lmfa-10k_20171231.htm

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES ☐ NO ☒

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ☐ NO ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES ☒ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES ☒ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company or an emerging growth company. See the definition of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES ☐ NO ☒

The aggregate market value of voting and nonvoting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was approximately $13,749,450 as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

The number of shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of April 12, 2018 was 6,253,189.

We are a specialty finance company that provides funding to nonprofit community associations primarily located in the state of Florida. As of February 2016, we also began operations in Illinois, which is the fourth-largest assessment market in the United States for community associations. We offer incorporated nonprofit community associations, which we refer to as “Associations,” a variety of financial products customized to each Association’s financial needs. Our original product offering consists of providing funding to Associations by purchasing their rights under delinquent accounts that are selected by the Associations arising from unpaid Association assessments. Historically, we provided funding against such delinquent accounts, which we refer to as “Accounts,” in exchange for a portion of the proceeds collected by the Associations from the account debtors on the Accounts. We have started purchasing Accounts on varying terms tailored to suit each Association’s financial needs, including under our New Neighbor Guaranty™ program.

Under our original line of business, we purchase Associations’ right to receive a portion of the Association’s collected proceeds from owners that are not paying their assessments. After taking assignment of an Association’s right to receive a portion of the Association’s proceeds from the collection of delinquent assessments, we engage law firms to perform collection work on a deferred billing basis wherein the law firms receive payment upon collection from the account debtors or a predetermined contracted amount if payment from account debtors is less than legal fees and costs owed. Under this business model, we typically fund an amount equal to or less than the statutory minimum an Association could recover on a delinquent account for each Account, which we refer to as the “Super Lien Amount”. Upon collection of an Account, the law firm working on the Account, on behalf of the Association, generally distributes to us the funded amount, interest, and administrative late fees, with the law firm retaining legal fees and costs collected, and the Association retaining the balance of the collection. In connection with this line of business, we have developed proprietary software for servicing Accounts, which we believe enables law firms to service Accounts efficiently and profitably.

Under the New Neighbor Guaranty program, an Association will generally assign substantially all of its outstanding indebtedness and accruals on its delinquent units to us in exchange for payment by us of monthly dues on each delinquent unit. This simultaneously eliminates a substantial portion of the Association’s balance sheet bad debts and assists the Association to meet its budget by receiving guaranteed monthly payments on its delinquent units and relieving the Association from paying legal fees and costs to collect its bad debts. We believe that the combined features of the program enhance the value of the underlying real estate in an Association and the value of an Association’s delinquent receivables. We intend to leverage our proprietary software platform, as well as our industry experience and knowledge gained from our original line of business, to expand the New Neighbor Guaranty program in certain situations and to potentially develop other new products in the future.

Because we acquire and collect on the delinquent receivables of Associations, the Account debtors are third parties about whom we have little or no information. Therefore, we cannot predict when any given Account will be paid off or how much it will yield. In assessing the risk of purchasing Accounts, we review the property values of the underlying units, the governing documents of the relevant Association, and the total number of delinquent receivables held by the Association.

Our original product relies upon Florida statutory provisions that effectively protect the principal amount invested by us in each Account. In particular, Section 718.116(1), Florida Statutes, makes purchasers and sellers of a unit in an Association jointly and severally liable for all past due assessments, interest, late fees, legal fees, and costs payable to the Association. As discussed above, the statute grants to Associations a so-called “super lien”, which is a category of lien that is given a statutorily higher priority than all other types of liens other than property tax liens. Under the Florida statute, a Florida Association’s super lien has higher priority than all other lien holders, except that in the case of property tax liens. The amount of the Association’s priority over a first mortgage holder that takes title to a property through foreclosure (or deed in lieu), referred to as the Super Lien Amount, is limited to twelve months’ past due assessments or, if less, one percent (1.0%) of the original mortgage amount. Under our contracts with Associations for our original product, we pay Associations an amount up to the Super Lien Amount for the right to receive all collected interest and late fees on Accounts purchased from the Associations.

In other states in which we have offered our original product, which are currently only in Washington, Colorado and Illinois, we rely on statutes that we believe are similar to the above-described Florida statutes in relevant respects. A total of approximately 22 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have super lien statutes that give Association assessments super lien status under some circumstances, and of these states, we believe that all of these jurisdictions other than Alaska have a regulatory and business environment that would enable us to offer our original product to Associations in those states on materially the same basis.

In 2012, we began development of a new product, the New Neighbor Guaranty, wherein an Association assigns substantially all of its outstanding indebtedness and accruals on its delinquent units to us in exchange for payments in an amount equal to the regular ongoing monthly or quarterly assessments for delinquent units when those amounts would be due to the Association. We assume both the payment and collection obligations for these assigned Accounts under this product. This simultaneously eliminates an Association’s balance sheet bad debts and assists the Association to meet its budget by receiving guaranteed assessment payments on its delinquent units and relieving the Association from paying legal fees and costs to collect its bad debts. We believe that the combined features of the product enhance the value of the underlying real estate in an Association and the value of an Association’s delinquent receivables.

Before we implement the New Neighbor Guaranty program, an Association typically asks us to conduct a review of its accounts receivable. After we have conducted the review, we inform the Association which Accounts we are willing to purchase and the terms of such purchase. Once we implement the New Neighbor Guaranty program, we begin making scheduled payments to the Association on the Accounts as if the Association had non-delinquent residents occupying the units underlying the Accounts. Our New Neighbor Guaranty contracts typically allow us to retain all collection proceeds on each Account other than special assessments and accelerated assessment balances. Thus, the Association foregoes the potential benefit of a larger future collection in exchange for the certainty of a steady stream of immediate payments on the Account.

We are also developing other variations of our contracts with Associations in various states that we may introduce to the market in the future. For example, under one product under development, at the request of an Association lender we may contract with an Association to provide that the Association will have revenues equal to or more than 90% of budget or any other percentage the lender requests. If an Association is at 80% of budget and a lender requires it to maintain revenues of 90% of budget, this product would provide upfront capital to bring the Association to the 90% threshold and then make continuing payments to keep it there through the term of the loan. This minimizes the lender’s risk of delinquencies adversely affecting the loan’s repayment. Also, this would enable lenders to do business with more Associations than their previous underwriting guidelines would permit if Associations contract with us as part of the loan package. This product, along with other variations on our contracts with Associations in various states, remains under development, however, and there is no assurance that we will ultimately launch this product or any other variation on our contracts with Associations in any state.

According to the Community Association Institute (“CAI”), as of January 2016, 65 million people lived in 328,500 Associations in the United States. As a percentage, homeowners associations accounted for between 51-55% of the total and condominium associations accounted for between 42-45% of the total, with cooperatives comprising the balance. As of December 2016, Florida had nearly eight million residents living in more than 47,000 community associations. Assuming the national distribution of property types exists in Florida, Florida has approximately 24,000 homeowners associations and 20,000 condominium associations. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, we contracted with approximately 500 community associations. We believe opportunity remains abundant in our other geographic markets.

Associations typically address delinquencies by paying lawyers or collection agencies to recover amounts owed. While Associations seek recovery of delinquent amounts, budgets go underfunded causing the need to cut services or raise assessments further. The real estate downturn in 2008 made delinquency issues an acute problem for a large number of Associations. We were organized in 2008 to immediately address the financial problems faced by Associations as a result of delinquent unit owners.

According to the CAI, as of December 2016, in Florida where we have primarily operated, Associations annually assess their residents $9 billion and nationwide, annual assessments by Associations are $65 billion. We believe we are the largest purchaser of delinquent Accounts in Florida, with total purchases of approximately $309 million over a ten-year period. The balance of delinquent Accounts are serviced by lawyers, collection companies, our competitors, or not serviced at all. We believe we offer Associations a better financial solution to Account delinquencies and that Associations will increasingly turn to us and our products as a solution to handle Account delinquencies.

Our primary objective is to utilize our competitive strengths, including our proprietary technology and our management’s experience and expertise in buying and collecting Association Accounts, to grow our business in Florida and in other states by identifying,

evaluating, pricing, and acquiring Association Accounts and maximizing collections of such Accounts in a cost efficient manner. The principal elements of our strategy and competitive advantage are as follows:

LM Funding, LLC, our wholly-owned subsidiary, was originally organized in January 2008 as a Florida limited liability company. In preparation for our initial public offering in October 2015, we were incorporated in Delaware on April 20, 2015. Upon completion of our initial public offering, we became the holding company of LM Funding, LLC. All of our business is conducted through LM Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries.

You should carefully consider each of the risks described below, together with all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, before making an investment decision with respect to our securities. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow could be materially and adversely affected and you may lose all or part of your investment.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate and cause our stock price to decline.

Because of the nature of our business, our quarterly operating results may fluctuate, which may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Our results may fluctuate as a result of the following factors:

We may not be able to purchase Accounts at favorable prices, or on sufficiently favorable terms, or at all.

Our success depends upon the continued availability of Association Accounts. The availability of Accounts at favorable prices and on terms acceptable to us depends on a number of factors outside our control, including:

In addition, our ability to purchase Accounts, in particular with respect to our original product, is reliant on state statutes allowing for a Super Lien Amount to protect our principal investment; any change of those statutes and elimination of the priority of the Super Lien Amount, particularly in Florida, could have an adverse effect on our ability to purchase Accounts. If we were unable to purchase Accounts at favorable prices or on terms acceptable to us, or at all, it would likely have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be successful at acquiring and collecting Accounts in other states profitably.

Our business strategy is dependent upon expanding our operations into other states and we have purchased and intend to continue to purchase Accounts in states in which we have little or no operating history. We may not be successful in acquiring any Accounts in these new markets and our limited experience in these markets may impair our ability to profitably or successfully collect the Accounts. This may cause us to overpay for these Accounts and consequently, fail to generate a profit from these Accounts. Our inability to acquire or profitably collect on Accounts in these states could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations as we expand our business operations.

We may not be able to recover sufficient amounts on our Accounts to recover charges to the Accounts for interest and late fees necessary to fund our operations.

We acquire and collect on the delinquent receivables of Associations. Since Account debtors are third parties that we have little to no information about, we cannot predict when any given Account will pay off or how much it will yield. In order to operate profitably over the long term, we must continually purchase and collect on a sufficient volume of Accounts to generate revenue that exceeds our costs.

We are subject to intense competition seeking to provide a collection solution to Associations for delinquent Accounts.

