[X] Quarterly report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,

[ ] Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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 requirement for the past 90 days. Yes [ X ] 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 [ X ] No [ ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (Check One):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12(b)-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [ ] No [ X ]

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date. At August 20, 2012, the registrant had outstanding 458,789,037 shares of common stock.

EXPLANATORY NOTE: The Company has included the XBRL Interactive Data Table 101 Exhibits with this amended filing.

Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.



	For the Three Months Ended June 30,
	2012	2011


Revenue	$ 60,000	$ –

Expenses:
General and administrative	87,074	4,705
Impairment of goodwill	-	–

Loss from operations	(27,074)	(4,705)

Other income (expense):
Gain of forgiveness of debt	–	–
Interest expense	(13,191)	–

Net income (loss)	$ (40,265)	$ (4,705)


Net loss per common share – basic and diluted	$ (0.00)	$ (0.00)

Weighted average number of common shares – basic and diluted	458,776,815	428,708,343



	For the Nine Months Ended June 30,		For the Period from July 25, 2006 to
	2012	2011	June 30, 2012


Revenue	$ 60,000	$ –	$ 60,000

Expenses:
General and administrative	257,233	56,798	973,590
Impairment of goodwill	2,944,539	–	2,944,539

Loss from operations	(3,141,772)	(56,798)	(3,858,129)

Other income (expense)
Gain on forgiveness of debt	–	–	7,414,017
Interest expense	(22,364)	–	(131,104)

Net income (loss)	$ (3,164,136)	$ (56,798)	$ 3,424,784


Net loss per common share – basic and diluted	$ (0.01)	$ (0.00)

Weighted average number of common shares – basic and diluted	451,532,403	424,092,958


	For the Nine Months Ended June 30,		For the Period from July 25, 2006 to
	2012	2011	June 30, 2012

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Net income (loss)	$ (3,164,136)	$ (56,798)	$ 3,424,784
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash used in operating activities:
Share-based compensation	–	30,238	286,738
Expenses paid by shareholder	986	13,460	167,730
Impairment of goodwill	2,944,539	-	2,944,539
Gain on settlement of debt	–	-	(7,414,017)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable	(60,000)	-	(60,000)
Prepaid expenses	(2,940)	-	(2,940)
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities	86,297	13,100	452,912
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities – related parties	23,500	-	23,500
Net cash used in operating activities	(171,754)	-	(176,754)

CASH FLOW FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Cash acquired from business acquisition	7,472	-	7,472
Net cash provided by investing activities	7,472	-	7,472

CASH FLOW FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Net proceeds from issuance of common stock	48,263	-	53,263
Net proceeds from related parties	67,920	-	67,920
Net proceeds from notes payable	50,000	-	50,000
Net cash provided by financing activities	166,183	-	171,183

NET CHANGE IN CASH	1,901	-	1,901

CASH AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD	–	-	–

CASH AT END OF PERIOD	$ 1,901	$ -	$ 1,901

SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW DISCLOSURES
Cash paid for:
Interest	$ –	$ –	$ –
Income taxes	–	–	–
Non-cash investing activities:
Common stock issued for business acquisition	$ 2,625,000	$ –	$ 2,625,000

The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements have been prepared by VR Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Revenue is recognized at the time services are performed. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America have been omitted in accordance with such rules and regulations. The information furnished in the interim consolidated financial statements includes normal recurring adjustments and reflects all adjustments, which, in the opinion of management, are necessary for a fair presentation of such financial statements. Although management believes the disclosures and information presented are adequate to make the information not misleading, these interim consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s most recent audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K. Operating results for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending September 30, 2012.

Preparing financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue, and expenses. Examples include valuation of stock-based compensation. Actual results and outcomes may differ from management’s estimates and assumptions.

The Company evaluated subsequent events through the date the financial statements were issued for disclosure consideration.

At June 30, 2012, we had a working capital deficit of $747,762. Through June 30, 2012, we have been primarily engaged in preparation and filing of lawsuits and completing the merger with Litigation Dynamics, Inc. (“LDI”). In the course of our development activities, we have sustained losses and expect such losses to continue through at least 2013. We expect to finance our operations primarily through future financing, including the sale of stock in the Company. We will be required to obtain additional capital in the future to continue operations.

Although we were incorporated in 1998, we have no recent operating history before the merger between the Company and LDI which was completed on January 20, 2012. We cannot forecast with any degree of certainty whether any of our proposed litigation services will ever generate revenue or the amount of revenue to be generated. In addition, we cannot predict the consistency of our operating results. We are currently involved in a lawsuit. If we are successful in the litigation, we plan on utilizing the proceeds to be received to fund our operations. If we are not successful in the litigation, or if we receive only a minimal amount, we will not have sufficient money to fund our proposed operations. In such event, we will have to raise capital either through equity or debt offerings. To the extent that we generate revenue and operating profit, these funds will be used to help cover the cost associated with our lawsuit and reduce our needs for additional outside funding.

