GRUSF Grown Rogue International Inc (PK)

A.       SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following table presents selected financial data derived from our Audited Consolidated Financial Statements for the fiscal years ended August 31, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014. You should read this information in conjunction with our Audited Consolidated Financial Statements, including the Audit Report which is dated December 31, 2018 and related notes, for the years ended August 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016 (See Item 18: “Financial Statements”), as well as Items 4 and 5 of this Annual Report (“Information on the Company” and “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects,” respectively).

Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”). The selected consolidated statement of operations data set forth below for the years ended August 31, 2018 and August 31, 2017 and the selected consolidated statement of financial position information set forth below as of August 31, 2018 and 2017 is derived from our consolidated financial statements, which have been audited by MNP LLP, Chartered Accountants, Toronto, Canada. The selected consolidated statement of operations data set forth below for the years ended August 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and the selected consolidated statement of financial position information set forth below as of August 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 is derived from our consolidated financial statements, which have been audited by Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP, Chartered Accountants, Toronto, Canada. Consolidated financial statements for fiscal years 2018, 2017, and 2016 are attached to and form a part of this Annual Report under Item 18 – Financial Statements. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected in any future period and should be read in conjunction with Item 5: “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects,” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

GROWN ROGUE INTERNATIONAL INC.

Prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”)

(STATED IN CANADIAN DOLLARS)

Except share and per share data

Exchange Rate Information

On November 30, 2018, being the last day of November 2018, the exchange rate, based on the daily buying rates, for the conversion of Canadian Dollars into United States Dollars was $0.7518.

The average exchange rates for the periods indicated below (based on the daily noon buying rate for cable transfers in New York City certified for customs purposes by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York) are as follows:

The high and low exchange rates between the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar for each of the six months ended November 30, 2018 are as follows:

B.       CAPITALIZATION AND INDEBTEDNESS

Not Applicable.

C.       REASONS FOR THE OFFER AND USE OF PROCEEDS

Not Applicable.

D.       RISK FACTORS

Our securities are highly speculative and subject to a number of risks. You should not consider an investment in our securities unless you are capable of sustaining an economic loss of the entire investment. Furthermore, if other risks not presently known to us, or that we do not currently believe to be significant, occur or become significant, our financial condition and results of operations could suffer and the trading price of our common stock could decline. In addition to the other information presented in this Annual Report, the following risk factors should be given special consideration when evaluating an investment in our securities.

INVESTING IN OUR SECURITIES INVOLVES A HIGH DEGREE OF RISK. PROSPECTIVE INVESTORS SHOULD CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE RISKS DESCRIBED BELOW, TOGETHER WITH ALL OF THE OTHER INFORMATION INCLUDED IN OR REFERRED TO IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT, BEFORE PURCHASING SHARES OF OUR SECURITIES. THERE ARE NUMEROUS AND VARIED RISKS, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, THAT MAY PREVENT US FROM ACHIEVING OUR GOALS. THE RISKS DESCRIBED BELOW ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WE WILL FACE. IF ANY OF THESE RISKS ACTUALLY OCCURS, OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL CONDITION OR RESULTS OF OPERATION MAY BE MATERIALLY ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IN SUCH CASE, THE TRADING PRICE OF OUR SECURITIES COULD DECLINE AND INVESTORS IN OUR SECURITIES COULD LOSE ALL OR PART OF THEIR INVESTMENT. THE INFORMATION IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE AS OF THE DATES REFERENCED HEREIN, BUT THE INFORMATION MAY CHANGE AFTER SUCH DATE.

SHOULD ONE OR MORE OF THE FOREGOING RISKS OR UNCERTAINTIES MATERIALIZE, OR SHOULD THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS OF OUR BUSINESS PROVE INCORRECT, ACTUAL RESULTS MAY DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THOSE ANTICIPATED, BELIEVED, ESTIMATED, EXPECTED, INTENDED OR PLANNED.

Many of the risk factors described in this Section relate to GRUS and are inapplicable to operations in existence during fiscal year 2018.

Risks Factors Relating to Our Business

GRUS’s Business is Illegal under U.S. Federal Law. The Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the medical and adult-use marijuana industry in the United States where local state law permits such activities. Producing, manufacturing, processing, possessing, distributing, selling, and using marijuana is a federal crime in the United States. The United States federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (the “Federal CSA”), which places controlled substances, including cannabis, on one of five schedules. Cannabis is currently classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, which is viewed as having a high potential for abuse and having no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas imposed by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”). Schedule I drugs are the most tightly restricted category of drugs under the Federal CSA. State and territorial laws that allow the use of medical cannabis or legalize cannabis for adult recreational use are in conflict with the Federal CSA, which makes cannabis use and possession illegal at the federal level. Because cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance, the development of a legal cannabis industry under the laws of these states is in conflict with the Federal CSA, which makes cannabis use and possession illegal on a national level. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution, and treaties made under the Constitution’s authority constitute the supreme law of the land. The Supremacy Clause provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, including Oregon and other state law legalizing certain cannabis uses, the federal law must be applied.

Until Congress amends the Federal CSA with respect to marijuana use, there is a risk that federal authorities may enforce current federal law against companies such as the Company for violation of federal law or they may seek to bring an action or actions against the Company and/or its investors for violation of federal law or otherwise, including, but not limited to, a claim against investors for aiding and abetting another’s criminal activities. The US federal aiding and abetting statute provides that anyone who commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. Additionally, even if the U.S. federal government does not prove a violation of the Federal CSA, the U.S. federal government may seize, through civil asset forfeiture proceedings, certain assets such as equipment, real estate, moneys and proceeds, or your assets as an investor in the Company, if the U.S. federal government can prove a substantial connection between these assets or your investment and marijuana distribution or cultivation.

