America. Earlier in his career, Mr. Podwalski served in various capacities at Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc., including senior commercial leadership positions in both pharmaceutical and consumer healthcare products, most notably in diabetes. Mr. Podwalski holds a BS in Marine Biology and Animal Behavior and a post-graduate diploma in Finance & International Marketing at McGill University. David Podwalski was appointed as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company by its Board, effective October 9, 2018, and was appointed as a Director effective as of October 31, 2018 to fill the vacancy created by Mr. Graham’s resignation.

Angela Strand has served as one of Integrity’s directors since March 2016 and was appointed Vice Chairperson of the Board in March of 2017. Ms. Strand also serves as Integrity’s Chairperson of the Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and a member of the Audit Committee. Ms. Strand previously served as a founder and senior executive of Nohm, a joint venture between Smith Electric Vehicles and FDG Electric Vehicles Ltd. (HK: 729HK), and the founder of Strand Strategy, a healthcare management and consulting firm. Ms. Strand is also a named inventor with seven issued patents. From 2011 to 2015, Ms. Strand served as the chief marketing officer and head of business development and government affairs for Smith Electric Vehicles. Ms. Strand has also served as vice president of market development for Proteus Digital Health, and in various executive roles at Aerogen (acquired by Nektar Therapeutics, NASDAQ:NKTR), Novacept (acquired by Cytyc, NASDAQ: CYTC, now NASDAQ: HOLX) and FemRx (acquired by Johnson & Johnson, NYSE: JNJ). Ms. Strand holds a B.Sc. in Communications and an MBA in Marketing from the University of Tennessee.

Revan Schwartz, JD has served as one of Integrity’s directors since November 2016. He is also Chair of Integrity’s Audit Committee. Mr. Schwartz was appointed to the Board of Directors by Andrew Garrett, Inc. (“AGI”), pursuant to the terms of a placement agent agreement executed by AGI and the Company. Mr. Schwartz is an attorney and currently maintains a private law practice. Mr. Schwartz has acted as a sole practitioner lawyer for the last five years. Mr. Schwartz has more than 30 years of experience in corporate and securities law. He held the position of General Counsel for AAA Computer, Hafco International Trading Corporation, Bermil Industries, Viking Credit Corp and The Pride Group. Most recently, Mr. Schwartz was Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Andrew Garrett, Inc., a boutique securities and investment banking firm. While with Andrew Garrett, Mr. Schwartz possessed NASD/FINRA Series 4, 7, 24, 27, 53 and 55 licenses. Mr. Schwartz began his career with the East New York Savings Bank (ENYSB) where he held several administrative and management positions, including a position overseeing a life insurance subsidiary. Mr. Schwartz received a BS, with a major in accounting and a minor in economics, summa cum laude, from New York Institute of Technology, and a JD, cum laude, from St. John’s University. Mr. Schwartz is currently a member of the New York Bar.

Michael Hauck has served on our board since May 2017. Mr. Hauck also serves on Integrity’s Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. He is the Executive Director of The Getz Group, a $1 billion privately owned pan-Asian trading company focused on healthcare, industrial products, consumer distribution and retailing. Mr. Hauck has previously held executive and director level positions at companies including, ERM, Interpharma Investments Ltd., Zuellig Pharma Group, Invida Holdings, Target Worldwide Express, 3i plc, Springboard, and Business Health Group Ltd. Additionally, he has served as CEO of Walsh International for eight years, where he led the company’s IPO and eventual sale to IMS Health. Through his extensive leadership experience, Mr. Hauck has developed expertise across a wide range of industries and functions, including healthcare distribution services, product launch, and commercialization; pharma, medical device, consumer health, and wellness; data aggregation and data solutions; business development, mergers and acquisitions; and personnel and finance. Mr. Hauck received an MA in politics, philosophy, and economics from St. Catherine’s College, Oxford University, as well as an MBA in marketing and finance from Cranfield School of Management, one of the oldest and most reputable business schools in the United Kingdom.

OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The table below sets forth the names and ages of our executive officers as of April 15, 2019 and all positions with the Company presently held by each such person. Immediately following the table is biographical information for each of our executive officers, including the positions held by, and principal areas of responsibility of, each such person during the last five years. Biographical information for Mr. Podwalski is included above under the caption “Our Directors.”