Lawyers, collection agencies, and other direct and indirect competitors vying to collect on Accounts all propose to solve the problem delinquent Accounts pose to Associations. Additionally, Associations and their management companies sometimes try to solve their delinquent Account problems in house, without the assistance of third-party collection agencies. An Account that an Association attempts to collect through any of these other options is an Account we cannot purchase and collect. We compete on the basis of reputation, industry experience, performance and financing dollars. Some of these competitors have greater contacts with Associations, greater financial resources and access to capital, more personnel, wider geographic presence and other resources than we have. In addition, we expect the entry of new competitors in the future given the relatively new nature of the market in which we operate. Aggressive pricing by our competitors could raise the price of acquiring and purchasing Accounts above levels that we are willing to pay, which could reduce the number of Accounts suitable for us to purchase or if purchased by us, reduce the profits, if any, generated by such Accounts. If we are unable to purchase Accounts at favorable prices or at all, the revenues generated by us and our earnings could be materially reduced.

Although we utilize our proprietary software and in-house staff to track, monitor, and direct the collection of our Accounts, we depend upon third-party law firms to perform the collection work. As a result, we are dependent upon the efforts of our third-party law firms, particularly Business Law Group, P.A. (“BLG”) to service and collect our Accounts. As of December 31, 2017, BLG was responsible for servicing over 98% of our Accounts. Our revenues and profitability could be materially affected if:

The potential inability to refinance our current indebtedness when due could raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

As of April 12, 2018, we had an aggregate of $500,000 in senior secured convertible debt obligations that will become due within a year. Although we have a history of successfully refinancing our debt obligations, there is no assurance that we will be able to refinance our current indebtedness on a timely basis in view of recent operating losses, pending litigation, market conditions, and/or other reasons that we cannot currently foresee. Inability to refinance these debt obligations when due could raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. In the event that we are unable to refinance our indebtedness when due, our intent is to generate liquidity through the monetization of owned real estate assets, which we believe, in combination with recent expense cuts and new sales programs that are resulting in increases in Account acquisitions for 2018, will mitigate the risks to our liquidity associated with any inability to refinance our indebtedness. However, we cannot predict, with certainty, the outcome of our actions to generate liquidity, including the availability of additional debt financing, or whether such other actions would generate the expected liquidity as currently planned or needed. Additionally, a failure to generate additional liquidity could negatively impact our ability to acquire new Accounts.

If we are unable to access external sources of financing, we may not be able to fund and grow our operations.

We depend upon loans from external sources from time to time to fund and expand our operations. Our ability to grow our business is dependent on our access to additional financing and capital resources. The failure to obtain financing and capital as needed would limit our ability to purchase Accounts and achieve our growth plans.

We may incur substantial indebtedness from time to time in connection with the purchase of Accounts and could be subject to risks associated with incurring such indebtedness, including:

Our existing indebtedness is, and any future indebtedness we incur may be, secured by substantially all of our assets. If we default under the indebtedness secured by our assets, the secured creditor could declare all of the indebtedness then outstanding to be immediately due and payable. If we were unable to pay such amounts, our assets would be available to the secured creditor to satisfy our obligations to the secured creditor.

We are subject to loan covenants that may restrict our ability to operate our business.

Our current credit facilities impose certain restrictive covenants and future credit facilities may include restrictive covenants, including financial covenants, that restrict our ability to operate our business. Our existing credit facilities restrict us from undertaking additional indebtedness, a sale of substantially all of our assets, a merger, or other type of business consolidation. Failure to satisfy any of these covenants could result in all or any of the following:

The Rodgers family has significant influence over our company, substantially reducing the influence of our other stockholders.

As of December 31, 2017, Bruce M. Rodgers, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and his family, including trusts or custodial accounts of minor children of each of Mr. Rodgers and his wife Carollinn Gould, beneficially own, in the aggregate, 36% of our outstanding shares of common stock. As a result, the Rodgers family is able to significantly influence the actions that require stockholder approval, including the election of a majority of our directors and the approval of mergers, sales of assets or other corporate transactions or matters submitted for stockholder approval. As a result, our other stockholders may have little or no influence over matters submitted for stockholder approval. In addition, the Rodgers family’s influence could deter or preclude any unsolicited acquisition of us and consequently materially adversely affect the price of our common stock.

We may encounter difficulties managing changes in our business including cyclical growth and declines, which could disrupt our operations, and there is no assurance that any such growth (if experienced) can be sustained.

From time to time since our inception, we have experienced periods of significant growth and declines. Although there is no assurance that we will again experience periods of significant growth or continued declines in the future, if we do, there can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our changing operations effectively or that we will be able to maintain or accelerate our growth, and any failure to do so could adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and control expenses. Future growth will depend upon a number of factors, including:

Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience and size of our management team, we may not be able to effectively manage the growth of our business. Significant growth may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business strategy or disrupt our operations.

Government regulations may limit our ability to recover and enforce the collection of our Accounts.

Federal, state and municipal laws, rules, rules, regulations and ordinances may limit our ability to recover and enforce our rights with respect to the Accounts acquired by us. These laws include, but are not limited to, the following federal statutes and regulations promulgated thereunder and comparable statutes in states where account debtors reside and/or located:

We may be precluded from collecting Accounts we purchase where the Association or its prior legal counsel, management company, or collection agency failed to comply with applicable laws in charging the account debtor or prosecuting the collection of the Account. Laws relating to the collection of consumer debt also directly apply to our business. Our failure to comply with any laws applicable to us, including state licensing laws, could limit our ability to recover our Accounts and could subject us to fines and penalties, which could reduce our revenues.

We may become regulated under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, and have not developed compliance standards for such oversight.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010), or Dodd-Frank Act, represents a comprehensive overhaul of the financial services industry within the U.S. The Dodd-Frank Act allows consumers free access to their credit score if their score negatively affects them in a financial transaction or a hiring decision, and also gives consumers access to credit score disclosures as part of an adverse action and risk-based pricing notice. Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, or CFPB, within the Federal Reserve Board, and requires the CFPB and other federal agencies to implement many new and significant rules and regulations. Significant portions of the Dodd-Frank Act related to the CFPB became effective on July 21, 2011. The CFPB has broad powers to promulgate, administer and enforce consumer financial regulations, including those applicable to us and possibly our funded Associations. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is the principal supervisor and enforcer of federal consumer financial protection laws with respect to nondepository institutions, or “nonbanks”, including, without limitation, any “covered person” who is a “larger participant” in a market for other consumer financial products or services. We do not know if our unique business model makes us a covered person.

The CFPB has started to exercise authority to define unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices and to require reports and conduct examinations of these entities for purposes of (i) assessing compliance with federal consumer financial protections laws; (ii) obtaining information about the activities and compliance systems or procedures of such entities; and (iii) detecting and assessing risks to consumers and to markets for consumer financial products and services. The exercise of this supervisory authority must be risk-based, meaning that the CFPB will identify nonbanks for examination based on the risk they pose to consumers, including consideration of the entity’s asset size, transaction volume, risk to consumers, existing oversight by state authorities and any other factors that the CFPB determines to be relevant. When a nonbank is in violation of federal consumer financial protection laws, including the CFPB’s own rules, the CFPB may pursue administrative proceedings or litigation to enforce those laws and rules. In these proceedings, the CFPB can obtain cease and desist orders, which can include orders for restitution or rescission of contracts, as well as other kinds of affirmative relief, and monetary penalties ranging from $5,000 per day for ordinary violations of federal consumer financial protection laws to $25,000 per day for reckless violations and $1 million per day for knowing violations. Also, where a company has violated Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act or CFPB regulations under Title X, the Dodd-Frank Act empowers state attorneys general and state regulators to bring civil actions for the kind of cease and desist orders available to the CFPB (but not for civil penalties). If the CFPB or one or more state officials believe that we have committed a violation of the foregoing laws, they could exercise their enforcement powers in a manner that could have a material adverse effect on us.

At this time, we cannot predict the extent to which the Dodd-Frank Act or the resulting rules and regulations, including those of the CFPB, will impact the U.S. economy and our products and services. Compliance with these new laws and regulations may require changes in the way we conduct our business and could result in additional compliance costs, which could be significant and could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Current and new laws may adversely affect our ability to collect our Accounts, which could adversely affect our revenues and earnings.

Because our Accounts are generally originated and collected pursuant to a variety of federal and state laws by a variety of third parties and may involve consumers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, there can be no assurance that all Associations and their management companies, legal counsel, collections agencies and others have at all times been in compliance with all applicable laws relating to the collection of Accounts. Additionally, there can be no assurance that we or our law firms have been or will continue to be at all times in compliance with all applicable laws. Failure to comply with applicable laws could materially adversely affect our ability to collect our Accounts and could subject us to increased costs, fines, and penalties. Furthermore, changes in state law regarding the lien priority status of delinquent Association assessments could materially and adversely affect our business.

Class action suits and other litigation could divert our management’s attention from operating our business, increase our expenses, and otherwise harm our business.

Certain originators and servicers involved in consumer credit collection and related businesses have been subject to class actions and other litigation. Claims include failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations such as usury and improper or deceptive origination and collection practices. From time to time we are a party to such litigation, and as a result, our management’s attention may be diverted from our everyday business activities and implementing our business strategy, and our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected by, among other things, legal expenses and challenges to our business model in connection with such litigation.

We are a defendant in an action entitled Solaris at Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. LM Funding, LLC, which was brought before the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade Civil Division on July 31, 2014. On August 4, 2017, an order by the court was entered on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement. In the order, the motion of the Plaintiff, Solaris at Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc., individually and on behalf of the certified plaintiff class (“Plaintiffs”), for approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Defendant LM Funding, LLC was granted. LMF, despite its belief that it is not liable for the claims asserted and that it has good defenses thereto, nevertheless agreed to enter into this Agreement in order to: (1) avoid any further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation and its consequential negative financial effects to LM Funding, LLC operations; (2) obtain the releases, orders, and final judgment contemplated by the Settlement Agreement; and (3) put to rest and terminate with finality all claims that had been or could have been asserted against LM Funding, LLC by the Planiiffs arising from the facts alleged in the lawsuit. Pursuant to the agreement subsequently reached between counsel, all required actions and deadlines set forth in the Settlement Agreement are currently stayed. On March 1, 2018, a continuation of the abatement was granted until April 2, 2018. As of December 31, 2017, the Company had accrued costs of $505,000 as part of the Settlement Agreement. The settlement amount was contingent upon the Company obtaining sufficient financing within the allotted timeframe of the Settlement Agreement. On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs withdrew from the Settlement Agreement. The Company will pursue certain legal remedies to defend itself against the allegations.

Any future acquisitions that we make may prove unsuccessful or strain or divert our resources.

We may seek to grow through acquisitions of related businesses. Such acquisitions present risks that could materially adversely affect our business and financial performance, including:

In addition, future acquisitions by us may result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of additional debt, and the recognition of significant charges for depreciation and amortization related to goodwill and other intangible assets.

