ACMB Agro Capital Management Corporation (PK)

RISK FACTORS

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Prospective investors should carefully consider the risks described below, together with all of the other information included or referred to in this prospectus, before purchasing shares of our common stock. There are numerous and varied risks that may prevent us from achieving our goals. If any of these risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition or results of operations may be materially adversely affected. In such case, the trading price of our common stock could decline and investors in our common stock could lose all or part of their investment.

Risks Related to Our Company

Since we have a limited operating history in our industry, it is difficult for potential investors to evaluate our business.

Our short operating history makes it difficult for potential investors to evaluate our business or prospective operations. As an early stage company, we are subject to all the risks inherent in the financing, expenditures, operations, complications and delays inherent in a new business. Accordingly, our business and success face risks from uncertainties faced by developing companies in a competitive environment. There can be no assurance that our efforts will be successful or that we will ultimately be able to attain profitability.

We have a history of operating losses, have a going concern opinion from our auditors and may need additional financing to meet our future long-term capital requirements.

We have a history of losses, have a going concern opinion from our auditors and may continue to incur operating and net losses for the foreseeable future. As of December 31, 2020, we had a working capital deficit of $3,288,885, and stockholders’ deficit of $ $3,288,885. We incurred a net loss of $4,005,738 for the year ended December 31, 2019. For the nine months ended September 30, 2021, we incurred a net loss of $221,595 and a stockholders’ deficit of $510,480. We have not achieved sustainable profitability on an annual basis. We may not be able to reach a level of revenue to achieve profitability. If our revenues grow slower than anticipated, or if operating expenses exceed expectations, then we may not be able to achieve profitability in the near future or at all, which may depress our stock price and cause our stockholders to lose some or all of their investment in our Company.

If we do not begin to generate significant revenues, we will still need to raise additional capital to meet our long-term business requirements. Any such capital raising may be costly or difficult to obtain and would likely dilute current stockholders’ ownership interests. If we are unable to secure additional financing in the future, we will not be able to continue as a going concern.

If we do not begin to generate significant revenues from our operations we will need additional capital, which may not be available on reasonable terms or at all. The raising of additional capital will dilute current stockholders’ ownership interests. We may need to raise additional funds through public or private debt or equity financings to meet various objectives including, but not limited to:

Any additional capital raised through the sale of equity or equity-linked securities may dilute current stockholders’ ownership percentages and could also result in a decrease in the fair market value of our equity securities because our assets would be owned by a larger pool of outstanding equity. The terms of those securities issued by us in future capital transactions may be more favorable to new investors, and may include preferences, superior voting rights and the issuance of warrants or other derivative securities, which may have a further dilutive effect that is different from or in addition to that reflected in the capitalization described in this report.

Further, any additional debt or equity financing that we may need may not be available on terms favorable to us, or at all. If we are unable to obtain required additional capital, we may have to curtail our growth plans or cut back on existing business and we may not be able to continue operating if we do not generate sufficient revenues from operations needed to stay in business.

We may incur substantial costs in pursuing future capital financing, including investment banking fees, legal fees, accounting fees, securities law compliance fees and other costs. We may also be required to recognize non-cash expenses in connection with certain securities we issue, such as convertible notes and warrants, which may adversely impact our financial condition.

We may acquire other assets or businesses, or form collaborations or make investments in other companies or technologies that could harm our operating results, dilute our stockholders’ ownership, increase our debt or cause us to incur significant expense.

As part of our business strategy, we may pursue acquisitions of businesses and assets or enter into strategic alliances and collaborations, to initiate and then expand our operations. We may not identify or complete these transactions in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis, or at all, and we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any such transaction, any of which could have a detrimental effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We have limited experience with acquiring other companies and assets and limited experience with forming strategic alliances and collaborations. We may not be able to find suitable acquisition candidates, and if we make any acquisitions, we may not be able to integrate these acquisitions successfully into our existing business and we may incur additional debt or assume unknown or contingent liabilities in connection therewith. Integration of an acquired company or assets may also disrupt ongoing operations, require the hiring of additional personnel and the implementation of additional internal systems and infrastructure, especially the acquisition of commercial assets, and require management resources that would otherwise focus on developing our existing business. We may not be able to find suitable strategic alliance or collaboration partners or identify other investment opportunities, and we may experience losses related to any such investments.

To finance any acquisitions or collaborations, we may choose to issue debt or equity securities as consideration. Any such issuance of securities would dilute the ownership of our stockholders. If the price of our Common Stock is low or volatile, we may not be able to acquire other assets or companies or fund a transaction using our stock as consideration. Alternatively, it may be necessary for us to raise additional funds for acquisitions through public or private financings. Additional funds may not be available on terms that are favorable to us, or at all.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain our CEO and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

Our future business and results of operations depend in significant part upon the continued contributions of our CEO. If we lose his service or if he fails to perform in his current position, or if we are not able to attract and retain skilled personnel as needed, our business could suffer.

Because we do not have an audit or compensation committee, shareholders will have to rely on the entire Board of Directors to perform these functions.

We do not have an audit or compensation committee comprised of independent directors. Indeed, we do not have any audit or compensation committee. These functions are performed by the Board of Directors as a whole. Thus, there is a potential conflict in that board members who are also part of management will participate in discussions concerning management compensation and audit issues that may affect management decisions.

We expect to face intense competition, often from companies with greater resources and experience than we have.

To acquire qualified companies, we are likely to face competition from companies that have substantially greater financial, technological, managerial and research and development resources and experience than we have. In addition, if we are successful in closing our acquisition of one or more target companies, these acquired companies are likely to face competition for their service and product offerings from large and well-established companies that have greater marketing and sales experience and capabilities than we have. If we are unable to compete successfully, we may be unable to grow, sustain our revenue or be successful in achieving our business plan.