There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain additional capital (funding) through equity or debt financing, or any combination thereof, or on satisfactory terms or at all. Additionally, no assurance can be given that any such financing, if obtained, will be adequate to meet our ultimate capital needs and to support our growth. If adequate capital cannot be obtained on a timely basis and on satisfactory terms, our operations would be materially negatively impacted. Further, if we do not obtain additional funding during the year 2012, we may enter into bankruptcy and possibly cease operations thereafter.

As a result of the above discussed conditions, there exists substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our financial statements are presented on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability of the recorded assets or the classification of liabilities that may be necessary should it be determined that we are unable to continue as a going concern.

On January 20, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition of 100% of Litigation Dynamics, Inc. (“LDI”). LDI provides litigation support services.

The shares of the pre-merger LDI were agreed to be exchanged for 17,500,000 common shares of the Company at the date of the merger (valued at $2,625,000), and the shareholder of LDI will be able to earn additional shares of the Company based upon the revenue generated by LDI during the first two years after the merger. For every dollar of revenue generated by LDI during the first two years of operations after the merger, the original shareholder of LDI will receive two shares of the Company up to a maximum of 20,000,000 additional shares. The Company cannot currently estimate the revenue that will be generated or the total number of contingent shares to be issued. LDI is currently working on business opportunities that once completed, will allow LDI to start generating recurring revenue. Until these opportunities are completed, the Company cannot estimate the revenue that will be generated. Subsequent to the merger, LDI will continue to be a provider of hosted litigation eDiscovery software and support services.

The preliminary acquisition price was allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based upon their estimated fair values. The following table summarizes the estimated fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the date of acquisition:

During the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company recorded an impairment of the goodwill totaling $2,944,539 related to the acquisition of LDI.

The following unaudited pro forma information for the nine months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 has been prepared as if the acquisition had occurred as of the beginning of each period. The pro forma results are not necessarily indicative of what actually would have occurred had the acquisition been in effect for the entire period presented.

On January 20, 2012, the Company assumed $300,000 notes payable as a result of the acquisition of LDI.

On November 29, 2011, the Company sold 480,694 shares of common stock for gross proceeds of $48,069. These shares were sold by the Company’s investment banker in a private placement with a commission rate of 10% ($4,806) being paid to the investment banker as offering costs.

On January 20, 2012, the Company issued 17,500,000 common shares to acquire LDI. The shares were valued at $2,625,000 based on the trading price on the date of the acquisition.

On April 23, 2012, the Company sold 50,000 shares of common stock for gross proceeds of $5,000.

The Cancer Foundation, Inc., a shareholder of the Company, has paid for certain expenses on behalf of the Company. During the nine months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, The Cancer Foundation, Inc. paid $986 and $13,243, respectively. These payments have been recorded as contributed capital to the Company.

At June 30, 2012, the Company had a balance of $43,616 due from related companies for funds advanced to the Company for payment of operating expenses. Mr. Mike Moore, President and Director of LDI served as a director or officer of the above mentioned related companies.

At June 30, 2012, the Company had payable to Mr. Mike Moore of $89,168 for funds provided to the Company for operations.

These related party payables and receivables are due on demand, are non-interest bearing and have no maturity date.

The Company, through its subsidiaries, is involved in a lawsuit, The Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management, LP. All claims held by Mr. and Mrs. Morton M. Lapides, Sr. have been assigned to VR Holdings.

MML, Transcolor, and Morton M. Lapides, Sr. filed a motion to reinstate the action for scheduling of discovery and trial. A hearing on that motion was held on July 25, 2012, in which the court took the matter under advisement and will rule later.

Now that the Illinois Court of Appeals has reversed Judge Goldberg’s dismissal, the case may move forward into the discovery phase where a number of issues will need to be explored. These issues include whether the defendants breached the Shareholders Agreement, whether the defendants’ actions damaged MML and Mr. Lapides, and the quantum of their damages. Expert testimony may be needed during the litigation. Either party may move for summary judgment at the conclusion of discovery. If there are any important remaining factual issues after summary judgment rulings, the case may then proceed to trial.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of the case or the amount that might be recovered in the event of victory.

The Company has agreed to issue 3,000,000 shares of common stock, valued $1,530,000, to its service provider. The value of these shares was determined based on the market price.

Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION SHOULD BE READ TOGETHER WITH THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES INCLUDED ELSEWHERE IN THIS REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.

The following discussion reflects our plan of operation. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements which are included in this Report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding our expected financial position, business and financing plans. These statements involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from the results described in or implied by these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those discussed below and elsewhere in this Report.

Since the business previously operated by VR Holdings, Inc. before the filing of our registration statement with the SEC on May 17, 2010, no longer has any relevance, the discussion which immediately follows relates primarily to our proposed business of investing in litigation and arbitration cases, claims and disputes. The discussion of our wholly-owned subsidiary, Litigation Dynamics, Inc. follows below the discussion pertaining to VR Holdings. Therefore, unless the context otherwise suggests, “we,” “our,” “us,” and similar terms, as well as references to “VR Holdings or Litigation Dynamics,” all refer to VR Holdings or Litigation Dynamics as of the date of this Report.

If we are successful in our litigation effort in The Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management, LP, more fully discussed below, our business going forward is expected to consist of a strategy to build a diversified portfolio of investments in various legal claims and to provide our stockholders with an attractive level of capital growth through investing directly and indirectly in litigation and arbitration cases, claims and disputes.

The primary function of VR Holdings will be to invest directly and indirectly in litigation and arbitration cases, claims and disputes. We hope to provide the capital for our intended business plan through the proceeds which we may receive in The Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management, LP litigation described in this Report. However, if we are not successful in that litigation, we still intend to pursue our business plan, and if necessary raise whatever funds we may need by means of a debt or equity offering. At the time of this Report, we are currently offering through a private placement shares of our common stock in order to raise needed capital.

It should be clearly understood that we will not be able to commence our proposed business, unless and until we are successful in The Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management, LP litigation, or we raise additional funds by means of a debt or equity offering. We will explore whatever capital-raising steps which seem most likely to produce the capital we need to finance our litigation and to fund our proposed business going forward. We have not yet made any decision on what capital-raising steps we might take, but expect to make that decision once we know the outcome of The Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management, LP litigation. At the time of this Report, we are currently offering through a private placement shares of our common stock in order to raise needed capital. In the future, we may raise additional capital though equity or debt offerings.

Additionally, one of the effects of the exchange of claims with the claimants as described in this Report is to extinguish any claim against Mr. Lapides for which he has been held personally liable in Cause No. 98-6-5483-JS, In re Transcolor Corporation, Debtor, National City Bank of Minneapolis, Plaintiff vs. Morton M. Lapides, Sr., et al., Defendants, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. In the Maryland litigation, Mr. Lapides was found to be personably liable for $7,000,000, plus interest. See the registration statement filed by VR Holdings with the SEC which became effective on May 11, 2011, and which is expressly incorporated in this Report by reference.

If we are not successful in our litigation in The Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management, LP, the amount owed by Mr. Lapides will not be paid by VR Holdings. As stated below, VR Holdings does not have any legal obligation to offer any of its shares to any of the below described claimants, but we may wish to do so to resolve potential claims against us so that we can move forward with the expectation that our past liabilities, both asserted and unasserted, have been extinguished.

On July 23, 2007, The Cancer Foundation, Inc. filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., the lending group of VR Holdings, Inc. This suit was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On April 17, 2009, a suit was filed in the State of Illinois by The Cancer Foundation, Inc. against Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., and this suit was dismissed and a motion for reconsideration was denied. This suit was subsequently appealed in the Illinois Court of appeals. MML, Inc., Morton M. Lapides, Sr., and Transcolor Corp. were also plaintiffs in the federal and state lawsuits. We voluntarily agreed to dismiss The Cancer Foundation and Transcolor as plaintiffs because they lacked standing. For additional information see Legal Proceedings.” See “Business – Business of VR Holdings, Inc., Excluding Litigation Dynamics, Inc. – Legal Proceedings of VR Holdings” contained in our post-effective registration statement filed on July 31, 2012, which is incorporated herein by reference.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the state court action on August 3, 2009. The plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on November 13, 2009. The defendants filed their reply on December 4, 2009. Oral argument was held on January 22, 2010. At the conclusion of argument, Judge Allen S. Goldberg dismissed the complaint on the grounds of res judicata. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration in which they argued that Judge Goldberg misapplied the doctrine of res judicata that the complaint should be reinstated and the case allowed to proceed. The defendants’ opposition brief was filed on April 12, 2010 and the plaintiff’s reply was filed on May 10, 2010. Oral argument on the motion for reconsideration was held on June 1, 2010, at which time Judge Goldberg denied the motion.

