INVESTING IN MYND ANALYTICS, INC. INVOLVES A HIGH DEGREE OF RISK.  YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RISK FACTORS AND ALL OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT BEFORE PURCHASING OUR COMMON STOCK. THE RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES DESCRIBED BELOW ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES FACING US. ADDITIONAL RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES THAT WE ARE UNAWARE OF, OR THAT WE CURRENTLY DEEM IMMATERIAL, ALSO MAY BECOME IMPORTANT FACTORS THAT AFFECT US. IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RISKS OCCUR, OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL CONDITION OR RESULTS OF OPERATIONS COULD BE MATERIALLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IN THAT CASE, THE TRADING PRICE OF OUR COMMON STOCK COULD DECLINE, AND YOU MAY LOSE SOME OR ALL OF THE MONEY YOU PAID TO PURCHASE OUR COMMON STOCK.

Risks Related to Our Company

We need immediate additional funding to support our operations and capital expenditures, which may not be available to us. This lack of availability could result in the cessation of our business. Our recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have not generated significant revenues or become profitable, may never do so and may not generate sufficient working capital to cover costs of operations. Our recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Historically, we have been unable to pay other obligations as they become due and have been in arrears on paying certain of our larger creditors. We have a history of insolvency that requires us to immediately secure additional funds to continue our operations. Until we can generate a sufficient amount of revenues to finance our operations and capital expenditures, we are required to finance our cash needs primarily through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, borrowings or strategic collaborations. As of September 30, 2018, we had approximately $3.3 million in cash and cash equivalents on hand. We will therefore need additional funds to continue our operations and will need substantial additional funds before we can increase demand for our telebehavioral health services and PEER solution offering.

As of September 30, 2018, the Company has issued purchase notices to Aspire Capital under a common stock purchase agreement with Aspire Capital dated as December 6, 2016 (the "First Purchase Agreement") to purchase an aggregate of 1,180,000 shares of common stock, at a per share price of $2.00, resulting in gross cash proceeds of approximately $2.4 million. As of September 30, 2018, the Company has issued purchase notices to Aspire Capital under the second common stock purchase agreement with Aspire Capital dated as of May 15, 2018 (the "Second Purchase Agreement") to purchase an aggregate of 884,671 shares of common stock, resulting in gross cash proceeds of approximately $1.9 million. On November 26, 2018, the Company received shareholder approval to remove the exchange cap under the Second Purchase Agreement in compliance with the applicable listing rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market. Pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(d), shareholder approval is required prior to the issuance of securities in connection with a transaction other than a public offering involving the sale, issuance or potential issuance by the Company of common stock (or securities convertible into or exercisable common stock) equal to 20% or more of the common stock outstanding before the issuance for less than the greater of book or market value of the stock. Following receipt of shareholder approval, the Company may issue an additional $8.1 million, up to an aggregate of $10 million, of common stock to Aspire Capital under the Second Purchase Agreement. The issuance of shares of common stock that were issued from time to time to Aspire Capital under the First and Second Purchase Agreement were exempt from registration under the Securities Act, pursuant to the exemption for transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act.

When we elect to raise additional funds or additional funds are required, we may raise such funds from time to time through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements or other financing alternatives, as well as through sales of common stock to Aspire Capital under the First Purchase Agreement or Second Purchase Agreement. Additional equity or debt financing or corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we will be prevented from pursuing acquisition, licensing, development and commercialization efforts and our ability to generate revenues and achieve or sustain profitability will be substantially harmed.

We are currently exploring additional sources of capital; however, we do not know whether additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all, especially given the economic conditions that currently prevail. Furthermore, any additional equity funding will likely result in significant dilution to existing stockholders, and, if we incur additional debt financing in the future, a substantial portion of our operating cash flow may be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on such indebtedness, thus limiting funds available for our business activities. If adequate funds are not available, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and/or results of operations and could cause us to be required to cease operations. Our financial statements include an opinion of our auditors that our recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

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

We have experienced significant net losses and sustained negative cash flows from operations. In the twelve months ended September 30, 2018, we incurred a net loss of $10.3 million and used cash for operating activities of $9.0 million. We had an accumulated deficit of $85.2 million as of September 30, 2018. We expect to experience further significant net losses in 2018 and the foreseeable future. These factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern for at least the next twelve months from the date of the issuance of the financial statements. As of and for the year ended September 30, 2018, our independent registered public accounting firm has included an explanatory paragraph in their audit report raising substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty. If we are unable to obtain adequate funding from this proposed offering or in the future, or if we are unable to grow our revenue substantially to achieve and sustain profitability, amongst other factors, we may not be able to continue as a going concern, and our shareholders may lose some or all of their investment in us.  

We have a history of operating losses and we have never been profitable.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. As of September 30, 2018, our accumulated deficit was approximately $85.2 million. On November 13, 2017, we acquired Arcadian, a telepsychiatry and telebehavioral health company. Arcadian also has a history of significant operating losses, which represent a further obstacle to our goal of achieving profitability.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, such as the risk factors described in this section, including our ability to maintain our existing cost structure and to execute our business and strategic plans, including the successful integration of the PEER solution offering with the Arcadian network. Even if we achieve profitability, we may be unable to maintain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

Risks Related to Our Business-Telebehavioral Health

Our telebehavioral health business could be adversely affected by new state actions relating to healthcare services and telemedicine providers, which could restrict our ability to provide the full range of our services in certain states.

Our ability to conduct business in each state is dependent upon the state's treatment of telehealth under each state's laws, rules and policies governing the practice of medicine and other health care professions, which are subject to changing political, regulatory and other influences. Some state professional boards have established new rules or interpreted existing rules in a manner that limits or restricts our ability to conduct our business as currently conducted in other states, and it is possible that the laws and rules governing the practice of telehealth in one or more states may change in a similar manner in the future. Many states have imposed different, and, in some cases, additional, standards regarding the provision of services via telehealth. These standards often relate to particular modalities of telecommunication that are permitted or prohibited, meaning that a system the Company has established in some states may not satisfy regulatory requirements in others. State laws are also in flux regarding the licensure required to provide services via telehealth. By way of example, certain state Medicaid programs may cover behavioral health treatment provided by psychiatric nurse practitioners, but not clinical social workers. Others provide that certain services can be provided via telehealth by a clinical social worker, but not a licensed mental health counselor. Finally, both federal and state laws impose strict standards on using telehealth to prescribe certain classes of controlled substances that can be commonly used to treat behavioral health disorders. Recently passed federal legislation will also allow for controlled substances to be prescribed in emergency situations to treat substance use disorder, and if that change results in further abuse of controlled substances instead of curbing their abuse as intended, there could be negative ramifications for the entire telebehavioral health industry. The unpredictability of this regulatory landscape means that sudden changes in policy regarding standards of care and reimbursement are possible. If this were to happen, and we were unable to adapt our business model accordingly, our operations in such states could be disrupted, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Federal law prohibits prescribing controlled substances without a prior in-person examination unless one of a number of narrow exceptions is met, and certain states impose further restrictions which prohibit prescribing certain classes of controlled substances via telemedicine altogether.

Our telebehavioral health business is dependent on our relationships with affiliated professional entities, which we do not own, to provide physician services, and our business would be adversely affected if those relationships were disrupted.

There is a risk that state authorities in some jurisdictions may find that our contractual relationships with our affiliated physicians, psychologists and other behavioral health professionals ("Providers") violate laws prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine and certain other health professions. These laws generally prohibit the practice of medicine and certain other health professions by lay persons or entities and are intended to prevent unlicensed persons or entities from interfering with or inappropriately influencing the clinician's professional judgment. The professions subject to corporate practice restrictions and the extent to which each state considers particular actions or contractual relationships to constitute improper influence of professional judgment vary across the states and are subject to change and evolving interpretations by state boards of medicine and other health professions and state attorneys general. As such, we must monitor our compliance with laws in every jurisdiction in which we operate on an ongoing basis and we cannot guarantee that subsequent interpretation of the corporate practice laws will not further circumscribe our business operations. State corporate practice restrictions also often impose penalties on health professionals for aiding a corporate practice violation, which could discourage clinicians from participating in our network of providers. Any difficulty securing clinicians to participate in our network could impair our ability to provide telebehavioral health services and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Corporate practice restrictions exist in some form, whether by statute, regulation, professional board or attorney general guidance, or case law, in at least 42 states, though the broad variation between state application and enforcement of the doctrine makes establishing an exact count difficult. Because of the prevalence of corporate practice restrictions on medicine and psychology in particular, including in the states where we predominantly conduct our business, we contract for provider services through services agreements rather than employ Providers. We expect that these relationships will continue, but we cannot guarantee that they will. A material change in our relationship with the Providers, whether resulting from a dispute among the entities, a change in government regulation, or the loss of these affiliations, could impair our ability to provide telebehavioral health services and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Evolving government regulations may require increased costs or adversely affect our results of operations.

In a regulatory climate that is uncertain, our operations may be subject to direct and indirect adoption, expansion or reinterpretation of various laws and regulations. Compliance with these future laws and regulations may require us to change our practices at an undeterminable and possibly significant initial monetary and annual expense. These additional monetary expenditures may increase future overhead, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We have identified what we believe are the areas of government regulation that, if changed, would be costly to us. These include: rules governing the practice of telehealth; including the remote prescribing of controlled substance; licensure standards for behavioral health professionals; laws limiting the corporate practice of medicine and other professions; clinic licensure laws requiring health facilities to obtain a clinic license; fraud and abuse; reimbursement and false claims statutes and regulations governing the submission of health care claims; cybersecurity and privacy laws; laws and rules relating to the distinction between independent contractors and employees; and tax and other laws encouraging employer-sponsored health insurance. There could be laws and regulations applicable to our business that we have not identified or that, if changed, may be costly to us, and we cannot predict all the ways in which implementation of such laws and regulations may affect us.