Current global financial conditions have been characterized by increased volatility which could negatively impact our business, prospects, liquidity and financial condition.

Current global financial conditions and recent market events have been characterized by increased volatility and the resulting tightening of the credit and capital markets has reduced the amount of available liquidity and overall economic activity. We cannot guaranty that debt or equity financing, the ability to borrow funds or cash generated by operations will be available or sufficient to meet or satisfy our initiatives, objectives or requirements. Our inability to access sufficient amounts of capital on terms acceptable to us for our operations will negatively impact our business, prospects, liquidity and financial condition.

We are growing the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing any growth we may achieve.

As of the date of this Offering Circular, we have one full-time employee. As our acquisition plans proceed and development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to need additional development, managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial, accounting, legal, and other resources. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management. Our management may not be able to accommodate those added responsibilities, and our failure to do so could prevent us from effectively managing future growth, if any, and successfully growing our Company.

Our potential for rapid growth and our entry into new markets make it difficult for us to evaluate our current and future business prospects, and we may be unable to effectively manage any growth associated with these new markets, which may increase the risk of your investment and could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

Our entry into new markets as we acquire new businesses may place a significant strain on our resources and increase demands on our executive management, personnel and systems, and our operational, administrative and financial resources may be inadequate. We may also not be able to effectively manage any expanded operations or achieve planned growth on a timely or profitable basis, particularly if the number of customers using our technology significantly increases or their demands and needs change as our business expands. If we are unable to manage expanded operations effectively, we may experience operating inefficiencies, the quality of our products and services could deteriorate, and our business and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

If we are unable to develop and maintain our brand and reputation for our service and product offerings, our business and prospects could be materially harmed.

Our business and prospects depend, in part, on developing and then maintaining and strengthening our brand and reputation in the markets we will serve for the companies we acquire. If problems arise with our future products or services, our brand and reputation could be diminished. If we fail to develop, promote and maintain our brand and reputation successfully, our business and prospects could be materially harmed.

We may not maintain sufficient insurance coverage for the risks associated with our future business operations.

Risks associated with our prospective businesses and operations include, but are not limited to, theft of property through break-ins, claims for wrongful acts committed by our officers, directors, and other representatives, the loss of intellectual property rights, the loss of key personnel, risks posed by natural disasters and risks of lawsuits from customers who are injured from or dissatisfied with our services. Any of these risks may result in significant losses. We suffered a significant loss of product and cash during the George Floyd protests in June 2020 near our Oakland facility when there were insufficient police to respond to our theft alarms and have upgraded our building infrastructure with stronger doors, larger safes and a faster moving security gate to make entry more difficult and also have added armed private security guards to augment our offsite monitoring and alarm system. We cannot provide any assurance that our insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover any such losses that we may sustain, or that we will be able to successfully claim our losses under our insurance policies on a timely basis or at all. If we incur any loss not covered by our insurance policies, or the compensated amount is significantly less than our actual loss or is not timely paid, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Any failure to protect our future intellectual property rights could impair our ability to protect our technology and our brand.

Our success depends in part on our ability to enforce our intellectual property and other proprietary rights of the companies we expect to acquire. We expect to rely upon a combination of trademark and trade secret laws, as well as license and other contractual provisions, to protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights. These laws, procedures and restrictions provide only limited protection and any of our intellectual property rights may be challenged, invalidated, circumvented, infringed or misappropriated. To the extent that our intellectual property and other proprietary rights are not adequately protected, third parties may gain access to our proprietary information, develop and market solutions similar to ours or use trademarks similar to ours, each of which could materially harm our business. The failure to adequately protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The impact of epidemics or pandemics may limit our future business both from the demand and supply sides. Our sale people may not be able to effectively engage with customers due to restrictions on travel, conferences and in-person meetings. Our supply chain may be impacted by production and distribution delays. Due to these factors we may limit future operations to reduce expenses until events support and allow normal business procedures.

Our future acquired businesses and/or operations and the businesses of our potential customers could be materially and adversely affected by the risks, or the public perception of the risks, related to a pandemic or other health crisis, such as the recent outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).

The growth of the businesses we acquire may, in part, be reliant on the willingness of customers to invest in their products and solutions. The risk, or public perception of the risk, of a pandemic or media coverage of infectious diseases could cause customers to avoid purchases which would delay sales of those products and solutions.

In addition, since we source raw materials used in our products from various U.S. suppliers, the impact of COVID-19 on these suppliers, or any of our other suppliers, distributors and resellers, or transportation or logistics providers, may negatively affect the price and availability of our ingredients and/or packaging materials and impact our supply chain. If the disruptions caused by COVID-19 continue for an extended period of time, our ability to meet the demands of our consumers may be materially impacted. To date, we have not experienced any reduction in the available supply of our products. Additionally, many of our employees, including members of our management team, have been working remotely as a result of the closure of our offices and warehouses in compliance with local and state regulations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If our operations or productivity become, or continue to be, impacted throughout the duration of the COVID-19 outbreak and government-mandated closures, those occurrences may negatively impact our business, financial condition, and cash flow. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic will further impact our business will depend on future developments and, given the uncertainty around the extent and timing of the potential future spread or mitigation and around the imposition or relaxation of protective measures, we cannot reasonably estimate the impact to our business at this time.

Risks Related to the Cannabis Industry

Cannabis continues to be a Controlled Substance under the United States Federal Controlled Substances Act and our business may result in federal civil or criminal prosecution.