Although we have no definitive plans or intentions to make acquisitions of related businesses, we continuously evaluate such potential acquisitions. However, we have not reached any agreement or arrangement with respect to any particular acquisition and we may not be able to complete any acquisitions on favorable terms or at all.

Our investments in other businesses and entry into new business ventures may adversely affect our operations.

We have made and may continue to make investments in companies or commence operations in businesses and industries that are not identical to those with which we have historically been successful. If these investments or arrangements are not successful, our earnings could be materially adversely affected by increased expenses and decreased revenues.

If our technology and software systems are not operational, our operations could be disrupted and our ability to successfully acquire and collect Accounts could be adversely affected.

Our success depends in part on our proprietary software. We must record and process significant amounts of data quickly and accurately to properly track, monitor and collect our Accounts. Any failure of our information systems and their backup systems would interrupt our operations. We may not have adequate backup arrangements for all of our operations and we may incur significant losses if an outage occurs. In addition, we rely on third-party law firms who also may be adversely affected in the event of an outage in which the third-party servicer does not have adequate backup arrangements. Any interruption in our operations or our third-party law firms’ operations could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our organizational documents and Delaware law may make it harder for us to be acquired without the consent and cooperation of our Board of Directors and management.

Certain provisions of our organizational documents and Delaware law may deter or prevent a takeover attempt, including a takeover attempt in which the potential purchaser offers to pay a per share price greater than the current market price of our common stock. Under the terms of our certificate of incorporation, our Board of Directors has the authority, without further action by our stockholders, to issue shares of preferred stock in one or more series and to fix the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions thereof. In addition, our directors serve staggered terms of one to three years each and, as such, at any given annual meeting of our stockholders, only a portion of our Board of Directors may be considered for election, which may prevent our stockholders from replacing a majority of our Board of Directors at certain annual meetings and may entrench our management and discourage unsolicited stockholder proposals. The ability to issue shares of preferred stock could tend to discourage takeover or acquisition proposals not supported by our current Board of Directors.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause a decrease in the market price of our common stock. We had 6,253,189 shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2017. We may issue additional shares in connection with our business and may grant stock options to our employees, officers, directors and consultants under our stock option plans or warrants to third parties. If a significant portion of these shares were sold in the public market, the market value of our common stock could be adversely affected.

Insolvency of BLG could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our primary Account servicer, BLG, deposits collections on the Accounts in its Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (“IOLTA Trust Account”) and then distributes the proceeds to itself, us and the Associations pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreements with the Associations and applicable law. We do not have a perfected security interest in the amounts BLG collects on the Accounts while such amounts are held in the IOLTA Trust Account. BLG has agreed to promptly remit to us all amounts collected on the Accounts that are owed to us. If, however, BLG were to become subject to any insolvency law and a creditor or trustee-in-bankruptcy of BLG were to take the position that proceeds of the Accounts held in BLG’s IOLTA Trust Account should be treated as assets of BLG, an Association or another third party, delays in payments from collections on the Accounts held by BLG could occur or reductions in the amounts of payments to be remitted by BLG to us could result, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Associations do not make any guarantee with respect to the validity, enforceability or collectability of the Accounts acquired by us.

Associations do not make any representations, warranties or covenants with respect to the validity, enforceability or collectability of Accounts in their assignments of Accounts to us. If an Account proves to be invalid, unenforceable or otherwise generally uncollectible, we will not have any recourse against the respective Association. If a significant number of our Accounts are later held to be invalid, unenforceable or are otherwise uncollectible, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.

The vast majority of our Accounts are located in Florida, and any adverse conditions affecting Florida could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our primary business relates to revenues from Accounts purchased by us, which are almost all based in Florida, and our primary source of revenue consists of payments made by condominium and home owners to satisfy the liens against their condominiums and homes. As of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, Florida represented 100% and 99%, respectively, of our Accounts. An

economic recession, adverse market conditions in Florida, and/or significant property damage caused by hurricanes, tornadoes or other inclement weather could adversely affect the ability of these condominium and home owners to satisfy the liens against their condominiums and homes, which could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Foreclosure on an Association’s lien may not result in the Company recouping the amount that we invested in the related Account.

All of the Accounts purchased by us are in default. The Accounts are secured by liens held by Associations, which we have an option to foreclose upon on behalf of the Associations. Should we foreclose upon such a lien on behalf of an Association, we are generally entitled pursuant to our contractual arrangements with the Association to have the Association quitclaim its interests in the condominium unit or home to us. In the event that any Association quitclaims its interests in a condominium unit or home to us, we will be relying on the short-term rental prospects, to the extent permitted under bylaws and rules applicable to the Association, and value of its interest in the underlying property, which value may be affected by numerous risks, including:

It is possible that as a result of a decrease in the value of the property or any of the other factors referred to in this paragraph, the amount realized from the sale of such property after taking title through a lien foreclosure may be less than our total investment in the Account. If this occurs with regard to a substantial number of Accounts, the amount expected to be realized from the Accounts will decrease and our financial condition and results of operations could be harmed.

If Account debtors or their agents make payments on the Accounts to or negotiate reductions in the Accounts with an Association, it could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

From time to time account debtors and/or their agents may make payments on the Accounts directly to the Association or its management company. Our sole recourse in this instance is to recover these misapplied payments through set-offs of payments later collected for that Association by our third-party law firms. A significant number of misapplied or reduced payments could hinder our cash flows and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Account debtors are subject to a variety of factors that may adversely affect their payment ability.

Collections on the Accounts have varied and may in the future vary greatly in both timing and amount from the payments actually due on the Accounts due to a variety of economic, social and other factors. Failures by account debtors to timely pay off their Accounts could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Defaults on the Accounts could harm our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We take assignments of the lien foreclosure rights of Associations against delinquent units owned by account debtors who are responsible for payment of the Accounts. The payoff of the Accounts is dependent upon the ability and willingness of the condominium and home owners to pay such obligations. If an owner fails to pay off the Account relating to his, her or its unit or home, only net amounts, if any, recovered will be available with respect to that Account. Foreclosures by holders of first mortgages generally result in our receipt of reduced recoveries from Accounts. In addition, foreclosure actions by any holder of a tax lien may result in us receiving no recovery from an Account to the extent excess proceeds from such tax lien foreclosure are insufficient to provide for payment to us. If, at any time, (i) we experience an increase in mortgage foreclosures or tax lien foreclosures or (ii) we experience a decrease in owner payments, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.

Because the collection of Accounts requires special skill and diligence, any failure of BLG, or any other law firm utilized by us, to diligently collect the Accounts could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The payoff amounts received by us from Accounts may be adversely affected due to a variety of factors beyond our control.

Several factors may reduce the amount that can be collected on any individual Account. The delinquent assessments that are the subject of the Accounts and related charges are included within an Association’s claim of lien under the applicable statute. In Florida, Association liens are recorded in the official county records and hold first priority status with respect to a first mortgage holder for an amount equal to the Super Lien Amount. Associations have assigned to us the right to direct law firms to collect on the liens and foreclose, subject to the terms and conditions of the purchase agreements between each Association and us.

Each Account presents a separate risk as to the creditworthiness of the debtor obligated to pay the Account, which, in general, is the owner of the unit or home when the Account was incurred and subsequent owners. For instance, if the debtor has incurred a property tax lien, a sale related to such lien could result in our complete loss of the Account. Also, a holder of a first mortgage taking title through a foreclosure proceeding in which the Association is named as a defendant must only pay the Super Lien Amount in a state with a super lien statute. Although we purchase Accounts at a discount to the outstanding balance and the owner remains personally liable for any deficiency, we may decide that it is not cost-effective to pursue such a deficiency. As a result, the purchase or ownership of a significant number of Accounts which result in payment of only the Super Lien Amount or less where no statute specifying a Super Lien Amount applies, could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The liens securing the Accounts we own may not be superior to all liens on the related units and homes.

Although the liens of the Associations securing the Accounts may be superior in right of payment to some of the other liens on a condominium unit or home, they may not be superior to all liens on that condominium unit or home. For instance, a lien relating to delinquent property taxes would be superior in right of payment to the liens securing the Accounts. In addition, if an Association fails to assert the priority of its lien in a foreclosure action, the Association may inadvertently waive the priority of its lien. In the event that there is a lien of superior priority on a unit or home relating to one of the Accounts, the Association’s lien might be extinguished in the event that such superior liens are foreclosed. In most instances, the unit or home owner will be liable for the payment of such Account and the ultimate payment would depend on the creditworthiness of such owner. In the case of a tax lien foreclosure, an owner taking title through foreclosure would not be liable for the payment of obligations that existed prior to the foreclosure sale. The purchase or ownership of a significant number of Accounts that are the subject of foreclosure by a superior lien could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We may not choose to pursue a foreclosure action against condominium and home owners who are delinquent in paying off the Accounts relating to their units or homes.

Although we have the right to pursue a foreclosure action against a unit or home owner who is delinquent in paying off the Account relating to his or her unit or home, we may not choose to do so as the cost of such litigation may be prohibitive, especially when pursuing an individual claim against a single unit or home owner. Our choice not to foreclose on a unit or home may delay our ability to collect on the Account. If we decide not to pursue foreclosure against a significant number of Accounts, it could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

It can take our third-party law firms anywhere from three months to four years or longer to collect on an Account. Approximately 81% of our Accounts were purchased prior to 2014, with some being purchased as early as 2008. Due to various factors, including those discussed above, we cannot project the payoff date for any Account. This indeterminate holding period reduces our liquidity and ability to fund our operations. If our ability to collect on a material number of Accounts was significantly delayed, it could adversely affect our cash flows and ability to fund our operations.

Our business model and related accounting treatment may result in acceleration of expense recognition before the corresponding revenues can be recognized.

As we expand our business, we may incur significant upfront costs relating to the acquisition of Accounts. Under United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) such amounts may be required to be recognized in the period that they are expended. However, the corresponding revenue stream relating to the acquisition of such Accounts will not be recognized until future dates. Therefore, we may experience reduced earnings in earlier periods until such time as the revenue stream relating to the acquisition of such Accounts may be recognized.

Future sales of our common stock by our affiliates or other stockholders may depress our stock price.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause a decrease in the market price of our common stock. We had authorized 10,000,000 and 5,000,000 shares of common stock and preferred stock, respectively as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016.

We had 6,253,189 and 3,300,000 shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. In addition, pursuant to our 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan, options to purchase 112,904 and 215,368 respectively, shares of our common stock were outstanding as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, of which 62,904 and 94,500, respectively were exercisable.

