UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10/A
Amendment No. 2

GENERAL FORM FOR REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES

Pursuant to Section 12(b) or (g) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

(Exact Name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: ( 888) 777-4362

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

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, $.001 par value

Title of Class

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.

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]

EXPLANATORY NOTE: Marijuana Company of America, Inc. is filing this Amendment No. 2 to our Registration Statement on Form 10-12G, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2017, to clarify and augment our disclosures and to provide additional exhibits .

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

FORM 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cannabis Research and Development

As used in this Form 10, our references to the term “cannabis” shall be meant to include but not be limited to the terms “hemp”, “extract” and “marijuana”.

Our business intends to participate in the research and development of (1) varieties of various species of cannabis, including hemp; (2) the pharmacological benefits of cannabis species, including hemp; (3) the methodology of both indoor and outdoor cultivation methods; (4) the variety of technology used for cultivation and harvesting of different species of cannabis, including but not limited to lighting, venting, irrigation, hydroponics, nutrients and soil; (5) new hydroponical techniques for use in cultivating produce such as fruits, berries and vegetables; (6) different cannabinoids within the cannabis species and the possible health benefits thereof; and, (6) new and improved methods of hemp cannabinoid extraction omitting or eliminating the delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol “THC” molecule. Our business plan intends on only engaging within states and/or countries that have lawfully allowed and permitted the legal use of medical and/or recreational cannabis and/or hemp and its molecular compounds and resulting products.

In conjunction with the Company’s overall research and development in the cannabis field and industry, in general, the Company may or may not be directly or indirectly involved in any actual delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) research. This will depend upon future legalities and proper approvals. It is anticipated that should the Company engage within the THC aspect of the industry, in the near future, it will solely be as a landlord, or as a possible developer, distributor or lessor in the technology or software industry. In any event, the Company will only be engaged with licensed, lawful and compliant operator(s) within a legalized state and pursuant to the Cole Memorandum (issued by James Cole, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, August 29, 2013). The August 29, 2013 Cole Memorandum states in part:

In October 2009 and June 2011, the Department issued guidance to federal prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The guidance set forth herein applies to all federal enforcement activity, including civil enforcement and criminal investigations and prosecutions, concerning marijuana in all states….

As explained above, however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory system, and an operation's compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an operation's size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department's enforcement priorities listed above. Rather, prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence, including, but not limited to, whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective state regulatory system. A marijuana operation's large scale or for-profit nature may be a relevant consideration for assessing the extent to which it undermines a particular federal enforcement priority. The primary question in all cases - and in all jurisdictions should be whether the conduct at issue implicates one or more of the enforcement priorities listed above.

The Company has retained Craig A. Brand, Esq. to help ensure legal compliance within the cannabis field, and to verify the legal compliance, authenticity and veracity of any third-party the Company may engage with to do business with within the cannabis industry as a whole.

In addition to the Cole Memorandum, the Company’s research and development activities intend on activities that are within the parameters of a recent 9 ^th Cir. Federal Appellate Court. The U.S., Federal Court of Appeals held that, “the U.S. Department of Justice cannot spend money to prosecute federal marijuana cases if the defendants comply with state guidelines that permit the drug's sale for medical purposes”. This ruling is consistent with Congress’s passing of its current budget rule, and The Omnibus Appropriations Act, also known as the “Rohrabacher–Farr Amendment,” which prohibits the DOJ from using federal funds to interfere in the implementation of state marijuana regulations. The Court in United States v. McIntosh , 2016 DJDAR 8484 (Aug. 16, 2016), reasoned that “if the DOJ punishes individuals for engaging in activities permitted under state law (such as the use, cultivation, distribution and possession of medical marijuana), then the DOJ is preventing state law from being implemented as a practical matter.” “By officially permitting certain conduct, state law provides for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in such conduct. If the federal government prosecutes such individuals, it has prevented the state from giving practical effect to its law providing for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in the permitted conduct."

Industrial Hemp

The Company may also choose to enter the industrial hemp space. The Company is exploring options to vertically integrate hemp with its patent pending hempSMART Brain product, to enable the Company to conduct research and development into the developmental control of hemp production from seed to finished product for sale, and to maintain control and profitability over the entire processing.

With the passage of the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress differentiated industrial hemp from marijuana plants. Section 7606 of the 2014 Farm Bill authorized the growth, cultivation and marketing of industrial hemp under agricultural pilot programs in states that have legalized such activities. States with permitting agricultural programs may authorize, upon the granting of an applicant’s application, the issuance of a State license to lawfully participate under the 2014 Farm Bill’s hemp program.

On August 11, 2016, a Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp (the “Statement”) was issued by the Office of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) of the Department of Health and Human Service (“HHS”). On this date, Jonathan Miller, Esquire, of the firm Frost Brown Tod, Lexington, KY., and co-signed by Joseph Sandler, Esquire, of the firm Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock, Washington, DC., provided to the Members of the Kentucky Hemp Industry Counsel, a legal Opinion on the U.S. Federal Agency Statement of Principles. This legal opinion including the following statement:

As we outlined comprehensively in our Opinion on the Legal Status of Industrial Hemp, dated December 21, 2015 and attached as Appendix B (“our December Opinion”), the Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. No. 113-79 (the “2014 Farm Bill”) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2016 (the “Omnibus Law”) constitute a sweeping legal revolution for the industrial hemp crop. Taken together, the two laws ensure that individuals and firms that are engaged in authorized agricultural pilot programs should be permitted to grow, cultivate, transport, process, sell and/or use industrial hemp under the guidelines and regulations of state law, without interference from agencies using federally-authorized funds.

The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2016, P.L. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242, was enacted into law on December 18, 2015. One of the provisions of that act prohibits use of federal funds to “prohibit the transportation, processing, sale, or use of Industrial Hemp that is grown or cultivated [under the Agricultural Act of 2014].” P.L. 114-113, § 763, 129 Stat. 2285. Federal case law supports this interpretation and would allow the dissemination of hemp across state lines or support the notion that the Federal agencies are not permitted to use federal funds to impede such transportation. 

The Company’s position is that the industrial hemp plant, with a THC concentration of three-tenths of a percent or less by dry weight, has no potential for abuse, as it does not cause any psychoactive effect, as has been established by numerous studies, and its growth has been sanctioned by the foregoing laws and policies. Nonetheless, Company intends on engaging in the raw hemp and extract industry only in compliance with permitting state’s and their Department of Agriculture Programs and with the final approval of its legal counsel. Final products shall be sold and certified as THC free.

hempSMART

The Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary H Smart, Inc., launched its hempSMART™ division in 2016, focused on the development and sale of lawfully permissible industrial hemp based products specifically grown with an enriched CBD (Cannabidiol) molecular composition with a THC concentration of three-tenths of a percent or less by dry weight. The Company provides product sourcing, branding, payment, distribution, and knowledge through a direct sales structure to maintain customer loyalty and capture market share.

We are currently a publicly listed company whose common stock is quoted on the OTC Markets (PINK) Exchange under the symbol “MCOA.”

The Company has never been the subject of any bankruptcy, receivership or similar proceeding.

History

We were incorporated in the State of Utah on October 4, 1985, under the name of Mormon Mint, Inc. The corporation was originally a startup company organized to manufacture and market commemorative medallions related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the "Mormons." On January 5, 1999, Bekam Investments, Ltd. acquired one hundred percent of the common shares of the Company and spun the Company off changing its name Converge Global, Inc.

From August 13, 1999 until November 20, 2002, the Company focused on the development and implementation of Internet web content and e-commerce applications, offering both convenience and value to consumers, as well as unique marketing opportunities and reduced operating costs to businesses. The Company’s strategy focused on the following:

•       Creation and development of Internet niche portals, with an emphasis on special Internet web sites. The Company developed audio and video delivery software over the Internet, with the goal of designing and implementing each portal to meet the tastes, interests and demands of its target audiences;

•       Creation and development of content and design for the Internet web site: “Digitalmen.com.” Digitalmen.com was a web site that was targeted at men between the ages of 18 and 45. The website featured products and services in the areas of cars, bars, men's fashion, restaurants, finance, dating, greeting cards, community chat and message boards;

•       Creation and development of “LiquidationBid.com,” a business-to-business "e-marketplace" for liquidating businesses inventories. The portal was designed to match buyers and sellers of excess goods and services in a virtual marketplace;

•       Creation and development of “Desitv.com.” DesiTV.com was intended to be the first digital entertainment network targeted to South Asians (including, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal), and was believed to be the first South Asian channel to broadcast rich media content over the Internet;

•       Creation and development of “Machmail.com.” The Company’s concept was to develop a communication portal which integrated a number of different functionalities in an easy to use graphical user interface including: the ability to translate emails into French, German, Spanish, and Chinese, initially, in route to its destination; and, the ability to have a homepage which could display data from multiple user accounts that a user might access by inputting one password as opposed to going to different locations and inputting different passwords;

•       Essential Tec, Inc. ("Essential Tec"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, was formed as an information technology services Company with a technical labor force in Pakistan. Essential Tec utilized an offshore infrastructure to provide managed software solutions with a specific focus on web related technologies and solutions. Essential Tec's software engineers provided high quality, cost-effective services to clients in a resource-constrained environment. Essential Tec's services included E-Commerce Solutions, e-Procurement applications, auctioning engines, and several other web based solutions. Essential Tec sold and marketed its services and products from its offices based in Santa Monica, California; and,

•       The Company filed for trademark protection for the trade term “Webfomercials.” It also applied to trademark its slogans "solutions for the e-conomy" as well as "man's final destination."

On March 25, 2002, the Company acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of TeleWrx, Inc., a Florida corporation, and development stage entity specializing in the sale and marketing of telecommunications products and services through the utilization of network marketing.

In 2009, the Company changed its business plan and began business operations as a mining exploration company, taking the following actions:

•       The Company organized a wholly owned subsidiary, Elmswba Investment Corporation, as a development company implementing the Company’s mining initiatives in Canada;

•       On February 27, 2009, the Company acquired six mining claims (named "Golden Tea Cup Project") located in Cairo and Alma Townships, in the Province of Ontario, Canada, through Elmswba Investment Corporation. The Company further agreed to grant the vendor a 3% net smelter return, with a buy back right for one third at any time for $4,000,000;

•       On March 24, 2009, the Company entered into an agreement to purchase 100% interest in certain unpatented mining claims located in La Paz County, in the State of Arizona collectively referred to as the "Eagle Nest" property claims. The vendor was entitled to a net smelter return of 3% of the revenues received from the claims;

•       On June 16, 2009, the Company acquired five mining claims (named the “Golden Twist Property Claims" located in Powell Township, in the Province of Ontario, Canada through Elmswba Investment Corporation. The Company further agreed to grant the vendor a 3% net smelter return, with a buy back right for one half at any time for $1,500,000.

•       On June 16, 2009, the Company acquired two additional claims adjacent to the Golden Twist Property Claims in Powell Township from through its Ontario, Canada through Elmswba Investment Corporation;

By 2012, the Company had spent approximately $225,000 in exploration costs to exploit its mining claims, but could not pay for the environmental remediation costs associated with the business, and changed its business plan to focus on providing wholesale food services. The Company’s business focused on the marketing of its “Majestic Menu” of food service items to the hospitality and food service industry via an on-line internet site, where individuals could purchase retail direct from food distributors via credit cards and commercial accounts. The Company owned the software and intellectual property related to the “Majestic Menu” by license, and by virtue of its license agreement agreed to pay a 3% royalty on sales to the licensor.

The Company changed its business plan again in 2013, cancelling its license agreement with “Majestic Menu” in favor of again conducting business in the mining exploration sector. The Company entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement with CJSC Sintek, Inc., a mining and exploration company, to acquire 100% of Sintek’s shares for an aggregate price of $4,300,000 paid by the issuance of 200,000,000 shares of common stock with a one year restriction at a value of $.02 per share, and the balance of the purchase price of $300,000 paid in three installments of $100,000 each commencing on or before March 15, 2014, the second installment by May 15, 2014, and the last installment by June 15, 2014. However, on November 14, 2014 the Company terminated its agreement with Sintek Inc., and as a result, the transaction was reversed due to lack of financing. The stock issued in the amount of 200,000,000 restricted common shares was cancelled.

On June 26, 2014, the Company announced the signing of a Purchase Agreement with Grant Ltd. for the acquisition and licensing of facilities subsoil for Mine “Duet” Ltd., a producing property of lode gold in the Ust-Maya District, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) in the Russian Federation. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the Company agreed to acquire 100% of the rights, licenses and claims of Mine “Duet” Ltd. from Grant Ltd., for the aggregate consideration of $2,500,000 paid by 50,000,000 shares of restricted Common Stock of the Company at a value of US $.05 per share. The Closing of the proposed acquisition was scheduled for August 15, 2014. However, the Company did not close this transaction and the agreement was terminated as a result.

On July 2, 2014, the Company announced the signing of a Letter of Intent with Grant Ltd. for the acquisition and licensing of facilities subsoil for Mine "Drazhnik" Ltd., a producing property of lode gold in the Ust-Maya District, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) in the Russian Federation. The Company's initial due diligence was significant to support the signing a second letter of intent to enter a purchase agreement with Grant Ltd. on or before August 30, 2014. Based upon further due diligence conducted by the Company and negotiations with Grant, Ltd., the Company ultimately determined not to close this transaction.

On June 30, 2015, the Company announced the re-acquisition of the “Majestic Menu” license focused on the marketing of its “Majestic Menu” of food service items to the hospitality and food service industry via an on-line internet site, where individuals could purchase retail direct from food distributors via credit cards and commercial accounts. The Company owned the software and intellectual property related to the “Majestic Menu” by license, and by virtue of its license agreement agreed to pay a 3% royalty on sales from the licensor.