We are directly engaged in the medical and adult-use cannabis industry in the United States where local state law permits such activities however all such activities remain illegal under federal law. Investors are cautioned that cannabis is highly regulated at the state level. To our knowledge, there are to date 37 states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories that have legalized medical cannabis in some form, including Nevada, although not all states have fully implemented their legalization programs. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for adult use. Additional states have legalized high-cannabidiol (“CBD”), low Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) oils for a limited class of patients. Notwithstanding the permissive regulatory environment of cannabis at the state level, cannabis continues to be categorized as a Schedule I controlled substance under the U.S. Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (codified in 21 U.S.C.A. Section 812) (the “Controlled Substances Act”). Under federal law, a Schedule I drug is considered to have a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for the use of the substance under medical supervision. Federal law prohibits commercial production and sale of all Schedule I controlled substances, and as such, cannabis-related activities, including without limitation, the importation, cultivation, manufacture, distribution, sale and possession of cannabis remain illegal under federal law. It is also illegal to aid or abet such activities or to conspire or attempt to engage in such activities. Strict compliance with state and local laws with respect to cannabis may neither absolve us of liability under U.S. federal law, nor provide a defense to any federal proceeding brought against us. An investor’s contribution to and involvement in such activities may result in federal civil and/or criminal prosecution, including, but not limited to, forfeiture of his, her or its entire investment, fines and/or imprisonment.

An appropriations rider contained in the fiscal year 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides budgetary constraints on the federal government’s ability to interfere with the implementation of state-based medical cannabis laws. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts have interpreted the language to mean that the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) cannot expend funds to prosecute state-law-abiding medical cannabis operators complying strictly with state medical cannabis laws. The Amendment prohibits the federal government from using congressionally appropriated funds to prevent states from implementing their own medical cannabis laws. The Rohrabacher Amendment was renewed for fiscal year 2022 and it shall remain valid through September 30, 2022. Continued reauthorization of the Amendment is predicated on future political developments and cannot be guaranteed. If the Amendment expires, federal prosecutors could prosecute even state-compliant medical cannabis operators for conduct within the five-year statute of limitations. The Amendment does not protect state legal adult-use cannabis businesses and the DOJ may spend funds to prosecute persons that are operating in accordance with state adult use cannabis laws.

Violations of any federal laws and regulations could result in significant fines, penalties, administrative sanctions, convictions or settlements arising from civil proceedings conducted by either the federal government or private citizens, or criminal charges and penalties, including, but not limited to, disgorgement of profits, cessation of business activities, divestiture, or prison time. This could have a material adverse effect on us, including our reputation and ability to conduct business, our holding (directly or indirectly) of medical and adult-use cannabis licenses throughout the United States, our financial position, operating results, profitability or liquidity or the market price of our publicly traded shares. In addition, it is difficult for us to estimate the time or resources that would be needed for the investigation or defense of any such matters or our final resolution because, in part, the time and resources that may be needed are dependent on the nature and extent of any information requested by the applicable authorities involved, and such time or resources could be substantial.

The approach to the enforcement of cannabis laws may be subject to change, which creates uncertainty for our business.

As a result of the conflicting views between state legislatures and the federal government regarding cannabis, investments in, and the operations of, cannabis businesses in the United States are subject to inconsistent laws and regulations. The so-called “Cole Memorandum” issued by former Deputy Attorney General James Cole on August 29, 2013 and other Obama-era cannabis policy guidance, discussed below, provided the framework for managing the tension between federal and state cannabis laws. Subsequently, as discussed below, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memo and related policy guidance. Although no longer in effect, these policies, and the enforcement priorities established within, appear to continue to be followed during the Biden administration and remain critical factors that inform the past and future trend of state-based legalization.

The Cole Memo directed U.S. Attorneys not to prioritize the enforcement of federal cannabis laws against individuals and businesses that comply with state medical or adult-use cannabis regulatory programs, provided certain enumerated enforcement priorities (such as diversion or sale of cannabis to minors) were not implicated. In addition to general prosecutorial guidance issued by the DOJ, FinCEN issued a the FinCEN Memorandum on February 14, 2014 outlining Bank Secrecy Act-compliant pathways for financial institutions to service state-sanctioned cannabis businesses, which echoed the enforcement priorities outlined in the Cole Memorandum. On the same day the FinCEN Memorandum was published, the DOJ issued complimentary policy guidance directing prosecutors to apply the enforcement priorities of the Cole Memo when determining whether to prosecute individuals or institutions with crimes related to financial transactions involving the proceeds of cannabis-related activities.

On January 4, 2018, the then Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memo, the Cole Banking Memorandum, and all other related Obama-era DOJ cannabis enforcement guidance. While the rescission did not change federal law, as the Cole Memo and other DOJ guidance documents were not themselves laws, the rescission removed the DOJ’s formal policy that state-regulated cannabis businesses in compliance with the Cole Memo guidelines should not be a prosecutorial priority. Notably, former Attorney General Sessions’ rescission of the Cole Memo and the Cole Banking Memorandum has not affected the status of the FinCEN Memorandum issued by the Department of Treasury, which remains in effect. In addition to his rescission of the Cole Memo, former Attorney General Sessions issued a one-page memorandum known as the “Sessions Memorandum.” The Sessions Memorandum explains the DOJ’s rationale for rescinding all past DOJ cannabis enforcement guidance, claiming that Obama-era enforcement policies are “unnecessary” due to existing general enforcement guidance adopted in the 1980s, in chapter 9.27.230 of the U.S. Attorney’s Manual (the “USAM”). The USAM enforcement priorities, like those of the Cole Memo, are based on the use of the federal government’s limited resources and include “law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General,” the “seriousness” of the alleged crimes, the “deterrent effect of criminal prosecution,” and “the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.” Although the Sessions Memorandum emphasizes that cannabis is a federally illegal Schedule I controlled substance, it does not otherwise instruct U.S. Attorneys to consider the prosecution of cannabis-related offenses a DOJ priority, and in practice, most U.S. Attorneys have not changed their prosecutorial approach to date. However, due to the lack of specific direction in the Sessions Memorandum as to the priority federal prosecutors should ascribe to such cannabis activities and the lack of additional guidance since the resignation of former Attorney General Sessions, there can be no assurance that the federal government will not seek to prosecute cases involving cannabis businesses that are otherwise compliant with state law.