In the states in which we operate, we believe we are in compliance with all applicable regulations, but, because of the uncertain regulatory environment, certain states may determine that we are in violation of their laws and regulations. If we must remedy such violations, we may be required to modify our services and solutions in such states in a manner that undermines our solution’s attractiveness to patients or providers. We may become subject to fines or other penalties or, if we determine that the requirements to operate in compliance in such states are overly burdensome, we may elect to terminate our operations in such states. In each case, our revenue may decline and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Additionally, the introduction of new services may require us to comply with additional, yet undetermined, laws and regulations. Compliance may require restructuring our relationships with Providers, increasing our security measures and expending additional resources to monitor developments in applicable rules and ensure compliance. The failure to adequately comply with these future laws and regulations may delay or possibly prevent some of our solutions or services from being offered, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The telebehavioral health market is immature and volatile, and if it does not develop, if it develops more slowly than we expect, if it encounters negative publicity or if our solution does not drive patient engagement, the growth of our business will be harmed.

The telebehavioral health market is relatively new and unproven, and it is uncertain whether it will achieve and sustain high levels of demand, consumer acceptance and market adoption. Our success will depend to a substantial extent on the willingness of our patients to use, and to increase the frequency and extent of their utilization of, our solutions, as well as on our ability to demonstrate the value of telebehavioral health to employers, health plans, government agencies and other purchasers of healthcare. Negative publicity concerning our solutions or the telebehavioral health market as a whole could limit market acceptance of our solutions. Enforcement activity throughout the telehealth industry is on the rise, after the Medicare program published findings in April 2018 that more than 30% of claims filed failed to satisfy Medicare reimbursement standards, and the Department of Justice recently issued an indictment alleging that several individuals and companies participated in a billion-dollar telemedicine fraud conspiracy. As telehealth utilization and investment continue to rise, it would not be surprising for enforcement actions to increase in kind. Such activity could certainly produce negative publicity regarding public and patient confidence in telehealth, which could negatively impact our business. If our patients and providers do not perceive the benefits of our solutions, or if our solutions do not drive patient engagement, then our market may not develop at all, or it may develop more slowly than we expect. Similarly, individual and healthcare industry concerns or negative publicity regarding patient confidentiality and privacy in the context of telehealth could limit market acceptance of our healthcare services. If any of these events occurs, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

A significant portion of Arcadian's revenue comes from a limited number of clients, the loss of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Historically, Arcadian has relied on a limited number of clients for a substantial portion of its total revenue. We rely on Arcadian's reputation and recommendations from key clients to promote our solution to potential new clients. In addition, mergers and acquisitions involving our clients could lead to cancellation or non-renewal of our contracts with those clients or by the acquiring or combining companies, thereby reducing the number of our existing and potential clients and patients.

Our business and growth strategy depend on our ability to maintain and expand a network of qualified providers. If we are unable to do so, our future growth would be limited and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be harmed.

Our success is dependent upon our continued ability to maintain a network of qualified providers. If we are unable to recruit and retain board-certified Providers as needed to render telebehavioral health services in a given state, whether that requires psychiatrists, psychologists or master's level therapists, it would have a material adverse effect on our business and ability to grow and would adversely affect our results of operations. In any particular market, Providers could demand higher payments or take other actions that could result in higher medical costs, extra income, e.g ., only permitting clinicians with higher levels of licensure who demand higher payment rates to provide telebehavioral health services, less attractive service for our clients or difficulty meeting regulatory or accreditation requirements. Our ability to develop and maintain satisfactory relationships with Providers also may be negatively impacted by other factors not associated with us, such as changes in Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement levels and other pressures on healthcare providers and consolidation activity among hospitals, physician groups and the Providers. The failure to maintain or to secure new cost-effective provider contracts may result in a loss of or inability to grow our membership base, higher costs, healthcare provider network disruptions, less attractive service for our clients and/or difficulty in meeting regulatory or accreditation requirements, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our telebehavioral health business may give rise to medical liability claims against us, which could cause us to incur significant expenses and may require us to pay significant damages if not covered by insurance.

Our telebehavioral health business entails the risk of malpractice and professional liability claims against both our Providers and us. Although we and our Providers carry insurance covering malpractice and professional liability claims in amounts that we believe are appropriate in light of the risks attendant to our business, successful malpractice or professional liability claims could result in substantial damage awards that exceed the limits of our and our Providers' insurance coverage. The Providers each carry professional liability insurance covering $1 million per claim and $3 million in the aggregate for themselves, and we separately carry a general insurance policy covering $1 million per claim and $3 million in the aggregate. In addition, professional liability insurance is expensive and insurance premiums may increase significantly in the future, particularly as we expand our services. As a result, adequate professional liability insurance may not be available to our providers or to us in the future at acceptable costs or at all.

Any claims made against us that are not fully covered by insurance could be costly to defend against, result in substantial damage awards against us and divert the attention of our management and our Providers from our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any claims may adversely affect our business or reputation.

If our new applications and services are not adopted by our partners or patients, or if we fail to innovate and develop new applications and services that are adopted by our patients, our revenue and results of operations will be adversely affected.

Our longer-term results of operations and continued growth will depend on our ability successfully to develop and market new applications and services that patients want and are willing to purchase. In addition we will invest significant resources in research and development to enhance our solution and introduce new high-quality applications and services. If patients are not willing to make additional payments for such new applications, or if new patients do not value such new applications, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we are unable to predict user preferences or if our industry changes, or if we are unable to modify our solution and services on a timely basis, patients may not patronize us or the Providers. Our results of operations would also suffer if our innovations were not responsive to the needs patients, appropriately timed with market opportunity or effectively brought to market.

If our arrangements with Providers or our partners are found to violate state laws prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine and other professions or fee-splitting, our business, financial condition and our ability to operate in those states could be adversely impacted.

The laws of many states, including states in which our partners may be located prohibit us from exercising control over the medical judgments or decisions of psychiatrists and certain other providers and from engaging in certain financial arrangements, such as splitting professional fees with behavioral health professionals. These laws and their interpretations vary from state to state and are enforced by state courts and regulatory authorities, each with broad discretion. We enter into agreements with certain of our providers pursuant to which they render professional medical services. In addition, we may enter into contracts with our providers to deliver professional services in exchange for fees. These contracts include management services agreements with our affiliated physician organizations pursuant to which the physician organizations reserve exclusive control and responsibility for all aspects of the practice of medicine and the delivery of medical services. Although we seek to comply with applicable state prohibitions on the corporate practice of medicine and fee splitting, state officials who administer these laws or other third parties may successfully challenge our existing organization and contractual arrangements. If such a claim were successful, we could be subject to civil and criminal penalties and could be required to restructure or terminate the applicable contractual arrangements. A determination that these arrangements violate state statutes, or our inability to successfully restructure our relationships with our providers to comply with these statutes, could eliminate clients located in certain states from the market for our services, as well as complicate our efforts to secure qualified clinicians to participate in our network. Either outcome could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If our providers are characterized as employees, we would be subject to employment and withholding liabilities.

We structure our relationships with the Providers in a manner that we believe results in an independent contractor relationship, not an employee relationship. An independent contractor is generally distinguished from an employee by his or her degree of autonomy and independence in providing services. A high degree of autonomy and independence is generally indicative of a contractor relationship, while a high degree of control is generally indicative of an employment relationship. Although we believe that the Providers are properly characterized as independent contractors, tax or other regulatory authorities may in the future challenge our characterization of these relationships. If such regulatory authorities or state, federal or foreign courts were to determine that our providers are employees, and not independent contractors, we would be required to withhold income taxes, to withhold and pay Social Security, Medicare and similar taxes and to pay unemployment and other related payroll taxes. We would also be liable for unpaid past taxes and subject to penalties. As a result, any determination that the Providers are our employees could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Certain state tax authorities may assert that we have a state nexus and seek to impose state and local income taxes which could adversely affect our results of operations.

We are currently licensed to operate our telebehavioral health business in four states and file state income tax returns in four states. There is a risk that certain state tax authorities where we do not currently file a state income tax return could assert that we are liable for state and local income taxes based upon income or gross receipts allocable to such states. States are becoming increasingly aggressive in asserting a nexus for state income tax purposes. We could be subject to state and local taxation, including penalties and interest attributable to prior periods, if a state tax authority successfully asserts that our activities give rise to a nexus. Such tax assessments, penalties and interest may adversely affect our results of operations.

Our sales and implementation cycle can be long and unpredictable and requires considerable time and expense, which may cause our results of operations to fluctuate.

The sales cycle for our solutions from initial contact with a potential lead to contract execution and implementation, varies widely by client. Some of our clients undertake a significant and prolonged evaluation process, including to determine whether our services meet their unique healthcare needs, which frequently involves evaluation of not only our solutions but also an evaluation of those of our competitors, which has in the past resulted in extended sales cycles. Our sales efforts involve educating our clients about the use, technical capabilities and potential benefits of our solution. Moreover, our large enterprise clients often begin to deploy our solutions on a limited basis, but nevertheless demand extensive configuration, integration services and pricing concessions, which increase our upfront investment in the sales effort with no guarantee that these clients will deploy our solutions widely enough across their organization to justify our substantial upfront investment. It is possible that in the future we may experience even longer sales cycles, more complex client needs, higher upfront sales costs and less predictability in completing some of our sales as we continue to expand our direct sales force, expand into new territories and market additional applications and services. If our sales cycle lengthens or our substantial upfront sales and implementation investments do not result in sufficient sales to justify our investments, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The telehealth market is competitive, and if we are not able to compete effectively, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be harmed.

While the telehealth market is in an early stage of development, it is competitive and we expect it to attract increased competition, which could make it difficult for us to succeed. We currently face competition in the telehealth industry for our solutions from a range of companies, including specialized software and solution providers that offer similar solutions, often at substantially lower prices, and that are continuing to develop additional solutions and becoming more sophisticated and effective. Competition from specialized software and solution providers, health plans and other parties will result in continued pricing pressures, which is likely to lead to price declines in certain solution segments, which could negatively impact our sales, profitability and market share.