Because many states in the United States have approved certain medical or recreational uses of cannabis, the U.S. Department of Justice, through a memorandum dated August 29, 2013 and titled “Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement” (the “Cole Memorandum”), had previously described a set of priorities for federal prosecutors operating in states that had legalized the medical or other adult use of cannabis. The Cole Memorandum represented a significant shift in U.S. federal government priorities away from strict enforcement of federal cannabis prohibition. However, the Cole Memorandum was merely a directive regarding enforcement and did not overturn or invalidate the Federal CSA or any other federal law or regulation.

The Cole Memorandum was rescinded by Jeff Sessions, the US Attorney General, in January 2018. The rescission of the Cole Memorandum, and comments made publicly by Mr. Sessions and other members of the Trump Administration, signal a significant shift by the U.S. federal government back to more strict enforcement of federal law, which is expected to have a material adverse effect, financially, operational and otherwise, on state-approved cannabis businesses, including GRUS.

In Oregon, Billy J. Williams is the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon. He is a former Multnomah County (Oregon) Deputy District Attorney, who handled major violent crimes and later served as a Chief of the Violent Crimes Unit and as the Indian Country AUSA/Tribal Liaison for the Department of Justice prior to being appointed the federal prosecutor for Oregon.

On January 4, 2018, Mr. Williams provided the below statement on marijuana enforcement in the District of Oregon: “As noted by Attorney General Sessions, today’s memo on marijuana enforcement directs all U.S. Attorneys to use the reasoned exercise of discretion when pursuing prosecutions related to marijuana crimes. We will continue working with our federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement partners to pursue shared public safety objectives, with an emphasis on stemming the overproduction of marijuana and the diversion of marijuana out of state, dismantling criminal organizations and thwarting violent crime in our communities.”

In an editorial published on January 12, 2018, Mr. Williams wrote: “In sum, I have significant concerns about the state’s current regulatory framework and the resources allocated to policing marijuana in Oregon.”

At a meeting on February 2, 2018, Mr. Williams told Oregon’s top politicians and law enforcement officials that there’s more cannabis being produced in the state than can legally be consumed. “And make no mistake about it, we’re going to do something,” Williams told dozens of politicians, tribal leaders, sheriffs as well as representatives of the FBI and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. “Here’s what I know, in terms of the landscape here in Oregon: We have an identifiable and formidable marijuana over-production and diversion problem,” Williams said. “That’s the fact. My responsibly is to work with our state partners to do something about it.”

Because marijuana is illegal under U.S. federal law, investing in a cannabis business could be found to violate the Federal CSA. As a result, individuals involved with cannabis businesses, including but not limited to, investors and lenders, may be indicted under U.S. federal law. Your investment in the Company may: (a) expose you personally to criminal liability under U.S. federal law, resulting in monetary fines and jail time; and (b) expose any real and personal property used in connection with GRUS’ business to seizure and forfeiture to the U.S. federal government.

Active enforcement of the current federal law on cannabis may thus directly and adversely affect revenues and profits of GRUS. The risk of strict enforcement of the Federal CSA remains uncertain.

Other Laws and Regulations . The industry in which GRUS operates could subject the Company and/or GRUS to comply with a myriad of other federal, state and local laws and regulations, which could include, among others, laws and regulations relating to cannabis, personally identifiable information, wage and hour restrictions, health and safety matters, consumer protection and environmental matters. Compliance with such laws and regulations may be costly and a failure to comply with such laws and regulations could result in fines, penalties, litigation and other liability that could materially adversely affect the Company.

The Company’s business and products are and will continue to be regulated by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (the “OLCC”) and other regulatory bodies as applicable laws continue to change and develop. Regulatory compliance with the OLCC and other regulatory bodies, and the process of obtaining regulatory approvals, can be costly and time-consuming. Further, the Company cannot predict what kind of regulatory requirements its business will be subject to in the future. Any delays in obtaining, or failure to obtain, regulatory approvals would significantly delay the development of markets and products and could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Local, state and U.S. federal laws and enforcement policies concerning marijuana-related conduct are changing rapidly and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Changes in applicable law are unpredictable and could have a material adverse effect on the Company. Changes in applicable laws or regulations could significantly diminish the Company’s prospects. The Company has little or no control over potential changes to laws or regulations that may affect its business, including the business of GRUS.

Additionally, governmental regulations affect taxes and levies, healthcare costs, energy usage and labor issues, all of which may have a direct or indirect effect on the Company’s business and its customers or suppliers. Changes in these laws or regulations, or the introduction of new laws or regulations, could increase the costs of doing business for the Company, or its customers or suppliers, or restrict the Company’s actions, causing the Company to be materially adversely affected.

Current and Future Consumer Protection Regulatory Requirements. The Company may manufacture and sell food and other products for human consumption which involves the risk of injury to consumers. Such injuries may result from tampering by unauthorized third parties, product contamination or spoilage, including the presence of foreign objects, substances, chemicals, other agents, or residues introduced during the growing, storage, handling or transportation phases. Even though the Company intends to grow and sell products that are safe, it has potential product liability risk from the consuming public. The Company could be party to litigation based on consumer claims, product liability or otherwise that could result in significant liability for the Company and adversely affect its financial condition and operations. Even if a product liability claim is unsuccessful or is not fully pursued, the negative publicity surrounding any assertion that the Company’s products caused illness or injury could adversely affect its reputation with existing and potential customers and its corporate and brand image.

The US Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) may now or in the future regulate the material content of the Company’s products pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (the “CPSC”), and regulates certain aspects of certain products intended for human consumption pursuant to various U.S. federal laws, including the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. The FDA and the CPSC can require the manufacturer of defective products to repurchase or recall these products and may also impose fines or penalties on the manufacturer. Similar laws exist in some states, cities and other countries in which the Company sells or intends to sell its products. In addition, certain state laws restrict the sale of packaging with certain levels of heavy metals and impose fines and penalties for noncompliance. A recall of any of the Company’s products or any fines and penalties imposed in connection with noncompliance could have a materially adverse effect on its business.