There were 1,200,000 warrants issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. On April 2, 2018 we issued warrants to purchase 400,000 shares of our common stock in conjunction with a $500,000 senior secured indebtedness transaction.

We may issue additional shares in connection with our business and may grant additional stock options or restricted shares to our employees, officers, directors and consultants under our present or future equity compensation plans or we may issue warrants to third parties outside of such plans. If a significant portion of these shares were sold in the public market, the market value of our common stock could be adversely affected.

The market price and trading volume of our units, shares of common stock and warrants may be volatile, and you may not be able to resell your shares of common stock or warrants (as the case may be) at or above the price you paid for them.

Our securities may trade at prices significantly below the price you paid for it, in which case, holders of our securities may experience difficulty in reselling, or an inability to sell, our securities. In addition, when the market price of a company’s equity drops significantly, equity holders often institute securities class action lawsuits against the company. A lawsuit against us could cause us to incur substantial costs and could divert the time and attention of our management and other resources away from the day-to-day operations of our business.

Effective December 26, 2017, we are no longer a “controlled company” within the meaning of the rules of The NASDAQ Capital Market and, as a result, we no longer qualify for, or are able to rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements.

The entities controlled by Bruce M. Rodgers, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Carollinn Gould, our Vice President-General Manager and director, historically controlled a majority of the voting power of our common stock. As a result, until December 26, 2017, we were a “controlled company” within the meaning of the corporate governance standards of The NASDAQ Capital Market.

Because we are no longer a controlled company effective December 26, 2017, we will have to transition into compliance with the following NASDAQ requirements (subject to certain phase-in periods under the Nasdaq rules):

Securities analysts may not initiate coverage of our securities or may issue negative reports, which may adversely affect the trading price of our securities.

We cannot assure you that securities analysts will cover our company. As of December 31, 2017, no securities analyst covers our company. If securities analysts do not cover our company, this lack of coverage may adversely affect the trading price of our securities. In the event that securities analyst begin to cover our company, the trading market for our securities will rely in part on the research and reports that such securities analysts publish about us and our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover our company downgrades our securities, the trading price of our securities may decline. If one or more of these analysts then ceases to cover our company, we could lose visibility in the market, which, in turn, could also cause the trading price of our securities to decline. Further, because of our small market capitalization, it may be difficult for us to attract securities analysts to cover our company, which could significantly and adversely affect the trading price of our securities.

If we do not maintain an effective registration statement, you may not be able to exercise the warrants in a cash exercise.

For you to be able to exercise the warrants, the resale of the shares of common stock to be issued to you upon exercise of the warrants must be covered by an effective and current registration statement. We cannot guarantee that we will continue to maintain a current registration statement relating to the resale of the shares of common stock underlying the warrants. In such circumstances, you would be unable to exercise the warrants in a cash exercise and will be required to engage in a cashless exercise in which a number of warrant shares equal to the fair market value of the exercised shares will be withheld. In those circumstances, we may, but are not required to, redeem the warrants by payment in cash. Consequently, there is a possibility that you will never be able to exercise the warrants and receive the underlying shares of common stock. This potential inability to exercise the warrants in a cash exercise, our right to cancel the warrants under certain circumstances, and the possibility that we may redeem the warrants for nominal value, may have an adverse effect on demand for the warrants and the prices that can be obtained from reselling them.

We are an “emerging growth company” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our securities less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” or EGC, as defined in the JOBS Act. We will remain an EGC until the earlier of: (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenues of $1 billion or more; (ii) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of our initial public stock offering; (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; or (iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the SEC, which means the first day of the year following the first year in which the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of June 30. For so long as we remain an EGC, we are permitted to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include:

We may choose to take advantage of some or all of the available exemptions. We have taken advantage of reduced reporting burdens in this report. Accordingly, the information contained herein may be different than the information you receive from other public companies in which you hold stock. We cannot predict whether investors will find our warrants or common stock less attractive if we rely on certain or all of these exemptions. If some investors find our warrants or common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our warrants or common stock and the price of our warrants or common stock may be more volatile.

Our executive and administrative offices are located in Tampa, Florida, where we lease approximately 11,000 square feet of general office space for approximately $28,000 per month, plus utilities. The lease was renewed March 2, 2014 and expires on July 31, 2019. We sublease to a third party approximately 2,800 square feet for $5,900 per month.

Other than the lawsuits described below, we are not currently a party to material litigation proceedings. However, we frequently become party to litigation in the ordinary course of business, including either the prosecution or defense of claims arising from contracts by and between us and client Associations. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of prosecution, defense, and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

We are a defendant in an action entitled Solaris at Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. LM Funding, LLC, which was brought before the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade Civil Division on July 31, 2014. On August 4, 2017, an order by the court was entered on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement. In the order, the motion of the Plaintiff, Solaris at Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc., individually and on behalf of the certified plaintiff class (“Plaintiffs”), for approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Defendant LM Funding, LLC was granted. LMF, despite its belief that it is not liable for the claims asserted and that it has good defenses thereto, nevertheless agreed to enter into this Agreement in order to: (1) avoid any further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation and its consequential negative financial effects to LM Funding, LLC operations; (2) obtain the releases, orders, and final judgment contemplated by the Settlement Agreement; and (3) put to rest and terminate with finality all claims that had been or could have been asserted against LM Funding, LLC by the Plantiffs arising from the facts alleged in the lawsuit. Pursuant to the agreement subsequently reached between counsel, all required actions and deadlines set forth in the Settlement Agreement are currently stayed. On March 1, 2018, a continuation of the abatement was granted until April 2, 2018. As of December 31, 2017, the Company had accrued costs of $505,000 as part of the Settlement Agreement. The settlement amount was contingent upon the Company obtaining sufficient financing within the allotted timeframe of the Settlement Agreement. On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs withdrew from the Settlement Agreement. The Company will pursue certain legal remedies to defend itself against the allegations.

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

Following our initial public offering, our units, consisting of one share of our common stock and one warrant to purchase one share of our comment stock, were quoted on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “LMFAU” until they ceased trading on December 7, 2015.

Effective December 8, 2015, our common stock and common stock warrants became separately quoted on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbols “LMFA” and “LMFAW,” respectively. On December 31, 2017 there was 1 holder of record of our common stock and 1 holder of record of our common stock warrants.

The following table sets forth the quarterly high and low sales prices for the common stock and common stock warrants as reported by the Nasdaq Stock Market for the periods indicated:

	Common Stock				Common Stock Warrants
	High		Low		High		Low
2017
First Quarter	$	4.49	3.87			0.46		0.04
Second Quarter	$	4.62	3.75			0.30		0.12
Third Quarter	$	4.48	1.11			0.18		0.05
Fourth Quarter	$	6.65	1.24			0.30		0.03

2016
First Quarter	$	9.89		7.40		1.98		0.36
Second Quarter	$	9.50	7.76			1.10		0.32
Third Quarter	$	8.92	6.33			1.04		0.30
Fourth Quarter	$	8.07	4.02			1.00		0.17

The Company did not declare any dividends for the fiscal years 2017 and 2016. Future dividend payments will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon our financial condition, operating results, capital requirements and any other factors our Board of Directors deems relevant. In addition, our agreements with our lender may, from time to time, restrict our ability to pay dividends. Currently there are such restrictions under our agreements with our lender.

See “Equity Compensation Plan Information” in Part III, Item 12 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

On October 23, 2015, we closed the initial public offering of our units, each consisting of one share of common stock and one warrant to purchase one share of common stock. We issued and sold the minimum of 1,200,000 units at a public offering price of $10.00 per unit.

The offer and sale of up to 2,000,000 units in the offering were registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-205232), which was declared effective by the SEC on October 21, 2015. Following the sale of the shares in connection with the closing of our initial public offering, the offering was terminated. International Assets Advisory, LLC acted as the lead placement agent in the offering.

We received aggregate gross proceeds from the offering of $12 million, or aggregate net proceeds of $9.6 million after deducting placement agent fees of $0.9 million and related offering costs of $1.5 million. No payments for such expenses were made directly or indirectly to (i) any of our officers or directors or their associates, (ii) any persons owning 10% or more of any class of our equity securities or (iii) any of our affiliates.

As of December 31, 2017, we have used the $9.7 million of the net proceeds for various purposes including repurchase of non-controlling interest ($.25 million), repayment of debt ($3.0 million), debt interest payments ($1.0 million), funding of our original product ($.15 million), funding of our New Neighbor Guaranty program ($0.56 million) and real estate owned investments ($0.54 million). The remainder of the funds have been invested in accordance with our investment policy as well as used in normal operations of the Company.

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

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements other than statements of historical facts included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including without limitation, statements regarding our future financial position, business strategy, budgets, projected revenues, projected costs and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements generally can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “projects,” “estimates,” “anticipates,” “believes” or the negative thereof or any variation thereon or similar terminology or expressions.

We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations and projections about future events. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions about us that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important factors which could materially affect our results and our future performance include, without limitation, our ability to purchase defaulted consumer receivables at appropriate prices, competition to acquire such receivables, dependent upon third party law firms to service our accounts, ability to obtain funds to purchase receivables, ability to manage growth or declines in the business, changes in government regulations that affect our ability to collect sufficient amounts on our defaulted consumer receivables, the impact of class action suits and other litigation, keeping software systems updated to operate our business, our ability to employ and retain qualified employees, our ability to establish and maintain internal accounting controls, changes in the credit or capital markets, changes in interest rates, deterioration in economic conditions, and negative press regarding the debt collection industry which may have a negative impact on a debtor’s willingness to pay the debt we acquire, as well as other factors set forth under “Risk Factors” in this report.

Except as required by law, we assume no duty to update or revise any forward-looking statements.

We are a specialty finance company that provides funding to nonprofit community associations primarily located in the state of Florida and, to a lesser extent, nonprofit community associations in the states of Washington, Colorado, and, since February 2016, Illinois. We offer incorporated nonprofit community associations, which we refer to as “Associations,” a variety of financial products customized to each Association’s financial needs. Our original product offering consists of providing funding to Associations by purchasing their rights under delinquent accounts that are selected by the Associations arising from unpaid Association assessments. We provide funding against such delinquent accounts, which we refer to as “Accounts,” in exchange for a portion of the proceeds collected by the Associations from the account debtors on the Accounts. More recently, we have started to engage in the business of purchasing Accounts on varying terms tailored to suit each Association’s financial needs, including under our New Neighbor Guaranty program.

Because of our role as a trusted advisor to our Association clients, we are exploring a potential product line which resembles a more traditional consulting model for Associations desirous of this relationship. Areas of our consultancy may include purchase money mortgage qualification consulting, accounts receivable management, reserve study recommendations, and property tax assessed value analysis. In the event we move forward with this new product line, we will seek to provide services and advice inside of our core competency of community association finance in an effort to drive demand for our financial products.