Some of our competitors may have greater name recognition, longer operating histories and significantly greater resources than we do. Further, our current or potential competitors may be acquired by third parties with greater available resources. As a result, our competitors may be able to respond more quickly and effectively than we can to new or changing opportunities, technologies, standards or customer requirements and may have the ability to initiate or withstand substantial price competition. In addition, current and potential competitors have established, and may in the future establish, cooperative relationships with vendors of complementary solutions, technologies or services to increase the availability of their solutions in the marketplace. Accordingly, new competitors or alliances may emerge that have greater market share, a larger customer base, more widely adopted proprietary technologies, greater marketing expertise, greater financial resources and larger sales forces than we have, which could put us at a competitive disadvantage. Our competitors could also be better positioned to serve certain segments of the telehealth market, which could create additional price pressure. In light of these factors, even if our solutions are more effective than those of our competitors, current or potential clients may accept competitive solutions in lieu of purchasing our solutions. If we are unable to successfully compete in the telehealth market, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

We are subject to evolving and expensive corporate governance regulations and requirements. Management has determined that there is a material weakness in our internal controls and procedures under the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board or PCAOB. Our failure to adequately adhere to these requirements or the failure or circumvention of our internal controls and procedures could seriously harm our business.

Because we are a publicly traded company we are subject to certain federal, state and other rules and regulations, including applicable requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Compliance with these evolving regulations is costly and requires a significant diversion of management time and attention, particularly with regard to our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting. Faulty judgments, simple errors or mistakes, or the failure of our personnel to adhere to established controls and procedures may make it difficult for us to ensure that the objectives of the control system are met. A failure of our controls and procedures to detect other than inconsequential errors or fraud could seriously harm our business and results of operations.

As of September 30, 2018, management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting, and determined that there continues to be a material weakness in our internal controls and procedures. The matter involving internal controls and procedures that our management considered to be a material weakness under the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was a lack of a sufficient complement of personnel with a level of accounting expertise and an adequate supervisory review structure that is commensurate with our financial reporting requirements. Management has been continuing, since September 30, 2017, to attempt to remedy the material weakness, but has been unable to identify sufficient personnel or to implement adequate improvements. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. Failure to provide effective internal controls may cause investors to lose confidence in our financial reporting and may negatively affect the price of our common stock. Moreover, effective internal controls are necessary to produce accurate, reliable financial reports and to prevent fraud. If deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting continue, these deficiencies may negatively impact our business and operations.

Taxing authorities may successfully assert that we should have collected or in the future should collect sales and use or similar taxes which could adversely affect our results of operations.

We do not collect sales and use and similar taxes in any states based on our belief that our services are not subject to such taxes in any state. Sales and use and similar tax laws and rates vary greatly from state to state. Certain states in which we do not collect such taxes may assert that such taxes are applicable, which could result in tax assessments, penalties and interest with respect to past services, and we may be required to collect such taxes for services in the future. Such tax assessments, penalties and interest or future requirements may adversely affect our results of operations.

Economic uncertainties or downturns in the general economy or the industries in which our clients operate could disproportionately affect the demand for our telebehavioral health solution and negatively impact our results of operations.

General worldwide economic conditions have experienced significant downturns during the last ten years, and market volatility and uncertainty remain widespread, making it potentially very difficult for our clients and us to accurately forecast and plan future business activities. During challenging economic times, our clients may have difficulty gaining timely access to sufficient credit or obtaining credit on reasonable terms, which could impair their ability to make timely payments to us and adversely affect our revenue. If that were to occur, our financial results could be harmed. Further, challenging economic conditions may impair the ability of our clients to pay for the applications and services they already have purchased from us and, as a result, our write-offs of accounts receivable could increase. We cannot predict the timing, strength or duration of any economic slowdown or recovery. If the condition of the general economy or markets in which we operate worsens, our business could be harmed.

Risks Related to Our Business-Predictive Medicine (PEER)

If our PEER Reports do not gain widespread market acceptance, we may not be able to achieve the level of sales required for growth, and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be harmed.

We have developed a methodology that aids psychiatrists and other physicians in selecting appropriate and effective medications for patients with certain behavioral or addictive disorders based on physiological traits of the patient’s brain and information contained in a proprietary database that has been developed over approximately the last twenty-five years. We began selling reports, referred to as rEEG Reports, based on our methodology in 2000; these reports have since been rebranded as PEER Reports. To date, we have not received widespread market acceptance of the usefulness of our PEER Reports in helping psychiatrists and other physicians inform their treatment strategies for patients suffering from behavioral and/or addictive disorders and we currently rely on a limited number of employees to market and promote our PEER Reports. To grow our business, we will need to develop and introduce new sales and marketing programs and clinical education programs to promote the use of our PEER Reports by psychiatrists and other physicians and hire additional employees for this purpose which we are in the process of doing. If we do not implement these new sales and marketing and education programs in a timely and successful manner, we may not be able to achieve the level of market awareness and sales required to expand our business, which could also negatively impact our stock price, financial condition and results of operations.

Our PEER Reports may not be as effective as we believe them to be, which could limit or prevent us from growing our revenues. If the results of our clinical trials are not significant, we may not be able to continue to fund our development efforts.

Our belief in the efficacy of our PEER Online technology is based on a finite number of successful studies. Such results may not be statistically significant in future studies and may not be indicative of the long-term future efficacy of the information we provide. Controlled scientific studies, including those that have already been announced and that are planned for the future, may yield results that are unfavorable or demonstrate that our services, including our PEER Reports, are not clinically useful. While we have not experienced such problems to date, if the initially indicated results cannot be successfully replicated or maintained over time, utilization of services based on our PEER Online technology, including the delivery of our PEER Reports, may not increase as we anticipate, which would harm our operating results and stock price. In addition, if we fail to upgrade our PEER Online database to account for new medications that are now available on the market, psychiatrists and other physicians may be less inclined to utilize our services if they believe that our reports only provide information about older treatment options, which would further harm our operating results and stock price. In August of 2016, we commenced enrolling patients into a new clinical trial. The trials are designed as a double-blind trial for military patients with a primary diagnosis of depression and other psychological comorbidity.  We do not know whether the ultimate results of the trial will be successful.  There are many factors beyond our control that could affect the success of the trials, including difficulty in registering more subjects, failures of investigators to follow the proper protocol, and external factors affecting patient health, among others.  If we fail to receive significant positive results for these trials, doctors may not be willing to use our services and our ability to generate revenue and to continue the PEER Online program, if at all, could be limited.

The FDA believes that rEEG and, potentially, our PEER Online service, constitute a medical device, which is subject to regulation by the FDA. The FDA has informed us that our marketing of our rEEG services without prior approval or re-classification by the FDA constitutes a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. We believe that our PEER Online service is a class 1 medical device, subject to minimal FDA oversight. As we continue to market our PEER Online service, there is risk that the FDA will determine that the service is a device that requires premarket clearance, commence an enforcement action against us.

Since April of 2008, we have been engaged in discussions with the FDA regarding its position that our rEEG service and its successor, now called PEER Online, constitute a medical device which is subject to regulation by the FDA. On April 10, 2008, we received correspondence from the FDA in which the FDA indicated it believed, based in part on the combination of certain marketing statements it read on our website, together with the delivery of our rEEG Reports, that we were selling a software product to aid in diagnosis, which constituted a “medical device” requiring pre-market approval or 510(k) clearance by the FDA pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “Act”), which we contested.

Based upon written guidance from the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (“Center”), we chose to submit an application to obtain 510(k) clearance for our rEEG service, without waiving our right to continue to take the position that our services do not constitute a medical device. We sought review of our rEEG service based upon its equivalence to predicate devices that already have FDA clearance which appeared to represent a sound mechanism to reduce regulatory risks.

The Company successfully registered its PEER Outcome database as a Class I Exempt Device within the category of Medical Device Data System, Section 860.6310. The Company continued its engagement with Center staff over the potential for a regulatory pathway for PEER Online as a Class II medical device, based on the Center’s recommendation that military use of PEER Online move forward under an Investigational Device Exemption (“IDE”) to provide additional data to support a successful 510(k) filing.

The Company is proceeding with two clinical trials based substantially on the Walter Reed PEER Trial protocol in an effort to replicate and expand the result achieved during the Walter Reed PEER Trial. One clinical trial with the Canadian Armed Forces commenced enrollment of patients in August of 2016. A second clinical trial with a large provider group has been through the training phase of the trial and is expected to commence enrolling patients in the next few months. At this time we cannot predict the results or the success of any of these trials. We can offer no assurances that the FDA will not insist on pre-market approval in the future, or that the data, which will be included in our future submissions to the FDA, do not raise any important new issues that could materially affect the safety or effectiveness of our PEER service. The inability to enroll sufficient subjects or the receipt of inconclusive results from our new clinical trials would have a material adverse effect on our ability to expand our operations. We currently intend to continue marketing as a non-device cloud-based neuromeric service branded as PEER Reports, under our Class I registration, while we pursue the additional clinical trials and consider submission of a Class II device premarket application in the future. If we continue to market our PEER Reports and the FDA determines that we should be subject to further FDA regulation as a Class II medical device, it could seek enforcement action against us based upon its position that our PEER Reports constitute a medical device as a result of which we could be forced to cease our marketing activities and pay fines and penalties, which would have a material adverse impact on us.

In addition to the foregoing, federal and state laws and regulations relating to the sale of our neurometic services are subject to future changes, as are administrative interpretations of regulatory agencies. If federal and state laws and regulations change, we may need to incur additional costs to seek government approvals for the sale of our neurometic services.

If government and third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate payment rates for treatments that are guided by our PEER Reports, our revenue and prospects for profitability will be harmed.

Our future revenue growth will depend in part upon the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors for psychiatrists and other physicians who use our PEER Reports to guide the treatment of their patients. Such third-party payors include government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by demanding price discounts or rebates and limiting both coverage on which procedures they will pay for and the amounts that they will pay for new procedures. As a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for treatments that are guided by our PEER Reports, which will discourage psychiatrists and other physicians from utilizing the information services we provide. We may need to conduct studies in addition to those we have already announced to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of treatments that are guided by our solutions and services to such payors’ satisfaction. Such studies might require us to commit a significant amount of management time and financial and other resources. Adequate third-party reimbursement might not be available to enable us to realize an appropriate return on investment in research and product development and the lack of such reimbursement could have a material adverse effect on our operations and could adversely affect our revenues and earnings.