Operational Risks. The Company will be affected by a number of operational risks and it may not be adequately insured for certain risks, including: labor disputes; catastrophic accidents; fires; blockades or other acts of social activism; changes in the regulatory environment; impact of non-compliance with laws and regulations; natural phenomena, such as inclement weather conditions, floods, earthquakes and ground movements. There is no assurance that the foregoing risks and hazards will not result in damage to, or destruction of, the Company’s properties, grow facilities and extraction facilities, personal injury or death, environmental damage, adverse impacts on the Company’s operation, costs, monetary losses, potential legal liability and adverse governmental action, any of which could have an adverse impact on the Company’s future cash flows, earnings and financial condition. Also, the Company may be subject to or affected by liability or sustain loss for certain risks and hazards against which the Company cannot insure or which it may elect not to insure because of the cost. This lack of insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

No Operating History. While the Company’s principals have operated other successful cannabis companies, GRUS is recently formed and has a limited operating history and has no record of prior performance as a separate enterprise. GRUS faces the general risks associated with any new business operating in a competitive industry, including the ability to fund operations from unpredictable cash flow and capital-raising transactions. There can be no assurance that GRUS or the Company will achieve its anticipated investment objectives or operate profitably. The Company’s business must be considered in light of the risks, expenses, and problems frequently encountered by companies in their early stages of development. Specifically, such risks may include, among others:

There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in addressing these risks. To the extent it is unsuccessful in addressing these risks, the Company may be materially and adversely affected. There can be no assurance that the Company will ever achieve or sustain profitability.

The Company will not be able to deduct many normal business expenses. Under Section 280E of the US Internal Revenue Code (“Section 280E”), many normal business expenses incurred in the trafficking of marijuana and its derivatives are not deductible in calculating federal and Oregon income tax liability. A result of Section 280E is that an otherwise profitable business may in fact operate at a loss, after taking into account its income tax expenses. Although the Company has accounted for Section 280E in its financial projections and models, the application of Section 280E may have a material adverse effect on the Company.

External Factors. The Company’s business strategy includes commercial scale production and sales of cannabis. The success of this strategy is subject to numerous external factors, such as the availability of suitable land packages, the Company’s ability to attract, train and retain qualified personnel, the ability to access capital, the ability to obtain required state and local permits and licenses, the prevailing laws and regulatory environment of each jurisdiction in which the Company may operate, which are subject to change at any time, the degree of competition within the industries and markets in which the Company operates and its effect on the Company’s ability to retain existing and attract new customers. Some of these factors are beyond the Company’s control.

Failure to Manage Growth Effectively. The rapid execution necessary for the Company to successfully implement its business strategy requires an effective planning and management process. The Company anticipates significant growth and will be required to continually improve its financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures on a timely basis, and to expand, train and manage its personnel. There can be no assurance that the Company’s procedures or controls will be adequate to support operations. If the Company is unable to manage growth effectively, it could suffer a material adverse effect.

Changes in Industry Standards. The industry in which the Company operates could be subject to rapid changes, including, among others, changes in consumer requirements and preferences. There can be no assurance that the demand for any products or services offered by the Company will continue, or that the mix of the Company’s future product and service offerings will satisfy evolving consumer preferences. The success of the Company will be dependent upon its ability to develop, introduce and market products and services that respond to such changes in a timely fashion. Consumer preferences change from time to time and can be affected by a number of different and unexpected trends. The Company’s failure to anticipate, identify or react quickly to these changes and trends, and to introduce new and improved products on a timely basis, could result in reduced demand for the Company’s products, which would in turn cause a material adverse impact to the Company.

Dependence on Technology. The Company relies on information technology systems. All of these systems are dependent upon computer and telecommunications equipment, software systems and Internet access. The temporary or permanent loss of any component of these systems through hardware failures, software errors, the vulnerability of the Internet, operating malfunctions or otherwise could interrupt the Company’s business operations and materially adversely affect the Company.

Failure to Protect Intellectual Property. Because producing, manufacturing, processing, possessing, distributing, selling, and using marijuana is a crime under the Federal CSA, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will not permit the registration of any trademark that identifies marijuana products. As a result, the Company likely will be unable to protect the marijuana product trademarks beyond the geographic areas in which the Company conducts business. The use of GRUS trademarks by one or more other persons could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Even if the Company obtains federal, state or international trademark or copyright registrations for any products or services it develops, such registrations may not provide adequate protection. The Company may also rely on federal, state and international trade secret, trademark and copyright laws, as well as contractual obligations with employees and third parties, to protect intellectual property. Such laws and contracts may not provide adequate protection. Despite the efforts to protect its intellectual property, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of the Company’s products or services, or obtain and use information that the Company regards as proprietary. The Company’s efforts to protect its intellectual property from third-party discovery and infringement may be insufficient and third parties may independently develop products or services similar to the Company or duplicate their products or services. In addition, third parties may assert that the Company’s products or services infringe their intellectual property.

Vulnerability to Rising Energy Costs. The Company’s marijuana growing operations will consume considerable energy, making the Company vulnerable to rising energy costs. Rising or volatile energy costs may adversely impact the business of the Company and its ability to operate profitably. Increased energy costs would result in higher transportation, freight and other operating costs, including increases in the cost of ingredients and supplies. The Company’s future operating expenses and margins could be dependent on its ability to manage the impact of such cost increases. If energy costs increase, there is no guarantee that such costs can be fully passed along to consumers through increased prices.