In our original product offering, we typically purchase an Association’s right to receive a portion of the proceeds collected from delinquent unit owners. Once under contract, we engage law firms, typically on behalf of our Association clients pursuant to a power of attorney, to perform collection work on delinquent unit accounts. Our law firms typically service collection matters on a deferred billing basis whereby payment is received upon collection from the delinquent unit account debtors or at a predetermined contractual rate if amounts collected from delinquent unit account debtors are less than legal fees and costs incurred. We typically fund an amount less than or equal to the statutory “Super Lien Amount” an Association would recover at some point in the future based on the Association’s statutory lien priority. Upon collection of an Account, the law firm retained for the collection matter distributes proceeds pursuant to the terms of the agreement by and between the Association and us. Not all agreements are the same, but our typical payoff distribution will result in us first recovering amounts advanced to the Association, interest, late fees, and costs advanced, with legal fees kept by the retained law firm, and assessment amounts remitted to the Association client. In connection with our business, we have developed proprietary software for servicing Accounts, which we believe enables law firms to service Accounts efficiently and profitably.

Under the New Neighbor Guaranty program, an Association will generally assign substantially all of its outstanding indebtedness and accruals on its delinquent units to us in exchange for payment by us of an amount less than or equal to the monthly assessment payment for each assigned delinquent unit account. This simultaneously eliminates a substantial portion of the Association’s balance sheet bad debts and assists the Association in meeting its budget by both guaranteeing periodic revenues and relieving the Association of its legal fee and cost burdens typically incurred to collect bad debts.

In our initial underwriting of an Association and its individual Accounts, we review the property values of the underlying units, the governing documents of the Association, the total number of delinquent receivables held by the Association, the legal proceedings instituted, and many other factors. While we are relatively certain of the actions necessary to produce a revenue event, we cannot predict when an individual delinquent unit account will have a revenue event or payoff.

The Company was originally organized in January 2008 as a Florida limited liability company under the name LM Funding, LLC. Historically, all of our business was conducted through LM Funding, LLC and its subsidiaries (the “Predecessor”). Immediately prior to our initial public offering in October 2015, the members of the LM Funding, LLC contributed all of their membership interests to LM Funding America, Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated on April 20, 2015 (“LMFA”), in exchange for an aggregate of 2,100,000 shares of the common stock of LMFA (the “Corporate Reorganization”). Immediately after such contribution and exchange, the former members of LM Funding, LLC became the holders of 100% of the issued and outstanding common stock of LMFA, thereby making the LM Funding, LLC a wholly-owned subsidiary of LMFA. As used in this discussion and analysis, unless the context requires otherwise, references to “LMF,” “LM Funding,” “we,” “us,” “our,” “the Company,” “our company,” and similar references refer to (i) following the date of the Corporate Reorganization, LM Funding America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries, and (ii) prior to the date of the Corporate Reorganization, LM Funding, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and its consolidated subsidiaries.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, total revenues decreased by $0.5 million, or 10.4%, to $4.4 million from $4.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2016. The decrease is due in part to a decrease in interest, administrative and late fees collected during the year offset in part by increased rental revenue of $0.4 million.

The decrease in interest, administrative and late fees was the result of a decrease in the average revenue collected per unit. The average revenue per unit decreased to $3,400 for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared with $4,700 for the year ended December 31, 2016. However, there was an 11% increase in payoffs as the Company recorded approximately 1,063 payoff occurrences for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared with 959 payoff occurrences for the year ended December 31, 2016. “Payoffs” consist of recovery of the entire legally collectible portion, or a settlement thereof, of our principal investment, accrued interest, and late fees owed to us from the proceeds of the Accounts collected by the Associations in accordance with our contracts with Associations. The increase in the number of payoffs was partially offset by a decrease in revenue per unit.

We saw an increase in rental revenue for the year ended December 31, 2017 of $0.4 million to $0.7 million from $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. This was due to improving the utilizing of our rental base in 2017. There were 68 rental units in the portfolio as December 31, 2017 compared with 67 rental units as of December 31, 2016.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, operating expenses decreased $0.1 million, or 1.5%, to $7.9 million from $8.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The decrease in operating expenses can be attributed to various factors including the reduction in staffing costs of $1.1 million resulting from the fact that we had fewer employees in 2017 than we did in 2016, lower settlement costs of $0.4 million, reduced stock compensation costs of $0.2 million and reduced travel expenses of $0.1 million offset in part by the bad debt allowance for related parties of $1.4 million and increases in professional fees of $0.3 million due in part to litigation relating to the Settlement Agreement listed within Item 1. Item 3. Legal Proceedings of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Legal fees (excluding fees paid pursuant to our service agreement with BLG), for the year ended December 31, 2017 were approximately $1.3 million compared with approximately $1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 due in part to the class action lawsuit. In the ordinary course of our business, we are involved in numerous legal proceedings. We regularly initiate collection lawsuits, using our network of third party law firms, against debtors. In addition, debtors occasionally initiate litigation against us. Legal fees for BLG for the year ended December 31, 2107 were $1.1 million compared to $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. See Note 10. Related Party Transactions for further discussion regarding the service agreements with BLG.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, interest expense was relatively flat at $0.6 million compared to $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company was able to repay most of its indebtedness through a stock for debt exchange in December 2017. As a result of that exchange, we accelerated the amortization of the remaining debt issuance costs of $0.1 million. The amortization of debt issuance costs is being reported as interest expense under ASU 2015-03 (ASC 835-30-45-3).

During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company incurred approximately $604,000 loss on the settlement of its debt upon the issuance of approximately 2.9 million shares for $4.7 million in principal, accrued interest and late fees.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company accrued costs of $505,000 as part of the Settlement Agreement entered into in connection with the Solaris at Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. LM Funding case. See “Part I. Item 3. Legal Proceedings” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, the income tax provision was $3.4 million due to the Company recording a valuation allowance as compared to a $1.3 million income tax benefit for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Under ASC 740-10-30-5, Income Taxes, deferred tax assets should be reduced by a valuation allowance if, based on the weight of available evidence, it is more-likely-than-not (i.e., a likelihood of more than 50%) that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The Company considers all positive and negative evidence available in determining the potential realization of deferred tax assets including, primarily, the recent history of taxable earnings or losses. Based on operating losses reported by the Company during 2017 and 2016, the Company concluded there was not sufficient positive evidence to overcome this recent operating history. As a result, the Company believes that a valuation allowance is necessary based on the more-likely-than-not threshold noted above. The Company therefore recorded a valuation allowance of approximately of $3.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2017.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company generated a net loss of $8.6 million as compared to a net loss of $2.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the reasons mentioned above.

As of December 31, 2017, we had cash and cash equivalents of $0.6 million compared with $2.3 million at December 31, 2016. The decrease in cash is due to uses of cash in operating activities and repayment of indebtedness. The decrease was partially offset by an increase in cash provided by investing activities in the amount of $0.9 million due primarily from proceeds of $0.5 million from the sale of real estate assets held for sale.

Net cash used in operations was $2.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2017 compared with $3.4 during the year ended December 31, 2016. This change was primarily driven by a $1.1 million reduction in staff costs and payroll, a $0.4 million reduction in other operating expenses including legal fees and increased rental revenue of $0.4 million offset in part by a reduction in all other revenue of $0.8 million.

For the year ended December 31, 2017, cash generated from our net finance receivables fell by $0.5 million. This was due to the Company not collecting as much on Accounts than what was invested for the period as compared to the prior year.

Our primary business relies on our ability to invest in accounts, and during the year ended December 31, 2017, this balance decreased compared with the year ended December 31, 2016. This balance has been in consistent decline since 2012. This balance is very susceptible to housing market fluctuations.

At December 31, 2017, indebtedness of the Company was $0.1 million compared with $5.2 million at December 31, 2016. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company settled its primary senior secured debt by issuing 2.9 million shares for $4.7 million in principal, accrued interest and late fees. The Company also used $0.8 million to repay another outstanding loan to a financial institution.

In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company’s related party balance decreased $1.7 million primarily as a result of a partial repayment in the amount of $0.2 million and a write-off of the remaining balance of $1.4 million. See Note 10. Related Party Transactions for further information regarding the Company’s related party receivable balance and new service agreement. See Note 13. Management’s Plans for further discussion management’s assessment of liquidity.

The Company is obligated to pay Associations $276,000 over the next 12 months for those units that are managed by us.. We are also committed to pay $461,000 to Associaitons under the New Neighbor program over the next 48 months.

	Year ended December 31,
	2017		2016
Financing agreement with FlatIron capital that is unsecured. Down payment of $16,500 was required upfront and equal installment payments of $9,610 to be made over a 10 month period. The note matures May 31, 2018. Annualized interest is 5.25%	$	39,028	$	-

Promissory note issued to a financial institution, bearing interest at 8%, interest payable monthly, and principal payments due quarterly. Secured by all of the Company’s rights, title, interest, claims, and demands associated with certain condominium units held in LMF SPE #2, LLC and all cash held in LMF SPE #2, LLC. Accrued interest is due monthly beginning January 29, 2015. Installment of principal is due quarterly. Note was to mature on April 30, 2018 and could be prepaid at any time without penalty. Principal balance for this promissory note was $4,540,274, as of December 31, 2016. Unamortized debt issuance costs were $96,896, as of December 31, 2016.		-		4,443,378

Promissory note issued to a financial institution, bearing interest at 6% plus one month Libor, principal payments of $60,000 per month plus interest due through maturity on February 1, 2018. This loan is collateralized by all of the accounts receivable, contract rights, and lien rights arising from or relating to collection of Association payments made by the Company relating to certain accounts as well as all deposit accounts and cash of LMF October 2010 Fund, LLC. LM Funding, LLC and its members guaranteed this loan. Principal balance for this promissory note was $720,000, as of December 31, 2016. Unamortized debt issuance costs were $2,500, as of December 31, 2016.		-		717,500
	$	39,028	$	5,160,878

Minimum required principal payments on the Company’s debt as of December 31, 2017 are as follows :

On April 2, 2018, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) with a New York-based family office (“Investor”) pursuant to which the Company issued to Investor a Senior Convertible Promissory Note (“Note”) in the original principal amount of $500,000 in exchange for a purchase price of $500,000. The maturity date of the Note is six months after the date of issuance (subject to acceleration upon an event of default). Investor may at any time on or after the maturity date convert all or any part of the outstanding and unpaid principal amount and accrued and unpaid interest of the Note into fully paid and non-assessable shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Common Stock”), at a conversion price equal to 85% of the lowest daily volume weighted average price of the Common Stock in the 10 trading days immediately prior to conversion. The Note carries a 10.5% interest rate, with accrued but unpaid interest being payable on the Note’s maturity date. Investor was also issued pursuant to the SPA five- year warrants exercisable at the closing per share bid price on April 2, 2018 to purchase 400,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Warrants”).