Although state Medicaid programs and commercial insurers are increasingly paying for healthcare services provided via telehealth, including telebehavioral health, reimbursement by the Medicare program remains limited. Medicare reimbursement is an important consideration for any provider of healthcare services in the United States, as Medicare accounted for twenty percent (20%) of all health expenditures in the United States in 2016, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expect that figure to rise annually through at least 2025. It is uncertain if and when Medicare might adopt telehealth reimbursement standards that allow for reimbursement of telebehavioral health services generally. If Medicare does not loosen its telehealth reimbursement standards, our telehealth services may not be reimbursable by Medicare and there could be a material adverse effect on our ability to provide services to a significant portion of the American population, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Billing complexities associated with obtaining payment or reimbursement for our tests may negatively affect our revenue, cash flow and profitability.

The Company derives revenue from the PEER Report process, which includes the EEG, the QEEG, and the PEER Report, for which we bill on a fee-for-service basis, including reimbursements by third-party payors, such as Medicare, Medicaid and other governmental payor programs, hospitals, private insurance plans and managed care organizations and direct payments from individual patients. Billing for PEER Report testing services is generally highly complex. We conduct our own internal billing and work closely with third-party providers to ensure accuracy of billing, timely collections, and resolution of appeals and billing discrepancies.

Depending on our billing arrangement with each third-party payor and applicable law, we are often obligated to bill in the specific manner prescribed by the various payors, each of which may have different requirements. Among the potential factors complicating our billing of third-party payors are:

We also face risks in our collection efforts, including potential write-offs of doubtful accounts and long collection cycles for accounts receivable.

Additionally, from time to time, payors change processes that may affect timely payment. These changes may result in uneven cash flow or impact the timing of revenue recognized with these payors. With respect to payments received from governmental programs, factors such as a prolonged government shutdown could cause significant regulatory delays or could result in attempts to reduce payments made to us by government healthcare programs. These billing complexities, and the related uncertainty in obtaining payment for PEER Report testing services, could negatively affect our revenue, cash flow and profitability. In addition, increases in write-offs of doubtful accounts, delays in receiving payments or potential retroactive adjustments and penalties resulting from audits by payors could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Changes in laws, regulations, payor policies or contracting arrangements with payors may adversely affect coverage or reimbursement for PEER Report services, which may decrease our revenue and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Governmental payors, as well as private insurers, and other private payors have implemented and will continue to implement measures to control the cost, utilization and delivery of healthcare services, including laboratory services. Congress has from time to time considered and implemented changes to laws and regulations governing healthcare service providers, including specialized diagnostic service providers. These changes have adversely affected and may in the future adversely affect coverage for laboratory services, including the PEER Report and PGx testing services we provide. We also believe that healthcare professionals may not use the PEER Report if third-party payors do not provide adequate coverage and reimbursement for them.

Reimbursement to healthcare providers, such as specialized analytic service providers, are subject to continuing change in policies by governmental payors, such as Medicare and Medicaid, private insurers, including managed care organizations, and other private payors, such as hospitals and private medical groups.

As a Medicare-participating independent diagnostic testing facility based in California, we bill Noridian Healthcare Solutions, or Noridian, the Medicare Administrative Contractor, or MAC, for California, and are subject to Noridian’s local coverage and reimbursement policies. Reductions in coverage could decrease our average Medicare reimbursement rate per sample.

The provision of health care services through any kind of clinic, facility, storefront or other location open to the public is often subject to state clinic licensure laws akin to those that health facilities like hospitals, surgery centers and urgent care clinics must obtain and maintain. The Company does not operate or promote any physical place to obtain healthcare and therefore does not believe it is subject to any clinic licensure requirements, but the application of some of these laws to the Company and telehealth is unclear and subject to differing interpretation given the Company's status for Medicare purposes as an independent diagnostic testing facility.

In addition, reimbursement from governmental payors is subject to statutory and regulatory changes, retroactive rate adjustments and administrative rulings, and other policy changes, all of which could materially decrease the range of services for which we are reimbursed or the reimbursement rates paid for PEER Report services.

Finally, some private insurers and other third-party payors link their rates to Medicare’s reimbursement rates, and a reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates for PEER Report services could result in a corresponding reduction in the reimbursements we receive from such third-party payors. Any reductions in reimbursement levels for the PEER Report would decrease our revenue and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Operating as a non-contracting provider with certain payors may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition, and contracting with those payors may be disadvantageous to us.

We are currently considered to be an out-of-network or “non-contracting provider” by a number of third-party payors because we have not entered into a specific contract to provide PEER Report services to their insured patients at specified rates of reimbursement. We are generally subject to reimbursement as a non-contracting provider. As a non-contracting provider, many payors pay us a smaller percentage of our charges that they recognize to be reasonable, and expect us to collect greater coinsurance or copayments from patients. Rather than collecting these higher coinsurance and copayment amounts from these patients, when permitted by law to do so, we may, if permissible under applicable law, instead choose to charge them only the lower coinsurance and copayments amounts that would have applied to them if we had been contracted with their payor, which results in decreased revenues. In instances where we may be prohibited by law from treating these patients as if we were in-network, thus requiring these patients to pay higher coinsurance or copayments to us, our customers may decide to reduce or avoid prescribing PEER Report services for such patients, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Should any of the third-party payors with whom we are not contracted insist that we enter into a contract for the PEER Report services we provide, the resulting contract may contain pricing and other terms that are materially less favorable to us than the terms under which we currently operate. If revenue from a particular payor grows, there is heightened risk that such a third-party payor will insist that we enter into contractual arrangements that contain such terms. If we refuse to enter into a contract with such a third-party payor, they may refuse to cover and reimburse for PEER Report services, which may lead to a decrease in report volume and a corresponding decrease in our revenues. If we contract with such a third-party payor, although our report volume may increase as a result of the contract, our revenue per report under the contractual agreement and gross margin may decrease. The overall net result of contracting with third-party payors may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Regulations relating to the sale of our PEER Reports are constantly changing and in the future, our business may be subject to additional regulations that will increase our compliance costs.

Federal, state and foreign laws and regulations relating to the sale of our PEER Reports are subject to future changes, as are administrative interpretations of regulatory agencies. If we fail to comply with applicable federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, we could be subject to enforcement actions, including injunctions that would prevent us from conducting our business, withdrawal of clearances or approvals and civil and criminal penalties. If federal, state, and foreign laws and regulations change, we may need to incur additional costs to seek government approvals, in addition to the clearance from the FDA if we so chose, to sell or market our PEER Online service. There is no guarantee that we will be able to obtain such approvals in a timely manner or at all, and as a result, our business would be significantly harmed.

Our business practices may be found to constitute illegal fee-splitting or violate corporate practice restrictions, which may lead to penalties and adversely affect our business.

Many states, including California, in which our principal executive offices are located, and where we and our Providers operate, have laws that prohibit a general corporation as opposed to a professional corporation, from practicing medicine and certain other healthcare professions such as psychology, exercising control over medical judgments or decisions of behavioral health professionals, or engaging in certain arrangements, such as employment or fee-splitting, with professionals. We have addressed strong corporate practice state prohibitions through management services agreements with Providers under which the Providers are paid directly by payors for professional services and the Providers pay us under the management services agreements for our non-clinical services. Although we calibrate these management fees to comply with fee-splitting statutes, in many states those fee-splitting statutes are ambiguous and therefore could be used to challenge our arrangements with the Providers. If asserted, such claims could subject us to civil and criminal penalties and substantial legal costs, could result in our contracts being found legally invalid and unenforceable, in whole or in part, or could result in us being required to restructure our contractual arrangements, all with potentially adverse consequences to our business and our stockholders.

If we do not maintain and expand our relationships in the psychiatric and physician community, our growth will be limited and our business could be harmed. If psychiatrists and other physicians do not recommend and endorse our solutions and services, we may be unable to increase our sales, and in such instances, our profitability would be harmed.

Our relationships with psychiatrists and other physicians are critical to the growth of our neurometic Services business. We believe that these relationships are based on the quality and ease of use of our PEER Reports, our commitment to the behavioral health market, our marketing efforts and our presence at tradeshows. Any actual or perceived diminution in our reputation or the quality of our PEER Reports, or our failure or inability to maintain our commitment to the behavioral health market and our other marketing and solution promotion efforts could damage our current relationships, or prevent us from forming new relationships, with psychiatrists and other physicians and cause our growth to be limited and our business to be harmed.

To sell our PEER Reports, psychiatric professionals must recommend and endorse them. We may not obtain the necessary recommendations or endorsements from this community. Acceptance of our PEER Reports depends on educating psychiatrists and other physicians as to the benefits, clinical efficacy, ease of use, revenue opportunity and cost-effectiveness of our PEER Reports and on training the medical community to properly understand and utilize our PEER Reports. If we are not successful in obtaining the recommendations or endorsements of psychiatrists and other physicians for our PEER Reports, we may be unable to increase our sales and profitability.

Negative publicity or unfavorable media coverage of our PEER technology could damage our reputation and harm our operations.

If the marketplace perceives our PEER Reports as not offering the benefits which we believe they offer, we may receive significant negative publicity. This publicity may result in litigation and increased regulation and governmental review. If we were to receive such negative publicity or unfavorable media attention, whether warranted or unwarranted, our ability to market our PEER Reports would be adversely affected, we may be required to change our solutions and services and become subject to increased regulatory burdens and we may be required to pay large judgments or fines and incur significant legal expenses. Any combination of these factors could further increase our cost of doing business and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

If we do not successfully generate additional solutions and services from our patented methodology and proprietary database, or if such solutions and services are developed but not successfully commercialized, then we could lose revenue opportunities.

The current focus of our predictive medicine business is the sale of PEER Reports to psychiatrists and other physicians based on our PEER Online methodology and proprietary database. If we do not successfully generate additional solutions and services from our patented methodology and proprietary database, or if such solutions and services are developed but not successfully commercialized, then we could lose revenue opportunities.

Our industry is highly competitive and our PEER solutions may not be able to compete successfully, which could result in price reductions and decreased demand for our solutions.

The healthcare industry, in general, and behavioral health treatment services in particular, are highly competitive. If we are unable to convince physicians, psychiatrists and patients of the efficacy of our solutions and services, individuals seeking treatment for behavioral health disorders may seek alternative treatment methods, including non-medication-based therapies, which could negatively impact our sales of PEER Reports and our profitability.