On September 4, 2015, Donald Steinberg and Charles Larsen purchased 400,000,000 shares of restricted common stock and 10,000,000 shares of the Preferred Class A stock from the Company’s President, Cornelia Volino, in exchange for $105,000.00. The purchases by Messrs. Steinberg and Larsen were in equal amounts . On September 9, 2015, Donald Steinberg was appointed Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of the Company. Mr. Larsen was appointed to the Board of Directors. The former officers and directors of the Company resigned concurrent with the new appointments. By virtue of Messrs. Steinberg and Larsen’s stock purchase and appointment to the Company’s Board of Directors, a purchase or sale of a significant amount of assets not in the ordinary course of business and a corresponding change of control occurred. The Company reported the change of control in its September 30, 2015 quarterly report filed with the OTC Markets. Thereafter, the Company’s business plans and operations changed to focus on the legalized hemp more fully discussed in this filing. The Company changed its name and trading symbol on December 1, 2015.

Principal Products and Services & Their Markets.

The Company offers its products and services through its wholly owned subsidiariy, H Smart, Inc. (d.b.a.: Hempsmart).

hempSMART

In 2016, the Company launched its hempSMART division by forming H Smart, Inc., as a wholly owned subsidiary. H Smart, Inc. was formed on September 21, 2015, as a Delaware corporation, and its sole asset and operation was the ownership of the hempSMART brand and related research and development into legal industrial hemp cannabidol (CBD) derived products. These products are non-psychoactive. Company’s product manufacturer only uses certified THC free, CBD Full Spectrum Oil. Company is interested in developing its own THC removal system as intellectual property or cultivating a hemp seed with a molecular blocker to the THC molecule. The focus of the hempSMART division is the development of products utilizing non-psychoactive Full Spectrum Hemp Oil, enriched with CBD or with CBD isolate containing no THC.

The Company’s first product under its hempSMART division is “hempSMART Brain”, a proprietary formulated personal care product encapsulated with enriched non-psychoactive industrial hemp derived CBD as the core ingredient. This encapsulation is combined with other high quality, proprietary ingredients to compliment CBD to support brain wellness. The Company’s second formulated product, “hempSMART Pain” is a personal care product focused on supporting joint health and flexibility taken orally in a gel capsule or by rubbing cream and is currently in production with an expected release in the third quarter of 2017. The Company has a number of other hempSMART products in research and development, and intends to broaden hempSMART’s product offerings to include other formulated personal care products targeting, sleep, mood swings, mental care, nausea, anxiety, body care, cosmetics, inflammation, and a line of branded merchandise using the hempSMART name. In order to grow and develop the hempSMART brand name, the Company intends to use the trade name hempSMART in conjunction with each of its new formulated personal care products. Thus, for example, the Company’s sleep product would be called “hempSMART Sleep.” The Company assembled an advisory board consisting of product developers, scientists and doctors to design and evaluate new hempSMART products as each is developed and tested prior to launch. 

Manufacturing and Distribution Methods of Our Products

The Company’s hempSMART product manufacturing is conducted by Equinox Nutraceutical (“Equinox”) in Lindon, Utah. As a manufacturer, Equinox generally implements and follows good manufacturing practices (GMP) and processes that ensure the quality of our manufactured products. Equinox also provides verified product testing of formulated components and finished products through a third-party lab to ensure quality control.

Customers can order hempSMART products directly through the hempSMART web site (https://www.hempsmart.com) or through any hempSMART “Affiliate.” The Company actively encourages individuals to become hempSMART Affiliates by signing up on its web site. Once qualified, Affiliates earn discounts on hempSMART products, and can earn commissions and discounts on future hempSMART products and orders, providing entrepreneur Affiliates a means of maximizing business opportunities in the rapidly emerging cannabis industry through the Company’s affiliate sales program.

In anticipation of establishing and expanding its hempSMART sales affiliate program, the Company acquired a license from MultiSoft Corporation, a Florida corporation (“MultiSoft”), to use its MarketPowerPro system software (“MarketPowerPro”). MarketPowerPro is a secure multi-level-marketing sales software program that facilitates order placement over the internet via a web site, and accounts for affiliate orders and sales; calculates referral benefits apportionable to specific sales associates, and calculates and accounts for loyalty and rewards benefits for returning customers. MarketPowerPro is compliant with Payment Card Industry financial standards for maintaining security regarding payment transactions conducted over the internet using credit cards. MultiSoft also independently monitors licensee websites hosting MarketPowerPro to ensure that licensee websites are compliant and are invulnerable to being compromised.

On November 1, 2016, the Company contracted with Big Monkey 3PL Logistics to provide for warehousing, packaging, and order fulfillment of its hempSMART products.

Competitive Business Conditions

Our competitors in both the hemp and cannabis spaces, include licensed professional growers and sellers of products and services dedicated to the hemp and compliance regulated cannabis industry, including the cultivation, processing, or retail sale of hemp and cannabis products. We compete in markets where cannabis has been legalized and regulated, which includes various states within the United States, it’s territories as well as within Native Sovereign Nations/Reservations located within the United States of America and Canada. We expect that the quantity and composition of our competitive environment will continue to evolve as the industry matures. Additionally, increased competition is possible to the extent that new states and geographies enter the marketplace as a result of continued enactment of regulatory and legislative changes that de-criminalize and regulate cannabis products. We believe that by diligently establishing and expanding our brands, product offerings and services in new and existing locations, we will become well established in this growing industry. Additionally, we expect that establishing our product offerings in new and existing locations are factors that mitigate the risk associated with operating in a developing competitive environment. Additionally, the contemporaneous growth of the industry as a whole will result in new customers entering the marketplace, thereby further mitigating the impact of competition on our operations and results.

Sources and Availability of Raw Materials and the Names of Principal Suppliers

On July 12, 2016, the Company contracted with a reputable Colorado and licensed supplier of hemp derived CBD isolate, to provide the Company with the necessary THC free isolate for its hempSMART product development, manufacture and sale. The Company is in further discussions with Colorado’s largest hemp oil extractor and a leader in hemp extraction industry, globally. The Company is negotiating for sufficient THC free Full Spectrum Oil for its intended product line. This new intended supplier holds two extraction patents and is working on a new utility patent for its state of the art THC removal and extraction process.

The Company also has relationships with various ingredient manufacturers who supply the Company with additives used in developing and producing its current hempSMART Brain product. Significant vendors include Sunland Nutrition of Anaheim California who supplies the Company with vitamin B-12; TR Nutritionals of Alpharetta Georgia who supplies the Company with vitamin B-6; Gnosis USA, Inc. of Doylestown, Pennsylvania who supplies the Company with vitamin B-9; Jiaherb CBD Global Extracts of Denver, Colorado who supplies the Company with water soluble CBD powder; Mineral Resources International of Roy Park, Utah who supplies the Company with trace mineral blends; and PLT Health Solutions of Morristown, New Jersey a supplier of blended herbs including turmeric, ginger root and gooseberry.

  On March 17, 2017, the Company signed a binding joint venture agreement with GateC Research Inc. (“GCR”), a California corporation. In the state of California, GCR has obtained a City/Municipal permit to cultivate within an approved zone in Adelanto County. The Company, itself, will not be part of the cultivation or harvest. The joint venture is currently in its development stages and is not yet operational. The Company and GCR intend to optimize collaborative business opportunities in the development and sales of the resulting cannabis products when fully legalized and when a legal structure is in place. As of the date of this filing, the joint venture is pending funding and the finalization of California State regulations governing cannabis grow operations in order to commence operations.

On March 16, 2017, the Company entered into a joint venture agreement with Bougainville Ventures, Inc., a Canadian corporation operating under the name BV-MCOA Management, LLC (“BV”), a Washington State Limited Liability Company. BV holds an assignable cannabis cultivation license and a lease for real property located in the State of Washington. The joint venture agreement with Bougainville Ventures, Inc., commits the Company to raise one million dollars in order to purchase the property that BV would cultivate and harvest upon. The Company will lease the property to the venture, thus acting solely as a landlord. With respect to Company’s financial obligations to raise capital, on July 3, 2017 the Company entered into a secured convertible promissory note with St. George Investments, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, for the receipt of funds in the gross amount of $752,500.00. The amount due under the note, including interest, is due 6 months after execution, or January 3, 2018. St. George Investments, LLC has the right to convert amounts due under the note to restricted common stock at prices defined in the transaction documents that will be included as exhibits to the Company’s Amended Form 10. The funding will occur in four payments as follows: $375,000.00 upon execution; $25,000 within thirty days; $25,000 within sixty days; and, $250,000 within ninety days. The note is partially secured by a lien interest on the land presently owned by Bougainville Ventures, Inc. 

Dependence on One or a Few Major Customers

Currently the Company is not dependent on any specific customers for a majority of its business, and expects to generate revenues through its own sales of hempSMART Brain and other developed hempSMART products and Affiliate sales through the Company’s affiliate sales program. 

Patents, Trademarks, Licenses, Franchises, Concessions, Royalty Agreements or Labor Contracts

On October 3, 2016, Company filed an application for the issuance of a registered trademark for hempSMART. As of the date of this filing, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is processing the Company’s application for a registered trademark.

On July 18, 2016, the Company filed a patent application for its proprietary formulation for hempSMART Brain, and retained Levisohn Berger, an intellectual property law firm in New York City, for patent representation.

Although we believe our hempSMART products to be exempt from being regulated as a Schedule 1 drug under the CSA, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may disagree and disallow us protection for our hempSMART brand and related products (See Item IA - Risk Factors).

Need for Any Government Approval of Principal Products or Services  

Regarding the Company’s joint venture with BV, the venture possesses an I-502 cultivation license to grow Cannabis on the subject real property in the State of Washington and retained a cannabis attorney to ensure state compliance. However, the joint venture project is in its development stages pending the completion of funding for the joint venture, and the beginning of cultivation by the license holders. The Company shall not participate in the actual cultivation or harvest. The Company shall engage itself within this venture as the landlord. Once operations commence, the BV joint venture will have to comply with various local, state and federal laws and regulations concerning its operation. For example, building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and fire codes are enforced by the local Washington State government jurisdiction where the cultivation operation is located. The venture will need to apply for and obtain all necessary permits and zoning approvals. Washington State enacted various environmental regulations governing air, water and waste control in grow operations. The Washington State Department of Ecology regulates air quality. Because the production and processing of marijuana can impact air quality, produce odorous emissions, and/or cause off-site nuisance impacts due to odor, the joint venture is subject to air quality requirements. These requirements include, but are not limited to, notice of construction permits, and registration program and fee requirements. Additional regulations include, but are not limited to: procedures used for disposal of marijuana solid waste that is not "dangerous waste"; disposal of solvents, pesticides, fertilizers and materials classified as "dangerous waste"; and, compliance with security regulations safeguarding grow facilities. The Company shall by contract require the operator and license holder to be aware and comply with all Federal occupational safety and health regulations, State and local rules, regulations and compliance issues concerning their requirements while at the real property and within the facility, and indemnify the Company from violations. Operator shall be required to comply with all State and municipal cannabis ordinances, rules, laws and regulations.

Regarding the Company’s Adelanto, California joint venture, the State of California recently proposed regulations for public comment regarding the licensing and operations of new grow facilities in California. These regulations are not final and may change prior to their final enactment. California state licenses for Cannabis cultivation are to be issued in California, January 1, 2018.

Government Regulation of Cannabis and the Effect of Existing or Probable Governmental Regulations on the Company’s Business:

The Company is not directly cultivating, harvesting, selling or extracting cannabis. The Company intends to conduct its research and development business around those who are in fact cultivating, harvesting or extracting cannabis. The Company is not at this time a cannabis license holder and is not placing itself within the confines and legal duties and responsibilities of a licensed cannabis cultivator, delivery, or retail outlet. As the Company is not a cannabis license holder, nor presently applying for one, those related governmental regulations would not apply. However, banking regulations may apply to Company as it does business with cannabis related entities. The Company is presently exploring its options with certified and compliant non-financial banking institutions.

The Company may in the short future look to become more directly involved within the legal, licensed and regulated hemp industry. Presently, there is significant movement within the United States Congress and Senate to remove and distinguish industrial hemp from its cousin species which contains in excess of 0.3% THC. There are several bills before Congress now, including the 2017 Farm Bill, which if passed would remove and distinguish hemp with a THC percentage at or below three-tenths of a percent from the CSA. Presently, cannabis as a species of plant resides as part of the Controlled Substance Act, “CSA”. See , 21 U.S.C. Sec. 812(c), and 21 C.F.R. Sec. 1308.11(23) and (31). However, when the CSA was written the multitude of varieties of cannabis were not known or not taken into account, and neither was the host of molecules contained within various varieties such as hemp and the benefits therefrom once extracted from the plant free of the psychotropic molecule (THC).

Hemp based CBD is derived from Industrial Hemp, and is protected pursuant to the Congressionally passed 2014 Farm Act. CBD is not specifically set forth within the CSA. There is a long standing legal argument that what Congress has not specifically set forth would be a legal omission from the United States Code (USC) and therefore not part of the Schedule 1 Substance list at all. With the passage of the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress differentiated industrial hemp from marijuana plants. Section 7606 of the 2014 Farm Bill authorized the growth, cultivation and marketing of industrial hemp under agricultural pilot programs in states that have legalized such activities. States with permitted agricultural programs may authorize, upon the granting of an applicant’s application, the issuance of a State license to lawfully participate under the 2014 Farm Bill’s hemp program. Such licenses and registrations have been granted to companies such as Whole Hemp Company d/b/a Folium Bio-Science, with extraction operations in the state of Colorado and with whom Company is negotiating legal business with. Such licensed and regulated hemp oil extractors and farmers are the only suppliers of such oils that the Company purchases and renders its finished products made from. The Company plans to contract with a third-party Colorado distributor for Company’s hemp product’s and their sale and distribution. As of the date of this filing, no such contract has yet been entered into.