David Malka has served as Integrity’s Vice President of Operations since March 2012. From 2003 to 2012, Mr. Malka was a director and Integrity’s Vice President of Operations. Prior to joining us, Mr. Malka served as a vice president of operations for Solid Systems from 2000 to 2003. From 1994 to 2000, Mr. Malka served as a manager of production and purchasing at Kollmorgen-Servotronix, an Israeli company specializing in the design, development and manufacture of digital servo control systems. From 1991 to 1993, Mr. Malka was a production design and inspection worker at TFL Time & Frequency Systems Ltd. Mr. Malka has a degree in practical engineering - industrial management from the Institute of Work & Production Productivity, Tel-Aviv and a Bachelor of Arts degree in management from the Open University in Israel.

Sami Sassoun joined Integrity in February 2017 as its Chief Financial Officer. Prior to joining Integrity, Mr. Sassoun served as the Founder of Bedrock Enterprises Ltd., a boutique consulting firm. Previously Mr. Sassoun held the position of chief financial officer for multiple public and private companies in several industries. Mr. Sassoun served as the CFO of EZTD Inc. from 2014 until 2015. Prior to that Mr. Sassoun served as a Managing Director of YesCFO from 2010 to 2014. Mr. Sassoun began his career as an accountant with Cohn Reznick, an accounting, tax and advisory firm, followed by serving as the Vice President of finance and operations with Brean Murray & Co, an investment banking firm based in New York City. Mr. Sassoun obtained his Certified Public Accountant certificate in 1992, and holds a B.S. in accounting from Rutgers University.

Eugene Naidis has served as Integrity’s Vice President of Research and Development since 2010 and has an extensive experience in software development and management of R&D projects. Over the past 15 years, he has lead complex projects in the field of industrial and medical measurement devices and applications. Mr. Naidis was involved (software development and management) in the invention of a symbiotic approach, revolutionary vibration-based percussion technology to determine the presence of content inside pipes; electromagnetic based, high-precision thickness measurement system; a system for non-contact, continuous measurement of liquid and solid levels in storage containers, based on ultrasonic technology. Mr. Naidis holds BSc. in Metallurgy Engineering and Masters of Science in Metallurgy and Computer Engineering.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

Integrity has adopted a code of ethics that applies to its Chief Executive Officer and its senior financial officers (currently consisting only of the Chief Financial Officer). This code of ethics is available on Integrity’s website at www.integrity-app.com. If Integrity makes any substantive amendments to the code or grants any waiver, including any implicit waiver, from a provision of the code to its principal executive, financial or accounting officer, it will disclose the nature of the amendment or waiver on its website or in a report on a Current Report on Form 8-K filed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC. The Company will provide to any person without charge, upon five days’ written request, a copy of the code of ethics.

Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The members of the Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board are Ms. Angela Strand (Chairperson), Mr. Robert Fischell and Mr. Michael Hauck. Our Board has determined that these directors are “independent” as defined by the rules of the SEC. The purposes and powers of the Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee include (i) reviewing compensation and other benefits for our executive officers (ii) identifying potential qualified nominees for director and recommend to the Board for nomination candidates for the Board, (iii) developing the Company’s corporate governance guidelines and additional corporate governance policies, and (iv) exercising such other powers and authority as shall from time to time be assigned thereto by resolution of the Board. The Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee adopted the Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee charter on July 5, 2016, which sets forth the duties and responsibilities of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Audit Committee and Audit Committee Financial Expert

The members of the Audit Committee of the Board are Mr. Revan Schwartz (Chairman), Ms. Angela Strand and Mr. Robert Fischell, replacing Mr. Les Seff. Our Board has determined that these three directors are “independent” as defined by the rules of the SEC. The primary role of the Committee is to oversee the financial reporting and disclosure process. To fulfill this obligation, the Committee relies on: management for the preparation and accuracy of the Company’s financial statements; both management and the Company’s internal audit department/management for establishing effective internal controls and procedures to ensure the Company’s compliance with accounting standards, financial reporting procedures and applicable laws and regulations; and the Company’s independent auditors for an unbiased, diligent audit or review, as applicable, of the functions of the audit committee are performed by the full Board. Each member of the Committee shall be independent in accordance with the requirements of Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act and the NASDAQ Listing Rules. No member of the Committee can have participated in the preparation of the Company’s or any of its subsidiaries’ financial statements at any time during the past three years.