William Barr served as United States Attorney General from February 14, 2019 to December 23, 2020. The DOJ under Mr. Barr did not take a formal position on federal enforcement of laws relating to cannabis. United States President Biden appointed Merrick Garland to succeed Mr. Barr as the U.S. Attorney General. It is unclear what impact, if any, the new administration will have on U.S. federal government enforcement policy on cannabis.

Such potential proceedings could involve significant restrictions being imposed upon us or third parties, while diverting the attention of key executives. Such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, revenues, operating results and financial condition as well as our reputation and prospects, even if such proceedings were concluded successfully in our favor. In the extreme case, such proceedings could ultimately involve the criminal prosecution of our key executives, the seizure of our corporate assets, and consequently, our inability to continue our business operations. Strict compliance with state and local laws with respect to cannabis does not absolve us of potential liability under federal law, nor provide a defense to any federal proceeding which may be brought against us. Any such proceedings brought against us may adversely affect our operations and financial performance.

Uncertainty surrounding existing protection from federal prosecution may adversely affect our operations and financial performance.

Pursuant to the Amendment, until such time as it is not renewed or expires of its own accord, the DOJ is prohibited from expending any funds to prevent states from implementing their own medical cannabis laws. If the Amendment or an equivalent thereof is not successfully included in the next or any subsequent federal omnibus spending bill, the protection which has been afforded thereby to our medical cannabis businesses in the past would lapse, and such businesses would be subject to a higher risk of prosecution under federal law. Although unlikely, there is a possibility that all amendments may be banned from federal omnibus spending bills, and if this occurs and the substantive provisions of the Amendment are not included in the base federal omnibus spending bill or other law, these protections would lapse. To the extent the Amendment is included in a continuing resolution, the protections of the Amendment would lapse if Congress does not reauthorize the resolution or pass another funding measure that includes the Amendment.

We may be in violation of anti-money laundering laws and regulations which could impact our ability to obtain banking services, result in the forfeiture or seizure of our assets and could require us to suspend or cease operations.

We are subject to a variety of domestic federal laws and regulations that involve money laundering, financial recordkeeping and proceeds of crime, including the Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by Title III of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) and the rules and regulations thereunder. Since the manufacture, distribution and sale of cannabis remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, banks and other financial institutions providing services to cannabis-related businesses risk violation of federal anti-money laundering statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957), the unlicensed money-remitter statute (18 U.S.C. § 1960) and the Bank Secrecy Act, among other applicable federal statutes. Banks or other financial institutions that provide cannabis businesses with financial services such as a checking account or credit card in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act could be criminally prosecuted for willful violations of money laundering statutes, in addition to being subject to other criminal, civil, and regulatory enforcement actions. Banks often refuse to provide banking services to businesses involved in the cannabis industry due to the present state of the laws and regulations governing U.S. financial institutions. The lack of banking and financial services presents unique and significant challenges to businesses in the cannabis industry. The potential lack of a secure place in which to deposit and store cash, the inability to pay creditors through the issuance of checks and the inability to secure traditional forms of operational financing, such as lines of credit, are some of the many challenges presented by the unavailability of traditional banking and financial services. These statutes can impose criminal liability for engaging in certain financial and monetary transactions with the proceeds of a “specified unlawful activity” such as distributing controlled substances which are illegal under federal law, including cannabis, and for failing to identify or report financial transactions that involve the proceeds of cannabis-related violations of the Controlled Substances Act. We may also be exposed to the foregoing risks.

As previously introduced, in February 2014, FinCEN issued the FinCEN Memo providing instructions to banks seeking to provide services to cannabis-related businesses. The FinCEN Memo states that in some circumstances, it is permissible for banks to provide services to cannabis-related businesses without risking prosecution for violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. It refers to supplementary guidance that former Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole issued to federal prosecutors relating to the prosecution of money laundering offenses predicated on cannabis-related violations of the Controlled Substances Act. Although the FinCEN Memo remains in effect today, it is unclear at this time whether the current administration will follow the guidelines of the FinCEN Memo. Overall, the DOJ continues to have the right and power to prosecute crimes committed by banks and financial institutions, such as money laundering and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, that occur in any state, including in states that have legalized the applicable conduct and the DOJ’s current enforcement priorities could change for any number of reasons. A change in the DOJ’s enforcement priorities could result in the DOJ prosecuting banks and financial institutions for crimes that previously were not prosecuted. If we do not have access to the U.S. banking system, our business and operations could be adversely affected.

Other potential violations of federal law resulting from cannabis-related activities include the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). RICO is a federal statute providing criminal penalties in addition to a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. Under RICO, it is unlawful for any person who has received income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity, to use or invest any of that income in the acquisition of any interest, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in interstate commerce. RICO also authorizes private parties whose properties or businesses are harmed by such patterns of racketeering activity to initiate a civil action against the individuals involved. Although RICO suits against the cannabis industry are rare, a few cannabis businesses have been subject to a civil RICO action. Defending such a case has proven extremely costly, and potentially fatal to a business’ operations.