Agricultural Operations. Since the Company’s business revolves mainly around the cultivation of cannabis, an agricultural product, the risks inherent with agricultural businesses will apply. Such risks may include plant and other diseases, insect pests, adverse weather (including but not limited to drought, high winds, earthquakes and/or wildfire) and growing conditions, and new government regulations regarding farming and the marketing of agricultural products, among others. There is a risk that these and other natural elements will have a material adverse effect on the production of the Company’s products, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations.

Security Risks. The business premises of GRUS are a target for theft. While the Company has implemented security measures and continues to monitor and improve its security measures, its cultivation and processing facilities could be subject to break-ins, robberies and other breaches in security. If there was a breach in security and the Company fell victim to a robbery or theft, the loss of cash, cannabis plants, cannabis oils, cannabis flowers and cultivation and processing equipment could have a material adverse impact on the business, financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Liability, Enforcement, Complaints, etc. The Company’s participation in the marijuana industry may lead to litigation, formal or informal complaints, enforcement actions, and inquiries by various federal, state, or local governmental authorities. Litigation, complaints, and enforcement actions could consume considerable amounts of financial and other corporate resources, which could have an adverse effect on the Company’s future cash flows, earnings, results of operations and financial condition.

Licenses. The Company’s success depends on its ability to obtain and maintain marijuana licenses from state and local authorities including the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (the “OLCC”). If the Company fails to obtain or maintain one or more marijuana production licenses from the OLCC or other applicable state or local government authorities, its business will be limited to Oregon’s medical marijuana market only, which may not be a viable long-term business model. The Company’s failure to obtain and maintain a marijuana license from the OLCC or other applicable state or local governmental authorities would have a material adverse effect on it.

Limited Customer Base; Oregon Retail Price Decline. The customers of the Company’s cannabis production business will be limited to other state-licensed marijuana businesses that the Company operates in, which currently is limited to Oregon. The Company currently may not sell its products to any business or person located outside Oregon. Generally, the Company will not be able to sell any of its products outside of the state of production. Consequently, the Company’s customer base is limited to the jurisdictions it operates in for any cannabis based products, which currently is only Oregon. The retail and wholesale prices in Oregon of cannabis products have declined substantially in recent months due to an imbalance between demand for the products and the supply of the products. Such price declines, if sustained, will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Local Laws and Ordinances. Although legal under Oregon state law, local governments have the ability to limit, restrict, and ban medical or recreational cannabis businesses from operating within their jurisdiction. Land use, zoning, local ordinances, and similar laws could be adopted or changed, and have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company’s contracts may be unenforceable and property may be subject to seizure. As the U.S. Federal CSA currently prohibits the production, processing and use of marijuana, contracts with third parties (suppliers, vendors, landlords, etc.) pertaining to the production, processing, or selling of marijuana-related products, including any leases for real property, may be unenforceable. In addition, if the U.S. federal government begins strict enforcement of the Federal CSA, any property (personal or real) used in connection with a marijuana-related business may be seized by and forfeited to the federal government. In this case, the Company’s inability to enforce contracts or any loss of business property (whether the Company’s or its vendors’) will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Third party service providers to the Company may withdraw or suspend their service. Because under U.S. federal law the possession, use, cultivation, and transfer of cannabis and any related drug paraphernalia is illegal, and any such acts are criminal acts under federal law, companies that provide goods and/or services to companies engaged in cannabis-related activities may, under threat of federal civil and/or criminal prosecution, suspend or withdraw their services. Any suspension of service and inability to procure goods or services from an alternative source, even on a temporary basis, that causes interruptions in the Company’s operations could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company’s business is highly regulated and it may not be issued necessary licenses, permits, and cards. The Company’s business and products are and will continue to be regulated as applicable laws continue to change and develop. Regulatory compliance and the process of obtaining regulatory approvals can be costly and time-consuming. Even if the Company obtains one or more licenses from the OLCC or other applicable state or local governmental authorities, no assurance can be given that it will receive all of the other licenses and permits that will be required to operate. Further the Company cannot predict what kind of regulatory requirements its business will be subject to in the future.

The marijuana industry faces significant opposition in the United States. It is believed by many that large well-funded businesses may have strong economic opposition to the marijuana industry. The pharmaceutical industry is well funded with a strong and experienced lobby that eclipses the funding of the medical marijuana industry. Any inroads the pharmaceutical industry could make in halting or impeding the marijuana industry could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The size of the target market is difficult to quantify. Because the cannabis industry is in an early stage with uncertain boundaries, there is a lack of information about comparable companies and, few, if any, established companies whose business model the Company can follow or upon whose success the Company can build. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Company’s estimates are accurate or that the market size is sufficiently large for its business to grow as projected, which may negatively impact its financial results.

