EXHIBIT 99.1

Summary of Significant Differences between Delaware and Nevada Law

On July 10, 2018 (“Effective Date”), Toga Limited (the “Company”) changed its state of incorporation from the State of Delaware to the State of Nevada (the “Reincorporation”). The Reincorporation was accomplished by filing Articles of Incorporation and Articles of Domestication with the Secretary of the State of Nevada, as well Certificate of Conversion with the Secretary of the State of Delaware. Prior to the Reincorporation, the affairs of the Company were governed by Delaware law. On the Effective Date, the affairs of the Company became governed by the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada Articles of Incorporation.

The statutory corporate laws of the State of Nevada, as governed by the Nevada Revised Statutes, are similar in many respects to those of Delaware, as governed by the Delaware General Corporation Law. However, there are certain differences that may affect your rights as a stockholder, as well as the corporate governance of the corporation, as a result of the Reincorporation. The following are summaries of material differences between the prior rights of stockholders of the Company under Delaware law and the rights of stockholders of the Company under Nevada law following the Reincorporation.

The following discussion is a summary. It does not give you a complete description of the differences that may affect you. You should also refer to the Nevada Revised Statutes.

General

Delaware for many years has followed a policy of encouraging incorporation in that state and, in furtherance of that policy, has adopted comprehensive, modern and flexible corporate laws that Delaware periodically updates and revises to meet changing business needs. Because of Delaware's prominence as a state of incorporation for many large corporations, the Delaware courts have developed considerable expertise in dealing with corporate issues and a substantial body of case law has developed construing Delaware law and establishing public policies with respect to Delaware corporations.

Removal of Directors

Delaware Law . Under Delaware law, directors of a corporation without a classified board may be removed with or without cause by the holders of a majority of shares then entitled to vote in an election of directors. For classified boards, the directors may only be removed for cause.

Nevada Law . Under Nevada law, any one or all of the directors of a corporation may be removed by the holders of not less than two-thirds of the voting power of a corporation's issued and outstanding stock. Nevada does not distinguish between removal of directors with or without cause.

Limitation on Personal Liability of Directors

Delaware Law . A Delaware corporation is permitted to adopt provisions in its certificate of incorporation limiting or eliminating the liability of a director to a company and its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director, provided that such liability does not arise from certain proscribed conduct, including breach of the duty of loyalty, acts or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law or liability to the corporation based on unlawful dividends or distributions or improper personal benefit.

Nevada Law . Nevada law includes statutory exculpation of directors and officers that does not require the adoption of particular provisions in the articles of incorporation. In particular, NRS 78.138(7) provides that except under certain limited circumstances provided by other provisions of the NRS, or unless the articles of incorporation provide for greater liability, a director or officer is not individually liable to the corporation or its stockholders or creditors for any damages as a result of any act or failure to act in his or her capacity as a director or officer unless it is proven that: (1) the director's or officer's act or failure to act constituted a breach of his or her fiduciary duties as a director or officer; and (2) the breach of those duties involved intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law.

1

Indemnification of Officers and Directors and Advancement of Expenses

Although Delaware and Nevada law have substantially similar provisions regarding indemnification by a corporation of its officers, directors, employees and agents, Delaware and Nevada law differ in their provisions for advancement of expenses incurred by an officer or director in defending a civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding.

Delaware Law . Delaware law provides that expenses incurred by an officer or director in defending any civil, criminal, administrative or investigative action, suit or proceeding may be paid by the corporation in advance of the final disposition of the action, suit or proceeding upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of the director or officer to repay the amount if it is ultimately determined that he is not entitled to be indemnified by the corporation. A Delaware corporation has the discretion to decide whether or not to advance expenses, unless its certificate of incorporation or bylaws provide for mandatory advancement.

Nevada Law . Under Nevada law, the articles of incorporation, bylaws or an agreement made by the corporation may provide that the corporation must pay advancements of expenses in advance of the final disposition of the action, suit or proceedings upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of the director or officer to repay the amount if it is ultimately determined that he is not entitled to be indemnified by the corporation.