The 2014 Farm Bill, passed by Congress, further discussed stopping the use of federal funds to impede hemp activities. Congress made a distinction or an exemption between the classifications of “cannabis as ‘marijuana’” and “industrial hemp” as defined.

On August 11, 2016, a Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp (the “Statement”) was issued by the Office of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) of the Department of Health and Human Service (“HHS”). On this date, Jonathan Miller, Esquire, Frost, Brown Tod, Lexington, KY., and Co-signed by Joseph Sandler, Esquire, Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Berkenstock, Washington, DC., provided to the Members of the Kentucky Hemp Industry Counsel, a legal Opinion on the U.S. Federal Agency Statement of Principles. This legal opinion provided:

As we outlined comprehensively in our Opinion on the Legal Status of Industrial Hemp, dated December 21, 2015 and attached as Appendix B (“our December Opinion”), the Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. No. 113-79 (the “2014 Farm Bill”) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2016 (the “Omnibus Law”) constitute a sweeping legal revolution for the industrial hemp crop. Taken together, the two laws ensure that individuals and firms that are engaged in authorized agricultural pilot programs should be permitted to grow, cultivate, transport, process, sell and/or use industrial hemp under the guidelines and regulations of state law, without interference from agencies using federally-authorized funds.

The issuance of the Statement of Principles by the three federal agencies most involved in these issues – the USDA, the DEA and FDA – brings that valued sense of certainty to individuals and firms involved in the industrial hemp business. Further, clarity provided by the Statement brings several items of good news to hemp farmers and firms:

CBD is mentioned in a separate DEA letter also released on August 11, 2016 rejecting petitions recently filed regarding the rescheduling of marijuana. That letter, which imprecisely describes CBD as “a constituent part of marijuana” focused exclusively on FDA-authorized clinical trials of CBD, and CBD’s potential for medical use, again is legally distinguishable from its sale without medicinal claims. (Emphasis added).

The Company is presently formulating product(s) that are free of THC. The hemp substance found within its hempSMART Brain formulation is that of a THC free, CBD isolate; meaning only the CBD molecule is extracted from the plant.

Our Research and Development Activities Over the Last Two Fiscal Years

Over our last two fiscal years, our research and development activity was focused on the formulation of our first hempSMART product: hempSMART Brain. To date, and over the last two fiscal years, our research and development costs were $62,000, all in connection to research and development activity concerning hempSMART Brain. We expect to conduct additional research and development as the Company expands its hempSMART line of products.

  Costs and effects of Compliance with Environmental Laws

As of the date of this filing, the Company is developing its joint venture with BV in the State of Washington. The BV venture is not yet fully capitalized. However, if and when capitalized, would place Company in the position of a landlord, paid by fixed fee, and its venture partner a cannabis related entity in a long-term lease arrangement. Once fully funded, the joint venture will have to comply with various Washington state environmental regulations governing air quality, water quality, water resources and waste management (see “Need for Any Government Approval of Principal Products or Services”). As of the date of this filing, the estimated costs of compliance are unknown.

The Company’s Adelanto, California joint venture with GateC Research, Inc. is in development and is pending funding in anticipation of operations commencing this year. Company will not be a license holder nor operate within the cultivation and harvest aspects. The terms and conditions of the venture shall depend upon compliance with the state and municipal laws once finalized within California. Company shall participate within the realm of the technology, science, IP, and software. The ultimate scope of these regulations, includes costs and effects are unknown at this time. 

All administrative activities of the Company have been conducted by corporate officers from either their own offices or homes and at the Company’s office located at 1340 West Valley Parkway, Suite #205, Escondido, CA 92029.

EMPLOYEES

As of December 31, 2016, the Company has three employees.

Our business involves a number of very significant risks, including but not limited to various areas of the cannabis industry being illegal under Federal Law and susceptible to aggressive prosecution from the U.S. Attorney General. Our business, operating results and financial condition could be seriously harmed as a result of the occurrence of any of the following risks. You should invest in our common stock only if you can afford to lose your entire investment. Your decision to invest in our common stock should only be made after you have knowingly accepted the possibilities of such a loss and the associated risks, including our business being so close to the Federally illegal cannabis industry, including various states where hemp and marijuana are still not legal for commercial purposes and sale.

Risks Related to Our Business

Because we have only recently begun our hempSMART operations, and our other ventures are in the development stage or not of yet capitalized, we anticipate our operating expenses will increase prior to earning revenue, and we may never achieve profitability:

The Company launched its first product, hempSMART Brain, in November, 2016. As we continue to conduct research and development of other hempSMART products, we anticipate increases in our operating expenses, without realizing significant revenues from operations. Within the next 12 months, these increases in expenses will be attributed to the cost of (i) administration and start-up costs, (ii) research and development, (iii) advertising and website development, (iv) legal and accounting fees at various stages of operation, (v) joint venture activities, (vi) creating and maintaining distribution and supply chain channels.

As a result of some or all of these factors in combination, the Company will incur significant financial losses in the foreseeable future. There is no history upon which to base any assumption as to the likelihood that the Company will prove successful. We cannot provide investors with any assurance that our business will attract customers and investors. If we are unable to address these risks, there is a high probability that our business will fail.

Failure to raise additional capital to fund operations could harm our business and results of operations :

Our primary source of operating funds from 2015 through the June 30, 2017 quarter end has been from revenue generated from proceeds from the sale of our common stock and the issuance of convertible and other debt. The Company has experienced net losses from operations since inception, but expects these conditions to improve in 2017 and beyond as it develops its business model. The Company has stockholders' deficiencies at December 31, 2016 and requires additional financing to fund future operations. Currently, we do not have any arrangements for financing and can provide no assurance to investors that we will be able to obtain financing when required. No assurance can be given that the Company will obtain access to capital markets in the future or that financing, adequate to satisfy the cash requirements of implementing our business strategies, will be available on acceptable terms. The inability of the Company to gain access to capital markets or obtain acceptable financing could have an adverse effect upon the results of its operations and upon its financial conditions.

Our business is dependent on laws pertaining to the marijuana industry:   

The federal government has issued guidance to federal prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The Cole Memorandum updates that guidance in light of state ballot initiatives that legalize under state law the possession of small amounts of marijuana and provide for the regulation of marijuana production, processing, and sale. The guidance set forth herein applies to all federal enforcement activity, including civil enforcement and criminal investigations and prosecutions, concerning marijuana in all states.

Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Department of Justice is committed to enforcement of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) consistent with those determinations. The Department is also committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats in the most effective, consistent, and rational way. In furtherance of those objectives, as several states enacted laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the Department in recent years has focused its efforts on certain enforcement priorities that are particularly important to the federal government:

In jurisdictions that have enacted laws legalizing marijuana in some form, and that have also implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana, conduct in compliance with those laws and regulations is less likely to threaten the federal priorities set forth above. Indeed, a robust system may affirmatively address those priorities by, for example, implementing effective measures to prevent diversion of marijuana outside of the regulated system and to other states, prohibiting access to marijuana by minors, and replacing an illicit marijuana trade that funds criminal enterprises with a tightly regulated market in which revenues are tracked and accounted for. In those circumstances, consistent with the traditional allocation of federal-state efforts in this area, enforcement of state law by state and local law enforcement and regulatory bodies should remain the primary means of addressing marijuana-related activity. If state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set forth above, the federal government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure itself in addition to continuing to bring individual enforcement actions, including criminal prosecutions, focused on those harms.

As with the Department's previous statements on this subject, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including federal laws relating to marijuana, regardless of state law. Neither the guidance herein nor any state or local law provides a legal defense to a violation of federal law, including any civil or criminal violation of the CSA. Even in jurisdictions with strong and effective regulatory systems, evidence that particular conduct threatens federal priorities will subject that person or entity to federal enforcement action, based on the circumstances. This memorandum is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. It applies prospectively to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in future cases and does not provide defendants or subjects of enforcement action with a basis for reconsideration of any pending civil action or criminal prosecution. Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest.

As to the Company engaging in business outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S.A., the Company must first assume that the laws in other country(s), territories or destinations are similar to that of the U.S. Federal Government, however, the Company must then retain competent legal counsel in this outside jurisdiction and insisting that they understand and obtain a copy of these foreign laws and rules and should gain the expertise and representation of a foreign specialist or attorney in the foreign destination being considered prior to engaging in any cannabis, marijuana or hemp business.

Laws and regulations affecting our industry are constantly changing :

The constant evolution of laws and regulations affecting the marijuana industry could detrimentally affect our operations. Local, state and federal medical marijuana laws and regulations are broad in scope and subject to changing interpretations. These changes may require us to incur substantial costs associated with legal and compliance fees and ultimately require us to alter our business plan. Furthermore, violations of these laws, or alleged violations, could disrupt our business and result in a material adverse effect on our operations. In addition, we cannot predict the nature of any future laws, regulations, interpretations or applications, and it is possible that regulations may be enacted in the future that will be directly applicable to our business.

Our business is subject to risk of government action :

While we will use our best efforts to comply with all laws, including federal, state and local laws and regulations, there is a possibility that governmental action to enforce any alleged violations may result in legal fees and damage awards that would adversely affect us.

Because our business is dependent upon continued market acceptance by consumers, any negative trends will adversely affect our business operations :

We are substantially dependent on continued market acceptance and proliferation of consumers of cannabis, medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. We believe that as marijuana becomes more accepted the stigma associated with marijuana use will diminish and as a result consumer demand will continue to grow. While we believe that the market and opportunity in the marijuana space continues to grow, we cannot predict the future growth rate and size of the market. Any negative outlook on the marijuana industry will adversely affect our business operations.

In addition, it is believed by many that large well-funded businesses may have a strong economic opposition to the cannabis industry. We believe that the pharmaceutical industry clearly does not want to cede control of any product that could generate significant revenue. For example, medical marijuana will likely adversely encroach, impact or displace the existing market for the current "marijuana pill" Marinol, sold by the mainstream pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry is well funded with a strong and experienced lobby that eclipses the funding of the medical marijuana movement. Any inroads the pharmaceutical industry could make in halting the impending cannabis industry could have a detrimental impact on our business.

We may have difficulty accessing the service of banks :

On February 14, 2014, the U.S. government issued rules allowing banks to legally provide financial services to state-licensed marijuana businesses. A memorandum issued by the Justice Department to federal prosecutors re-iterated guidance previously given, this time to the financial industry that banks can do business with legal marijuana businesses and "may not" be prosecuted. The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidelines to banks that "it is possible to provide financial services"" to state-licensed marijuana businesses and still be in compliance with federal anti-money laundering laws. The guidance falls short of the explicit legal authorization that banking industry officials had pushed the government to provide and to date, it is not clear if any banks have relied on the guidance and taken on legal marijuana companies as clients. The aforementioned policy may be administration dependent and a change in presidential administrations may cause a policy reversal and retraction of current policies, wherein legal marijuana businesses may not have access to the banking industry. Also, the inability of potential customers in our target market to open accounts and otherwise use the service of banks may make it difficult for them to purchase our products.

Banking regulations in our business are costly and time consuming:

In assessing the risk of providing services to a marijuana-related business, a financial institutions may conduct customer due diligence that includes: (i) verifying with the appropriate state authorities whether the business is duly licensed and registered; (ii) reviewing the license application (and related documentation) submitted by the business for obtaining a state license to operate its marijuana-related business; (iii) requesting from state licensing and enforcement authorities available information about the business and related parties; (iv) developing an understanding of the normal and expected activity for the business, including the types of products to be sold and the type of customers to be served (e.g., medical versus recreational customers); (v) ongoing monitoring of publicly available sources for adverse information about the business and related parties; (vi) ongoing monitoring for suspicious activity, including for any of the red flags described in this guidance; and (vii) refreshing information obtained as part of customer due diligence on a periodic basis and commensurate with the risk. With respect to information regarding state licensure obtained in connection with such customer due diligence, a financial institution may reasonably rely on the accuracy of information provided by state licensing authorities, where states make such information available. These regulatory reviews may be time consuming and costly.

Due to our involvement in the cannabis industry, we may have a difficult time obtaining the various insurances that are desired to operate our business, which may expose us to additional risk and financial liability :

Insurance that is otherwise readily available, such as general liability, and directors and officer’s insurance, is more difficult for us to find, and more expensive, because we are service providers to companies in the cannabis industry. There are no guarantees that we will be able to find such insurances in the future, or that the cost will be affordable to us. If we are forced to go without such insurances, it may prevent us from entering into certain business sectors, may inhibit our growth, and may expose us to additional risk and financial liabilities.

The Company’s industry is highly competitive and we have less capital and resources than many of our competitors which may give them an advantage in developing and marketing products similar to ours or make our products obsolete:

We are involved in a highly competitive industry where we may compete with numerous other companies who offer alternative methods or approaches, who may have far greater resources, more experience, and personnel perhaps more qualified than we do. Such resources may give our competitors an advantage in developing and marketing products similar to ours or products that make our products obsolete. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully compete against these other entities.

We may be unable to respond to the rapid technological change in the industry and such change may increase costs and competition that may adversely affect our business:

Rapidly changing technologies, frequent new product and service introductions and evolving industry standards characterize our market. The continued growth of the Internet and intense competition in our industry exacerbates these market characteristics. Our future success will depend on our ability to adapt to rapidly changing technologies by continually improving the performance features and reliability of our products and services. We may experience difficulties that could delay or prevent the successful development, introduction or marketing of our products and services. In addition, any new enhancements must meet the requirements of our current and prospective customers and must achieve significant market acceptance. We could also incur substantial costs if we need to modify our products and services or infrastructures to adapt to these changes.

We also expect that new competitors may introduce products, systems or services that are directly or indirectly competitive with us. These competitors may succeed in developing, products and services that have greater functionality or are less costly than our products and services, and may be more successful in marketing such products and services. Technological changes have lowered the cost of operating communications and computer systems and purchasing software. These changes reduce our cost of selling products and providing services, but also facilitate increased competition by reducing competitors’ costs in providing similar services. This competition could increase price competition and reduce anticipated profit margins.