The Company has numerous competitors. Its marijuana production business is not, by itself, unique. The Company has numerous competitors throughout Oregon and other states utilizing a substantially similar business model. Excessive competition may impact sales and may cause the Company to reduce prices. Any material reduction in prices could have a material adverse effect on the Company. We are operating in a highly competitive industry where we may compete with numerous other companies in the marijuana industry, who may have far greater resources, more experience, and personnel perhaps more qualified than we do. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully compete against these other entities. To remain competitive, we will require a continued high level of investment in research and development, marketing, sales and client support. We may not have sufficient resources to maintain research and development, marketing, sales and client support efforts on a competitive basis which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company may not be able to obtain or maintain a bank account. Because producing, manufacturing, processing, possessing, distributing, selling, and using marijuana is a crime under the Federal CSA, most banks and other financial institutions are unwilling to provide banking services to marijuana businesses due to concerns about criminal liability under the Federal CSA as well as concerns related to federal money laundering rules under the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act. In February 2014, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department issued guidance (which is not law) with respect to financial institutions providing banking services to cannabis business, including burdensome due diligence expectations and reporting requirements. This guidance does not provide any safe harbors or legal defenses from examination or regulatory or criminal enforcement actions by the DOJ, FinCEN or other federal regulators. Thus, most banks and other financial institutions do not appear to be comfortable providing banking services to cannabis-related businesses, or relying on this guidance, which can be amended or revoked at any time by the Trump Administration. In addition to the foregoing, banks may refuse to process debit card payments and credit card companies generally refuse to process credit card payments for cannabis-related businesses. As a result, many cannabis businesses still operate on an all-cash basis. Operating on an all-cash or predominantly-cash basis would make it difficult for the Company to manage its business, pay its employees and pay its taxes, and may create serious safety issues for the Company, its employees and its service providers. Although the Company currently has several bank accounts, its inability to maintain those bank accounts, or obtain and maintain other bank accounts, could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The protections of US bankruptcy law may be unavailable. As discussed above, the use of marijuana is illegal under U.S. federal law. Therefore, it may be argued that the federal bankruptcy courts cannot provide relief for parties who engage in marijuana or marijuana-related businesses. Recent bankruptcy court rulings have denied bankruptcies for dispensaries upon the justification that businesses cannot violate federal law and then claim the benefits of federal bankruptcy for the same activity. In addition, some courts have reasoned that courts cannot ask a bankruptcy trustee to take possession of and distribute marijuana assets as such action would violate the Federal CSA. Therefore, the Company may not be able to seek the protection of the bankruptcy courts for the equal protection of creditors or debtor-in-possession financing or obtain credit from federal-charted financial institutions.

The Company may have a difficult time obtaining insurance which may expose the Company to additional risk and financial liabilities. Insurance that is otherwise readily available, such as workers compensation, general liability, and directors and officers insurance, is more difficult for the Company to find, and more expensive, because it is in the cannabis industry. There are no guarantees that the Company will be able to find such insurance in the future, or that the cost will be affordable. If the Company is forced to go without such insurance, it may prevent the Company from entering into certain business sectors, may inhibit its growth, may expose the Company to additional risk and financial liabilities and could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company’s websites are accessible in jurisdictions where medicinal or recreational use of marijuana is not permitted and, as a result the Company may be found to be violating the laws of those jurisdictions. The Company’s websites, which advertise its products for use in connection with marijuana, are visible in jurisdictions where the medical and recreational use of marijuana is unlawful. As a result, the Company may face legal action brought against it by such jurisdictions for engaging in an activity illegal in that jurisdiction. Such an action could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Currency Fluctuations. Due to the Company’s operations in the United States, and its intention to continue future operations outside Canada, the Company may be exposed to significant currency fluctuations. All or substantially all of the Company’s financings will be raised in Canadian dollars, but a substantial portion of the Company’s operating expenses are incurred in US dollars. There is no expectation that the Company will put any currency hedging arrangements in place. Fluctuations in the exchange rate between the US dollar and the Canadian dollar may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and operating results. The Company may, in the future, establish a program to hedge a portion of its foreign currency exposure with the objective of minimizing the impact of adverse foreign currency exchange movements. However, even if the Company develops a hedging program, there can be no assurance that it will effectively mitigate currency risks.

Risks Associated with Acquisitions. As part of its overall business strategy, the Company may pursue select strategic acquisitions after the completion of the Transaction, which could provide additional product offerings, vertical integrations, additional industry expertise, and a stronger industry presence in both existing and new jurisdictions. Future acquisitions may expose it to potential risks, including risks associated with: (a) the integration of new operations, services and personnel; (b) unforeseen or hidden liabilities; (c) the diversion of resources from the existing business and technology; (d) potential inability to generate sufficient revenue to offset new costs; (e) the expenses of acquisitions; or (f) the potential loss of or harm to relationships with both employees and existing users resulting from its integration of new businesses. In addition, any proposed acquisitions may be subject to regulatory approval.

Environmental Risks. The Company’s operations are subject to environmental regulation in the various jurisdictions in which it operates. These regulations mandate, among other things, the maintenance of air and water quality standards and land reclamation. They also set forth limitations on the generation, transportation, storage and disposal of solid and hazardous waste. Environmental legislation is evolving in a manner which will require stricter standards and enforcement, increased fines and penalties for non-compliance, more stringent environmental assessments of proposed projects and a heightened degree of responsibility for companies and their officers, directors (or the equivalent thereof) and employees. There is no assurance that future changes in environmental regulation, if any, will not materially adversely affect the Company.

Government approvals and permits are currently, and may in the future, be required in connection with the Company’s operations. To the extent such approvals are required and not obtained, the Company may be curtailed or prohibited from its proposed production of medical marijuana or from proceeding with the development of its operations as currently proposed.

Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and permitting requirements may result in enforcement actions thereunder, including orders issued by regulatory or judicial authorities causing operations to cease or be curtailed, and may include corrective measures requiring capital expenditures, installation of additional equipment, or remedial actions. The Company may be required to compensate those suffering loss or damage by reason of its operations and may have civil or criminal fines or penalties imposed for violations of applicable laws or regulations.

Amendments to current laws, regulations and permits governing the production of marijuana, or more stringent implementation thereof, could have a material adverse impact on the Company and cause increases in expenses, capital expenditures or production costs or reduction in levels of production or require abandonment or delays in development.

Border crossing for non-U.S. residents may create additional challenges. Although cannabis use and sale is legal and regulated in numerous U.S. states, individuals who are not U.S. residents and employed or involved with licensed cannabis companies could be denied entry or face lifetime bans from the U.S. for their involvement with such companies. There has been increasing anecdotal evidence of non-U.S. residents who are involved in the cannabis industry being denied entry at the U.S. border or facing lifetime bans from the U.S. after disclosing to U.S. border officials the nature of their work. The Company’s board is made up of both U.S. and non-U.S. residents, so there is no guarantee that certain members of the Company’s board would not be subject to such denials or bans. Should a director be prevented from entering the U.S., either in one instance or permanently, his or her ability to serve the Company as a board member could be hindered. This could equally impact any other non-U.S. resident employees employed by the Company.