The Board has determined that Mr. Schwartz is an “Audit Committee Financial Expert” as that term is defined in Item 407(d)(5)(ii) of Regulation S-K.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Summary Compensation Table

The following table summarizes compensation of our named executive officers, as of December 31, 2018 and 2017.

Employment Agreements

Set forth below are summaries of the material terms of the employment agreements if each of Integrity’s named executive officers

David Podwalski

On June 26, 2017, the Company entered into an employment agreement (the “CCO Employment Agreement”) with Mr. Podwalski to serve as Chief Commercial Officer of the Company. Under the CCO Employment Agreement, Mr. Podwalski (1) receives a base salary of $240,000 per year; (2) receives a sign-on bonus of $25,000, payable on the six month anniversary of the Podwalski Effective Date, subject to his continued employment through and on such payment date; (3) is eligible to receive an annual performance bonus, having a minimum bonus opportunity equal to 20% of his current base salary based upon 80% achievement of performance criteria (the “Minimum Performance Goal”), a target bonus opportunity equal to 25% of his current base salary based upon 100% achievement of performance criteria, and a maximum bonus opportunity equal to 37.5% of his current base salary based upon 150% achievement of performance criteria (the “Maximum Performance Goal”), provided, however, that such performance bonus will be determined using straight-line interpolation of the level of achievement between the Minimum Performance Goal and the Maximum Performance Goal; and (4) receive an initial stock option grant to purchase shares of Common Stock equal to 1% of the total fully diluted shares of Common Stock as of the Podwalski Effective Date, with an exercise price of $4.50 per share or the fair market value of a share of Common Stock on the grant date, whichever is greater, vesting monthly over a three year period commencing on the Podwalski Effective Date, subject to his continued employment through and on each such vesting date (the total fair value of the grant as of the Podwalski Effective Date is approximately $270,000).The CCO Employment Agreement is terminable by the Company on 90 days written notice and by Mr. Podwalski on 30 days written notice. The CCO Employment Agreement is immediately terminable by the Company for cause, as defined in the CCO Employment Agreement, without the payment of severance. The CCO Employment Agreement contains non-compete obligations applicable during the term of the agreement and for one year thereafter and confidentiality obligations that survive the termination of the agreement indefinitely.

On October 2, 2018 John Graham notified the Company of his resignation as CEO and Chairman of the Company for personal reasons, to be effective as of October 31, 2018. David Podwalski was appointed as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company by its Board, effective October 9, 2018, and is appointed as a Director effective as of October 31, 2018 to fill the vacancy to be created by Mr. Graham’s resignation.

As a result, effective November 1, 2018, the Board approved an increase in David Podwalski’s annual base salary to $275,000; and the Board will re-evaluate his bonus payout as part of the annual compensation review at its January 2019 Board meeting, with new goals to be effective January 1, 2019. With respect to his $70,000 salary due in arrears, $50,000 were issued in RSUs, based on the price of the conversion of the outstanding preferred stock, and $20,000 shall be paid in cash as soon as practicable; and he shall be granted an addition 75,000 stock options with a three year term and three year vesting schedule with an exercise price based upon the price for the conversion of the existing preferred stock

David Malka

David Malka entered into an employment agreement with Integrity Israel in July 2010 pursuant to which Mr. Malka agreed to continue to serve as the Vice President of Operations of Integrity Israel. Mr. Malka’s employment agreement provided for an annual salary of NIS 240,000, or approximately $64,034 based on the exchange rate of 3.748 NIS / $1.00 USD in effect on December 31, 2018, and an annual bonus to be determined by the Board of Directors and an additional sum provided that Mr. Malka reaches certain milestones approved by the Board of Directors, as well as the payment of certain social and insurance benefits and the use of a company car. The agreement also provides that Mr. Malka’s annual salary shall be subject to increase from time to time at the discretion of the Board of Directors. We expect that Mr. Malka’s bonus formula, as previously determined by the Board of Directors, will be renegotiated once Integrity Israel has begun commercialization of its products. The agreement is terminable by either party on 90 days’ notice, immediately by Integrity Israel with the payment of an amount equal to 90 days of annual salary, or immediately by Integrity Israel for cause (as defined in the agreement) without the payment of severance. Mr. Malka’s employment agreement contains non-compete and confidentiality provisions effective during the term of the agreement and for one year thereafter.