In the event that any of our operations, or any proceeds thereof, any dividends or distributions therefrom, or any profits or revenues accruing from such operations in the United States were found to be in violation of money laundering legislation or otherwise, such transactions may be viewed as proceeds of crime under one or more of the statutes noted above or any other applicable legislation. This could restrict or otherwise jeopardize our ability to declare or pay dividends, effect other distributions and subject us to civil and/or criminal penalties. Furthermore, while there are no current intentions to declare or pay dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future, in the event that a determination was made that our proceeds from operations (or any future operations or investments) could reasonably be shown to constitute proceeds of crime, we may decide or be required to suspend declaring or paying dividends without advance notice and for an indefinite period of time. We could likewise be required to suspend or cease operations entirely.

We may become subject to federal and state forfeiture laws which could negatively impact our business operations.

Violations of any federal laws and regulations could result in significant fines, penalties, administrative sanctions, convictions or settlements arising from civil proceedings conducted by either the federal government or private citizens, or criminal charges, including, but not limited to, seizure of assets, disgorgement of profits, cessation of business activities or divestiture. As an entity that conducts business in the cannabis industry, we are potentially subject to federal and state forfeiture laws (criminal and civil) that permit the government to seize the proceeds of criminal activity. Civil forfeiture laws could provide an alternative for the federal government or any state (or local police force) that wants to discourage residents from conducting transactions with cannabis related businesses but believes criminal liability is too difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, an individual can be required to forfeit property considered to be the proceeds of a crime even if the individual is not convicted of the crime, and the standard of proof in a civil forfeiture matter is lower than the standard in a criminal matter. Depending on the applicable law, whether federal or state, rather than having to establish liability beyond a reasonable doubt, the Federal Government or the state, as applicable, may be required to prove that the money or property at issue is proceeds of a crime only by either clear and convincing evidence or a mere preponderance of the evidence.

Investors located in states where cannabis remains illegal may be at risk of prosecution under federal and/or state conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and money laundering statutes, and be at further risk of losing their investments or proceeds under forfeiture statutes. Many states remain fully able to take action to prevent the proceeds of cannabis businesses from entering their state. Because state legalization is relatively new, it remains to be seen whether these states would take such action and whether a court would approve it. Investors and prospective investors of the Company should be aware of these potentially relevant federal and state laws in considering whether to invest in the Company.

We are subject to certain tax risks and treatments that could negatively impact our results of operations.

Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, prohibits businesses from deducting certain expenses associated with trafficking controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act). The IRS has invoked Section 280E in tax audits against various cannabis businesses in the U.S. that are permitted under applicable state laws. Although the IRS issued a clarification allowing the deduction of certain expenses, the scope of such items is interpreted very narrowly and the bulk of operating costs and general administrative costs are not permitted to be deducted. While there are currently several pending cases before various administrative and federal courts challenging these restrictions, there is no guarantee that these courts will issue an interpretation of Section 280E favorable to cannabis businesses.

Our business in the cannabis industry is subject to heightened scrutiny by regulatory authorities.

For the reasons set forth above, our existing operations and any future operations or investments may become the subject of heightened scrutiny by regulators, stock exchanges and other authorities. As a result, we may be subject to significant direct and indirect interaction with public officials. There can be no assurance that this heightened scrutiny will not in turn lead to the imposition of certain restrictions on our ability to operate or invest in our business in addition to those described herein.

In the United States, many clearing houses for major broker-dealer firms, including Pershing LLC, the largest clearing, custody and settlement firm in the United States, have refused to handle securities or settle transactions of companies engaged in cannabis related business. Many other clearing firms have taken a similar approach. This means that certain broker-dealers cannot accept for deposit or settle transactions in the securities of companies, which may inhibit the ability of investors to trade in our securities in the United States and could negatively affect the liquidity of our securities.

The heightened regulatory scrutiny could have a negative impact on our ability to raise capital.

Our business activities rely on newly established and/or developing laws and regulations in multiple jurisdictions, including in California and Nevada. These laws and regulations are rapidly evolving and subject to change with minimal notice. Regulatory changes may adversely affect our profitability or cause it to cease operations entirely. The cannabis industry may come under the scrutiny or further scrutiny by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, SEC, the DOJ, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or other federal, California or other applicable state or non-governmental regulatory authorities or self-regulatory organizations that supervise or regulate the production, distribution, sale or use of cannabis for medical or non-medical purposes in the United States. It is impossible to determine the extent of the impact of any new laws, regulations or initiatives that may be proposed, or whether any proposals will become law. The regulatory uncertainty surrounding our industry may adversely affect our business and operations, including without limitation, the costs to remain compliant with applicable laws and the impairment of its ability to raise additional capital, create a public trading market in the U.S. for securities of the Company or to find a suitable acquirer, which could reduce, delay or eliminate any return on investment in the Company.

Our business is subject to risk from changing regulatory and political environments surrounding the cannabis industry.

The success of our business strategy depends on the legality of the marijuana industry. The political environment surrounding the marijuana industry in general can be volatile and the regulatory framework remains in flux. To our knowledge, there are to date 37 states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories that have legalized cannabis in some form, including Nevada, and additional states have pending legislation regarding the same; however, the risk remains that a shift in the regulatory or political realm could occur and have a drastic impact on the industry as a whole, adversely impacting our business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects.

Delays in enactment of new state or federal regulations could restrict our ability to reach strategic growth targets and lower return on investor capital. Our strategic growth strategy is reliant upon certain federal and state regulations being enacted to facilitate the legalization of medical and adult-use marijuana. If such regulations are not enacted, or enacted but subsequently repealed or amended, or enacted with prolonged phase-in periods, our growth target, and thus, the effect on the return of investor capital, could be detrimental. We are unable to predict with certainty when and how the outcome of these complex regulatory and legislative proceedings will affect its business and growth.