Our products and services are new and our industry is rapidly evolving :

Due consideration must be given to our prospects in light of the risks, uncertainties and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in their early stage of development, particularly companies in the rapidly evolving legal cannabis industry. To be successful in this industry, we must, among other things:

We cannot guarantee that we will succeed in achieving these goals, and our failure to do so would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results.

Some of our products and services are new and are only in early stages of commercialization. We are not certain that these products and services will function as anticipated or be desirable to its intended market. Also, some of our products and services may have limited functionalities, which may limit their appeal to consumers and put us at a competitive disadvantage. If our current or future products and services fail to function properly or if we do not achieve or sustain market acceptance, we could lose customers or could be subject to claims which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

As is typical in a new and rapidly evolving industry, demand and market acceptance for recently introduced products and services are subject to a high level of uncertainty and risk. Because the market for the Company is new and evolving, it is difficult to predict with any certainty the size of this market and its growth rate, if any. We cannot guarantee that a market for the Company will develop or that demand for Company’s products and services will emerge or be sustainable. If the market fails to develop, develops more slowly than expected or becomes saturated with competitors, our business, financial condition and operating results would be materially adversely affected.

The Company’s failure to continue to attract, train, or retain highly qualified personnel could harm the Company’s business :

The Company’s success also depends on the Company’s ability to attract, train, and retain qualified personnel, specifically those with management and product development skills. In particular, the Company must hire additional skilled personnel to further the Company’s research and development efforts. Competition for such personnel is intense. If the Company does not succeed in attracting new personnel or retaining and motivating the Company’s current personnel, the Company’s business could be harmed. 

If we are unable to attract and retain independent associates, our business may suffer.

Our future success depends largely upon our ability to attract and retain a large active base of independent associates and members who purchase our products. We cannot give any assurances that the number of our independent associates will be established or increase in the future. Several factors affect our ability to attract and retain independent associates and members, including: on-going motivation of our independent associates; general economic conditions; significant changes in the amount of commissions paid; public perception and acceptance of our industry; public perception and acceptance of network marketing; public perception and acceptance of our business and our products, including any negative publicity; the limited number of people interested in pursuing network marketing as a business; our ability to provide proprietary quality-driven products that the market demands; and, competition in recruiting and retaining independent associates.

The loss of key management personnel could adversely affect our business.

We depend on the continued services of our executive officers and senior management team as they work closely with independent associate leaders and are responsible for our day-to-day operations. Our success depends in part on our ability to retain our executive officers, to compensate our executive officers at attractive levels, and to continue to attract additional qualified individuals to our management team. Although we have entered into employment agreements with certain members of our senior management team, and do not believe that any of them are planning to leave or retire in the near term, we cannot assure that our senior managers will remain with us. The loss or limitation of the services of any of our executive officers or members of our senior management team, or the inability to attract additional qualified management personnel, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or independent associate relations.

If government regulations regarding network marketing change or are interpreted or enforced in a manner adverse to our business, we may be subject to new enforcement actions and material limitations regarding our overall business model.

Network marketing is subject to foreign, federal, and state regulations. Any change in legislation and regulations could affect our business. Furthermore, significant penalties could be imposed on us for failure to comply with various statutes or regulations resulting from: ambiguity in statutes; regulations and related court decisions; the discretion afforded to regulatory authorities and courts interpreting and enforcing laws; and new regulations or interpretations of regulations affecting our business.

If our network marketing activities do not comply with government regulations, our business could suffer.

Many governmental agencies regulate our network marketing activities. A government agency’s determination that our business or our independent associates have significantly violated a law or regulation could adversely affect our business. The laws and regulations for network marketing intend to prevent fraudulent or deceptive schemes. Our business faces constant regulatory scrutiny due to the interpretive and enforcement discretion given to regulators, periodic misconduct by our independent associates, adoption of new laws or regulations, and changes in the interpretation of new or existing laws or regulations.

Independent associates could fail to comply with our associate policies and procedures or make improper product, compensation, marketing or advertising claims that violate laws or regulations, which could result in claims against us that could harm our financial condition and operating results.

We sell our products through a sales force of independent associates through our distributors. The independent associates are independent contractors and, accordingly, we are not in a position to provide the same direction, motivation, and oversight as we would if associates were our own employees. As a result, there can be no assurance that our associates will participate in our marketing strategies or plans, accept our introduction of new products, or comply with our associate policies and procedures. All independent associates will be required to sign a written contract and agree to adhere to our policies and procedures, which prohibit associates from making false, misleading or other improper claims regarding products or income potential from the distribution of the products. However, independent associates may from time to time, without our knowledge and in violation of our policies, create promotional materials or otherwise provide information that does not accurately describe our marketing program. There is a possibility that some jurisdictions could seek to hold us responsible for independent associate activities that violate applicable laws or regulations, which could result in government or third party actions or fines against us, which could harm our financial condition and operating results.

We may be held responsible for certain taxes or assessments relating to the activities of our independent associates, which could harm our financial condition and operating results.

Our independent associates are subject to taxation and, in some instances, legislation or governmental agencies impose an obligation on us to collect taxes, such as value added taxes, and to maintain appropriate tax records. In addition, we are subject to the risk in some jurisdictions of being responsible for social security and similar taxes with respect to our distributors. In the event that local laws and regulations require us to treat our independent distributors as employees, or if our distributors are deemed by local regulatory authorities to be our employees, rather than independent contractors, we may be held responsible for social security and related taxes in those jurisdictions, plus any related assessments and penalties, which could harm our financial condition and operating results.

Risks Related to the Company

Uncertainty of profitability :

Our business strategy may result in increased volatility of revenues and earnings. As we will only develop a limited number of products and services at a time, our overall success will depend on a limited number of products and services, which may cause variability and unsteady profits and losses depending on the products and services offered and their market acceptance.

Our revenues and our profitability may be adversely affected by economic conditions and changes in the market for medical and recreational marijuana. Our business is also subject to general economic risks that could adversely impact the results of operations and financial condition. 

Because of the anticipated nature of the products and services that we offer and attempt to develop, it is difficult to accurately forecast revenues and operating results and these items could fluctuate in the future due to a number of factors. These factors may include, among other things, the following:

Management of growth will be necessary for us to be competitive:

Successful expansion of our business will depend on our ability to effectively attract and manage staff, strategic business relationships, and shareholders. Specifically, we will need to hire skilled management and technical personnel as well as manage partnerships to navigate shifts in the general economic environment. Expansion has the potential to place significant strains on financial, management, and operational resources, yet failure to expand will inhibit our profitability goals.

We are entering a potentially highly competitive market:

The markets for businesses in the medical marijuana and recreational marijuana industries are competitive and evolving. In particular, we face strong competition from larger companies that may be in the process of offering similar products and services to ours. Many of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories, significantly greater financial, marketing and other resources and larger client bases than we have (or may be expected to have).

Given the rapid changes affecting the global, national, and regional economies generally and the medical marijuana and recreational marijuana industries, in particular, we may not be able to create and maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Our success will depend on our ability to keep pace with any changes in its markets, especially with legal and regulatory changes. Our success will depend on our ability to respond to, among other things, changes in the economy, market conditions, and competitive pressures. Any failure by us to anticipate or respond adequately to such changes could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating results, liquidity, cash flow and our operational performance.

Although we believe that our hempSMART products are exempt from regulation under the CSA, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may disagree and disallow us from obtaining trademark and patent protection for our hempSMART brand and products:

We have applied for a trademark for our hempSMART™ brand and patent for our hempSMART Brain product. Because our hempSMART products are derived from industrial non-psychoactive hemp that are produced from the mature stalks of the cannabis plant, the fiber produced from such stalks, the oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, and other compounds, manufacture, salt, derivatives, mixtures, or preparations of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination, we believe that our products do not fall within the category of being a Schedule 1 drug consistent with the CSA and its regulations. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may disagree, and we may not qualify for patent or trademark protection for our products, and this could materially affect our ability to establish and grow our brand, hempSMART products and develop our customer base and good will.

If we fail to protect our intellectual property, our business could be adversely affected :

Our viability will depend, in part, on our ability to develop and maintain the proprietary aspects of our products and brands to distinguish our products and services from our competitors' products and services. We rely on patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and confidentiality provisions to establish and protect our intellectual property. 

Any infringement or misappropriation of our intellectual property could damage its value and limit our ability to compete. We may have to engage in litigation to protect the rights to our intellectual property, which could result in significant litigation costs and require a significant amount of our time.

Competitors may also harm our sales by designing products that mirror the capabilities of our products or technology without infringing on our intellectual property rights. If we do not obtain sufficient protection for our intellectual property, or if we are unable to effectively enforce our intellectual property rights, our competitiveness could be impaired, which would limit our growth and future revenue.

We may also find it necessary to bring infringement or other actions against third parties to seek to protect our intellectual property rights. Litigation of this nature, even if successful, is often expensive and time-consuming to prosecute, and there can be no assurance that we will have the financial or other resources to enforce our rights or be able to enforce our rights, or prevent other parties from developing similar technology or designing around our intellectual property.

Our trade secrets may be difficult to protect:

Our success depends upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, our consultants and advisors, as well as our contractors. Because we operate in a highly competitive industry, we rely in part on trade secrets to protect our proprietary products and processes. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We enter into confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements with our corporate partners, employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, developers and other advisors. These agreements generally require that the receiving party keep confidential and not disclose to third parties confidential information developed by the receiving party or made known to the receiving party by us during the course of the receiving party's relationship with us. These agreements also generally provide that inventions conceived by the receiving party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property, and we enter into assignment agreements to perfect our rights.

These confidentiality, inventions and assignment agreements may be breached and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. Our trade secrets also could be independently discovered by competitors, in which case we would not be able to prevent the use of such trade secrets by our competitors. The enforcement of a claim alleging that a party illegally obtained and was using our trade secrets could be difficult, expensive and time consuming and the outcome would be unpredictable. The failure to obtain or maintain meaningful trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive position.

Our lack of sufficient patent and/or trademark or copyright protection and any unauthorized use of our proprietary information and technology may affect our business:

We currently rely on a combination of protections by patents, trademarks, contracts, including confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements, and common law rights, such as trade secrets, to protect our intellectual property. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to adequately protect our technology or other intellectual property from misappropriation in the U.S. and abroad. This risk may be increased due to the lack of certain patent and/or copyright protection. Any patent issued to us could be challenged, invalidated or circumvented or rights granted thereunder may not provide a competitive advantage to us. Furthermore, patent applications that we file may not result in issuance of a patent, or, if a patent is issued, the patent may not be issued in a form that is advantageous to us. Despite our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights, others may independently develop similar products, duplicate our products or design around our patents and other rights. In addition, it is difficult to monitor compliance with, and enforce, our intellectual property rights on a worldwide basis in a cost-effective manner. In jurisdictions where foreign laws provide less intellectual property protection than afforded in the U.S., our technology or other intellectual property may be compromised, and our business could be materially adversely affected. If any of our proprietary rights are misappropriated or we are forced to defend our intellectual property rights, we will have to incur substantial costs. Such litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of our resources, including diverting the time and effort of our senior management, and could disrupt our business, as well as have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. We can provide no assurance that we will have the financial resources to oppose any actual or threatened infringement by any third party. Furthermore, any patent or copyrights that we may be granted may be held by a court to infringe on the intellectual property rights of others and subject us to the payment of damage awards.

Our Business Can be Effected by Unusual Weather Patterns:

The production of some of our products relies on the availability and use of live plant material, which will be grown in California and Washington State. Growing periods can be impacted by weather patterns and these unpredictable weather patterns may impact our ability to harvest cannabis and produce products. In addition, severe weather, including drought and hail, can destroy a crop, which could result in our having no cannabis to process. If we are unable to harvest cannabis through our joint ventures, our ability to meet customer demand, generate sales, and maintain operations will be impacted. Our joint ventures do not presently have insurance against any loss of operations due to weather.

Ordinary and necessary business deduction other than the cost of goods sold are disallowed by the Internal Revenue Services for Cannabis companies under IRC Section 280E:

At this juncture, IRS 280E does not interfere with our businesses model from deducting ordinary and necessary business expenses. However, should Company enter the cannabis industry more directly, this onerous tax burden might significantly impacts the profitability of the Company and may make the pricing of its products less competitive.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Because we may issue additional shares of our common stock, investment in our company could be subject to substantial dilution:

Investors’ interests in our Company will be diluted and investors may suffer dilution in their net book value per share when we issue additional shares. We are authorized to issue 5,000,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share. As of December 31, 2016, there were 1,620,996,998 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding. We anticipate that all or at least some of our future funding, if any, will be in the form of equity financing from the sale of our common stock. If we do sell more common stock, investors’ investment in our company will likely be diluted. Dilution is the difference between what investors pay for their stock and the net tangible book value per share immediately after the additional shares are sold by us. If dilution occurs, any investment in our company’s common stock could seriously decline in value.

Trading in our common stock on the OTC Pink Exchange has been subject to wide fluctuations:

Our common stock is currently quoted for public trading on the OTC Pink Exchange. The trading price of our common stock has been subject to wide fluctuations. Trading prices of our common stock may fluctuate in response to a number of factors, many of which will be beyond our control. The stock market has generally experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies with limited business operation. There can be no assurance that trading prices and price earnings ratios previously experienced by our common stock will be matched or maintained. These broad market and industry factors may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted. Such litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs for us and a diversion of management’s attention and resources.