If we conduct clinical trials, we cannot predict whether we will encounter problems that will cause us or regulatory authorities to delay or suspend our clinical trials or delay the analysis of data from our completed or ongoing clinical trials. In addition, we cannot provide assurance that we will be successful in reaching the endpoints in these trials, or if we are, that the FDA or other regulatory agencies will accept the results.

Any of the following factors, among others, could delay the completion of clinical trials, or result in a failure of these trials to support our business, which would have an adverse effect on our business:

If we determine that the costs associated with attaining regulatory approval of a solution exceed the potential financial benefits or if the projected development time line is inconsistent with our determination of when we need to get the product to market, we may choose to stop a clinical trial and/or development of a solution.

We may not be able to adequately protect our intellectual property, which is the core of our predictive medicine (PEER) business.

We consider the protection of our intellectual property to be important to our business prospects. We currently have twenty issued patents in the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, Israel, Japan and Mexico and we have also filed multiple additional patent applications in the United States and in multiple foreign jurisdictions.

In the future, if we fail to file patent applications in a timely manner, fail to pay applicable maintenance fees on issued patents, or if we elect not to file a patent application because of the costs associated with patent prosecution, we may lose patent protection that we may have otherwise obtained. The loss of any proprietary rights which are obtainable under patent laws may result in the loss of a competitive advantage over present or potential competitors, with a resulting decrease in revenues and profitability for us.

With respect to the applications we have filed, there is no guarantee that the applications will result in issued patents, and further, any patents that issue may be too narrow in scope to adequately protect our intellectual property and provide us with a competitive advantage. Competitors and others may design around aspects of our technology, or alternatively, may independently develop similar or more advanced technologies that fall outside the scope of our claimed subject matter, but that can be used in the treatment of behavioral health disorders.

In addition, even if we are issued additional patents covering our solutions, we cannot predict with any degree of certainty, whether or not we will be able to enforce our proprietary rights and whether our patents will provide us with adequate protection against competitors. We may be forced to engage in costly and time-consuming litigation or reexamination proceedings to protect our intellectual property rights and our opponents in such proceedings may have and be willing to expend, substantially greater resources than we are able to expend. In addition, the results of such proceedings may result in our patents being invalidated or reduced in scope. These developments could cause a decrease in our operating income and reduce our available cash flow, which could harm our business and cause our stock price to decline.

We also utilize processes and technology that constitute trade secrets, such as our PEER Online database, and we must implement appropriate levels of security for those trade secrets to secure the protection of applicable laws, which we may not do effectively. In addition, the laws of many foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights as fully as the laws of the United States.

While we have not had any significant issues to date, the loss of any of our trade secrets or proprietary rights, which may be protected under the foregoing intellectual property safeguards may result in the loss of our competitive advantage over present and potential competitors.

Certain of our patents will expire in the near future, and we may have difficulties protecting our proprietary rights and technology and we may not be able to ensure their protection.

We currently have 20 issued patents, of which seven are in the U.S., one of which covers the process involved in our PEER Online service. Our patents will expire between July 2019 and April 2023 and cover QEEG (quantitative electrophysiology); at which point we can no longer enforce our rights under these patents against third parties to prevent them from developing processes and commercializing solutions similar or identical to ours. Because our efforts to achieve broader market acceptance of our PEER Online service may take a substantial period of time, our patents may expire or provide only a short period of protection, if any, following such broader market acceptance. This could expose us to substantially more competition and have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and solutions. Our asset is our PEER Online Database and we will continue to encrypt and protect it.

We depend heavily upon secure access to, and secure transfer of, data via the internet in exchanging data with customers. Any security breaches could result in unauthorized access to sensitive patient data, our intellectual property and other confidential business information. We use third-party data centers and any damage to, or failure of, our central analytical database could adversely affect our ability to provide our services. For any of the foregoing or related reasons, customers may curtail or stop using our services and we may incur significant legal and financial exposure and liabilities.

We depend heavily on secure access to, and secure transfer of data via the internet in the generation of our PEER Reports and other data exchange with our customers. We rely on services provided by third parties to store, transmit and process data in our central neurometic database. Security breaches could expose us to a risk of losing data and result in litigation and possible liability. Security measures taken by us or by such third party service providers may be breached as a result of third party action, including intentional misconduct by computer hackers, employee error, malfeasance, fraud or otherwise, during transfer or processing of data or at any time and result in someone obtaining unauthorized access to sensitive patient information, our intellectual property, other confidential business information, or our information technology systems. Because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, or to sabotage systems, change frequently and generally are not recognized until launched against a target, we or our third-party service providers may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate preventative measures. Any security breach could result in a loss of confidence in the security of our service, damage to our reputation, disruption to our business, and could lead to legal liability and severely curtail future revenue.

In addition, any damage to, or failure of, our central neurometic database and the server on which it resides could result in interruptions in our ability to provide PEER Reports. Interruptions in our service may reduce our revenue, cause PEER Network providers to terminate their relationship with us and adversely affect our ability to attract new physicians to the PEER Network. Our business will also be harmed if our customers and potential customers believe our service is unreliable.

Because our service is complex and cloud-based we rely on third-party data centers to store the data in our central neurometic database, our data and processes may be corrupted at some future time resulting in erroneous, defective or ineffective reports, which could result in unanticipated downtime in our service for PEER Network providers, resulting in harm to our reputation and our business. We do not control the operation of these facilities. While we take precautions (data redundancy, back-up and disaster recovery plans) to prevent service interruptions, our data centers are vulnerable to damage or interruption from human error, intentional bad acts, pandemics, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, fires, war, terrorist attacks, power losses, hardware failures, systems failures, communications failures and similar events. The occurrence of a natural disaster or an act of terrorism, vandalism or other misconduct, resulting in a decision to close the facilities without adequate notice or other unanticipated problems could result in lengthy interruptions in the availability of our central neurometic database. Since many physicians rely on our service to assist in treating their patients, any errors, defects, disruptions in service or other performance problems with our service could hurt our reputation and hurt the reputation of the physicians in our PEER Network. If that occurs, physicians could elect to terminate their relationship with us, or delay or withhold payment to us. We could lose future revenues or customers may make warranty or other claims against us, which could result in an increase in our provision for doubtful accounts, an increase in collection cycles for accounts receivable or the expense and risk of litigation and a reduction in revenue.

Security breaches, damages or failures of the sort described above would adversely affect our ability to market our PEER Reports. In addition, we may be required to change our products and services and become subject to increased regulatory burdens and we may be required to pay large judgments or fines and incur significant legal expenses.

In the future we could be subject to personal injury claims due to adverse events from treatment facilitated through the use of our PEER reports, which could result in substantial liabilities that may exceed our insurance coverage.

All significant medical treatments and procedures, including treatment that is facilitated through the use of our PEER Reports, can involve the risk of serious adverse events up to and including death. Our PEER Reports generally require psychiatrists and other physicians to titrate patients off of psychotropic medications before receiving an EEG. The titration process and the removal of medications from patients risk potentially serious health consequences. Although we have no clinical involvement, it is possible that we could be named as defendants in any malpractice claim involving a patient harmed during the titration process or during a period in which the patient ceases the use of medications. Although we have not been the subject of any personal injury claims for patients treated by providers using our PEER Reports, our business entails an inherent risk of claims for personal injuries, which are subject to the attendant risk of substantial damage awards. We cannot control whether individual physicians and psychiatrists will properly select patients, apply the appropriate standard of care, or conform to our procedures in determining how to treat their patients. A significant source of potential liability is negligence or alleged negligence by physicians treating patients with the aid of the PEER Reports that we provide. There can be no assurance that a future claim or claims will not be successful or, including the cost of legal defense, will not exceed the limits of available insurance coverage.

We currently have general liability and medical professional liability insurance coverage for up to $3 million per year for personal injury claims. We may not be able to maintain adequate liability insurance, in accordance with standard industry practice, with appropriate coverage based on the nature and risks of our business, at acceptable costs and on favorable terms. Insurance carriers are often reluctant to provide liability insurance for new healthcare services companies and products due to the limited claims history for such companies and products. In addition, based on current insurance markets, we expect that liability insurance will be more difficult to obtain and that premiums will increase over time and as the volume of patients treated by physicians that are guided by our PEER Reports increases. In the event of litigation, regardless of its merit or eventual outcome, or an award against us during a time when we have no available insurance or insufficient insurance, we may sustain significant losses of our operating capital which may substantially reduce stockholder equity in the company.

Risks Related to Our Business-General

We conduct business in a heavily regulated industry and if we fail to comply with these laws and government regulations, we could incur penalties or be required to make significant changes to our operations or experience adverse publicity, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The healthcare industry is heavily regulated and closely scrutinized by federal, state and local governments. Comprehensive statutes and regulations govern the manner in which Providers provide and bill for services and collect reimbursement from governmental programs and private payors, our contractual relationships, our marketing activities and other aspects of our operations. Of particular importance are the following laws and rules:

Finally, in the operations of our Company and our Providers, we must comply with additional restrictions, including the following:

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Achieving and sustaining compliance with these laws may prove costly. Failure to comply with these laws and other laws can result in civil and criminal penalties such as fines, damages, overpayment recoupment loss of enrollment status and exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The risk of our being found in violation of these laws and regulations is increased by the fact that many of them have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are sometimes open to a variety of interpretations. Our failure to accurately anticipate the application of these laws and regulations to our business or any other failure to comply with regulatory requirements could create liability for us and negatively affect our business. Any action against us for violation of these laws or regulations, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses, divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business and result in adverse publicity.

To enforce compliance with the federal laws, the U.S. Department of Justice and the OIG, continue to increase their scrutiny of healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Dealing with investigations can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management’s attention from the business. Any such investigation or settlement could increase our costs or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, because of the potential for large monetary exposure under the federal False Claims Act, which provides for treble damages and mandatory minimum penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim or statement, healthcare providers often resolve allegations without admissions of liability for significant and material amounts to avoid the uncertainty of treble damages that may be awarded in litigation proceedings. Such settlements often contain additional compliance and reporting requirements as part of a consent decree, settlement agreement or corporate integrity agreement. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ compliance with the healthcare reimbursement rules and fraud and abuse laws.