Pursuant to his employment agreement, in March 2012, Mr. Malka was granted options to purchase 79,434 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price per share $6.25 per share. Mr. Malka’s options vested (or in the case of clause (iii) below, will vest) in one-third increments upon (i) submission of clinical trials’ results to the Notified Body; (ii) the receipt of CE mark approval; and (iii) the receipt of FDA approval, subject to immediate vesting in the event of a change of control.

Effective April 7, 2017, Integrity Israel entered into an amended and restated personal employment agreement (the “Malka Employment Agreement”) with David Malka for his continued service as Vice President of Operations of the Company and Integrity Israel, effective as of March 20, 2017 (the “Malka Effective Date”). Pursuant to the terms of the Malka Employment Agreement, Mr. Malka (a) receives a monthly base salary of NIS 20,000 (approximately $5,749 based on an exchange rate of 3. 479 NIS / 1 USD in effect on March 21, 2018), which may increase to NIS 35,000 per month (approximately $10,060 using the same exchange rate) in the event certain performance milestones are met; (b) is eligible to earn an annual performance bonus between 420-864% of his base salary, subject to certain performance criteria to be established by the Board of Directors within the first ninety (90) days of each fiscal year; (c) is eligible to earn a retention bonus equal to 60% of his aggregate base salary earned through the one-year anniversary of the Malka Effective Date, payable thirty days following the one-year anniversary of the Malka Effective Date and provided that Mr. Malka remains employed with Integrity Israel through and on the one-year anniversary of the Malka Effective Date; (d) received a modification to the terms of his options to purchase 79,434 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price per share equal to $6.25 whereby the unvested portion of such options will accelerate and will be immediately exercisable, effective as of the Malka Effective Date (since the original performance conditions were not expected to be satisfied as of the date of the modification of the terms, the fair value of such grant was measured based on the fair value of the modified award at the modification date); and (e) received options to purchase 361,875 shares of Common Stock, granted under the Plan, with an exercise price $4.50 per share, which shall vest over a three-year period. In addition, the Malka Employment Agreement provides for the payment of certain social benefits and the use of a company car. The Malka Employment Agreement is terminable by Integrity Israel and Mr. Malka on 90 days’ prior written notice, without cause, or immediately by Integrity Israel for cause as defined in the Malka Employment Agreement. Integrity Israel may terminate Mr. Malka’s employment without cause prior to the expiration of the 90-day notice period, but will be required to pay Mr. Malka a severance fee equal to his base salary plus the financial value of all other benefits Mr. Malka would have been entitled to receive in respect of the portion of the notice period which was forfeited.

Sami Sassoun

Mr. Sassoun’s appointment as Chief Financial Officer was made pursuant to an employment agreement (the “Sassoun Employment Agreement”) with Integrity Israel, dated February 1, 2017. The Sassoun Employment Agreement provides for a monthly base gross salary of NIS 30,000 (approximately $8,004 based on the exchange rate of NIS 3.748 /$1.00 USD in effect on December 31, 2018), as well as the payment of certain social benefits and the use of a company car. The Sassoun Employment Agreement is terminable by either party on 90 days’ notice or immediately by Integrity Israel for cause (as defined in the Employment Agreement) without the payment of severance. The Employment Agreement contains non-compete obligations applicable during the term of the agreement and for one year thereafter and confidentiality obligations that survive the termination of the agreement indefinitely.

In September 2017, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors approved an increase of Mr. Sassoun’s base salary to NIS 47,250 per month (approximately US$157,500 annually), which shall only start to take effect after the Company has completed the next round of financing and has sufficient funds to finance operations. The Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors also approved certain on-target performance bonus at 35% of Mr. Sassoun annual base salary and grant of stock options (pursuant to the Company’s 2010 Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended) equating to 1% of the fully diluted number of shares of the Company after the closing of the offering of Series C Units, with a strike price of US$4.50, with three-year quarterly vesting commencing on the first quarterly after the effective date.