The Company may suffer reduced profitability if it loses foreign private issuer status in the United States. If, as of the last business day of the Company’s second fiscal quarter for any year, more than 50% of the Company’s outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly held of record by residents of the United States, the Company will no longer meet the definition of a “Foreign Private Issuer” under the rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). If the Company fails to qualify for Foreign Private Issuer status, it will remain unqualified unless it meets the test as of the last business day of its second fiscal quarter. This change in status could have a significant effect on the Company as it would significantly complicate the raising of capital through the offer and sales of securities and reporting requirements, resulting in increased audit, legal and administration costs. The loss of Foreign Private Issuer status could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

United States Tax Classification of the Company. The Company, which is and will continue to be a Canadian corporation as of the date of this Annual Report, generally would be classified as a non-United States corporation under general rules of United States federal income taxation. Section 7874 of the U.S. Tax Code, however, contains rules that can cause a non-United States corporation to be taxed as a United States corporation for United States federal income tax purposes. Under section 7874 of the U.S. Tax Code, a corporation created or organized outside the United States. (i.e., a non-United States corporation) will nevertheless be treated as a United States corporation for United States federal income tax purposes (such treatment is referred to as an “Inversion”) if each of the following three conditions are met (a) the non-United States corporation acquires, directly or indirectly, or is treated as acquiring under applicable United States Treasury Regulations, substantially all of the assets held, directly or indirectly, by a United States corporation, (b) after the acquisition, the former stockholders of the acquired United States corporation hold at least 80% (by vote or value) of the shares of the non-United States corporation by reason of holding shares of the United States acquired corporation, and (c) after the acquisition, the non-United States corporation’s expanded affiliated group does not have substantial business activities in the non- United States corporation’s country of organization or incorporation when compared to the expanded affiliated group’s total business activities (clauses (a) – (c), collectively, the “Inversion Conditions”).

For this purpose, “expanded affiliated group” means a group of corporations where (a) the non-United States corporation owns stock representing more than 50% of the vote and value of at least one member of the expanded affiliated group, and (b) stock representing more than 50% of the vote and value of each member is owned by other members of the group. The definition of an “expanded affiliated group” includes partnerships where one or more members of the expanded affiliated group own more than 50% (by vote and value) of the interests of the partnership.

The Company intends to be treated as a United States corporation for United States federal income tax purposes under Section 7874 of the U.S. Tax Code and is expected to be subject to United States federal income tax on its worldwide income. However, for Canadian tax purposes, the Company is expected, regardless of any application of Section 7874 of the U.S. Tax Code, to be treated as a Canadian resident company (as defined in the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “ITA”) for Canadian income tax purposes. As a result, the Company will be subject to taxation both in Canada and the United States which could have a material adverse effect on it.

General Risk Factors

Market Reaction. The market reaction to the Transaction and the future trading prices of our shares cannot be predicted. Following the Transaction, the price of our shares fluctuated and it may continue to fluctuate significantly due to the market’s reaction to the Transaction and general market and economic conditions. An active trading market for the shares of our common stock may never develop or, if developed, it may not be sustained.

Holding Company Status. As a result of the Transaction, the Company is currently a holding company and essentially all of its operating assets are the capital stock of its subsidiaries. As a result, investors in the Company are subject to the risks attributable to its subsidiaries. As a holding company, the Company conducts substantially all of its business through its subsidiaries, which generate substantially all of its revenues. Consequently, the Company’s cash flows and ability to complete current or desirable future enhancement opportunities are dependent on the earnings of its subsidiaries and the distribution of those earnings to the Company. The ability of these entities to pay dividends and other distributions will depend on their operating results and will be subject to applicable laws and regulations which require that solvency and capital standards be maintained by such companies and contractual restrictions contained in the instruments governing their debt or other contracts, in each case, which could limit the ability to pay such dividends or distributions, if at all. In the event of a bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization of any of the Company’s subsidiaries, holders of indebtedness and trade creditors will generally be entitled to payment of their claims from the assets of those subsidiaries before any assets are made available for distribution to Grown Rogue.

Limited Market for Securities . There can be no assurance that an active and liquid market for shares of our securities will be maintained and an investor may find it difficult to resell any of our securities.

Asset Location and Legal Proceedings. As a result of the Transaction, substantially all of the Company’s assets are located outside of Canada and many of its officers and directors, and their assets, will be resident outside of Canada. Serving process on the directors and officers may prove to be difficult or excessively time consuming. Additionally, it may be difficult to enforce a judgment obtained in Canada against the Company, its subsidiaries, and any directors and officers residing outside of Canada.

We require additional capital which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. We have accumulated significant losses and negative cash flows from operations in recent years which raises doubt as to the validity of the going concern assumption. As at August 31, 2018, we had a working capital deficit of $799,588 and an accumulated deficit of $32,201,307. We may not have sufficient funds to meet our liabilities for the ensuing twelve months as they become due. In assessing whether the going concern assumption is appropriate, we take into account all available information about the future, which is at least, but not limited to, twelve months from August 31, 2018. Our ability to continue operations and fund our liabilities may become dependent on our ability to secure additional financing and cash flow.

We have significant trade and other payables which may make it difficult to service our debts and adversely affects our ability to obtain additional financing. At August 31, 2018, we had trade and other payables in the amount of $703,306. If in the future we are unable to service our debt obligations we may, among other things, need to refinance all or a portion of our debt at an increased borrowing cost, obtain additional financing, delay capital expenditures, or sell material assets. If we are not able to re-finance our debt as necessary, obtain additional financing, or sell assets on commercially acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to satisfy our debt obligations.