Utah law, our Certificate of Incorporation and our by-laws provides for the indemnification of our officers and directors at our expense, and correspondingly limits their liability, which may result in a major cost to us and hurt the interests of our shareholders because corporate resources may be expended for the benefit of officers and/or directors:

Our Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws include provisions that eliminate the personal liability of our directors for monetary damages to the fullest extent possible under the laws of the State of Utah or other applicable law. These provisions eliminate the liability of our directors and our shareholders for monetary damages arising out of any violation of a director of his fiduciary duty of due care. Under Utah law, however, such provisions do not eliminate the personal liability of a director for (i) breach of the director's duty of loyalty, (ii) acts or omissions not in good faith or involving intentional misconduct or knowing violation of law, (iii) payment of dividends or repurchases of stock other than from lawfully available funds, or (iv) any transaction from which the director derived an improper benefit. These provisions do not affect a director's liabilities under the federal securities laws or the recovery of damages by third parties.

We do not intend to pay cash dividends on any investment in the shares of stock of our Company and any gain on an investment in our Company will need to come through an increase in our stock’s price, which may never happen:

We have never paid any cash dividends and currently do not intend to pay any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. To the extent that we require additional funding currently not provided for, our funding sources may prohibit the payment of a dividend. Because we do not currently intend to declare dividends, any gain on an investment in our company will need to come through an increase in the stock’s price. This may never happen and investors may lose all of their investment in our company.

Because our securities are subject to penny stock rules, you may have difficulty reselling your shares:

Our shares as penny stocks, are covered by Section 15(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which imposes additional sales practice requirements on broker/dealers who sell our company’s securities including the delivery of a standardized disclosure document; disclosure and confirmation of quotation prices; disclosure of compensation the broker/dealer receives; and, furnishing monthly account statements. These rules apply to companies whose shares are not traded on a national stock exchange, trade at less than $5.00 per share, or who do not meet certain other financial requirements specified by the Securities and Exchange Commission. These rules require brokers who sell “penny stocks” to persons other than established customers and “accredited investors” to complete certain documentation, make suitability inquiries of investors, and provide investors with certain information concerning the risks of trading in such penny stocks. These rules may discourage or restrict the ability of brokers to sell our shares of common stock and may affect the secondary market for our shares of common stock. These rules could also hamper our ability to raise funds in the primary market for our shares of common stock.

FINRA sales practice requirements may also limit a stockholder’s ability to buy and sell our stock:

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

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for 2016 and 2015.

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and supplementary data referred to in this Form 10.

This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Such statements, which include statements concerning revenue sources and concentration, selling, general and administrative expenses and capital resources, are subject to risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, those discussed elsewhere in this Form 10 that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, the information set forth in this Form 10 is as of December 31, 2016.

Plan of Operation

The Company and its three wholly owned subsidiary companies: MCOA CA, Inc. Hempsmart, Ltd. and H Smart, Inc. (hempSMART) are based in Escondido, California. Our business involves the research and development of (1) varieties of various species of cannabis, including hemp; (2) the pharmacological benefits of cannabis species, including hemp; (3) the methodology of both indoor and outdoor cultivation methods; (4) the variety of technology used for cultivation and harvesting of different species of cannabis, including but not limited to lighting, venting, irrigation, hydroponics, nutrients and soil; (5) the different cannabinoids within the cannabis species and the possible health benefits thereof; and, (6) new and improved methods of hemp cannabinoid extraction omitting or eliminating the delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol “THC” molecule; the possible development of industrial hemp business and the sale of our hempSMART products through product development, sourcing, branding, and knowledge through a direct sales structure to maintain customer loyalty and capture market share.

The Company also launched its hempSMART division. The focus of the hempSMART division is the development of products designed to improve health utilizing non-psychoactive legal industrial hemp containing less than 0.3% THC, typically utilizing legal industrial hemp containing non-detectable certified 0%, amounts of THC non-psychoactive Cannabinoid oil, also known as “CBD.” The Company’s first product in the hempSMART division is hempSMART Brain, a formulated product encapsulated with CBD as the core ingredient, and combined with high quality, proprietary ingredients to compliment the CBD to support brain health and function. We intend to conduct research and development and release additional hempSMART products targeting general health, sleep, body care, cosmetics and a line of merchandise using the hempSMART name.

COMPARISON THE INTERIM PERIODS: FIRST QUARTER OF 2017 AND 2016

The net loss for the quarters ended March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016 were $18,078,284 and $1,091,498, respectively. The $18,078,284 loss was mainly a combined result of having general and administrative expenses of $17,978,754 in Q1 2017 and $1,091,498 in Q1 2016 and interest expense of $121,721 for the quarter ended March 31, 2017. The primary components of the $17,978,754 in general and administrative expenses for Q1 2017 were as follows: $527,753 of consulting fees, $97,500 in officer’s compensation and $17,218,750 of stock based compensation. The primary components of general and administrative expenses of $1,091,498 for Q1 2016 were as follows: $220,000 in consulting fees, $97,500 in officer’s compensation, $720,000 in stock based compensation. We expect the officer’s compensation to remain constant each quarter and for there to be a decrease in consulting expenses as the Company is striving to compensate more of its consultants with cash rather than stock. During Q1 2016, the Company had access to limited cash reserves and thus needed to compensation consultants with more stock.

The Company’ achieved a gross margin percentage of 43% for Q1 2017 and did not have a gross margin for Q1 2016 as the Company was in the development stage and had not made any sales. The Company expects this gross margin percentage to increase marginally as it achieves greater economies of scale from higher volumes of sales and is consequently able to purchase inventory at lower prices.

There was no interest expense in Q1 2016. Operating expenses increased by $16,884,955 from March 31, 2016 to March 31, 2017 primarily due to stock bonus compensation issued to officer’s amounting to $17,097,500 in expense for Q1 2017, and the Company issuing restricted stock as compensation to independent contractors in the amount of $527,753 for the quarter ending March 31, 2017.

For the quarter ended March 31, 2017, the Company had $63,026 in cash (December 31, 2016 -$147,486), Accounts Payable of $371,459 (December 31, 2016 - $324,889), accrued compensation of $92,727 (December 31, 2016 - $32,710), notes payable and accrued interest of $7,487 (December 31, 2016 - $7,487), and a stockholder’s deficit of $450,336 (December 31, 2016 - $129,801).

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The Company has generated a net loss from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2016 of approximately $5,402,456. As of December 31, 2016, the Company had current assets of $240,085, which included cash and cash equivalents of approximately $147,486; inventory of $83,475; and accounts receivable of $9,124. While the Company believes it has sufficient cash and cash equivalents to carry out its operating plans for the next twelve months, there can be no assurance the Company will be able to successfully execute its plans at the anticipated level or that additional debt or equity financing will not be needed, or will be available on terms acceptable to the Company.

During the years ended December 31, 2016, the Company has met its capital requirements through external financing and the sale of its restricted common stock.

Operating Activities - For the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company used cash for operating activities of $242,014. This is due primarily to our costs of inventory, accounts payable and accrued compensation. For the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company used cash for operating activities of $0. This is due primarily to marketing and promotional fees for a company awareness campaign.

Investing Activities - During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company did not engage in any investing activities. On March 13, 2017, the Company entered into a stock purchase agreement and acquired 15,000,000 common shares of MoneyTrac Technology, Inc., a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the state of California, for a total purchase price of $250,000 representing approximately 15% ownership at the time of the agreement.

Financing Activities - During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company received $349,500 in cash proceeds from sales of restricted common stock, and $40,000 from the issuance of notes payable.

Critical Accounting Policies - The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements describes the significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements. Estimates are used for, but not limited to, contingencies and taxes. Actual results could differ materially from those estimates. The following critical accounting policies are impacted significantly by judgments, assumptions, and estimates used in the preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Loss Contingencies

The Company is subject to various loss contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company considers the likelihood of loss or impairment of an asset or the incurrence of a liability, as well as its ability to reasonably estimate the amount of loss in determining loss contingencies. An estimated loss contingency is accrued when management concludes that it is probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company regularly evaluates current information available to us to determine whether such accruals should be adjusted.

Income Taxes

The Company recognizes deferred tax assets (future tax benefits) and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the book carrying amounts and the tax basis of assets and liabilities. The deferred tax assets and liabilities represent the expected future tax return consequences of those differences, which are expected to be either deductible or taxable when the assets and liabilities are recovered or settled.

Investments

The Company’s securities investments that are bought and held principally for the purpose of selling them in the near term are classified as trading securities. Trading securities are recorded at fair value on the balance sheet in current assets, with the change in fair value during the year included in earnings. Gains from the sales of such marketable securities are utilized to fund our ongoing business, and to also conduct strategic business development, marketing analysis, due diligence investigations into possible acquisitions, and research and development and implementation of our business plans generally.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 1 of the consolidated financial statements for discussion of recent accounting pronouncements.

We maintain a lease for our principal office located at 1340 West Valley Parkway #205, Escondido, CA 92029 . Our lease is for a two year term and we pay a monthly rent of $1,233.75.

The following table sets forth information known to us regarding the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of December 31, 2016 by (1) each stockholder who is known by us to beneficially own more than 5% of our common stock, (2) each of our directors, (3) each of our executive officers, and (4) all of our directors and executive officers as a group.

Donald Steinberg, Director . Mr. Steinberg’s business experience began in 1986 when he developed stock option volatility analysis and trading programs. His work led him to a management position of floor traders on multiple options exchanges, including the Chicago Board of Options Exchange and the Pacific Options Exchange. Ultimately, Mr. Steinberg used his trading and volatility programs to manage options trading centers in Chicago, Philadelphia and California, where he managed and directed floor traders. This experience gave Mr. Steinberg the fundamental knowledge of finance and operations, and gave him insight into the management skills necessary to operate a company with discrete centers and many employees. Beginning in the early 90’s, Mr. Steinberg co-founded Globalcom 2000 and entered into the prepaid phone card business. Globalcom 2000 became one of the largest and fastest growing phone card companies in the United States. Among the many firsts accomplished in that business was an account with 7-11, which Mr. Steinberg personally closed, and which made Globalcom 2000 the first phone card in the country with a corporate logo.

In 1994, Mr. Steinberg developed an interest in the telecom “Callback” business, and co-founded “One World Communications.” Mr. Steinberg subsequently traveled the world, opening up 187 training centers in only 9 months, and created an international multi-level-marketing (“MLM”) global sales force selling telecom services. In 2006, Mr. Steinberg formed Club Vivanet as an International MLM, selling a variety of services. In 2009, he merged Club Vivanet with a publicly traded company. In 2008, Mr. Steinberg recognized the emerging opportunities in the medical marijuana industry, and changed the name of Club Vivanet to Medical Marijuana Inc. (OTC: MJNA), which is believed to be America’s first publicly traded company in the medical marijuana industry. Mr. Steinberg left Medical Marijuana, Inc. in 2011 and in 2013, Mr. Steinberg launched Global Hemp Group, Inc. (OTC: GBHPF) with Mr. Charles Larsen, as they recognized the momentum building in the emerging global hemp industry. Although retired over the last five years, Mr. Steinberg has followed the developing cannabis business, the new laws and regulations governing it, and business trends in this growing market. Mr. Steinberg has also studied possible banking solutions for the cannabis market.

Charles Larsen , Director. Mr. Larsen attended the Pepperdine University Graziadio School of Business in Los Angeles and served in the U.S. Coast Guard from 1981 through 1988. From 1989 through 1991, Mr. Larsen served as a commodity trading advisor with the firm Peskin & Associates in Chicago, Illinois, where his primary duties included organization and management of investment operations, management of client billing, the development of a custom trade order management system, monitoring of trading operations and floor broker communications. From 1991 through 1995, Mr. Larsen served as an implementation consultant for Integrated Decision Systems in Los Angeles, CA. In this capacity, Mr. Larsen implemented portfolio management and trade order management systems, determined operational deficiencies and solutions, and managed custom training programs and development projects. From 1995 through 2006, Mr. Larsen served as Senior Vice President of Operations and Business Development for Tower Asset Management in Beverly Hills, CA. Here, Mr. Larsen managed operations, client billing, daily portfolio reconciliation, compliance and regulatory reporting. Mr. Larsen also was a member of Tower’s Investment Committee and Executive Management Committee. From 2006 through 2007, Mr. Larsen was Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer at Financial Management Advisors of Century City, CA, where his duties focused on management of operations, finance and compliance. From 2007 to 2009, Mr. Larsen worked for Polaris International Holdings in Huntington Beach, CA focused on the preparation of corporate financials and regulatory compliance. In 2009 Mr. Larsen helped found Medical Marijuana, Inc. and focused on operations, compliance and acquisition sourcing and due diligence. From 2012 through 2013, Mr. Larsen was an independent business consultant serving corporations including Global Payout, Inc., of San Diego, CA and BG Medical Technologies, Inc. of Los Angeles, CA. Beginning in 2013, Mr. Larsen co-founded and remains the President and Chief Executive Officer of Global Hemp Group, Inc. (OTC: GBHPF). With Global Hemp Group, Mr. Larsen’s duties include corporate compliance and administration, hemp and medical marijuana compliance, and business development in Canada and internationally, all positions he continues in as of the date of this filing. From 2013 to the present, Mr. Larsen has been the Company’s co-founder, director and strategic advisor, advising management on public company compliance and administration, business development, medical and recreational marijuana compliance, sourcing, and overall operations on a daily basis.

Robert Hymers , Director. Mr. Hymers was the past president and CEO of Everlert, Inc. (OTC: EVLI). Mr. Hymers is a licensed CPA in the state of California. During his career as a tax professional at Ernst & Young, LLP, Mr. Hymers provided tax services to several prominent entertainment and real estate companies. His extensive experience with Entertainment and Private Equity industries together with his prolonged involvement with public companies in different roles makes him a key asset to the Company. Mr. Hymers has also served as the CFO of Global Hemp Group (OTC: GBHPF) and is the Managing Partner of Pinnacle Tax Services, LLC. Mr. Hymers holds a Master of Science in Taxation degree and a Bachelor's of Science degree in Accountancy from California State University, Northridge. He is the founding managing editor of the University's: "Tax Development Journal."