Eugene Naidis

Eugene Naidis entered into an employment agreement with Integrity Israel in July 2010 pursuant to which Mr. Naidis agreed to continue to serve as the Vice President of Research and Development of Integrity Israel. Mr. Naidis’s employment agreement provided for an annual salary of NIS 276,000, or approximately $73,639 based on the exchange rate of 3.748 NIS / $1.00 USD in effect on December 31, 2018, as well as the payment of certain social and insurance benefits and the use of a company car. The agreement also provides that Mr. Naidis’s annual salary shall be subject to increase from time to time at the discretion of the Board of Directors. We expect that Mr. Naidis’s bonus formula, as previously determined by the Board of Directors, will be renegotiated once Integrity Israel has begun commercialization of its products. The agreement is terminable by either party on 90 days’ notice, immediately by Integrity Israel with the payment of an amount equal to 90 days of annual salary, or immediately by Integrity Israel for cause (as defined in the agreement) without the payment of severance. Mr. Naidis’s employment agreement contains non-compete and confidentiality provisions effective during the term of the agreement and for one year thereafter.

In September 2017, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors approved an increase of Mr. Naidis’s base salary to NIS 43,200 (US$144,000 annually), which shall only start to take effect after the Company has completed the next round of financing and has sufficient funds to finance operations. The Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors also approved certain on-target performance bonus at 35% Mr. Naidis’s annual base salary and grant of stock options (pursuant to the Company’s 2010 Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended) equating to 1% of the fully diluted number of shares of the Company after the closing of the offering of Series C Units, with a strike price of US$4.50, with three-year monthly vesting commencing on the first month after the effective date.

Outstanding Equity Awards as of December 31, 2018

The following table sets forth for each of Integrity’s named executive officers certain information regarding unexercised options as of December 31, 2018:

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The following table sets forth information with respect to the compensation of our directors (other than Mr. Podwalski, whom did not receive separate compensation for their service as directors) as of December 31, 2018:

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters. Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2018 with respect to securities authorized for issuance under the Plan, which has been approved by Integrity’s stockholders, as well as securities authorized for issuance under certain compensation arrangements that were not subject to approval by Integrity’s stockholders.

As disclosed in the Company’s Definitive Schedule 14A, filed on November 23, 2018, the warrants issued to Andrew Garrett, Inc. (“AGI Warrants”) by the Company contain full ratchet provisions pursuant to which as a result of the Forced Conversion Price, the exercise price of those warrants will be decreased, and the number of warrants increased proportionately and as such all of the above warrants were exchanged to reflect the above balance.

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the ownership of our Common Stock within 60 days of April 15, 2019 by:

Except as otherwise indicated below, the address of each beneficial owner listed in the table is c/o Integrity Application Inc., 19 Ha’Yahlomim Street, Ashdod Israel

We have determined beneficial ownership in accordance with the rules of the SEC. Except as indicated by the footnotes below, we believe, based on the information furnished to us, that the persons and entities named in the table below have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of common stock that they beneficially own, subject to applicable community property laws.

Applicable percentage ownership is based on 146,689,805 shares of common stock outstanding on April 15, 2019. In computing the number of shares of common stock beneficially owned by a person and the percentage ownership of that person, we deemed as outstanding shares of common stock subject to options held by that person that are currently exercisable or exercisable within 60 days of April 15, 2019. We did not deem these exercisable shares outstanding, however, for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of any other person. The applicable footnotes are an integral part of the table and should be carefully read in order to understand the actual ownership of our securities, particularly by the 5% stockholders listed in the table.

(1) Subject to a 4.99% beneficial ownership limitation applicable to all holders of the Common. Accordingly, the percentages are based on 146,689,805shares of common stock outstanding. All outstanding warrants contain a 4.99% equity blocker which prevents the holders from exercising warrants for common stock if such exercise would result in such holder’s ownership at any given time exceeding 4.99% of the Company’s outstanding common stock (the “Blocker Limitation”.) The foregoing table specifically excludes the exercise of the warrants if such exercise would result in such holder’s ownership at any given time exceeding 4.99% of the Company’s outstanding common stock (the” Blocked Securities”.)