We must continue to institute procedures designed to avoid potential conflicts involving our officers and directors. Some of our directors and officers are or may serve on the board of directors of other companies from time to time. Pursuant to the provisions of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario), our directors and senior officers must disclose material interests in any contract or transaction (or proposed contract or transaction) material to us. To avoid the possibility of conflicts of interest that may arise out of their fiduciary responsibilities to each of the boards, all such directors have agreed to abstain from voting with respect to a conflict of interest between the applicable companies. In appropriate cases, we will establish a special committee of independent directors to review a matter in which several directors, or members of management, may have a conflict.

We rely on the expertise of certain persons and must ensure that these relationships are developed and maintained. We are dependent on the advice and project management skills of various consultants and joint venture partners contracted by us from time to time. Our failure to develop and maintain relationships with qualified consultants and joint venture partners will have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results.

We must indemnify our officers and directors against certain actions. Our articles contain provisions that state that we must indemnify every director or officer, subject to the limitations of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario), against all losses or liabilities that our directors or officers may sustain or incur in the execution of their duties and subject to other applicable law. Our articles further state that no director or officer will be liable for any loss, damage, or misfortune that may happen to, or be incurred by us in the execution of his duties if he acted honestly and in good faith with a view to our best interests. Such limitations on liability may reduce the likelihood of litigation against our officers and directors and may discourage or deter our shareholders from suing our officers and directors based upon breaches of their duties to us, though such an action, if successful, might otherwise benefit us and our shareholders.

Risks Factors Relating to Our Securities

Possible volatility of price of shares of our securities. The market price for our securities may be volatile and is subject to significant fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including the liquidity of the market for our securities, variations in our quarterly operating results, regulatory or other changes in the cannabis industry generally, announcements of business developments by us or our competitors, litigation, changes in operating costs and variations in general market conditions. Because we have a limited operating history in the cannabis industry, the market price for our securities may be more volatile than that of a seasoned issuer. Changes in the market price of our securities may have no connection with our operating results. No predictions or projections can be made as to what the prevailing market price for our securities will be at any time.

Our investors may have difficulty selling our securities as there is a limited public trading market for such securities. An investor in the Company may find it difficult to resell our securities. There is only a limited public market for our securities, and no assurance can be given that a broad or active public trading market will develop in the future or, if developed, that it will be sustained. Our common stock trades on the OTC Markets QB and the Canadian Securities Exchange. Our common stock has not been qualified under any applicable U.S. state blue-sky laws, and we are under no obligation to so qualify or register our common stock, or otherwise take action to improve the public market for such securities. Our common stock could have limited marketability due to the following factors, each of which could impair the timing, value and market for such securities: (a) lack of profits; (b) need for additional capital; (c) limited public market for such securities; (d) the applicability of certain resale requirements under the Securities Act; and (e) applicable blue sky laws and the other factors discussed in this Risk Factors section.

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

Our shareholders may experience dilution of their ownership interests because of our future issuance of additional shares of common stock. Our organizational and corporate documents authorize the issuance of an unlimited number of shares of common stock, without par value. In the event that we are required to issue additional shares of common stock or securities exercisable for or convertible into additional shares of common stock, enter into private placements to raise financing through the sale of equity securities, the interests of our existing shareholders will be diluted and existing shareholders may suffer dilution in their net book value per share depending on the price at which such securities are sold. If we do issue additional shares, it will cause a reduction in the proportionate ownership and voting power of all existing shareholders. As of November 30, 2018, we had outstanding the following common share purchase warrants: 21,253,089 warrants exercisable at $0.55 per share, 114,656 warrants exercisable at $4.90 per share, 16,883 warrants exercisable at $17.50 per share, 17,183 warrants exercisable at $14.00 per share and 757,125 broker warrants exercisable at $0.55 per share. As of November 30, 2018, we had no share purchase options outstanding. (See Item 5: “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects – Share Capital and Reserves and Derivative Liabilities” and Item 4.A “History and Development of the Company”).

Applicable SEC rules governing the trading of “penny stocks” will limit the trading and liquidity of our common stock and may affect the trade price for our common stock. The SEC has adopted rules which generally define “penny stock” to be any equity security that has a market price (as defined) of less than US$5.00 per share or an exercise price of less than US$5.00 per share, subject to certain exceptions. Our securities will be covered by the penny stock rules, which impose additional sales practice requirements on broker-dealers who sell to persons other than established customers and “accredited investors”. The term “accredited investor” refers generally to institutions with assets in excess of US$5,000,000 or individuals with a net worth in excess of US$1,000,000 or annual income exceeding US$200,000 or US$300,000 jointly with their spouse.

The penny stock rules require a broker-dealer, prior to a transaction in a penny stock not otherwise exempt from the rules, to deliver a standardized risk disclosure document in a form prepared by the SEC which provides information about penny stocks and the nature and level of risks in the penny stock market. The broker-dealer also must provide the customer with current bid and offer quotations for the penny stock, the compensation of the broker-dealer and its salesperson in the transaction and monthly account statements showing the market value of each penny stock held in the customer’s account. The bid and offer quotations, and the broker-dealer and salesperson compensation information, must be given to the customer orally or in writing prior to effecting the transaction and must be given to the customer in writing before or with the customer’s confirmation.

In addition, the penny stock rules require that prior to a transaction in a penny stock not otherwise exempt from these rules, the broker-dealer must make a special written determination that the penny stock is a suitable investment for the purchaser and receive the purchaser’s written agreement to the transaction. These disclosure requirements may have the effect of reducing the level of trading activity in the secondary market for the shares that are subject to these penny stock rules. Consequently, these penny stock rules may affect the ability of broker-dealers to trade our securities. We expect that the penny stock rules will discourage investor interest in and limit the marketability of shares of our common stock.