Our Executive Officers

We designate persons serving in the following positions as our named executive officers: our chief executive officer, chief financial officer. The following table sets forth information regarding our executive officers as of December 31, 2016.

Donald Steinberg’s, Robert Hymers’, and Charles Larsen’s biographical summaries are included under “Our Board of Directors.”

Summary Compensation Table

Our primary objective for of our senior officer compensation is to attract, motivate and retain qualified officers to lead the Company in the pursuit of its business goals and combine strategic thinking, creative talent, and strict corporate governance in order to position the Company to capitalize on a wide variety of business opportunities without being limited by any single industry or platform.

Compensation for executive officers is based upon their individual employment contracts with such base salary and annual bonuses as may be determined by the Compensation Committee administering out Equity Incentive Plan from time to time, payable in accordance with the regular practices of the Company.

The following table sets forth information concerning the compensation of our principal executive officer, our principal financial officer and each of our other executive officers during 2016 and 2015.

Since the beginning of the Company's last fiscal year, it has not been a participant in any transaction or proposed transaction in which any related person had or will have a direct or indirect material interest in an amount exceeding $120,000.00. None of our directors are independent directors qualified under Item 407 of Reg. SK.

There are no material pending legal proceedings involving the Company to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party or of which any of their property is the subject.

MARKET INFORMATION

Our common stock trades on the OTC PINK Exchange under the ticker symbol “MCOA”. As of December 31, 2016, there were 334 holders of record of our common stock. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low closing sales prices of our common stock:

DIVIDENDS

The Company has never declared or paid any cash dividends. It is the present policy of the Company to retain earnings to finance the growth and development of the business and, therefore, the Company does not anticipate paying dividends on its Common Stock in the foreseeable future.

There were 334 shareholders of record of the Company’s Common Stock as of December 31, 2016.

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

On October 5, 2015, the Company established an Equity Incentive Plan under the direction and control of the Company’s Board of Directors acting as the Compensation Committee. The purpose of the Plan is to attract and retain the services of (i) selected employees, officers and directors of the Company or any parent or subsidiary of the Company and (ii) selected nonemployee agents, consultants, advisors and independent contractors of the Company or any parent or subsidiary of the Company. The Compensation Committee has discretion to issue stock options, stock awards, restricted stock awards or cash.

The following table summarizes the Company’s restricted share award activity for executives during 2015 and 2016:

Compensation for executive officers is based upon their individual employment contracts with such base salary and annual bonuses as may be determined by the Board of Directors from time to time, payable in accordance with the regular practices of the Company.

Employment Agreements

Effective January 1, 2016, the Company entered into an Employment Agreement with Donald Steinberg under which Mr. Steinberg serves as chairman of the board, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Director of the Company. Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Mr. Steinberg is to be paid an annual rate of base salary of one hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($180,000.00) in monthly installments of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per month in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll practices and applicable wage payment laws. Mr. Steinberg’s base salary shall be reviewed at least annually by the Board and the Board may, but shall not be required to, increase the base salary during the Employment Term.

On September 9, 2015, the Company appointed Charles Larsen as a director. Effective January 1, 2016, the Company entered into an Employment Agreement with Charles Larsen under which Mr. Larsen serves as Director and consultant of the Company, reporting to the Board of Directors. In such position, Mr. Larsen shall have such duties, authority, and responsibility as shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors, which duties, authority, and responsibility are consistent with the Executive’s position. The Company shall pay the Executive an annual rate of base salary of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000.00) in monthly installments of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per month in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll practices and applicable wage payment laws. Mr. Larsen’s base salary shall be reviewed at least annually by the Board and the Board may, but shall not be required to, increase the base salary during the Employment Term.

Effective January 1, 2016, the Company entered into an Employment Agreement with Robert Hymers under which Mr. Hymers serves as Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, reporting to the Board of Directors. In such position, Mr. Hymers shall have such duties, authority, and responsibility as shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors, which duties, authority, and responsibility are consistent with Mr. Hymers’ position. The Company agreed to pay Mr. Hymers a base salary of ninety thousand dollars ($90,000.00) in monthly installments of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) per month in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll practices and applicable wage payment laws. Mr. Hymers’ base salary shall be reviewed at least annually by the Board and the Board may, but shall not be required to, increase the base salary during the Employment Term.

The following information represents securities sold by the Company within the past three years which were not registered under the Securities Act. Included are sales of reacquired securities, as well as new issues, securities issued in exchange for property, services, or other securities, and new securities resulting from the modification of outstanding securities.

The following information represents securities sold by the Company within the past three years which were not registered under the Securities Act. Included are sales of reacquired securities, as well as new issues, securities issued in exchange for property, services, or other securities, and new securities resulting from the modification of outstanding securities.

On December 15, 2013, the Company issued 200,000,000 shares of restricted common stock in exchange for all the stock in Sintek, Inc., a California mining and exploration corporation. The Company entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement with Sintek to acquire 100% of Sintek’s shares for an aggregate price of $4,300,000 paid by the issuance of 200,000,000 shares of common stock with a one year restriction at a value of $.02 per share, and the balance of the purchase price of $300,000 paid in three installments of $100,000 each commencing on or before March 15, 2014, the second installment by May 15, 2014, and the last installment by June 15, 2014. However, on November 14, 2014 the Company terminated its agreement with Sintek Inc., and as a result, the transaction was reversed due to lack of financing. The stock issued in the amount of 200,000,000 restricted common shares was cancelled.

The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Sintek, Inc. was a “sophisticated investor” and/or an “accredited investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Sintek, Inc. full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Sintek, Inc. acquired the restricted common stock for its own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares issued could not be sold unless registered pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On December 23, 2014, the Company issued 400,000,000 shares of restricted common stock at $.005 for a value of $200,000 to Cornelia Volino to reacquire the Majestic Menu license to market its “Majestic Menu” of food service items to the hospitality and food service industry via an on-line internet site, where individuals could purchase retail direct from food distributors via credit cards and commercial accounts The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Ms. Volino was a “sophisticated investor” and/or an “accredited investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning her qualifications as an “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Ms. Volino full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Ms. Volino acquired the restricted common stock for her own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On October 5, 2015, the Company issued 10,000,000 restricted common shares to Robert Hymers for contracted accounting services to the Company. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Hymers was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the Mr. Hymers full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Hymers acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On October 8, 2015, Donald Steinberg was issued 217,457,143 in restricted Common stock upon his conversion of a convertible note payable in the amount of $76,110. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Steinberg was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as “accredited investors.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Steinberg full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Steinberg acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On January 12, 2016, the Company issued to Robert Peak 10,000,000 shares of restricted common stock for business consulting services rendered. On November 15, 2016, the Company and Mr. Peak agreed to retire 7,500,000 of the shares previously issued. The Company issued 2,500,000 restricted shares to Mr. Peak as consideration for business consulting services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Peak was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Peak full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities. Mr. Peak acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On January 12, 2016, the Company issued to Robert Cronin 10,000,000 shares of restricted common stock for business consulting services rendered. On November 15, 2016, the Company and Mr. Cronin agreed to retire 7,500,000 of the shares previously issued. The Company issued 2,500,000 restricted shares to Mr. Cronin as consideration for business consulting services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Cronin was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Cronin full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Cronin acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On January 12, 2016, the Company issued 10,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Apogee Design, Inc. for business consulting services and web design services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Apogee Design, Inc. was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Apogee Design, Inc. full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Apogee Design, Inc. acquired the restricted common stock for its own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On February 1, 2016, the Company issued to Edward Manolos 1,000,000 of restricted common stock for services rendered to the Company’s Advisory Board. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Manolos was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Manolos full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Manolos acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On February 22, 2016, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Robert Calkin for services rendered to the Company’s Advisory Board. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Calkin was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Calkin full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Calkin acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On February 22, 2016, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Gerry Lee Bedore, Jr. for services rendered to the Company’s Advisory Board. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Bedore was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Bedore full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Bedore acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On February 23, 2016, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Peninacoop LLC for services rendered to the Company’s Advisory Board. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Peninacoop, LLC was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Peninacoop, LLC full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Peninacoop, LLC acquired the restricted common stock for its own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On June 7, 2016, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Robert Calkin for business consulting services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Calkin was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Calkin full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Calkin acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On June 7, 2016, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Timothy Altvater for consulting services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Altvater was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Altvater full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Altvater acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On June 7, 2016, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Lucretia Smith for business consulting services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Ms. Smith was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning her qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Ms. Smith full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Ms. Smith acquired the restricted common stock for her own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On June 7, 2016, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to David Cook for business consulting and product development services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Cook was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Cook full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Cook acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On June 7, 2016, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Magnet Marketing, Inc. for business consulting services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Magnet Marketing, Inc. was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Magnet Marketing, Inc. full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Magnet Marketing, Inc. acquired the restricted common stock for its own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On June 30, 2016, the Company issued 81,818,182 shares of restricted common stock to Donald Steinberg as consideration for salary owed to Mr. Steinberg from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 pursuant to his executive employment contract. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Steinberg was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as “accredited investors.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Steinberg full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Steinberg acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On June 30, 2016, the Company issued 54,545,455 shares of restricted common stock to Charles Larsen as consideration for salary owed to Mr. Larsen from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 pursuant to his executive employment contract. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Larsen was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Larsen full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Larsen acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On June 30, 2016, the Company issued 40,909,091 shares of restricted common stock to Robert Hymers as consideration for salary owed to Mr. Hymers from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 pursuant to his executive employment contract. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Hymers was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the Mr. Hymers full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Hymers acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On July 29, 2016, the Company issued 2,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to David Cook for business consulting and product development services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Cook was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Cook full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Cook acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On July 29, 2016, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Paula Vetter for business consulting services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Ms. Vetter was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning her qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the Ms. Vetter full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Ms. Vetter acquired the restricted common stock for her own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On July 29, 2016, the Company issued 9,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Timothy Altvater for business consulting services rendered concerning the development of the Company’s affiliate sales structure. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Altvater was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Altvater full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Altvater acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On July 29, 2016, the Company issued 20,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to AGORACOM, Inc. for investor relations services rendered.

The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. AGORACOM was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to AGORACOM full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

AGORACOM acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On October 6, 2016, the Company issued 40,909,091 shares of restricted common stock to Donald Steinberg as consideration for the conversion of a note payable. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Steinberg was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Steinberg full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Steinberg acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On October 6, 2016, the Company issued 27,272,727 shares of restricted common stock to Charles Larsen as consideration for the conversion of a note payable. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Larsen was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Larsen full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Larsen acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On October 6, 2016, the Company issued 20,454,545 shares of restricted common stock to Robert Hymers as consideration for the conversion of a note payable. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Hymers was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the Mr. Hymers full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Hymers acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On October 13, 2016, the Company sold and issued 10,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Guillermo Haro in exchange for $40,000. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Haro was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the Mr. Haro full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Haro acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On October 18, 2016, the Company sold and issued 5,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Yigail Wax in exchange for $5,000. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Wax was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the Mr. Wax full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Wax acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On October 28, 2016, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to David Cook for business consulting and product development services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Cook was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Cook full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Cook acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On November 1, 2016, the Company issued 69,675,032 shares of restricted common stock to Donald Steinberg as consideration for his conversion of a note payable. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Steinberg was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Steinberg full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Steinberg acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On November 1, 2016, the Company issued 14,999,270 shares of restricted common stock to Charles Larsen as consideration for his conversion of a note payable. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Larsen was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Larsen full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Larsen acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On November 3, 2016, the Company and Antonio Papa entered into a settlement agreement whereby Mr. Papa returned to treasury 46 million shares and the Company agreed to issue Mr. Papa 25,500,000 shares of restricted common stock, subject to an issuance schedule whereby the Company issued 5 million restricted shares to Mr. Papa for a five-month period.

The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Papa was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the Mr. Papa full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Papa acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On November 4, 2016, the Company issued 13,636,364 shares of restricted common stock to Donald Steinberg as consideration for his conversion of a note payable. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Steinberg was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as “accredited investors.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Steinberg full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Steinberg acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On November 4, 2016, the Company issued 9,090,909 shares of restricted common stock to Charles Larsen as consideration for the conversion of a note payable. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Larsen was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as “accredited investors.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Larsen full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Larsen acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On November 4, 2016, the Company issued 6,818,182 shares of restricted common stock to Robert Hymers as consideration for his conversion of a note payable. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Hymers was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the Mr. Hymers full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Hymers acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On November 23, 2016, the Company issued 3,500,000 shares of restricted common stock to Stock Vest for services rendered. The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Stock Vest was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the Stock Vest full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Stock Vest acquired the restricted common stock for its own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On December 1, 2016, the Company issued 5,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to National Advisory Services, by virtue of a settlement agreement whereby National Advisory Services returned to treasury 34,500,000 shares of common stock and the Company agreed to issue National Advisory Services 10,000,000 shares of restricted common stock in two monthly tranches of 5,000,000 shares each.

The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. National Advisory Services was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the National Advisory Services full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

National Advisory Services acquired the restricted common stock for its own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On December 6, 2016, the Company issued 1,125,000 shares of restricted common stock to JSK Holdings, Inc. in exchange for 375 grams of CBD molecule rendered water soluble, valued at $15,000.