The laws, regulations and standards governing the provision of healthcare services may change significantly in the future. We cannot assure you that any new or changed healthcare laws, regulations or standards will not materially adversely affect our business. We cannot assure you that a review of our business by judicial, law enforcement, regulatory or accreditation authorities will not result in a determination that could adversely affect our operations.

In addition, the FDA regulates development, testing, labeling, manufacturing, marketing, promotion, distribution, record-keeping and reporting requirements for prescription drugs. Compliance with laws and regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies may be required in relation to future products or services developed or used by us, in addition to the regulatory process and dialogue in which we are now engaged with the FDA (for more information, please see the risk factor entitled “The FDA believes that rEEG and, potentially, our PEER Online service, constitute a medical device, which is subject to regulation by the FDA. As we continue to market our PEER Online service, there is risk that the FDA will commence an enforcement action against us. The FDA has informed us that our marketing of our rEEG services without prior approval or re-classification by the FDA constitutes a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”). Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in various adverse consequences, including withdrawal of our products and services from the market, or the imposition of civil or criminal sanctions.

The impact of healthcare reform legislation and other changes in the healthcare industry and in healthcare spending on us is currently unknown, but may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our revenue is dependent on the healthcare industry and could be affected by changes in healthcare spending and policy. The healthcare industry is subject to changing political, regulatory and other influences. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA made major changes in how healthcare is delivered and reimbursed, and increased access to health insurance benefits to the uninsured and underinsured population of the United States.

The PPACA, among other things, increased the number of individuals with Medicaid and private insurance coverage, implemented reimbursement policies that tie payment to quality, facilitated the creation of accountable care organizations that may use capitation and other alternative payment methodologies, strengthened enforcement of fraud and abuse laws and encouraged the use of information technology. The future of the PPACA is uncertain and the PPACA remains in a state of near-constant change. Several of these changes require implementing regulations which have not yet been drafted or have been released only as proposed rules.

Such changes in the regulatory environment may also result in changes to our payor mix that may affect our operations and revenue.

In addition, certain provisions of the PPACA authorize voluntary demonstration projects, which include the development of bundling payments for acute, inpatient hospital services, physician services and post-acute services for episodes of hospital care. Further, the PPACA may adversely affect payors by increasing medical costs generally, which could have an effect on the industry and potentially impact our business and revenue as payors seek to offset these increases by reducing costs in other areas. The full impact of these changes on us cannot be determined at this time.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments and other third-party payors will pay for healthcare products and services, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

There may be adverse consequences if the independent contractor status of Arcadian’s providers is successfully characterized as employee status.

We have independent contractor relationships with our providers rather than employee relationships. An independent contractor is generally distinguished from an employee by his or her degree of autonomy and independence in providing services. Our providers must be afforded independence over their actions and judgment while providing medical services. If a federal or state authority or court enacts legislation or adopts regulations or adopts an interpretation that changes the manner in which employees and independent contractors are classified or makes any adverse determination with respect to some or all of our independent contractors, we could incur significant costs in complying with such laws, regulations or interpretations, including, in respect of tax withholding, social security payments and recordkeeping, or we could be held liable for the actions of such independent contractors. As a result, we could be required to modify our business model. All of the above, individually or in the aggregate could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, there is the risk that we may be subject to significant monetary liabilities arising from fines or judgments as a result of any such actual or alleged non-compliance with federal, state or local tax or employment laws.

The emergence of new technologies may require us to expend significant resources in order to remain competitive.

The U.S. healthcare industry is massive, has a number of large market participants with conflicting agendas, is subject to significant government regulation and is currently undergoing significant change. Changes in our industry, for example, away from high-deductible health plans, or the emergence of new technologies as more competitors enter our market, could result in our solution being less desirable or relevant.

If healthcare benefits trends shift or entirely new technologies are developed that replace existing solutions, our existing or future solutions could be rendered obsolete and our business could be adversely affected. In addition, we may experience difficulties with software development, industry standards, design or marketing that could delay or prevent our development, introduction or implementation of new applications and enhancements.

Any future litigation against us could be costly and time - consuming to defend.

We may become subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business such as claims in connection with commercial disputes or employment claims made by our current or former associates. Litigation may result in substantial costs and may divert management’s attention and resources, which may substantially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Insurance may not cover such claims, may not provide sufficient payments to cover all of the costs to resolve one or more such claims and may not continue to be available on terms acceptable to us. A claim brought against us that is uninsured or underinsured could result in unanticipated costs, thereby reducing our revenue and leading analysts or potential investors to reduce their expectations of our performance, which could reduce the market price of our stock.

We may be subject to regulatory and investigative proceedings, which may find that our policies and procedures do not fully comply with complex and changing healthcare regulations.

While we have established policies and procedures that we believe will be sufficient to ensure that we operate in substantial compliance with applicable laws, regulations and requirements, the criteria are often vague and subject to change and interpretation. We may become the subject of regulatory or other investigations or proceedings, and our interpretations of applicable laws and regulations may be challenged. The defense of any such challenge could result in substantial cost and a diversion of management’s time and attention. Thus, any such challenge could have a material adverse effect on our business, regardless of whether it ultimately is successful. If we fail to comply with any applicable laws, or a determination is made that we have failed to comply with these laws, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Failure to comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act or similar state laws could result in sanctions or limit the claims we can make.

Our promotional activities and materials, including advertising to consumers and physicians, and materials provided to third parties for their use in promoting our products and services, are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts and practices, including claims which are false, misleading or inadequately substantiated. The FTC typically requires competent and reliable scientific tests or studies to substantiate express or implied claims that a product or service is effective. If the FTC were to interpret our promotional materials as making express or implied claims that our products and services are effective for the treatment of mental illness, it may find that we do not have adequate substantiation for such claims. Failure to comply with the FTC Act or similar laws enforced by state attorneys general and other state and local officials could result in administrative or judicial orders limiting or eliminating the claims we can make about our products and services, and other sanctions including fines.

Our use and disclosure of personally identifiable information, including health information, is subject to federal and state privacy and security regulations, and our failure to comply with those regulations or to adequately secure the information we hold could result in significant liability or reputational harm and, in turn, a material adverse effect on our client base, membership base and revenue.

Numerous state and federal laws and regulations govern the collection, dissemination, use, privacy, confidentiality, security, availability and integrity of personally identifiable information, including protected health information. These laws and regulations include HIPAA . HIPAA establishes a set of basic national privacy and security standards for the protection of protected health information, or PHI, by health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and certain healthcare providers, referred to as covered entities, and the business associates with whom such covered entities contract for services, which includes us.

HIPAA requires healthcare providers like us to develop and maintain policies and procedures with respect to PHI that is used or disclosed, including the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information. HIPAA also implemented the use of standard transaction code sets and standard identifiers that covered entities must use when submitting or receiving certain electronic healthcare transactions, including activities associated with the billing and collection of healthcare claims.

HIPAA imposes mandatory penalties for certain violations. Penalties for violations of HIPAA and its implementing regulations start at $100 per violation and are not to exceed $50,000 per violation, subject to a cap of $1.5 million for violations of the same standard in a single calendar year. However, a single breach incident can result in violations of multiple standards. HIPAA also authorizes state attorneys general to file suit on behalf of their residents. Courts will be able to award damages, costs and attorneys’ fees related to violations of HIPAA in such cases. While HIPAA does not create a private right of action allowing individuals to sue us in civil court for violations of HIPAA, its standards have been used as the basis for duty of care in state civil suits such as those for negligence or recklessness in the misuse or breach of PHI.

In addition, HIPAA mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or HHS conduct periodic compliance audits of HIPAA covered entities or business associates for compliance with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Standards. It also tasks HHS with establishing a methodology whereby harmed individuals who were the victims of breaches of unsecured PHI may receive a percentage of the Civil Monetary Penalty fine paid by the violator.

HIPAA further requires that patients be notified of any unauthorized acquisition, access, use or disclosure of their unsecured PHI that compromises the privacy or security of such information, with certain exceptions related to unintentional or inadvertent use or disclosure by employees or authorized individuals. HIPAA specifies that such notifications must be made “without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after discovery of the breach.” If a breach affects 500 patients or more, it must be reported to HHS without unreasonable delay, and HHS will post the name of the breaching entity on its public web site. Breaches affecting 500 patients or more in the same state or jurisdiction must also be reported to the local media. If a breach involves fewer than 500 people, the covered entity must record it in a log and notify HHS at least annually.

Numerous other federal and state laws protect the confidentiality, privacy, availability, integrity and security of personally identifiable information, or PII, including PHI. These laws in many cases are more restrictive than, and may not be preempted by, the HIPAA rules and may be subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues for us and our clients and potentially exposing us to additional expense, adverse publicity and liability.

New health information standards, whether implemented pursuant to HIPAA, congressional action or otherwise, could have a significant effect on the manner in which we must handle healthcare related data, and the cost of complying with standards could be significant. If we do not comply with existing or new laws and regulations related to PHI, we could be subject to criminal or civil sanctions.

Because of the extreme sensitivity of the PII we store and transmit, the security features of our technology platform are very important. If our security measures, some of which are managed by third parties, are breached or fail, unauthorized persons may be able to obtain access to sensitive client and patient data, including HIPAA PHI. As a result, our reputation could be severely damaged, adversely affecting client and patient confidence. Patients may curtail their use of or stop using our services or our client base could decrease, which would cause our business to suffer. In addition, we could face litigation, damages for contract breach, penalties and regulatory actions for violation of HIPAA and other applicable laws or regulations and significant costs for remediation, notification to individuals and for measures to prevent future occurrences. Any potential security breach could also result in increased costs associated with liability for stolen assets or information, repairing system damage that may have been caused by such breaches, incentives offered to clients or other business partners in an effort to maintain our business relationships after a breach and implementing measures to prevent future occurrences, including organizational changes, deploying additional personnel and protection technologies, training employees and engaging third-party experts and consultants. While we maintain insurance covering certain security and privacy damages and claim expenses in the amount of $100,000 per claim, we may not carry insurance or maintain coverage sufficient to compensate for all liability and in any event, insurance coverage would not address the reputational damage that could result from a security incident.