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

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

As a public company we are subject to complex legal and accounting requirements that will require us to incur significant expenses and will expose us to risk of non-compliance. As a public company, we are subject to numerous legal and accounting requirements in both Canada and the United States of America that do not apply to private companies. The cost of compliance with many of these requirements is material, not only in absolute terms but, more importantly, in relation to the overall scope of the operations of a small company. Our relative inexperience with these requirements may increase the cost of compliance and may also increase the risk that we will fail to comply. Failure to comply with these requirements can have numerous adverse consequences including, but not limited to, our inability to file required periodic reports on a timely basis, loss of market confidence, delisting of our securities, and/or governmental or private actions against us. We cannot assure you that we will be able to comply with all of these requirements or that the cost of such compliance will not prove to be a substantial competitive disadvantage compared to privately held and larger public competitors.

Compliance with changing regulation of corporate governance and public disclosure will result in additional expenses and pose challenges for our management. Changing laws, regulations, and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and SEC regulations, have created uncertainty for public companies and significantly increased the costs and risks associated with accessing the U.S. public markets. Our management team needs to devote significant time and financial resources to comply with both existing and evolving standards for public companies, which will lead to increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue generating activities to compliance activities.

Changes in tax laws or tax rulings could materially affect our financial position and results of operations. Changes in tax laws or tax rulings could materially affect our financial position and results of operations. Due to the large and expanding scale of our international business activities, certain changes in the taxation of business activities may increase our worldwide effective tax rate and harm our financial position and results of operations.

Because we are quoted on the OTCQB instead of a national securities exchange in the United States, our U.S. investors may have more difficulty selling their stock or experience negative volatility on the market price of our stock in the United States. In the United States, shares of our common stock are quoted on the OTCQB. The OTCQB is marketed as an electronic exchange for high growth and early stage U.S. companies and a prospective “final step toward a NASDAQ or NYSE listing” (although no assurances can be provided that such change of market shall occur). Trades are settled and cleared in the U.S. similar to any NASDAQ or NYSE stock and trade reports are disseminated through Yahoo, Bloomberg, Reuters, and most other financial data providers. The OTCQB may be significantly illiquid, in part because it does not have a national quotation system by which potential investors can follow the market price of shares except through information received and generated by a limited number of broker-dealers that make markets in particular stocks. There is a greater chance of volatility for securities that trade on the OTCQB as compared to a national securities exchange in the United States, such as the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Stock Market or the NYSE Amex. This volatility may be caused by a variety of factors, including the lack of readily available price quotations, the absence of consistent administrative supervision of bid and ask quotations, lower trading volume, and market conditions. U.S. investors in shares of our common stock may experience high fluctuations in the market price and volume of the trading market for our securities. These fluctuations, when they occur, have a negative effect on the market price for shares of our common stock. Accordingly, our U.S. shareholders may not be able to realize a fair price from their shares when they determine to sell them or may have to hold them for a substantial period of time until the market for shares of our common stock improves.

Volatility in our common share price may subject us to securities litigation, thereby diverting our resources that may have a material effect on our profitability and results of operations. The market for shares of our common stock is characterized by significant price volatility when compared to seasoned issuers, and we expect that our share price will continue to be more volatile than a seasoned issuer for the indefinite future. In the past, plaintiffs have often initiated securities class action litigation against a company following periods of volatility in the market price of its securities. We may in the future be the target of similar litigation. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and could divert management’s attention and resources.

Rule 144 sales in the future may have a depressive effect on the price of shares of our common stock as an increase in supply of shares for sale, with no corresponding increase in demand may cause prices to fall. All of the outstanding shares of common stock held by the present officers, directors, and affiliate stockholders are “restricted securities” within the meaning of Rule 144 under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act of 1933”), as amended. As restricted shares, these shares may be resold in the U.S. only pursuant to an effective registration statement or under the requirements of Rule 144 or other applicable exemptions from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 and as required under applicable state securities laws. Rule 144 provides in essence that a person who is an affiliate or officer or director who has held restricted securities for six months may, under certain conditions, sell every three months, in brokerage transactions, a number of shares that does not exceed the greater of 1.0% of the Company’s issued and outstanding common stock or the average of the four-week trading volume. There is no limit on the amount of restricted securities that may be sold by a non-affiliate after the owner has held the restricted securities for a period of six months if the Company is a current reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A sale under Rule 144 or under any other exemption from the Securities Act of 1933, if available, or pursuant to subsequent registration of shares of common stock of present stockholders, may have a depressive effect upon the price of the common stock in any market that may develop. In addition, if we are deemed a shell company pursuant to Section 12(b)-2 of the Act, our “restricted securities”, whether held by affiliates or non-affiliates, may not be re-sold for a period of 12 months following the filing of a Form 10 level disclosure or registration pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933.

Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) could have a material adverse effect on our business and our operating results. If we fail to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act regarding internal control over financial reporting or to remedy any material weaknesses in our internal controls that we may identify, such failure could result in material misstatements in our financial statements, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, and have a negative effect on the trading price of our securities.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and current SEC regulations, we are required to prepare assessments regarding internal controls over financial reporting. In connection with our on-going assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, we may discover “material weaknesses” in our internal controls as defined in standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or the PCAOB. 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. The PCAOB defines “significant deficiency” as a deficiency that results in more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected. In the event that a material weakness is identified, we will employ qualified personnel and adopt and implement policies and procedures to address any material weaknesses that we identify. However, the process of designing and implementing effective internal controls is a continuous effort that requires us to anticipate and react to changes in our business and the economic and regulatory environments and to expend significant resources to maintain a system of internal controls that is adequate to satisfy our reporting obligations as a public company. We cannot assure you that the measures we will take will remediate any material weaknesses that we may identify or that we will implement and maintain adequate controls over our financial process and reporting in the future.

A failure to remediate any material weaknesses that we may identify or to implement new controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our operating results, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations, or result in material misstatements in our financial statements. Any such failure could adversely affect the results of the management evaluations of our internal controls. Inadequate internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our securities.