The Company relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. JSK Holdings, Inc. was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the JSK Holdings, Inc. full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

JSK Holdings, Inc. acquired the restricted common stock for its own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On December 14, 2016, the Company issued 5,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Antonio Papa as a replacement for a lost certificate. The replacement certificate was issued in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Papa was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor”

Mr. Papa acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On December 21, 2016, the Company issued 500,000 shares of restricted common stock to Michael E. Glasser for services rendered. The issuance to Mr. Glasser was made in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Glasser was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the Mr. Glasser full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Glasser acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On December 29, 2016, the Company sold and issued 16,666,667 shares of restricted common stock to IRA Services Trust Company in exchange for $100,000. The issuance was made in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. The investor was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the investor full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

The investor acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On December 29, 2016, the Company sold and issued 8,333,333 shares of restricted common stock to IRA Services Trust Company in exchange for $50,000. The issuance was made in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. The investor was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to the investor full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

The investor acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On December 30, 2016, the Company issued 3,440,860 shares of restricted common stock to Guillermo Haro as consideration for the conversion of a note payable. The issuance was made in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Haro was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning its qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Haro full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Haro acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

On December 31, 2016, the Company issued 3,333,333 shares of restricted common stock to Dillon Jordan for services rendered. The issuance was made in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder, with respect to the issuance of the restricted stock. Mr. Jordan was an “accredited investor” and/or “sophisticated investor” pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Securities Act, who provided the Company with representations, warranties and information concerning his qualifications as a “sophisticated investor” and/or “accredited investor.” The Company provided and made available to Mr. Jordan full information regarding its business and operations. There was no general solicitation in connection with the offer or sale of the restricted securities.

Mr. Jordan acquired the restricted common stock for his own account, for investment purposes and not with a view to public resale or distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act. The restricted shares so purchased cannot be sold unless pursuant to an effective registration statement by the Company, or by an exemption from registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act—the existence of any such exemption subject to legal review and approval by the Company.

Item 11. DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES TO BE REGISTERED.

Capital Stock

We are authorized to issue 50,000,000 shares of preferred stock, $0.001 par value, and 5,000,000,000 shares of Common stock, $0.001 par value.

Preferred Stock

As of December 31, 2016, we designated 10,000,000 shares of our preferred stock as “Class A Preferred Stock,” par value $0.001, and had 10,000,000 shares of Class “A” Preferred Stock, preferred stock issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2016.

The Class “A” Preferred Stock carries the following rights and preferences;

Dividends

Class “A” Preferred Stock is not eligible for receipt of dividends.

Voting Rights

The holders of the Class “A” Preferred Stock shall vote for the election of directors, and shall have full voting rights, except that each Class “A” Preferred share shall entitle the holder to exercise one hundred (100) votes for each one (1) Class A Preferred Share held. Our Directors, Mr. Charles Larsen and Mr. Donald Steinberg, each own 5,000,000 Class “A” Preferred Shares and so control in excess of 50% of the votes eligible to be cast on any decision regarding corporate actions under Utah law that are assigned to a vote of the stockholders, including but not limited to: (i) the sale of all or substantially all of its property; (ii) the election of directors; (iii) dissolving the corporation; (iv) amending the articles of incorporation; and, (v) approving a merger or consolidation. The beneficial owners of the Class “A” Preferred Stock vote with the common stockholders and the designated preferences cannot be modified but for a majority vote of the common shares eligible to vote as a class.

Redemptive Rights

The Class “A” Preferred Stock shall not be redeemable.

Conversion Rights

Class “A” Preferred Stock is not convertible into any other class of preferred stock or common stock.

Other Provisions

The shares of Class “A” Preferred Stock shall be duly and validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable. The holders of the Class “A” Preferred Stock shall not have pre-emptive rights with respect to any shares of capital stock of the Company or any other securities of the Company convertible into Common Stock or rights or options to purchase any such shares.

Common Stock

As of December 31, 2016, 1,620,996,998 shares of our common stock are issued and outstanding. Holders of shares of common stock are entitled to one vote for each share on all matters to be voted on by the stockholders. Holders of common stock have no cumulative voting rights. Accordingly, the holders of in excess of 50% of the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock outstanding will be able to elect all of the directors of the Company and to approve or disapprove any other matter submitted to a vote of all shareholders.

Holders of shares of common stock are entitled to share ratably in dividends, if any, as may be declared, from time to time, by the Board of Directors in its discretion, from funds legally available therefore. The Company does not currently anticipate paying any dividends on its Common Stock. In the event of a liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, the holders of shares of common stock are entitled to share pro rata all assets remaining after payment in full of all liabilities. Holders of common stock have no preemptive rights to purchase the Company's common stock. There are no conversion rights or redemption or sinking fund provisions with respect to the common stock. All of the outstanding shares of common stock are fully paid and non-assessable.

Shares of Common Stock are registered at the office of the Company and are transferable at such office by the registered holder (or duly authorized attorney) upon surrender of the Common Stock certificate, properly endorsed. No transfer shall be registered unless the Company is satisfied that such transfer will not result in a violation of any applicable federal or state securities laws. The Company's transfer agent is Pacific Stock Transfer Company, 6725 Via Austi Pkwy, Suite 300, Las Vegas NV 89119.

Utah Statutes.

Except as otherwise provided in the Utah Revised Business Corporation Act (URBCA), a corporation may indemnify an individual made a party to a proceeding because the individual is or was a director of the corporation against liability incurred in the proceeding if:

•            His conduct was in good faith.

•            He reasonably believed that his conduct was in, or not opposed to, the corporation’s best interests.

•            In the case of any criminal proceeding, he had no reasonable cause to believe his conduct was unlawful.

However, a corporation may not indemnify a director in connection with either:

A corporation may pay for or reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by a director who is a party to a proceeding in advance of a final disposition if:

A corporation must indemnify a director who was successful in the defense of any proceeding or claim to which the director was a party because of the director’s status as a director of the corporation against reasonable expenses incurred in defending the proceeding or claim for which the director was successful

Unless a corporation’s articles of incorporation provide otherwise:

Company Articles and By Laws.

Article III, Section 6 of the Company’s By Laws provides that The Corporation shall have power to indemnify any person who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative (other than an action by or in the right of the Corporation) by reason of the fact that he is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the Corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the Corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, against expenses (including attorney fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection with such action, suit or proceeding if he acted in good faith and in a manner he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the Corporation, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe his conduct was unlawful. The termination of any action, suit or proceeding by judgment, order, settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of nolo contendere or its equivalent shall not, of itself, create a presumption that the person did not act in good faith and in a manner which he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the Corporation, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was unlawful.

The Corporation shall have the power to indemnify any person who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action or suit by or in the right of the Corporation to procure a judgment in its favor by reason of the fact that he is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the Corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the Corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise against expenses (including attorney fees) actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection with the defense or settlement of such action or suit if he acted in good faith and in a manner he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the Corporation and except that no indemnification shall be made in respect of any claim, issue or matter as to which such person shall have been adjudged to be liable to the Corporation unless and only to the extent that the court in which such action or suit was brought shall determine upon application that, despite the adjudication of liability but in view of all the circumstances of the case, such person is fairly and reasonably entitled to indemnity for such expenses which the court shall deem proper.

Any indemnification under the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this section (unless ordered by a court) shall be made by the Corporation only as authorized in the specific case upon a determination that indemnification of the director, officer, employee or agent is proper in the circumstances because he has met the applicable standard of conduct set forth above. Such determination shall be made: (1) by the Board of Directors by a majority vote of a quorum consisting of directors who were not parties to such action, suit or proceedings; (2) if such a quorum is not obtainable, or, even if obtainable a quorum of disinterested directors so directs, by independent legal counsel in a written opinion; or (3) by the shareholders.

Expenses incurred by an officer or director in defending a civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding may be paid by the Corporation in advance of the final disposition of such action, suit or proceeding upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of such director or officer to repay such amount if it shall ultimately be determined that he is not entitled to be indemnified by the Corporation as authorized by the provisions of this section. Such expenses incurred by other employees and agents may be so paid upon such terms and conditions, if any, as the Board of Directors deems appropriate.

For purposes of this indemnity, references to "the corporation" shall include, in addition to the resulting corporation, any constituent corporation, including any constituent of a constituent, absorbed in a consolidation or merger which, if its separate existence had continued, would have had power and authority to indemnify its directors, officers, and employees or agents, so that any person who is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of such constituent corporation, or is or was sewing at the request of such constituent corporation, as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, shall stand in the same position under the provisions of this section with respect to the resulting or surviving corporation as he would have with respect to such constituent corporation if its separate existence had continued.

Item 13.                FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA.

This information is not required to be disclosed by smaller reporting companies.

During the Company’s two most recent fiscal years, or any subsequent interim period, no independent accountant who was previously engaged as our principal accountant to audit our financial statements, or an independent accountant who was previously engaged to audit a significant subsidiary, and on whom the principal accountant expressed reliance in its report, resigned (or indicated it has declined to stand for re-election after the completion of the current audit) or was dismissed.

(a) Financial Statements.

The financial statements and related notes are included as part of this Form 10 registration statement as indexed in the appendix on page F-1 through F-33.

(b) Exhibits required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K

Where You Can Find More Information

We are not required to deliver an annual report to our stockholders unless our directors voluntarily determine to issue and deliver an annual report. We have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission this registration statement on Form 10 under the Securities Act of 1934 with respect to the registration of our common stock under Section 12G.

You may review a copy of the registration statement at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s public reference room at 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549 on official business days during the hours of 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. You may obtain information on the operation of the public reference room by calling the Securities and Exchange Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330. You may also read and copy any materials we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s public reference room. Our filings and the registration statement can also be reviewed by accessing the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this registration statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized .

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 and for the Three Months Ended
March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016 (Unaudited) 

As of December 31, 2016 and 2015 and for the Year Ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Audited) 

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2017

(unaudited)

NOTE 1 – NATURE OF OPERATIONS AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION

Marijuana Company of America, Inc. (The “Company”) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Utah in October 1985 under the name Converge Global, Inc. In October 2009, in a 30 for 1 exchange, the Company merged with Sparrowtech, Inc. for the purpose of exploration and development of commercially viable mining properties.

In 2015, the Company changed its business model to a marketing and distribution company for medical marijuana. In conjunction with the change, the Company changed its name to Marijuana Company of America, Inc.

On September 21, 2015, the Company formed H Smart, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as a wholly owned subsidiary for the purpose of operating the hempSMART brand.

On February 1, 2016, the Company formed MCOA CA, Inc., a California corporation as a wholly owned subsidiary to facilitate mergers, acquisitions and the offering of investments or loans to the Company.

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries: H Smart, Inc. and MCOA CA, Inc. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

The unaudited condensed interim financial statements of the Company have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 8-03 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included.

The condensed balance sheet as of December 31, 2016 has been derived from audited financial statements.

Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2017 are not necessarily indicative of results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2017. These condensed financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016.

NOTE 2 – GOING CONCERN AND MANAGEMENT’S LIQUIDITY PLANS

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. As shown in the accompanying financial statements during three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company incurred net losses of $18,078,284 and used cash in operations of $189,565. These factors among others may indicate that the Company will be unable to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

The Company's primary source of operating funds in 2017 and 2016 have been from revenue generated from proceeds from the sale of common stock and the issuance of convertible and other debt. The Company has experienced net losses from operations since inception, but expects these conditions to improve in 2017 and beyond as it develops its business model. The Company has stockholders' deficiencies at March 31, 2017 and requires additional financing to fund future operations.

The Company’s existence is dependent upon management’s ability to develop profitable operations and to obtain additional funding sources. There can be no assurance that the Company’s financing efforts will result in profitable operations or the resolution of the Company’s liquidity problems. The accompanying statements do not include any adjustments that might result should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2017

(unaudited)

NOTE 3 –SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Revenue Recognition

The Company recognizes revenue in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification subtopic 605-10, Revenue Recognition (“ASC 605-10”) which requires that four basic criteria must be met before revenue can be recognized: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (2) delivery has occurred; (3) the selling price is fixed and determinable; and (4) collectability is reasonably assured. Determination of criteria (3) and (4) are based on management’s judgments regarding the fixed nature of the selling prices of the products delivered and the collectability of those amounts. Provisions for discounts and rebates to customers, estimated returns and allowances, and other adjustments are provided for in the same period the related sales are recorded.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Significant estimates include the fair value of the Company’s stock, stock-based compensation, fair values relating to derivative liabilities, debt discounts and the valuation allowance related to deferred tax assets. Actual results may differ from these estimates.

Cash

The Company considers cash to consist of cash on hand and temporary investments having an original maturity of 90 days or less that are readily convertible into cash.

Concentrations of credit risk

The Company’s financial instruments that are exposed to a concentration of credit risk are cash and accounts receivable. Occasionally, the Company’s cash and cash equivalents in interest-bearing accounts may exceed FDIC insurance limits. The financial stability of these institutions is periodically reviewed by senior management.

Accounts Receivable

Trade receivables are carried at their estimated collectible amounts. Trade credit is generally extended on a short-term basis; thus trade receivables do not bear interest. Trade accounts receivable are periodically evaluated for collectability based on past credit history with customers and their current financial condition.

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

Any charges to the allowance for doubtful accounts on accounts receivable are charged to operations in amounts sufficient to maintain the allowance for uncollectible accounts at a level management believes is adequate to cover any probable losses. Management determines the adequacy of the allowance based on historical write-off percentages and the current status of accounts receivable. Accounts receivable are charged off against the allowance when collectability is determined to be permanently impaired. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, allowance for doubtful accounts was $-0-.

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2017

(unaudited)

Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market with cost being determined on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. The Company writes down its inventory for estimated obsolescence or unmarketable inventory equal to the difference between the cost of inventory and the estimated market value based upon assumptions about future demand and market conditions. If actual market conditions are less favorable than those projected by management, additional inventory write-downs may be required. During the periods presented, there were no inventory write-downs.

As of December 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017 the various components of inventory were as follows:

Cost of sales

Cost of sales is comprised of cost of product sold, packaging, and shipping costs.