Further, there is no guaranty that state laws legalizing and regulating the sale and use of cannabis will not be repealed or overturned, or that local governmental authorities will not limit the applicability of state laws within their respective jurisdictions. If the Federal Government begins to enforce federal laws relating to cannabis in states where the sale and use of cannabis is currently legal, or if existing applicable state laws are repealed or curtailed, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects would be materially adversely affected. It is also important to note that local and city ordinances may strictly limit and/or restrict disbursement of marijuana in a manner that will make it extremely difficult or impossible to transact business that is necessary for the continued operation of the marijuana industry. Federal actions against individuals or entities engaged in the marijuana industry or a repeal of applicable marijuana related legislation could adversely affect us and our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

We are aware that multiple states are considering special taxes or fees on businesses in the marijuana industry. It is a potential yet unknown risk at this time that other states are in the process of reviewing such additional fees and taxation. This could have a material adverse effect upon our business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects.

The commercial, medical and adult-use marijuana industries are in their infancy and we anticipate that such regulations will be subject to change as the jurisdictions in which we do business mature. We have in place a detailed compliance program overseen and maintained by external state and local regulatory/compliance counsel. Our internal compliance team (consisting of managers for each respective business unit) implements the compliance program.

Our internal compliance team oversees training for all employees, including on the following topics:

Our compliance program emphasizes security and inventory control to ensure strict monitoring of cannabis and inventory from delivery by a licensed distributor to sale or disposal. Only authorized, properly trained employees are allowed to access our computerized seed-to-sale system.

Additionally, we have created comprehensive standard operating procedures that include detailed descriptions and instructions for monitoring inventory at all stages of development and distribution. We will continue to monitor compliance on an ongoing basis in accordance with its compliance program, standard operating procedures, and any changes to regulation in the marijuana industry.

Overall, the medical and adult-use marijuana industry is subject to significant regulatory change at both the state and federal level. The inability of the Company to respond to the changing regulatory landscape may cause it to not be successful in capturing significant market share and could otherwise harm its business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects.

The potential reclassification of cannabis in the United States could create additional regulatory burdens on our operations and negatively affect our results of operations.

If cannabis and/or CBD is re-categorized as a Schedule II or lower controlled substance, the ability to conduct research on the medical benefits of cannabis would most likely be improved; however, rescheduling cannabis may materially alter enforcement policies across many federal agencies, primarily the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”). FDA is responsible for ensuring public health and safety through regulation of food, drugs, supplements, and cosmetics, among other products, through its enforcement authority pursuant to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FFDCA”). FDA’s responsibilities include regulating the ingredients as well as the marketing and labeling of drugs sold in interstate commerce. Because cannabis is federally illegal to produce and sell, and because it has no federally recognized medical uses, the FDA has historically deferred enforcement related to cannabis to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (the “DEA”); however, the FDA has enforced the FFDCA with regard to hemp-derived products, especially CBD, sold outside of state-regulated cannabis businesses. If cannabis were to be rescheduled to a federally controlled, yet legal, substance, FDA would likely play a more active regulatory role. Further, in the event that the pharmaceutical industry directly competes with state-regulated cannabis businesses for market share, as could potentially occur with rescheduling, the pharmaceutical industry may urge the DEA, FDA, and others to enforce the Canadian Securities Administrators and FFDCA against businesses that comply with state but not federal law. The potential for multi-agency enforcement post-rescheduling could threaten or have a materially adverse effect on the operations of existing state-legal cannabis businesses, including the Company.

Our participation in the cannabis industry may lead to costly litigation, which could adversely affect our financial condition and business operations.

Our participation in the cannabis industry may lead to litigation, formal or informal complaints, enforcement actions, and inquiries by various federal, state, or local governmental authorities against us or our investments. Litigation, complaints, and enforcement actions involving either us or our investments could consume considerable amounts of financial and other corporate resources, which could have an adverse effect on our future cash flows, earnings, results of operations and financial condition.

There is uncertainty regarding the availability of U.S. federal patent and trademark protection.

As long as cannabis remains illegal under U.S. federal law, the benefit of certain federal laws and protections which may be available to most businesses, such as federal trademark and patent protection regarding the intellectual property of a business, may not be available to us. As a result, our intellectual property may never be adequately or sufficiently protected against the use or misappropriation by third-parties. In addition, since the regulatory framework of the cannabis industry is in a constant state of flux, we can provide no assurance that it will ever obtain any protection of its intellectual property, whether on a federal, state or local level.

Current constraints on marketing our products could adversely affect our sales and results of operations.

The development of our business and operating results may be hindered by applicable restrictions on sales and marketing activities imposed by government regulatory bodies. The regulatory environment in the United States limits companies’ abilities to compete for market share in a manner similar to other industries. If we are unable to effectively market our products and compete for market share, or if the costs of compliance with government legislation and regulation cannot be absorbed through increased selling prices for our products, our sales and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We could experience difficulty enforcing our contracts.

Due to the nature of our business and the fact that our contracts involve cannabis and other activities that are not legal under federal law and in some jurisdictions, we may face difficulties in enforcing our contracts in federal and certain state courts. The inability to enforce any of our contracts could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition or prospects.

Any change in the federal government’s enforcement of current federal laws could cause significant financial damage to us and our shareholders.