We outsource important aspects of the storage and transmission of client and patient information, and thus rely on third parties to manage functions that have material cyber-security risks. We attempt to address these risks in part by requiring outsourcing subcontractors who handle client and patient information to sign business associate agreements contractually requiring those subcontractors to adequately safeguard personal health data to the same extent that applies to us. However, we cannot assure you that these contractual measures and other safeguards will adequately protect us from the risks associated with the storage and transmission of client and patients’ proprietary and protected health information.

We also publish statements to patients that describe how we handle and protect personal information. If federal or state regulatory authorities or private litigants consider any portion of these statements to be untrue, we may be subject to claims of deceptive practices, which could lead to significant liabilities and consequences, including, without limitation, costs of responding to investigations, defending against litigation, settling claims and complying with regulatory or court orders.

We also send short message service, or SMS text messages to potential end users who are eligible to use our service through certain customers and partners. While we obtain consent from or on behalf of these individuals to send text messages, federal or state regulatory authorities or private litigants may claim that the notices and disclosures we provide, form of consents we obtain or our SMS texting practices, are not adequate. These SMS texting campaigns are potential sources of risk for class action lawsuits and liability for our company. Numerous class-action suits under federal and state laws have been filed in the past year against companies who conduct SMS texting programs, with many resulting in multi-million dollar settlements to the plaintiffs. Any future such litigation against us could be costly and time-consuming to defend.

We may be subject to healthcare anti-fraud initiatives, which may lead to penalties and adversely affect our business.

State and federal governments are devoting increased attention and resources to anti-fraud initiatives against healthcare providers, taking an expansive definition of fraud that includes receiving fees in connection with a healthcare business that is found to violate any of the complex regulations described above. Although to our knowledge we have not been the subject of any anti-fraud investigations, if such a claim were made defending our business practices could be time consuming and expensive, and an adverse finding could result in substantial penalties or require us to restructure our operations, which we may not be able to do successfully.

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly and our stock price could decline or fluctuate if our results do not meet the expectation of analysts or investors.

Management expects that we will experience substantial variations in our operating results from quarter to quarter. We believe that the factors which influence this variability of quarterly results include, without limitation:

As a result of fluctuations in our revenue and operating expenses that may occur, management believes that period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations are not a good indication of our future performance. It is possible that in some future quarter or quarters, our operating results will be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors. In that case, our common stock price could fluctuate significantly or decline.

Our ability to use our net operating losses to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

In general, under Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating losses, or NOLs, to offset future taxable income. A Section 382 “ownership change” generally occurs if one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who own at least 5% of our stock increase their ownership by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest ownership percentage within a rolling three-year period. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. As of September 30, 2018, the Company had Federal net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $60.2 million and State net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $33.8 million. The Company has not undertaken a comprehensive analysis to determine whether or not a change of control has occurred. Both the Federal and State net operating loss carryforwards will begin to expire in 2022 and 2023 respectively. Our ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards may be limited due to changes in ownership, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

In addition, future changes in our stock ownership, some of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Section 382 of the Code, further limiting our ability to utilize NOLs arising prior to such ownership change in the future. There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspensions on the use of NOLs, or other unforeseen reasons, our existing NOLs could expire or otherwise be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. We have recorded a full valuation allowance against the deferred tax assets attributable to our NOLs.

We may fail to successfully manage and maintain the growth of our business, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

As we continue expanding our commercial operations, this expansion could place significant strain on our management, operational and financial resources. To manage future growth, we will need to continue to hire, train, and manage additional employees, particularly a specially-trained sales force to market our PEER Reports.

Confidentiality agreements with employees, licensees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In order to protect our proprietary technology and processes, we rely in part on confidentiality provisions in our agreements with employees, licensees, treating physicians, psychiatrists and behavioral health professionals. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Moreover, policing compliance with our confidentiality agreements and nondisclosure agreements and detecting unauthorized use of our technology is difficult and we may, therefore, be unable to determine whether piracy of our technology has actually occurred. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

The liability of our directors and officers is limited.

The applicable provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law and our Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws limit the liability of our directors to us and our stockholders for monetary damages for breaches of their fiduciary duties, with certain exceptions, and for other specified acts or omissions of such persons. In addition, the applicable provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law and of our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, as well as indemnification agreements we have entered into with our directors, and officers, provide for indemnification of such persons under certain circumstances. In the event we are required to indemnify any of our directors or any other person, our financial strength may be harmed, which may in turn lower our stock price.

If we do not retain our senior management and other key employees, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

Our future success depends on the ability, experience and performance of our senior management and our key professional personnel. Our success therefore depends to a significant extent on retaining the services of George Carpenter, our Chief Executive Officer, our senior product development and clinical managers and others. Because of their ability and experience, if we lose one or more of the members of our senior management or other key employees, our ability to successfully implement our business strategy could be seriously harmed. While we believe our relationships with our executives are good and do not anticipate any of them leaving in the near future, the loss of the services of any of our senior management could have a material adverse effect on our ability to manage our business. We do not carry key-man life insurance on any of our key employees.

If we do not attract and retain skilled personnel, we may not be able to expand our business.

Our solutions and services are based on a complex database of information. Accordingly, we require skilled medical, scientific and administrative personnel to sell and support our solutions and services. Our future success will depend largely on our ability to continue to hire, train, retain and motivate additional skilled personnel, particularly sales representatives who are responsible for customer education and training and customer support. If we are not able to attract and retain skilled personnel, we will not be able to continue our development and commercialization activities.

Our senior management’s limited recent experience managing a publicly traded company may divert management’s attention from operations and harm our business.

Our management team has relatively limited experience managing a publicly traded company and complying with federal securities laws, including compliance with recently adopted disclosure requirements on a timely basis. Our management will be required to design and implement appropriate programs and policies in responding to increased legal, regulatory compliance and reporting requirements, and any failure to do so could lead to the imposition of fines and penalties and harm our business.

The estimates of market opportunity and forecasts of market growth included in this Form 10-K may prove to be inaccurate, and even if the market in which we compete achieves the forecasted growth, our business could fail to grow at similar rates, if at all.

Market opportunity estimates and growth forecasts are subject to significant uncertainty and are based on assumptions and estimates that may not prove to be accurate. The estimates and forecasts in this Form 10-K relating to the size and expected growth of the telehealth and predictive medicine markets may prove to be inaccurate. Even if the markets in which we compete meet our size estimates and forecasted growth, our business could fail to grow at similar rates, if at all.

Risks Related To An Investment In Our Common Stock

Although our shares of common stock are now listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market, we currently have a limited trading volume, which results in higher price volatility for, and reduced liquidity of, our common stock.

Although our shares of common stock are now listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “MYND,” trading volume in our common stock has been limited and an active trading market for our shares of common stock may never develop or be maintained. Our average trading volume of the last ninety days has been 262,270 shares. The absence of an active trading market increases price volatility and reduces the liquidity of our common stock. As long as this condition continues, the sale of a significant number of shares of common stock at any particular time could be difficult to achieve at the market prices prevailing immediately before such shares are offered.

If we cannot continue to satisfy NASDAQ’s continuing listing criteria, NASDAQ may subsequently delist our Common Stock, particularity given recent notice that our stockholder equity is below the required level” is hereby amended as follows:

NASDAQ requires us to meet certain financial, public float, bid price and liquidity standards on an ongoing basis in order to continue the listing of our Common Stock. Generally, we must maintain a minimum amount of stockholders equity (generally $2.5 million) and a minimum number of holders of our securities (generally 300 round lot holders). If we fail to meet any of the continuing listing requirements, our Common Stock may be subject to delisting. If our Common Stock is delisted and we are not able to list our Common Stock on another national securities exchange, we expect our securities would be quoted on an over-the-counter market. If this were to occur, our stockholders could face significant material adverse consequences, including limited availability of market quotations for our Common Stock and reduced liquidity for the trading of our securities. In addition, we could experience a decreased ability to issue additional securities and obtain additional financing in the future. There can be no assurance that an active trading market for our Common Stock will develop or be sustained. We may choose to raise additional capital in order to increase our stockholders’ equity in order to meet the NASDAQ continued listing standards. Any additional equity financings may be financially dilutive to, and will be dilutive from an ownership perspective to our stockholders, and such dilution may be significant based upon the size of such financing. Additionally, we cannot assure that such funding will be available on a timely basis, in needed quantities, or on terms favorable to us, if at all.

On February 23, 2018, the Company received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) indicating that the Company was not compliant with the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1) for continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market because the Company’s stockholders’ equity, as reported in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2017, was below the required minimum of $2.5 million. Further, as of February 22, 2018, the Company did not meet the alternative compliance standards relating to the market value of listed securities or net income from continuing operations. This notice of noncompliance has had no immediate impact on the continued listing or trading of the Company’s common stock on The Nasdaq Capital Market. The Company did increase the stockholders' equity in response to the above.

On May 9, 2018, the Company received a letter from Nasdaq granting the Company an extension through August 22, 2018 to regain compliance with Listing Rule 5550(b). As of June 30, 2018, the Company had stockholders' equity in excess of $2.5 million and believes that it continues to be in compliance through the current date. The Company achieved compliance through a variety of factors, including through improved revenue, certain cost cutting measures and, primarily, through the sale of securities under the First Purchase Agreement and Second Purchase Agreement. The Company regained compliance at June 30, 2018 and remains compliant through its fiscal year ended September 30, 2018.

If and when a larger trading market for our common stock develops, the market price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations, and you may be unable to resell your shares at or above the price at which you acquired them.

The market price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a number of factors that are beyond our control, including, but not limited to:

In the past, stockholders have often instituted securities class action litigation after periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities. If a stockholder were to file any such class action suit against us, we would incur substantial legal fees and our management’s attention and resources would be diverted from operating our business to respond to the litigation, which could harm our business.

Recent and future sales of securities by us in equity or debt financings could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and have a material adverse effect on our earnings.