Stock Based Compensation

The Company measures the cost of services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the fair value of the award. For employees and directors, the fair value of the award is measured on the grant date and for non-employees, the fair value of the award is generally re-measured on vesting dates and interim financial reporting dates until the service period is complete. The fair value amount is then recognized over the period during which services are required to be provided in exchange for the award, usually the vesting period. Stock-based compensation expense is recorded by the Company in the same expense classifications in the statements of operations, as if such amounts were paid in cash. As of March 31, 2017, there were outstanding stock options to purchase 1,000,000,000 shares of common stock, 500,000 shares of which were vested. (See Note 8)

Net Loss per Common Share, basic and diluted

The Company computes earnings (loss) per share under Accounting Standards Codification subtopic 260-10, Earnings Per Share (“ASC 260-10”). Net loss per common share is computed by dividing net loss by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the year.  Diluted earnings per share, if presented, would include the dilution that would occur upon the exercise or conversion of all potentially dilutive securities into common stock using the “treasury stock” and/or “if converted” methods as applicable.

The computation of basic and diluted income (loss) per share as of March 31, 2017 and 2016 excludes potentially dilutive securities when their inclusion would be anti-dilutive, or if their exercise prices were greater than the average market price of the common stock during the period.

Potentially dilutive securities excluded from the computation of basic and diluted net loss per share are as follows:

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Fair value estimates discussed herein are based upon certain market assumptions and pertinent information available to management as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. The respective carrying value of certain on-balance-sheet financial instruments approximated their fair values. These financial instruments include cash and accounts payable. Fair values were assumed to approximate carrying values for cash, accounts payables and short term notes because they are short term in nature.

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2017

(unaudited)

Property and Equipment

Property and equipment are stated at cost. When retired or otherwise disposed, the related carrying value and accumulated depreciation are removed from the respective accounts and the net difference less any amount realized from disposition, is reflected in earnings. For financial statement purposes, property and equipment are recorded at cost and depreciated using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives of 3 years.

Investments

The Company follows Accounting Standards Codification subtopic 321-10, Investments-Equity Securities (“ASC 321-10) which requires the accounting for equity security to be measured at fair value with changes in unrealized gains and losses are included in current period operations. Where an equity security is without a readily determinable fair value, the Company may elect to estimate its fair value at cost minus impairment plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes (See Note 5).

Derivative Financial Instruments

The Company classifies as equity any contracts that (i) require physical settlement or net-share settlement or (ii) provide the Company with a choice of net-cash settlement or settlement in its own shares (physical settlement or net-share settlement) providing that such contracts are indexed to the Company's own stock. The Company classifies as assets or liabilities any contracts that (i) require net-cash settlement (including a requirement to net cash settle the contract if an event occurs and if that event is outside the Company’s control) or (ii) gives the counterparty a choice of net-cash settlement or settlement in shares (physical settlement or net-share settlement). The Company assesses classification of its common stock purchase warrants and other free standing derivatives at each reporting date to determine whether a change in classification between equity and liabilities is required.

The Company’s free-standing derivatives consisted of conversion options embedded within its issued convertible debt. The Company evaluated these derivatives to assess their proper classification in the balance sheet using the applicable classification criteria enumerated under GAAP.  The Company determined that certain conversion options do not contain fixed settlement provisions.  The convertible note contained a conversion feature such that the Company could not ensure it would have adequate authorized shares to meet all possible conversion demands.

As such, the Company was required to record the conversion feature which does not have fixed settlement provisions as liabilities and mark to market all such derivatives to fair value at the end of each reporting period.   

The Company has adopted a sequencing policy that reclassifies contracts (from equity to assets or liabilities) with the most recent inception date first. Thus any available shares are allocated first to contracts with the most recent inception dates.

Advertising

The Company follows the policy of charging the costs of advertising to expense as incurred. The Company charged to operations $21,962 and $18,684 as advertising costs for the year ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Income Taxes

Deferred income tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the estimated future tax effects of net operating loss and credit carry forwards and temporary differences between the tax basis of assets and liabilities and their respective financial reporting amounts measured at the current enacted tax rates. The Company records an estimated valuation allowance on its deferred income tax assets if it is not more likely than that these deferred income tax assets will not be realized.

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2017

(unaudited)

The Company recognizes a tax benefit from an uncertain tax position only if it is more likely than not that the tax position will be sustained on examination by taxing authorities, based on the technical merits of the position. The tax benefits recognized in the consolidated financial statements from such a position are measured based on the largest benefit that has a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement. As of March 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company has not recorded any unrecognized tax benefits.

Segment Information

Accounting Standards Codification subtopic Segment Reporting 280-10 ("ASC 280-10") establishes standards for reporting information regarding operating segments in annual financial statements and requires selected information for those segments to be presented in interim financial reports issued to stockholders. ASC 280-10 also establishes standards for related disclosures about products and services and geographic areas. Operating segments are identified as components of an enterprise about which separate discrete financial information is available for evaluation by the chief operating decision maker, or decision-making group, in making decisions how to allocate resources and assess performance. The information disclosed herein materially represents all of the financial information related to the Company's only material principal operating segment.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

There are various other updates recently issued, most of which represented technical corrections to the accounting literature or application to specific industries and are not expected to a have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Subsequent Events

The Company evaluates events that have occurred after the balance sheet date but before the financial statements are issued.  Based upon the evaluation, the Company did not identify any recognized or non-recognized subsequent events that would have required adjustment or disclosure in the financial statements, except as disclosed.

Property and equipment are stated at cost and depreciated using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives of 3 years. When retired or otherwise disposed, the related carrying value and accumulated depreciation are removed from the respective accounts and the net difference less any amount realized from disposition, is reflected in earnings.

Depreciation expense was $242 and $-0- for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2017

(unaudited)

NOTE 5 – INVESTMENTS

On March 13, 2017, the Company entered into a stock purchase agreement to acquire up to 15,000,000 common shares of MoneyTrac Technology, Inc., a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the state of California, for a total purchase price of $250,000 representing approximately 15% ownership at the time of the agreement. As of March 31, 2017, the Company had acquired 4,500,000 common shares for $75,000 representing approximately 6% ownership.

The Company accounts for its investment in MoneyTrac Technology, Inc. at estimated market fair value. The Company has elected to estimate its fair value at cost minus impairment plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes since the equity security does not have a readily determinable fair value.

NOTE 6 – CONVERTIBLE NOTE PAYABLE

Effective March 30, 2017, the Company issued a 6.5% convertible promissory note, with an option to fund up to aggregate of $2,777,778 due April 30, 2018 for consideration of $2,500,000, after original interest discount (“OID) of $277,778; unsecured. At March 31, 2017, the Company had received net proceeds of $99,965 under the note. Gross face amount was $111,111, after additions for pro rate portion of OID and other related costs.

The note is convertible, at any time, into shares of the Company’s common stock at $0.03 per share unless on the day prior to the lender’s request to convert, the closing price is less than $0.05 per share, then the conversion price shall be 60% of the average three lowest days closing prices for 20 trading days prior to the request to convert.

The Company has identified the embedded derivatives related to the above described note. These embedded derivatives included certain conversion features. The accounting treatment of derivative financial instruments requires that the Company record fair value of the derivatives as of the inception date of the note and to fair value as of each subsequent reporting date. 

At the funding date of the debenture, the Company determined the aggregate fair value of $221,406 of embedded derivatives. The fair value of the embedded derivatives was determined using the Binomial Option Pricing Model based on the following assumptions: (1) dividend yield of 0%; (2) expected volatility of 470.85%, (3) weighted average risk-free interest rate of 1.02%, (4) expected life of 1.08 years, and (5) estimated fair value of the Company's common stock from $0.0604 per share. 

The determined fair value of the debt derivatives of $221,406 was charged as a debt discount up to the net proceeds of the note with the remainder of $121,441 charged to operations as non-cash interest expense. 

At March 31, 2017, the Company determined the aggregate fair value of $201,517 of embedded derivatives. The fair value of the embedded derivatives was determined using the Binomial Option Pricing Model based on the following assumptions: (1) dividend yield of 0%; (2) expected volatility of 470.71%, (3) weighted average risk-free interest rate of 1.02%, (4) expected life of 1.08 years, and (5) estimated fair value of the Company's common stock from $0.055 per share.

For the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company recorded a gain on change in fair value of derivative liabilities of $19,889 and recorded amortization of debt discounts of $281 as a charge to interest expense.

NOTE 7 – DERIVATIVE LIABILITIES

As described in Note 6, the Company issued a convertible note that contained conversion features and a reset provision. The accounting treatment of derivative financial instruments requires that the Company record fair value of the derivatives as of the inception date and to fair value as of each subsequent reporting date.

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2017

(unaudited)

NOTE 8 – STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT

  Preferred stock

The Company is authorized to issue 50,000,000 shares of $0.001 par value preferred stock as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company has designated and issued 10,000,000 shares of Class A Preferred Stock.

Each share of Class A Preferred Stock is entitled to 100 votes on all matters submitted to a vote to the stockholders of the Company, does not have conversion, dividend or distribution upon liquidation rights.

Common stock

The Company is authorized to issue 5,000,000,000 shares of $0.001 par value common stock as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had 1,984,042,453 and 1,620,996,998 common shares issued and outstanding.

During the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company issued an aggregate of 309,500,000 shares of its common stock for services rendered with an estimated fair value of $17,551,500.

During the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company issued an aggregate of 29,545,455 shares of its common stock for prior year officer stock-based compensation accrual.

During the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company issued an aggregate of 20,000,000 shares of its common stock as replacement shares previously canceled in 2016 as part of settlement agreement.

During the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company sold an aggregate of 4,000,000 shares of its common stock for net proceeds of $60,000.

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2017

(unaudited)

The following table presents information related to stock options at March 31, 2017:

As of March 31, 2017, stock-based compensation of $900,000 remains unamortized and is expected to be amortized over the weighted average remaining period of 1.50 years.

The stock-based compensation expense related to option grants was $150,000 and $150,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Restricted Stock Units (“RSU”)

The following table summarizes the restricted stock activity for the three months ended March 31, 2017:

As of March 31, 2017, stock-based compensation related to restricted stock awards of $275,000 remains unamortized and is expected to be amortized over the weighted average remaining period of 1 year.

NOTE 9 — FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

The Company adopted the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification subtopic 825-10, Financial Instruments (“ASC 825-10”) on January 1, 2008. ASC 825-10 defines fair value as the price that would be received from selling an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. When determining the fair value measurements for assets and liabilities required or permitted to be recorded at fair value, the Company considers the principal or most advantageous market in which it would transact and considers assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability, such as inherent risk, transfer restrictions, and risk of nonperformance. ASC 825-10 establishes a fair value hierarchy that requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. ASC 825-10 establishes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value:

Level 1 – Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2 – Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets with insufficient volume or infrequent transactions (less active markets); or model-derived valuations in which all significant inputs are observable or can be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

Level 3 – Unobservable inputs to the valuation methodology that are significant to the measurement of fair value of assets or liabilities.

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2017

(unaudited)

All items required to be recorded or measured on a recurring basis are based upon level 3 inputs.

To the extent that valuation is based on models or inputs that are less observable or unobservable in the market, the determination of fair value requires more judgment. In certain cases, the inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, for disclosure purposes, the level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement is disclosed and is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

Upon adoption of ASC 825-10, there was no cumulative effect adjustment to beginning retained earnings and no impact on the financial statements.

The carrying value of the Company’s cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable, short-term borrowings (including convertible notes payable), and other current assets and liabilities approximate fair value because of their short-term maturity.

As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company did not have any items that would be classified as level 1 or 2 disclosures.

The Company recognizes its derivative liabilities as level 3 and values its derivatives using the methods discussed in note 6. While the Company believes that its valuation methods are appropriate and consistent with other market participants, it recognizes that the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date. The primary assumptions that would significantly affect the fair values using the methods discussed in Notes 4 and 5 are that of volatility and market price of the underlying common stock of the Company.

As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company did not have any derivative instruments that were designated as hedges.

The derivative liability as of March 31, 2017, in the amount of $201,517 has a level 3 classification.

The following table provides a summary of changes in fair value of the Company’s Level 3 financial liabilities for the three months ended March 31, 2017:

Fluctuations in the Company’s stock price are a primary driver for the changes in the derivative valuations during each reporting period. During the period ended March 31, 2017, the Company’s stock price decreased 8.9% from initial valuation. As the stock price decreases for each of the related derivative instruments, the value to the holder of the instrument generally decreases. Stock price is one of the significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement of each of the Company’s derivative instruments.

MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2017

(unaudited)

NOTE 10 — RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

The Company’s current officers and stockholders advanced funds to the Company for travel related and working capital purposes. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, there were no related party advances outstanding.

As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, accrued compensation due to officers and executives included as accrued compensation was $92,727 and $32,710, respectively.

At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, there were an aggregate of $7,487 notes payable due to officers. The notes are non-interest bearing and are due on demand.

NOTE 11 – SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

On April 5, 2017 and April 20, 2017, the Company transferred $25,000 and $50,000, respectively, to MoneyTrac Technologies Inc. pursuant to the contractual payment schedule to purchase a total of 15% of MoneyTrac. This represents a total of $150,000 that has been transferred to MoneyTrac towards the $250,000 obligation to acquire a 15% interest in MoneTrac.

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and

Marijuana Company of America, Inc. ( Converge Global, Inc .)

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Marijuana Company of America, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“the Company”) as of December 31, 2015 and 2016 and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of their internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by the management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016, and the results of its operations, changes in stockholders’ deficit and cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. The Company has suffered recurring operating losses, has an accumulated stockholders’ deficit, has negative working capital, has had no revenues from operations, and has yet to generate an internal cash flow that raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are described in Note 2. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

/s/ L&L CPAS, PA

L&L CPAS, PA

Certified Public Accountants

Cornelius, NC

The United States of America

March 27, 2017

www.llcpas.net