GlucoTrack files financials for merged Lokahi Therapeutics, flags going concern doubt
An 8-K/A filed August 28, 2026 shows Lokahi had $53,186 in cash at June 30, 2026 and an accumulated deficit of $8.8 million, with auditors citing substantial doubt about its ability to continue.
GlucoTrack, Inc. filed Amendment No. 1 to a Form 8-K on August 28, 2026, adding financial statements and pro forma data for Lokahi Therapeutics, Inc. tied to a merger completed earlier in the year. The amendment supplies financial statements and pro forma financial information required under Item 9.01, following a reverse merger transaction previously reported in the company's original Form 8-K filed July 15, 2026.1
Lokahi is described in the filing as a development-stage biopharmaceutical company incorporated in Delaware that is focused on developing Apitox, a drug derived from purified honeybee venom aimed at treating acute pain and inflammation linked to knee osteoarthritis.1 Before the merger, the company operated as a subsidiary of Apimeds Pharmaceuticals US, Inc.1
The unaudited condensed financials show a steep decline in liquidity. As of June 30, 2026, the company had cash and cash equivalents of $53,186.1 It reported an accumulated deficit of $8,799,232, with a net loss of $8,098,087 and $3,624,474 in cash used in operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2026, and it expects continued substantial losses.1 The auditor's report from Kreit & Chiu CPA LLP includes an emphasis-of-matter paragraph stating that the company has suffered recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows that raise substantial doubt about its capacity to continue operating.1
The filing also discloses potential legal exposure. In August 2026, counsel for Alto Opportunity Master Fund B contacted Lokahi's legal counsel about a $10.9 million note owed by APUS, asserting Lokahi could bear responsibility since it was formerly an APUS subsidiary, and indicated intent to pursue litigation against APUS, the company, and other parties.1 As of the filing date, Alto had not specified a legal basis, an amount sought, or commenced any proceeding against the company.1
Written by readthrough’s AI from the linked primary sources and fact-checked against them automatically before publishing. Not investment advice.