Laws and regulations affecting the cannabis industry are constantly changing, which could detrimentally affect our operations. Local, state and federal cannabis laws and regulations are broad in scope and subject to evolving interpretations, which could require us to incur substantial costs associated with compliance or alter our business plan. In addition, violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our business and result in a material adverse effect on our operations. It is also possible that regulations may be enacted in the future that will be directly applicable to our business. These ever-changing regulations could even affect federal tax policies that may make it difficult to claim tax deductions on our returns. We cannot predict the nature of any future laws, regulations, interpretations or applications, nor can we determine what effect additional governmental regulations or administrative policies and procedures, when and if promulgated, could have on our business.

We are subject to certain federal regulations relating to cash reporting.

The Bank Secrecy Act, enforced by FinCEN, requires us to report currency transactions in excess of $10,000, including identification of the customer by name and social security number, to the IRS. This regulation also requires us to report certain suspicious activity, including any transaction that exceeds $5,000 that we know, suspect or have reason to believe involves funds from illegal activity or is designed to evade federal regulations or reporting requirements and to verify sources of funds. Substantial penalties can be imposed against us if we fail to comply with this regulation. If we fail to comply with these laws and regulations, the imposition of a substantial penalty could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We and our customers may have difficulty accessing the service of banks, which may make it difficult to sell our products and services.

Since the use of cannabis is illegal under federal law, federally chartered banks will not accept for deposit funds from businesses involved with cannabis. Consequently, businesses involved in the cannabis industry often have trouble finding a bank willing to accept their business. The inability to open bank accounts may make it difficult for our customers to operate. There appears to be recent movement to allow state-chartered banks and credit unions to provide banking to the industry, but as of the date of this offering there are only nominal entities that have been formed that offer these services. Further, in a February 6, 2018, Forbes article, United States Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, is reported to have testified that his department is “reviewing the existing guidance.” But he clarified that he does not want to rescind it without having an alternate policy in place to address public safety concerns. There could be changes to such bank policies under the new Biden Administration.

Financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related conduct can form the basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statute and the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act. Despite guidance from the U.S. Department of the Treasury suggesting it may be possible for financial institutions to provide services to cannabis-related businesses consistent with their obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks remain hesitant to offer banking services to cannabis-related businesses. Consequently, those businesses involved in the cannabis industry continue to encounter difficulty establishing banking relationships. Our inability to maintain our current bank accounts would make it difficult for us to operate our business, increase our operating costs, and pose additional operational, logistical and security challenges and could result in our inability to implement our business plan. Similarly, many of our customers are directly involved in cannabis sales and further restriction to their ability to access banking services may make it difficult for them to purchase our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business is subject to compliance with government regulation the cost of which may be material and the failure to comply with present and future government regulation could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects, could put us out of business and could cause you to lose your entire investment.

We are subject to numerous federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations, including those relating to:

The federal Agricultural Act of 2014, along with the corresponding Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 provisions (as extended by resolution into 2018) and Colorado’s Industrial Hemp Regulatory Program, provide for the cultivation of industrial hemp for purposes of research as part of agricultural pilot programs adopted by individual states, including Colorado (pursuant to which we operate). The uncertainty of conflicting interpretations of these legislative authorities, as they relate to the federal Controlled Substance Act’s provisions relating to the cultivation of “marijuana,” presents a substantial risk to the success and ongoing viability of the Company and the hemp industry in general. The uncertainty is a deterrent to investment in cannabis-related businesses, securing channels of distribution and obtaining banking, payment processing services, transfer agent, clearing, and other financial services. Investors face uncertainty in the ability to deposit and clear the securities offered herein.

The Trump Administration announced last year that there may be greater enforcement of federal laws regarding marijuana and there is no certainty on how the Biden Administration will address this issue. Federal enforcement of existing laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business and may cause you to lose your entire investment.

New legislation or regulations may be introduced at either the federal and/or state level which, if passed, would impose substantial new regulatory requirements on the manufacture, packaging, labeling, advertising and distribution and sale of hemp-derived products. New legislation or regulations may require the reformulation, elimination or relabeling of certain products to meet new standards and revisions to certain sales and marketing materials, and it is possible that the costs of complying with these new regulatory requirements could be material.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and their state-level equivalents, possess broad authority to enforce the provisions of federal and state law, respectively, applicable to consumer products and safeguards as such relate to foods, dietary supplements and cosmetics, including powers to issue a public warning or notice of violation letter to a Company, publicize information about illegal products, detain products intended for import or export (in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection) or otherwise deemed illegal, request a recall of illegal products from the market, and request the Department of Justice, or the state-level equivalent, to initiate a seizure action, an injunction action, or a criminal prosecution in the U.S. or respective state courts. The initiation of any regulatory action towards industrial hemp or hemp derivatives by the FDA, FTC or any other related federal or state agency, may result in substantial financial penalties and enjoinment from certain business-related activities, and if such actions were publicly reported, they may have a materially adverse effect on us, our business and our results of operations.

As the possession and use of cannabis is illegal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, we may be deemed to be aiding and abetting illegal activities through the services that we provide to users, and as such may be subject to enforcement actions which could materially and adversely affect our business.

The possession, use, cultivation, or transfer of cannabis remains illegal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The cannabis products which we manufacture for third parties may be sold to customers that are engaged in the business of possession, use, cultivation, or transfer of cannabis. As a result, law enforcement authorities regulating the illegal use of cannabis may seek to bring an action or actions against us, including, but not limited, to a claim of aiding and abetting another’s criminal activities. The 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.” 18 U.S.C. §2(a). As a result of such an action, we may be forced to cease operations and our investors could lose their entire investment. Such an action would have a material negative effect on our business and operations

We may become subject to federal and state forfeiture laws which could negatively impact our business operations.