Also on April 2, 2018, the Company entered into a Common Stock Purchase Agreement (“Purchase Agreement”) with Investor relating to the purchase by Investor from the Company up to $5,000,000 of the Company’s Common Stock. The Purchase Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Investor has committed to purchase up to $5,000,000

worth of the Company’s Common Stock (“Purchase Shares”) over a 2-year period beginning on the date on which a registration statement relating to the resale of the Purchase Shares (the “Registration Statement”) is first declared effective by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).

The Purchase Agreement requires the Company to issue to the Investor as consideration for the Investor entering into this Purchase Agreement such number of shares of Common Stock that would have a value equivalent to $200,000 calculated using the average of volume weighted average price for the Common Stock during normal trading hours during the three business day period immediately preceding the date of issuance of such shares.

The Financial Statements of the Company, the Notes thereto and the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm thereon required by this Item 8 begin on page F-1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K located immediately following the signature page.

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

Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Rule 13a-15 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives. In addition, the design of disclosure controls and procedures must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and that management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the benefits of possible controls and procedures relative to their costs.

Based on management’s evaluation (in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(b)), our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2017, due to the weakness in internal control over financial reporting described below, our disclosure controls and procedures are not designed at a reasonable assurance level or effective to provide reasonable assurance that information we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. As discussed below, we plan on increasing the size of our accounting staff at the appropriate time for our business and its size to ameliorate our auditor’s concern that the Company does not effectively segregate certain accounting duties, which we believe would resolve the material weakness in internal control over financial reporting and similarly improve disclosure controls and procedures, but there can be no assurances as to the timing of any such action or that the Company will be able to do so.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f). Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria set forth in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

Our management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017. Based on that assessment, our management determined that, as of December 31, 2017, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was not effective for the purposes for which it is intended. Specifically, management’s determination was based on the following material weaknesses which existed as of December 31, 2017.

During 2017, the number of full time employees at the Company declined from 19 to 10. The Company did not effectively segregate certain accounting duties due to the small size of its remaining accounting staff. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Notwithstanding the determination that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective, as of December 31, 2017, and that there was a material weakness as identified in this Annual Report, we believe that our consolidated financial statements contained in this Annual Report fairly present our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the years covered hereby in all material respects.

This Annual Report does not include an attestation report by MaloneBailey LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, regarding internal control over financial reporting. As a smaller reporting company, our management's report was not subject to attestation by our registered public accounting firm pursuant to rules of the Commission that permit us to provide only management’s report in this Annual Report.

We regularly review our system of internal control over financial reporting and make changes to our processes and systems to improve controls and increase efficiency. Changes may include such activities as implementing new, more efficient systems, consolidating activities, and migrating processes. There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the three months ended December 31, 2017 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. Although we plan to increase the size of our accounting staff at the appropriate time for our business and its size to ameliorate our auditor’s concern that the Company does not effectively segregate certain accounting duties, there can be no assurances as to the timing of any such action or that the Company will be able to do so.

Set forth below is a summary of the background and experience of each director. There is no family relationship among any of the directors and/or executive officers of the company except as follows: Mr. Bruce M. Rodgers, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Ms. Carollinn Gould, our Vice President—General Manager, Secretary, and director, have been married since 2004 and Joel E. Rodgers, Sr. is the father of Bruce M. Rodgers and the father-in-law of Carollinn Gould.

Bruce M. Rodgers. Mr. Rodgers, age 54, serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer and President of the company. Prior to that Mr. Rodgers owned Business Law Group, P.A. (“BLG”) and served as counsel to the founders of LM Funding, LLC (“LMF”). Mr. Rodgers was instrumental in developing the company’s business model prior to inception. Mr. Rodgers transferred his interest in BLG to attorneys within the firm by means of redemption of such interest in BLG prior to the company going public in 2015. Mr. Rodgers is a former business transactions attorney and was an associate of Macfarlane, Ferguson, & McMullen, P.A. from 1991 to 1995 and a partner from 1995-1998 and was an equity partner of Foley & Lardner LLP from 1998 to 2003. Originally from Bowling Green, Kentucky, Mr. Rodgers holds an engineering degree from Vanderbilt University (1985) and a Juris Doctor, with honors, from the University of Florida (1991). Mr. Rodgers also served as an officer in the United States Navy from 1985-1989 rising to the rank of Lieutenant, Surface Warfare Officer. Mr. Rodgers is a member of the Florida Bar and holds an AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale Hubbell.

Mr. Rodgers brings to the Board of Directors considerable experience in business, management, and law, and because of those experiences and his education, he possesses analytical and legal skills which are considered of importance to the operations of the company, the oversight of its performance and the evaluation of its future growth opportunities. Furthermore, his performance as Chief Executive Officer has indicated an in-depth understanding of the company’s business.

Carollinn Gould. Ms. Gould, age 54, co-founded LMF in January 2008, and currently serves as Vice President—General Manager, Secretary and a director of the company. Prior to joining LMF, Ms. Gould owned and operated a recruiting company specializing in the placement of financial services personnel. Prior to that, Ms. Gould worked at Outback Steakhouse (NYSE: OSI ) (“OSI”) where she opened the first restaurant in 1989 and finished her career at OSI in 2006 as shared services controller for over 1,000 restaurants. Ms. Gould holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Management from Nova Southeastern University.

As a co-founder of LMF, Ms. Gould brings to our Board of Directors an encyclopedia of knowledge regarding LMF’s growth, operations, and procedures. Since inception, Ms. Gould has controlled all bank accounts of the company and managed its internal control systems. Ms. Gould also brings public company audit experience from her duties as controller at OSI as well as a wealth of personnel management and human resources skills.

Douglas I. McCree. Mr. McCree, age 52, has served as a director of the company since its initial public offering in October 2015. Mr. McCree has been with First Housing Development Corporation of Florida (“First Housing”) since 2000 and has served as its Chief Executive Officer since 2004. From 1987 through 2000, Mr. McCree held various positions with Bank of America, N.A. including Senior Vice President—Affordable Housing Lending. Mr. McCree serves on numerous professional and civic boards. He received a B.S. from Vanderbilt University majoring in economics. Mr. McCree brings to the Board of Directors many years of banking experience and a strong perspective on public company operational requirements from his experience as Chief Executive Officer of First Housing.

Joel E. Rodgers, Sr. Mr. Rodgers, age 80, has served as a director of the company since its initial public offering in October 2015. Mr. Rodgers has been Vice President of Allied Signal, Inc. (1987-1992) and CEO of Baron Blakeslee, Inc. (1985-1987). Since 1995 Mr. Rodgers has served as a part-time Professor at Nova Southeastern University teaching finance, statistics, marketing, operations, and strategy. He has published numerous articles dealing with empowerment and corporate leadership. Mr. Rodgers represented the United States State Department in China, Mexico and Brazil in negotiations regarding the Montreal Protocol which dealt with limiting fluorocarbon discharge. Mr. Rodgers’ civic work extends to service on the library, hospital, and municipal utility boards of Bowling Green, Kentucky. Mr. Rodgers holds a Doctorate of Business Administration from Nova Southeastern University, a Masters of Business Administration from University of Kentucky, a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from University of New Mexico and was a University of Illinois PhD candidate. He brings to our Board of Directors a lifetime of management, finance and marketing experience as well as an academic career of study in each.

C. Birge Sigety. Mr. Sigety, age 65, has served as a director of the company since its initial public offering in October 2015. Mr. Sigety is currently CEO of Bison Investments, Inc., a private investment fund he started in 1996. Prior to that, Mr. Sigety was CEO of Professional Medical Products, Inc., a privately held company with over $165 million in sales, nine manufacturing plants, and 2200 employees doing business throughout the United States and in 40 other countries. Mr. Sigety has participated in a number of start-up companies in the banking, real estate, and medical device industries. Mr. Sigety holds a B.A. in English Literature from Bates College. Mr. Sigety brings to our Board of Directors an insight regarding all stages of development of companies and has experience growing companies from the start-up stage to international prominence. Mr. Sigety also brings to our Board of Directors a financial background in public and private capital markets.

Martin A. Traber. Mr. Traber, age 72, has served as a director of the company since its initial public offering in October 2015. From 1994 until 2016, Mr. Traber was a partner of Foley & Lardner LLP, in Tampa, Florida, representing clients in securities law matters and corporate transactions from 2017 to present, Mr. Traber has served as Chairman of Skyway Capital markets, LLC. Mr. Traber is a founder of NorthStar Bank in Tampa, Florida and from 2007 to 2011 served as a member of the Board of Directors of that institution. Mr. Traber served on the Board of Directors of JHS Capital Holdings, Tampa, Florida and on the Advisory Board of Platinum Bank, Tampa, Florida. From 2012 to 2013, he served on the Board of Directors of Exeter Trust Company, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Mr. Traber holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Juris Doctor from Indiana University.

Mr. Traber currently serves as a director on the Board of Directors of HCI Group, Inc., a New York Stock Exchange listed company headquartered in Tampa, Florida, primarily engaged in the homeowners’ insurance business (NYSE: HCI) (“HCI”). Mr. Traber has served on the Board of Directors of HCI since its inception.

Mr. Traber brings considerable legal, financial and business experience to the Board of Directors. He has counseled and observed numerous businesses in a wide range of industries. The knowledge gained from his observations and his knowledge and experience in business transactions and securities law are considered important in monitoring the company’s performance and when we consider and pursue business acquisitions and financial transactions. As a corporate and securities lawyer, Mr. Traber has a fundamental understanding of governance principles and business ethics. His knowledge of other businesses and industries are useful in determining management and director compensation.

Andrew L. Graham. Mr. Graham, age 58, has served as a director of the company since its initial public offering in October 2015. Since June 2008, Mr. Graham has served as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of HCI Group, Inc. (NYSE:HCI). From 1999 to 2007, Mr. Graham served in various capacities, including as General Counsel, for Trinsic, Inc. (previously named Z-Tel Technologies, Inc.), a publicly-held provider of communications services headquartered in Tampa, Florida. Since 2011, Mr. Graham has served on the Internal Audit Committee of Hillsborough County, Florida. From 2007 to 2011, he served on the Board of Trustees of Hillsborough Community College, a state institution serving over 45,000 students annually. Mr. Graham holds a Bachelor of Science, major in Accounting, from Florida State University and a Juris Doctor, as well as a Master of Laws (L.L.M.) in Taxation, from the University of Florida College of Law. Mr. Graham was licensed in Florida as a Certified Public Accountant from 1982 to 2001. As a Certified Public Accountant, he audited, reviewed and compiled financial statements and prepared tax returns. Mr. Graham’s experience serving as general counsel to publicly-held companies brings to our Board of Directors a comprehensive understanding of public company operations, financial reporting, disclosure, and corporate governance, as well as perspective regarding potential acquisitions. With his accounting education and experience, he also brings a sophisticated understanding of accounting principles, auditing standards, internal accounting control and financial presentation and analysis.