Recent and future sales of common stock or derivative securities by us in private placements or public offerings could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders. In addition, our business strategy may include expansion through internal growth, by acquiring complementary businesses, by acquiring or licensing additional solutions and services, or by establishing strategic relationships with targeted customers and suppliers. In order to do so, or to finance the cost of our other activities, we may issue additional equity securities that could dilute our stockholders’ stock ownership. We may also assume additional debt and incur impairment losses related to goodwill and other tangible assets if we acquire another company and this could negatively impact our earnings and results of operations.

The sale of our common stock to Aspire Capital may cause substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and the sale of the shares of common stock acquired by Aspire Capital could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Pursuant to the terms of the First Purchase Agreement and Second Purchase Agreement, we have registered for sale the Commitment Shares that we have issued and additional shares that we have already, or may in the future, sell to Aspire Capital under the First Purchase Agreement and Second Purchase Agreement. It is anticipated that the shares thereby registered will be sold over a period of up to approximately thirty months from the date of the related prospectus. The number of shares ultimately offered for sale by Aspire Capital under such prospectus will be dependent upon the number of shares we elect to sell to Aspire Capital under the First Purchase Agreement and Second Purchase Agreement. Depending on a variety of factors, including market liquidity of our common stock, the sale of shares under the Purchase Agreement may cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

As of September 30, 2018, the Company has issued purchase notices to Aspire Capital under the First Purchase Agreement to purchase an aggregate of 1,180,000 shares of common stock, at a per share price of $2.00, resulting in gross cash proceeds of approximately $2.4 million. As of September 30, 2018, the Company has issued purchase notices to Aspire Capital under the Second Purchase Agreement to purchase an aggregate of 884,671 shares of common stock, resulting in gross cash proceeds of approximately $1.9 million. On November 26, 2018, the Company received shareholder approval to remove the exchange cap under the Second Purchase Agreement in compliance with the applicable listing rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market. Pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(d), shareholder approval is required prior to the issuance of securities in connection with a transaction other than a public offering involving the sale, issuance or potential issuance by the Company of common stock (or securities convertible into or exercisable common stock) equal to 20% or more of the common stock outstanding before the issuance for less than the greater of book or market value of the stock. Following receipt of shareholder approval, the Company may issue an additional $8.1 million, up to an aggregate of $10 million, of common stock to Aspire Capital under the Second Purchase Agreement. The issuance of shares of common stock that were issued from time to time to Aspire Capital under the First and Second Purchase Agreement were exempt from registration under the Securities Act, pursuant to the exemption for transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act.

Sales by Aspire Capital of shares acquired pursuant to the First Purchase Agreement and Second Purchase Agreement under an effective registration statement, may result in dilution to the interests of other holders of our common stock. The sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock by Aspire Capital, or anticipation of such sales, could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline or make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise desire. However, we have the right under the First Purchase Agreement and Second Purchase Agreement to control the timing and amount of sales of our shares to Aspire Capital.

Were our common stock to be considered penny stock, and therefore subject to the penny stock rules, U.S. broker-dealers may be discouraged from effecting transactions in shares of our common stock.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has adopted a number of rules to regulate “penny stock” that may restrict transactions involving shares of our common stock. Such rules include Rules 3a51-1, 15g-1, 15g-2, 15g-3, 15g-4, 15g-5, 15g-6, 15g-7, and 15g-9 under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These rules may have the effect of reducing the liquidity of penny stocks. “Penny stocks” generally are equity securities with a price of less than $5.00 per share (other than securities registered on certain national securities exchanges or quoted on the NASDAQ Stock Market if current price and volume information with respect to transactions in such securities is provided by the exchange or system). Our securities have in the past constituted “penny stock” within the meaning of the rule. Were our common stock to again be considered “penny stock” and therefore become subject to the penny stock rules, the additional sales practice and disclosure requirements imposed upon U.S. broker-dealers may discourage such broker-dealers from effecting transactions in shares of our common stock, which could severely limit the market liquidity of such shares and impede their sale in the secondary market.

A U.S. broker-dealer selling a penny stock to anyone other than an established customer or “accredited investor” (generally, an individual with net worth in excess of $1,000,000 or an annual income exceeding $200,000, or $300,000 together with his or her spouse) must make a special suitability determination for the purchaser and must receive the purchaser’s written consent to the transaction prior to sale, unless the broker-dealer or the transaction is otherwise exempt. In addition, the penny stock regulations require the U.S. broker-dealer to deliver, prior to any transaction involving a penny stock, a disclosure schedule prepared in accordance with SEC standards relating to the penny stock market, unless the broker-dealer or the transaction is otherwise exempt. A U.S. broker-dealer is also required to disclose commissions payable to the U.S. broker-dealer and the registered representative and current quotations for the securities. Finally, a U.S. broker-dealer is required to submit monthly statements disclosing recent price information with respect to the penny stock held in a customer’s account and information with respect to the limited market in penny stocks.

Stockholders should be aware that, according to SEC, the market for penny stocks has suffered in recent years from patterns of fraud and abuse. Such patterns include (i) control of the market for the security by one or a few broker-dealers that are often related to the promoter or issuer; (ii) manipulation of prices through prearranged matching of purchases and sales and false and misleading press releases; (iii) “boiler room” practices involving high-pressure sales tactics and unrealistic price projections by inexperienced sales persons; (iv) excessive and undisclosed bid-ask differentials and markups by selling broker-dealers; and (v) the wholesale dumping of the same securities by promoters and broker-dealers after prices have been manipulated to a desired level, resulting in investor losses. Our management is aware of the abuses that have occurred historically in the penny stock market. Although we do not expect to be in a position to dictate the behavior of the market or of broker-dealers who participate in the market, management will strive within the confines of practical limitations to prevent the described patterns from being established with respect to our securities in the event our common stock were to again be considered a penny stock and therefore become subject to penny stock rules.

Other than a dividend of warrants each exercisable for one share of common stock that was distributed on July 27, 2017, we have not paid dividends in the past and do not expect to pay dividends for the foreseeable future, and any return on investment may be limited to potential future appreciation on the value of our common stock.

We currently intend to retain any future earnings to support the development and expansion of our business and do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Our payment of any future dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors after taking into account various factors, including without limitation, our financial condition, operating results, cash needs, growth plans and the terms of any credit agreements that we may be a party to at the time. To the extent we do not pay dividends, our stock may be less valuable because a return on investment will only occur if and to the extent our stock price appreciates, which may never occur. In addition, investors must rely on sales of their common stock after price appreciation as the only way to realize their investment, and if the price of our stock does not appreciate, then there will be no return on investment. Investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase our common stock.

The rights of the holders of common stock may be impaired by the potential issuance of preferred stock.

Our certificate of incorporation gives our board of directors the right to create new series of preferred stock. As a result, the board of directors may, without stockholder approval, issue preferred stock with voting, dividend, conversion, liquidation or other rights which could adversely affect the voting power and equity interest of the holders of common stock. Preferred stock, which could be issued with the right to more than one vote per share, could be utilized as a method of discouraging, delaying or preventing a change of control. The possible impact on takeover attempts could adversely affect the price of our common stock. Although we have no present intention to issue any additional shares of preferred stock or to create any new series of preferred stock, we may issue such shares in the future.

Our officers, directors and principal stockholders can exert significant influence over us and may make decisions that are not in the best interests of all stockholders.

Our officers, directors and principal stockholders (greater than 5% stockholders) collectively control approximately 30.14% of our issued and outstanding common stock and 46.47% on a fully diluted basis (after giving effect to the full conversion of the Preferred Series A shares). As a result, these stockholders are able to affect the outcome of, or exert significant influence over, all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election and removal of directors and any change in control. This concentration of ownership of our common stock could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of us or otherwise discouraging or preventing a potential acquirer from attempting to obtain control of us. This, in turn, could have a negative effect on the market price of our common stock. It could also prevent our stockholders from realizing a premium over the market prices for their shares of common stock. Moreover, the interests of this concentration of ownership may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders, and accordingly, they could cause us to enter into transactions or agreements that we would not otherwise consider.

Transactions involving our common stock engaged in by our largest stockholders, directors or executive officers may have an adverse effect on the price of our stock.

Our officers, directors and principal stockholders (greater than 5% stockholders) collectively control approximately 30.14% of our issued and outstanding common stock and 46.47% on a fully diluted basis (after giving effect to the full conversion of the Preferred Series A shares). Subsequent sales of our shares by these stockholders could have the effect of lowering our stock price. The perceived risk associated with the possible sale of a large number of shares by these stockholders, or the adoption of significant short positions by hedge funds or other significant investors, could cause some of our stockholders to sell their stock, thus causing the price of our stock to decline. In addition, actual or anticipated downward pressure on our stock price due to actual or anticipated sales of stock by our directors or officers could cause other institutions or individuals to engage in short sales of our common stock, which may further cause the price of our stock to decline.

From time to time our directors and executive officers may sell shares of our common stock on the open market. These sales will be publicly disclosed in filings made with the SEC. In the future, our directors and executive officers may sell a significant number of shares for a variety of reasons unrelated to the performance of our business. Our stockholders may perceive these sales as a reflection on management’s view of the business and result in some stockholders selling their shares of our common stock. These sales could cause the price of our stock to drop.

Anti-takeover provisions may limit the ability of another party to acquire us, which could cause our stock price to decline.

Delaware law contains provisions that could discourage, delay or prevent a third party from acquiring us, even if doing so may be beneficial to our stockholders, which could cause our stock price to decline. In addition, these provisions could limit the price investors would be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock.

Non-U.S. investors may have difficulty effecting service of process against us or enforcing judgments against us in courts of non-U.S. jurisdictions.

We are a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. All of our directors and officers reside in the United States. It may not be possible for non-U.S. investors to effect service of process within their own jurisdictions upon our company and our directors and officers. In addition, it may not be possible for non-U.S. investors to collect from our company, its directors and officers, judgments obtained in courts in such non-U.S. jurisdictions predicated on non-U.S. legislation.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish or cease publishing research or reports about us, our business or our market, or if they change their recommendations regarding our stock adversely, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts may publish about us, our business, our market or our competitors. If any of the analysts who may cover us change their recommendation regarding our stock adversely, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, our stock price would likely decline. If any analyst who may cover us were to cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.