Violations of any federal laws and regulations could result in significant fines, penalties, administrative sanctions, convictions or settlements arising from civil proceedings conducted by either the federal government or private citizens, or criminal charges, including, but not limited to, seizure of assets, disgorgement of profits, cessation of business activities or divestiture. As an entity that conducts business in the cannabis industry, we are potentially subject to federal and state forfeiture laws (criminal and civil) that permit the government to seize the proceeds of criminal activity. Civil forfeiture laws could provide an alternative for the federal government or any state (or local police force) that wants to discourage residents from conducting transactions with cannabis related businesses but believes criminal liability is too difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, an individual can be required to forfeit property considered to be the proceeds of a crime even if the individual is not convicted of the crime, and the standard of proof in a civil forfeiture matter is lower than the standard in a criminal matter. Depending on the applicable law, whether federal or state, rather than having to establish liability beyond a reasonable doubt, the federal government or the state, as applicable, may be required to prove that the money or property at issue is proceeds of a crime only by either clear and convincing evidence or a mere preponderance of the evidence.

Investors located in states where cannabis remains illegal may be at risk of prosecution under federal and/or state conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and money laundering statutes, and be at further risk of losing their investments or proceeds under forfeiture statutes. Many states remain fully able to take action to prevent the proceeds of cannabis businesses from entering their state. Because state legalization is relatively new, it remains to be seen whether these states would take such action and whether a court would approve it. Investors and prospective investors in our company should be aware of these potentially relevant federal and state laws in considering whether to invest in us.

We may not obtain the necessary permits and authorizations to operate our proposed marijuana business.

We may not be able to obtain or maintain the necessary licenses, permits, authorizations, or accreditations for our proposed cultivation and production businesses and greenhouse solutions business, or may only be able to do so at great cost. In addition, we may not be able to comply fully with the wide variety of laws and regulations applicable to the medical and adult use marijuana industry. Failure to comply with or to obtain the necessary licenses, permits, authorizations, or accreditations could result in restrictions on our ability to operate the medical and adult use marijuana business, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to the Securities Markets and Ownership of our Equity Securities

The market price of our common stock may fluctuate, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

The price of our common stock may decline below the offering price of the shares following this offering. The stock market in general, and the market price of our common stock will likely be subject to fluctuation, whether due to, or irrespective of, our operating results, financial condition and prospects.

Our financial performance, our industry’s overall performance, changing consumer preferences, technologies, government regulatory action, tax laws and market conditions in general could have a significant impact on the future market price of our common stock. Some of the other factors that could negatively affect our share price or result in fluctuations in our share price include:

Our CEO and President have voting control through their ownership of the Series A Preferred Stock that may conflict with conflict with other stockholders who may be unable to influence management who exercises control over our business.

Our CEO and President have voting control over the holders of our common stock through their ownership of our Series A Preferred stock that has super voting rights of 100,000 common stock votes for each share of Series A Preferred stock. As a result, our management is able to: elect or defeat the election of our directors, amend or prevent amendment to our articles of incorporation or bylaws, effect or prevent a merger, sale of assets or other corporate transaction, and control the outcome of any other matter submitted to the stockholders for a vote. Accordingly, other stockholders may be unable to influence management and be unable to exercise any control over our business.

We do not know whether an active, liquid and orderly trading market will develop for our securities or what the market price of our securities will be and as a result it may be difficult for you to sell your shares of our Common Stock.

There is currently an illiquid market for our securities. The lack of an active market may impair your ability to sell those securities at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. The lack of an active market may also reduce the fair market value of your securities. Further, an inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling securities and may impair our ability to enter into collaborations or acquire companies or products by using our securities as consideration.

If we do not meet the listing standards of a national securities exchange our investors’ ability to make transactions in our securities will be limited, and we will be subject to additional trading restrictions.

Our securities currently are traded over-the-counter on the OTC Pink Market and are not qualified to be listed on a national securities exchange, such as NASDAQ. Accordingly, we face significant material adverse consequences, including:

The National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, which is a federal statute, prevents or preempts the states from regulating the sale of certain securities, which are referred to as “covered securities.” Since our Common Stock is traded on the OTC Pink Market, our common stock is not a covered security and is, therefore, subject to regulation in each state in which we offer our securities.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be your sole source of gain.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our securities will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

Some provisions of our charter documents and Nevada law may have anti-takeover effects that could discourage an acquisition of us by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our articles of incorporation and bylaws that will become effective in connection with consummation of this offering, as well as provisions of Nevada law, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us or increase the cost of acquiring us, even if doing so would benefit our stockholders, or remove our current management and could discourage claims by our shareholders in general. These include provisions that:

These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our Board of Directors, who are responsible for appointing the members of our management as well as discouraging claims against our management in general by our stockholders. Any provision of our articles of incorporation or bylaws or Nevada law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

The subscription agreement for the purchase of common stock from the Company contains an exclusive forum provision, which will limit investors ability to litigate any issue that arises in connection with the offering anywhere other than the Federal courts in Nevada.

The subscription agreement states that it shall be governed by the local law of the State of Nevada and the United States, and the parties consent to the exclusive forum of the Federal courts in Nevada for any action brought under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, or any matters derived from the subscription agreement. They will not have the benefit of bringing a lawsuit in a more favorable jurisdiction or under more favorable law than the local law of the State of Nevada which could discourage claims by investors against the Company. Moreover, we cannot provide any certainty as to whether a court would enforce such a provision. In addition, you cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder as Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. The combination of both potentially unfavorable forum and the lack of certainty regarding enforceability poses a risk regarding litigation related to the subscription to this offering and should be considered by each investor before signing the subscription agreement. In addition, our exclusive forum provision may result in additional costs related to litigation of the matter for an investor.