We are aware of no arrangements as to the selection and nomination of directors.

The company has a separately-designated standing audit committee established in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The audit committee is composed of three members: Andrew Graham, its chairman, C. Birge Sigety and Douglas I. McCree. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Graham is an audit committee financial expert.

The following table provides information with respect to our executive officers as of April 2, 2018:

Richard Russell. Mr. Russell, age 57, has served as Chief Financial Officer of the company since November 2017. Since 2016 Mr. Russell provided financial and accounting consulting services with a focus on technical and external reporting, internal auditing, mergers & acquisitions, risk management and interim CFO and controller services. Mr. Russell also served as Chief Financial Officer for Mission Health from 2013 to 2016 and before that, Mr. Russell served in a variety of roles for Cott Corporation from 2007 to 2013 including Senior Director Finance, Senior Director of Internal Auditing and Assistant Corporate Controller. Mr. Russell’s extensive professional experience with public companies includes his position as Director of Financial Reporting and Internal Controls for Quality Distribution and as Danka’s Director of Reporting from 2001 – 2004. Mr. Russell also holds the following positions: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Omega Brands Inc. which is an inactive public shell company and Chief Financial Officer of Affinitas Life which is an emerging senior care private company. Mr. Russell earned his bachelor of science in accounting and a master’s in tax accounting from the University of Alabama, a bachelor of arts in international studies from the University of South Florida and a master’s in business administration from the University of Tampa.

Ryan Duran. Mr. Duran, age 33, currently serves as Vice President of Operations of the company and joined the Company in March 2015. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Duran served as Operations Manager of Business Law Group, since 2008. Mr. Duran holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Real Estate and Finance from Florida State University.

We are aware of no arrangements as to the selection or appointment of executive officers.

Based solely upon a review of Forms 3, 4, and 5 filed for the year 2017, we believe that all our directors, officers, and 10% beneficial owners complied with all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to them. In addition, all such forms were filed timely.

We have adopted a code of ethics applicable to all employees and directors, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. We have posted the text of our code of ethics to our internet web site: www.lmfunding.com by clicking “Investors” at the top and then “Corporate Governance” and then the appropriate “Code of Ethics”. We intend to disclose any change to or waiver from our code of ethics by posting such change or waiver to our internet web site within the same section as described above.

The following table provides summary information concerning compensation for services rendered in all capacities awarded to, earned by or paid to our named executive officers during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016. The table does not include compensation for 2016 for each named executive officer if such officer was not employed by the company in 2016.


								Stock		Option			All Other
	Fiscal		Salary			Bonus		Awards		Awards			Compensation		Total
Name and Principal Position	Year		($)			($)		($)		($)			($)(4)		($)
Bruce Rodgers		2017	$	269,500		$	—	$	—	$	—		$	1,593	$	271,093
Chairman and CEO		2016		370,832			—		—		—			3,797		374,629
Richard Russell		2017		9,691			—		—		5,800	(1)		1,177		16,668
Chief Financial Officer		2016		—	—		—		—		—			—		—
Ryan Duran		2017		101,385			108		—		—			7,062		108,556
Vice President of Operations		2016		80,769			—		—		—			—		80,769
Stephen Weclew (2)		2017		96,923			—		—		—			9,416		106,339
Former Chief Financial Officer		2016		187,351							35,512	(2)		20,433		243,296
R. Dean Akers (3)		2017		140,000			—		—		—			21,624		161,624
Former COO		2016		183,628							25,000	(3)		23,921		233,549


			Health
			Insurance		Auto
			Premiums		Allowance
Name	Year		($)		($)		Total ($)
Bruce Rodgers		2017	$	1,593	$	—	$	1,593
		2016		3,797		—		3,797
Richard Russell		2017		1,177		—		1,177
		2016		—		—		—
Ryan Duran		2016		7,062		—		7,062
		2016		—		—		—
Stephen Weclew		2017		9,416		—		9,416
		2016		20,433		—		20,433
R. Dean Akers		2016		14,124		7,500		21,624
		2016		16,721		7,200		23,921

Certain executives’ compensation and other arrangements are set forth in employment agreements. These employment agreements are described below.

Bruce M. Rodgers. On October 22, 2015, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Bruce M. Rodgers, our Chief Executive Officer. A cost-cutting initiative was implemented by the company on August 31, 2016. The employment agreement was subsequently amended to reduced Mr. Rodgers’ annual compensation to $269,500.00. The employment agreement states that he may be granted annual bonuses at the discretion of the Board of Directors. Mr. Rodgers is entitled to participate in all of our pension, life insurance, health insurance, disability insurance and other benefit plans on the same basis as our other employee officers participate. The term of Mr. Rodgers’ agreement is for three years and is automatically renewed each year unless terminated for “cause”, as defined in the employment agreement. He will receive the base salary and benefits due under the employment agreement for the remainder of the term if terminated “without cause”, as defined in the employment agreement, or such base salary shall be paid for the remainder of the term to his estate if his employment is terminated due to his death. Mr. Rodgers’ employment agreement contains certain non-competition covenants and confidentiality provisions.

Richard Russell. On November 29, 2017, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Richard Russell, our Chief Financial Officer. Under the terms of the Employment Agreement between the Company and Mr. Russell, Mr. Russell will serve as Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Mr. Russell is to receive a base salary of $180,000 per year, subject to possible merit increases. In addition, Mr. Russell is eligible to receive an annual bonus and long term incentive awards as determined by the Company’s Board of Directors and is eligible to participate in any equity incentive plan, stock option plan, or similar plan adopted by the Company.

On the Effective Date, Mr. Russell also received stock options to purchase 25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock under the Company’s 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan (“Plan”) at a price equal to $12.50 per share. These stock options vest over a three-year period in equal annual installments beginning on the one-year anniversary of the Effective Date. Additional grants under the Plan may be made to Mr. Russell based upon an evaluation of his performance by the Company’s Board of Directors.

Ryan Duran. In March 2015 we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Ryan Duran, our Vice President of Operations. Effective March 1, 2018, Mr. Duran’s current compensation was increased to $130,000.

On January 1, 2016, Mr. Duran was awarded an option grant for 4,333 shares at an exercise rice of $10.00 per share. This option grant was fully vested upon issuance.

The following table provides information on exercisable and unexercisable options and unvested stock awards held by the named executive officers on December 31, 2017.

Option Awards

Number of

Securities

Underlying

Unexercised

Option

Options

Exercise

Option

(#)

Price

Expiration

Name

Exercisable

Unexercisable

($)

Date

Bruce Rodgers

—

Richard Russell

—

25,000

12.50

11/29/2027

R. Dean Akers

17,067

8,533

(1)

12.50

5/9/2026

Ryan Duran

4,333

—

10.00

1/2/2026

The compensation of our non-employee directors is determined by the Board of Directors which solicits a recommendation from the compensation committee.

Directors who are employees of the company do not receive any additional compensation for their service as directors. During 2017, the company’s non-employee directors were not awarded any fees.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

The table below sets forth information with respect to shares of common stock that may be issued under our 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan, as of December 31, 2017:

The following table sets forth information regarding the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of April 2, 2018 by:

The number and percentage of shares beneficially owned are based on 6,253,189 common shares outstanding as of April 2, 2018. Information with respect to beneficial ownership has been furnished by each director, officer or beneficial owner of more than 5% of our common stock. Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which generally require that the individual have voting or investment power with respect to the shares. In computing the number of shares beneficially owned by an individual listed below and the percentage ownership of that individual, shares underlying options, warrants and convertible securities held by each individual that are exercisable or convertible within 60 days of April 2, 2018, are deemed owned and outstanding, but are not deemed outstanding for computing the percentage ownership of any other individual. Except as otherwise indicated in the footnotes to this table, or as required by applicable community property laws, all individuals listed have sole voting and investment power for all shares shown as beneficially owned by them. Unless otherwise indicated in the footnotes, the address for each principal shareholder is LM Funding America, Inc., 302 Knights Run Avenue, Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33602.


Name of Beneficial Owner	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership		Percentage
5% Stockholders:
Bruce M. Rodgers Revocable Trust (1)		1,161,832		18.39	%
Carol Linn Gould Revocable Trust (1)		1,161,832		18.39	%
Executive Officers and Directors
Bruce M. Rodgers (2)		2,384,344		37.31	%
Carollinn Gould (2)		2,384,344		37.31	%
Douglas I. McCree (3)		13,334	*
Joel E. Rodgers, Sr. (4)		5,334	*
C. Birge Sigety (5)		44,934		*
Martin A. Traber (6)		24,334	*
Andrew L. Graham (7)		11,134	*
Ryan Duran (8)		4,333	*
Richard Russell (9)		-	*
All Executive Officers and Directors as a Group (8 individuals)		2,487,747		38.54	%