Action by Written Consent of Directors

Both Delaware and Nevada law provide that, unless the articles or certificate of incorporation or the bylaws provide otherwise, any action required or permitted to be taken at a meeting of the directors or a committee thereof may be taken without a meeting if ALL members of the Board or committee, as the case may be, consent to the action in writing.

Actions by Written Consent of Stockholders

Both Delaware and Nevada law provide that, unless the certificate of incorporation (or in the case of a Nevada corporation, the articles of incorporation or the bylaws) provides otherwise, any action required or permitted to be taken at a meeting of the stockholders may be taken without a meeting if the holders of outstanding stock having at least the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or take the action at a meeting at which all shares entitled to vote consent to the action in writing.

Delaware Law . Delaware law requires a corporation to give prompt notice of the taking of corporate action without a meeting by less than unanimous written consent to those stockholders who did not consent in writing.

Nevada Law . Nevada law does not require notice to the stockholders of action taken by written consent of the stockholders.

Dividends

Delaware Law . Delaware law is more restrictive than Nevada law with respect to when dividends may be paid. Under Delaware law, unless further restricted in the certificate of incorporation, a corporation may declare and pay dividends out of surplus, or if no surplus exists out of net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year (provided that the amount of capital of the corporation is not less than the aggregate amount of the capital represented by the issued and outstanding stock of all classes having a preference upon the distribution of assets). In addition, Delaware law provides that a corporation may redeem or repurchase its shares only if the capital of the corporation is not impaired and such redemption or repurchase would not impair the capital of the corporation.

2

Nevada Law . Nevada law provides that no distribution (including dividends on, or redemption or repurchases of, shares of capital stock) may be made if, after giving effect to such distribution, the corporation would not be able to pay its debts as they become due in the usual course of business, or, except as specifically permitted by the articles of incorporation, the corporation's total assets would be less than the sum of its total liabilities plus the amount that would be needed at the time of a dissolution to satisfy the preferential rights of stockholders whose preferential rights are superior to those receiving the distribution.

Restrictions on Business Combinations with Interested Stockholders

Both Delaware and Nevada law contain provisions restricting the ability of a corporation to engage in business combinations with an interested stockholder.

Delaware Law . Under Delaware law, a corporation that is listed on a national securities exchange or held of record by more than 2,000 stockholders, is not permitted to engage in a business combination with any interested stockholder for a three-year period following the time the stockholder became an interested stockholder, unless: (i) the transaction resulting in a person becoming an interested stockholder, or the business combination, is approved by the Board of the corporation before the person becomes an interested stockholder; (ii) upon consummation of the transaction which resulted in the stockholder becoming an interested stockholder, the interested stockholder owned at least 85% of the voting stock of the corporation outstanding at the time the transaction commenced (excluding shares owned by persons who are both officers and directors of the corporation, and shares held by certain employee stock ownership plans); or (iii) on or after the date the person becomes an interested stockholder, the business combination is approved by the corporation's Board and by the holders of at least two-thirds of the corporation's outstanding voting stock at an annual or special meeting, excluding shares owned by the interested stockholder. Delaware law defines "interested stockholder" generally as a person who owns 15% or more of the outstanding shares of a corporation's voting stock.

Nevada Law . Similarly, Nevada's "combinations with interested stockholders" statutes (NRS Sections 78.411 through 78.444, inclusive) prohibit specified types of business "combinations" between certain Nevada corporations and any person deemed to be an "interested stockholder" but for only for two years after such person first becomes an "interested stockholder" unless the corporation's board of directors approves the combination (or the transaction by which such person becomes an "interested stockholder") in advance, or unless the combination is approved by the board of directors and sixty percent of the corporation's voting power not beneficially owned by the interested stockholder, its affiliates and associates at an annual or special meeting of the stockholders. Furthermore, in the absence of prior approval certain restrictions may apply even after such two-year period. An amendment to the NRS, effective October 1, 2015, however, provides that these statutes do not apply to any combination of a corporation and an interested stockholder after the expiration of four years after the person first became an interested stockholder. For purposes of these statutes, an "interested stockholder" is any person who is (1) the beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of ten percent or more of the voting power of the outstanding voting shares of the corporation, or (2) an affiliate or associate of the corporation and at any time within the two previous years was the beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of ten percent or more of the voting power of the then-outstanding shares of the corporation. The definition of the term "combination" is sufficiently broad to cover most significant transactions between a corporation and an "interested stockholder." As in Delaware, a Nevada corporation may opt-out of the statute with appropriate provisions in its articles of incorporation

Special Meetings of the Stockholders

Delaware Law . Delaware law permits special meetings of stockholders to be called by the Board or by any other person authorized in the certificate of incorporation or bylaws to call a special stockholder meeting.