(2) All the options to purchase an aggregate of 41,560 shares of Common Stock granted to Dr. Fischell under the Incentive Plan, will be deemed vested within 60 days of April 15, 2019. In addition to vested options, this number also includes 222,677 shares of Common Stock owned by Dr. Fischell.

(3) All the options to purchase an aggregate of 41,560 shares of Common Stock granted to Ms. Strand under the Incentive Plan, will be deemed vested within 60 days of April 15, 2019. In addition to vested options, this number also includes 223,599 shares of Common Stock owned by Ms. Strand.

(4) All the options to purchase an aggregate of 41,560 shares of Common Stock granted to Mr. Schwartz under the Incentive Plan, will be deemed vested within 60 days of April 15, 2019. In addition to vested options, this number also includes 148,082 shares of Common Stock owned by Mr. Schwartz.

(5) All the options to purchase an aggregate of 15,180 shares of Common Stock granted to Mr. Hauck under the Incentive Plan, will be deemed vested within 60 days of April 15, 2019. In addition to vested options, this number also includes 143,937 shares of Common Stock owned by Mr. Hauck.

(6) Of the options to purchase an aggregate of 441,309 shares of Common Stock granted to Mr. Malka under the Incentive Plan, of which 305,119 options will be deemed vested within 60 days of April 15, 2019. In addition to vested options, this number also includes 239,975 shares of Common Stock owned by Mr. Malka.

(7) Of the options to purchase an aggregate of 292,924 shares of Common Stock granted to Mr. Sassoun under the Incentive Plan, of which 169,334 options will be deemed vested within 60 days of April 15, 2019. In addition to vested options, this number also includes 116,280 shares of Common Stock owned by Mr. Sassoun.

(8) Of the options to purchase an aggregate of 292,924 shares of Common Stock granted to Mr. Naidis under the Incentive Plan, of which 169,334 options will be deemed vested within 60 days of April 15, 2019. In addition to vested options, this number also includes 63,627 shares of Common Stock owned by Mr. Naidis.

(9) Of the options to purchase an aggregate of 365,585 shares of Common Stock granted to Mr. Podwalski under the Incentive Plan, of which 202,106 options will be deemed vested within 60 days of April 15, 2019. In addition to vested options, this number also includes 193,798 shares of Common Stock owned by Mr. Podwalski.

(10) In addition, the John A. Ballantyne Revocable Trust 08/01/2017 owns additional shares of common stock acquirable within 60 days, each of which is subject to a Blocker Limitation. However, the percentage ownership by the John A. Ballantyne Revocable Trust 08/01/2017 is currently in excess of such Blocker Limitations, and as a result, such Blocker Securities have been excluded from the table. These Blocker Securities consist of 3,333,334 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise warrants. The address of John A. Ballantyne Rev Trust 08/01/2017 is 7410 Claire Drive South, South Fargo, ND 58104. John A. Ballantyne has voting and investment control over the shares held by John A. Ballantyne Rev Trust 08/01/2017.

(11) In addition, Vayikra Capital LLC beneficially owns additional shares of common stock acquirable within 60 days, each of which is subject to a Blocker Limitation. However, the percentage ownership by Vayikra is currently in excess of such Blocker Limitations, and as a result, such Blocker Securities have been excluded from the table. These Blocker Securities consist of the 1,283,334 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise warrants. The address of Vayikra Capital LLC is 1 Farmstead Road, Short Hills NJ, 07078. Philip M. Darivoff has voting and investment control over the shares held by Vayikra Capital LLC.

Changes in Control

There are no arrangements known to the Company the operation of which may at a subsequent date result in a change in control of the Company.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

Transactions with Related Persons

On May 4, 2017, the Board unanimously voted to appoint Angela Strand, a member of the Board of Directors, as the interim Chief Strategy Officer of the Company, effective as of May 1, 2017 through September 30, 2017. On May 5, 2017, the Company entered into a letter agreement with Ms. Angela Strand confirming her appointment as interim Chief Strategy Officer of the Company. Pursuant to the terms of the letter agreement, Ms. Strand receives aggregate compensation of $150,000 for her service during the term of employment, paid monthly on the schedule mutually agreed upon by the parties. As of December 31, 2018 the company had an outstanding balance of $154,793 due to Ms. Strand, $73,000 of consulting fees and $81,793 in Board fees.

General