(2)	Includes 2,323,664 shares beneficially owned by Bruce M. Rodgers Revocable Trust and Carol Linn Gould Revocable Trust, 44,176 shares beneficially owned by BRR Holding, LLC, 15,504 shares beneficially owned by Bruce M. Rodgers IRA, and 1,000 shares beneficially owned by Carollinn Gould IRA, of which 132,420 shares in the case of Bruce M. Rodgers Revocable Trust and Carol Linn Gould Revocable Trust, 1,500 shares in the case of BRR Holding, LLC and 3,900 shares in the case of Bruce M. Rodgers IRA are issuable upon the exercise of warrants to purchase shares of common stock. Bruce M. Rodgers is the sole Trustee of the Bruce M. Rodgers Revocable Trust and Carollinn Gould is the sole Trustee of the Carol Linn Gould Revocable Trust. Bruce M. Rodgers, Carollinn Gould and their family, including trusts or custodial accounts of minor children of each of Mr. Rodgers and Ms. Gould owns 100% of the outstanding membership interests of BRR Holding, LLC, and therefore Mr. Rodgers and Ms. Gould may be deemed to have shared voting and investment power for all 2,367,840 shares owned by both Trusts and BRR Holding, LLC.
(3)	Includes 5,000 shares of common stock, 5,000 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of warrants at an exercise price of $12.50 and 3,334 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options at an exercise price of $10.00 that are currently exercisable or become exercisable within 60 days after April 2, 2018. This amount excludes 1,666 options that are not exercisable 60 days after the record date of April 2, 2018.
(4)	Includes 1,000 shares of common stock, 1,000 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of warrants at an exercise price of $12.50, and 3,334 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options at an exercise price of $10.00 that are currently exercisable or become exercisable within 60 days after April 2, 2018. This amount excludes 1,666 options that are not exercisable 60 days after the record date of April 2, 2018.
(5)	Includes 20,800 shares of common stock (10,000 shares of common stock owned directly and 10,800 shares of common stock owned indirectly via a Trust), 20,800 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of warrants (10,000 owned directly and 10,800 owned indirectly via a Trust) at an exercise price of $10.00 3,334 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options at an exercise price of $10.00 that are currently exercisable or become exercisable within 60 days after April 2, 2018. This amount excludes 1,666 options that are not exercisable 60 days after the record date of April 2, 2018.
(6)	Includes 11,000 shares of common stock, 10,000 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of warrants at an exercise price of $12.50, and 3,334 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options at an exercise price of $10.00 that are currently exercisable or become exercisable within 60 days after April 2, 2018. This amount excludes 1,666 options that are not exercisable 60 days after the record date of April 2, 2018.
(7)	Includes 1,000 shares of common stock, 6,000 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of warrants at an exercise price of $12.50, and 3,334 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options at an exercise price of $10.00 that are currently exercisable or become exercisable within 60 days after April 2, 2018. This amount excludes 1,666 options that are not exercisable 60 days after the record date of April 2, 2018.
(8)	Includes 4,333 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options at an exercise price of $10.00 that are currently exercisable or become exercisable within 60 days after April 2, 2018.
(9)	Excludes 25,0000 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options at an exercise price of $12.50 that are not exercisable 60 days after the record date of April 2, 2018.

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

LMF has engaged BLG on behalf of many of its Association clients to service and collect the accounts and to distribute the proceeds as required by Florida law and the provisions of the purchase agreements between LMF and the Associations. In addition, Ms. Gould entered an employment agreement to work part-time for LMF. Ms. Gould’s employment agreement with LMF permits her to also work as General Manager of Business Law Group, P.A. which pays her additional compensation of $150,000 per year.

One of our directors, Martin A. Traber, is a former partner at the law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP retiring in 2016. Since our inception in 2015, the firm has provided legal representation to us. During 2017 and 2016, Foley & Lardner LLP billed us approximately $50,000 and $68,000, respectively, which represents less than 1% of Foley & Lardner’s fee revenue. These services were provided on an arm’s-length basis, and paid for at fair market value. We believe that such services were performed on terms at least as favorable to us as those that would have been realized in transactions with unaffiliated entities or individuals.

Based upon recommendations of our nominating and governance committee, the Board of Directors has determined that current directors Messrs. McCree, Graham, Sigety and Traber are “independent directors” meeting the independence tests set forth by NASDAQ Stock Market and Rule 10A-3(b)(i) under the Exchange Act, including having no material relationship with the company (either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the company). In the case of Mr. Traber, the Board of Directors considered his previous role as a partner of Foley & Lardner LLP, which provides legal services to the company, and determined that the fees received by the law firm from us amount to less than 1% of the firm’s total revenue and also

considered Mr. Traber’s personal financial substance, his other sources of income and his lack of dependence upon legal fees from the company.

In addition, the members of the audit committee are considered to be “independent directors” pursuant to the definition contained in Rule 5605(a)(2) of the NASDAQ and the criteria for independence set forth in Rule 10A-3(b)(1) of the Commission, and the members of the compensation committee (C. Birge Sigety, Douglas I. McCree and Martin A. Traber) have been determined to be “independent” within the meaning of the Commission and NASDAQ regulations.

The following table sets forth the aggregate fees for services related to the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 provided by Malone Bailey, LLP and Skoda Minotti & Co. Certified Public Accountants, our principal accountants:

1. Financial Statements. See the Index to Consolidated Financial Statements on page F-1.

(b) Exhibits. The exhibits listed on the Exhibit Index, which appears at the end of this report, are filed as part of, or are incorporated by reference into, this report.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of LM Funding America, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) as of December 31, 2017, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) ("PCAOB") and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audit we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audit included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audit also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of LM Funding America, Inc. and Subsidiaries (collectively the “Company”) as of December 31, 2016, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit.

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

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of LM Funding America, Inc. and Subsidiaries at December 31, 2016, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

	December 31,			December 31,
	2017			2016
Assets
Cash	$	590,394		$	2,268,180
Finance receivables:
Original product (Note 2)		637,937			1,035,832
Special product - New Neighbor Guaranty program, net of allowance for credit losses of (Note 3)		339,471			491,597
Due from related party (Note 10)		—			1,661,360
Prepaid expenses and other assets		101,339			170,774
Fixed assets, net		69,505			109,938
Real estate assets owned (Note 5)		196,707			734,727
Other assets		32,964			32,964
Deferred tax asset (Note 8)		—			3,509,401
Total assets	$	1,968,317		$	10,014,773

Liabilities and stockholders' equity
Notes payable (Note 6)
Principal amount	$	39,028		$	5,260,274
Less unamortized debt issuance costs		-			(99,396	)
Total notes payable less unamortized debt issuance costs		39,028			5,160,878
Accounts payable and accrued expenses		477,953			493,691
Accrued loss litigation settlement		505,000			-
Deferred tax liability		-			77,865
Other liabilities and obligations		49,353			112,881
Total liabilities		1,071,334			5,845,315

Stockholders' equity (Note 9)
Common stock, par value $.001; 10,000,000 shares authorized; 6,253,189 and 3,300,000 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively		6,253			3,300
Additional paid-in capital		11,908,455			6,556,704
Accumulated deficit		(11,017,725	)		(2,390,546	)
Total stockholders' equity		896,983			4,169,458
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	1,968,317		$	10,014,773

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

	Years ended December 31,
	2017			2016
Revenues
Interest on delinquent association fees	$	2,935,517		$	3,640,233
Administrative and late fees		259,653			383,773
Recoveries in excess of cost - special product		172,884			143,106
Underwriting fees and other revenues		286,435			385,683
Rental revenue		737,490			347,040
Total revenues		4,391,979			4,899,835

Operating expenses
Staff costs & payroll		1,887,830			3,220,005
Professional fees		2,459,888			2,105,143
Settlement costs with associations		269,576			654,750
Selling, general and administrative		762,268			1,080,130
Real estate management and disposal		551,708			499,647
Depreciation and amortization		95,447			72,114
Collection costs		228,763			292,791
Bad debt allowance - related party		1,408,589			-
Provision for credit losses		141,286			-
Other operating		58,377			62,004
Total operating expenses		7,863,732			7,986,584

Operating loss		(3,471,753	)		(3,086,749	)

Loss on litigation		(505,000	)		-
Loss on settlement of debt exchange		(604,779	)		-
Interest expense		(614,111	)		(594,600	)
Total other expenses		(1,723,890	)		(594,600	)

Loss before income taxes		(5,195,643	)		(3,681,349	)

Income tax (reduction) benefit		3,431,536			(1,310,959	)

Delaware	47-3844457
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
302 Knights Run Avenue Suite 1000 Tampa, FL	33602
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐

Non-accelerated filer	☐ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller reporting company	☒
		Emerging growth company	☒


	Equity Compensation Plan Information
	(a)			(b)		(c)
Plan Category	Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights			Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights		Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a))
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders		112,904		$	11.11		487,096
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders		—	$		—		—


	•	each person who is known by us to beneficially own more than 5% of our outstanding common stock,
	•	each of our directors and named executive officers, and
	•	all directors and executive officers as a group.


		2017		2016
Audit Fees – Malone Bailey, LLP (1)		$	85,000	$	-
Audit Fees – Skoda Minotti & Co. Certified Public Accountants			45,000		195,000
All Other Fees (3)			12,500		15,975
Total		$	142,500	$	210,975
(1)	Audit Fees represent fees billed for professional services rendered for the audit of our annual financial statements.
(2)	Audit Fees represent fees billed for professional services rendered for the audit of our annual financial statements and review of our quarterly financial statements included in our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q.
(3)	All Other Fees represent fees billed for services provided to us not otherwise included in the category above
	Pre-Approval Policies All auditing services and non-auditing services are pre-approved by the audit committee. The audit committee has delegated this authority to the chairman of the audit committee for situations when pre-approval by the full audit committee is inconvenient. Any decisions by the chairman of the audit committee must be disclosed at the next audit committee meeting.

		Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	3
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	6
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	15
Item 2.	Properties	16
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	16
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	16

PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	17
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	18
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	18
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	23
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	23
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	23
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	23
Item 9B.	Other Information	24

PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	24
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	27
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	29
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	31
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	32

PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	33
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	33


Name	Age	Title
Bruce M. Rodgers	54	Chairman, Chief Executive Office and President
Richard Russell	57	Chief Financial Officer
Ryan Duran	33	Vice-President of Operations


(1)	Includes an option to purchase 25,000 shares of common stock granted to Mr. Russell on November 29, 2017. The option has an exercise price of $12.50 per share and expires on November 29, 2027. The option vests fully in three equal annual installments on November 29, 2018, November 29, 2019 and November 29, 2020.
(2)	Mr. Weclew resigned from the Company effective August 21, 2017. The Option Award includes an option to purchase 25,600 shares of common stock granted to Mr. Weclew on January 4, 2016. The option has an exercise price of $12.50 per share and expires on January 3, 2026. The option vests fully in three equal annual installments on January 3, 2017, January 3, 2018 and January 3, 2019.
(3)	Mr. Akers resigned from the Company effective February 28, 2018. The Option Award includes an option to purchase 25,000 shares of common stock granted to Mr. Akers on May 10, 2016. The option has an exercise price of $12.50 per share and expires on May 9, 2026. The option vests fully in three equal annual installments on May 9, 2017, May 9, 2018 and May 9, 2019.


(1)	One third of the options vest on May 9, 2017 which is within 60 days of the record date.


*	Represents less than 1% of beneficial ownership
(1)	Includes 2,191,244 shares of common stock and 132,420 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of warrants held by the two revocable trusts. Bruce M. Rodgers, Carollinn Gould and their family, including trusts or custodial accounts of minor children of each of Mr. Rodgers and Ms. Gould, own 100% of the outstanding membership interests of each trust.

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firms	F-2

Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2017 and 2016	F-4

Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016	F-5

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity for the Years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016	F-6

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016	F-7

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements	F-8