Nevada Law . Nevada law permits special meetings of stockholders to be called by the entire Board, any two directors, or the President, unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise .

Special Meetings Pursuant to Petition of Stockholders

Delaware Law . Delaware law provides that a director or a stockholder of a corporation may apply to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware if the corporation fails to hold an annual meeting for the election of directors or there is no written consent to elect directors instead of an annual meeting for a period of 30 days after the date designated for the annual meeting or, if there is no date designated, within 13 months after the last annual meeting.

Nevada Law . Under Nevada law, stockholders having not less than 15% of the voting interest may petition the district court to order a meeting for the election of directors if a corporation fails to call a meeting for that purpose within 18 months after the last meeting at which directors were elected.

3

Adjournment of Stockholder Meetings

Delaware Law . Under Delaware law, if a meeting of stockholders is adjourned due to lack of a quorum and the adjournment is for more than 30 days, or if after the adjournment, a new record date is fixed for the adjourned meeting, notice of the adjourned meeting must be given to each stockholder of record entitled to vote at the meeting. At the adjourned meeting the corporation may transact any business which might have been transacted at the original meeting.

Nevada Law . Under Nevada law, a corporation is not required to give any notice of an adjourned meeting or of the business to be transacted at an adjourned meeting, other than by announcement at the meeting at which the adjournment is taken, unless the Board fixes a new record date for the adjourned meeting or the meeting date is adjourned to a date more than 60 days later than the date set for the original meeting, in which case a new record date must be fixed and notice given.

Duration of Proxy

Delaware Law . Under Delaware law, a proxy executed by a stockholder will remain valid for a period of three years, unless the proxy provides for a longer period.

Nevada Law . Under Nevada law, a proxy is effective only for a period of six months, unless it is coupled with an interest or unless otherwise provided in the proxy, which duration may not exceed seven years. Both Delaware and Nevada law also provide for irrevocable proxies, without limitation on duration, in limited circumstances.

Stockholder Vote for Mergers and Other Corporate Reorganization

Delaware law requires authorization by an absolute majority of outstanding shares entitled to vote, as well as approval by the Board, with respect to the terms of a merger or a sale of substantially all of the assets of the corporation. Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, a Nevada corporation may, by action taken at any meeting of its board of directors, sell, lease or exchange all of its property and assets, including its goodwill and its corporate franchises, upon the terms and conditions as its board of directors may approve, when and as authorized by the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting power of the stockholders. Delaware law does not require a stockholder vote of the surviving corporation in a merger (unless the corporation provides otherwise in its certificate of incorporation) if: (a) the plan of merger does not amend the existing certificate of incorporation; (b) each share of stock of the surviving corporation outstanding immediately before the effective date of the merger is an identical outstanding share after the merger; and (c) either no shares of Common Stock of the surviving corporation and no shares, securities or obligations convertible into such stock are to be issued or delivered under the plan of merger, or the authorized unissued shares or shares of Common Stock of the surviving corporation to be issued or delivered under the plan of merger plus those initially issuable upon conversion of any other shares, securities or obligations to be issued or delivered under such plan do not exceed 20% of the shares of Common Stock of such constituent corporation outstanding immediately prior to the effective date of the merger. Nevada law does not require a stockholder vote of the surviving corporation in a merger under substantially similar circumstances.

Increasing or Decreasing Authorized Shares

Subject to certain limitations and in certain circumstances dissenter's rights, Nevada law allows the Board of a corporation, by resolution and without a stockholder vote, to effectuate a reverse or forward split of a class or series of the corporation's capital stock if the number of authorized shares of such class or series is simultaneously and correspondingly increased or decreased. Delaware law contains no such similar provision.

4