MML and Lapides filed a notice of appeal on June 25, 2010 and their opening brief on November 5, 2010 with the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District. The defendants filed an opposition on December 5, 2010, as well as a cross appeal seeking a reversal of the trial judge’s order denying the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs filed a reply on January 14, 2011, and the defendants filed a reply on the attorneys’ fees issue on January 28, 2011.

On March 16, 2011, the Appellate Court, on its own initiative, ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the case should be transferred to California, New York or Maryland on the grounds of forum non conveniens because the case has more connections with those jurisdictions than it does with Illinois. After the parties briefed this issue, the Court issued an opinion on May 25, 2011 reversing the trial court’s decision dismissing the case and remanding the case back to the trial court. In its opinion, the Court declined to transfer the case to another state because the defendants refused to waive their statute of limitations defense. The Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case on res judicata grounds, and rejected the defendants’ arguments on the statute of limitation and failure to state a claim. The Court also denied the defendants’ cross appeal for attorneys’ fees.

The Court of Appeals’ rulings constitute a complete reversal of Judge Goldberg’s dismissal of the complaint. On August 5, 2011, the Illinois Court of Appeals wrote to the Clerk of the Cook County Circuit Court stating that the mandate of the Appellate Court has been filed with the Cook County Circuit Court. In doing so, the case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings. The plaintiffs filed a motion to reinstate the action for scheduling of discovery and trial. A hearing on that motion was held on July 25, 2012.

This case was remanded after a successful appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court that reversed a dismissal of the complaint on the merits. The mandate was issued by the Appellate Court on August 5, 2011. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 369, when a case that has been dismissed is appealed and the Appellate Court reverses the dismissal and remands the case to the Circuit Court for further proceedings, the Plaintiff must petition the Circuit Court for reinstatement of the case. This petition must be done within a “reasonable time.” Because the Plaintiffs did not have current counsel available to file the petition to reinstate immediately, the Plaintiffs waited until they acquired new counsel in May of 2012 to file the petition to reinstate. The Circuit Court held, on August 2, 2012, that the petition to reinstate had not been filed within a reasonable time and therefore denied the petition without prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ right to re-file the case under a new case number. On August 3, 2012 the case was re-filed and was docketed as case number 2012 L 008718. The re-filing of the case does not adversely affect any claims of the Plaintiffs.

As discussed above, on March 11, 2011, VR Holdings filed a suit in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland against Marshall & Ilsley Trust Company and Venable L.L.P. for alleged civil conspiracy beginning in 1998 and continuing through November 2010, at which time the alleged conspirators abandoned their efforts. Marshall & Ilsley allegedly participated with the two lenders to Winterland Concessions Company, a previous subsidiary of VR Holdings. The civil conspiracy expanded to damages through additional causes being tortious aiding and abetting, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, resulting in damages to VR Holding’s subsidiaries and approximately 2,500 parties in the amount of $1.6 billion plus punitive damages and legal fees.

On May 25, 2011, the Illinois State Appellate Court ruled in VR Holdings’ favor in regards to The Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management, LP litigation stating that there were no res judicata or statute of limitations problems, and in addition, stated that “… the bankruptcy court in Maryland lacked jurisdiction to decide the contract claim at issue here.” VR Holdings was advised that the defenses in the Maryland case were almost identical to the two items eliminated in the Illinois case. The same damages could not be collected twice. For that reason, and since Marshall & Ilsley is believed to be in financial difficulty, there was no reason to burden the Court with this suit when a decision on the major defense issues were already ruled on in another suit and the Illinois decision questioned a Maryland court’s authority. On the advice of counsel, the case was withdrawn.

Our attorneys in the Marshall & Ilsley and Venable litigation were Frame & Frame, Robert B. Morris, and Barry L. Dahne, one of the trustees of The Cancer Foundation, and one of our major stockholders. In consideration for their services rendered, we have issued 7,000,000 shares of our common stock to each of Frame & Frame, and Messrs. Morris and Dahne. Mr. Morris has since died and his shares were cancelled and returned to VR Holdings. We registered the 7,000,000 shares issued to Frame & Frame and 5,000,000 of the 7,000,000 shares issued to Mr. Dahne by means of a registration statement. Each of Frame & Frame and Mr. Dahne are listed as selling stockholders in the registration statement.

If The Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management, LP litigation is unsuccessful, we will have to raise funds in some manner to be determined at a later time, in order to continue our VR Holdings business plan, or revise the proposed business model as it now stands. At the time of this Report, we are currently offering through a private placement shares of our common stock in order to raise needed capital. In the future, we may raise additional capital though equity or debt offerings.

It should be clearly understood that we will not be able to commence our proposed VR Holdings business, unless and until we are successful in The Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management, LP litigation, or we raise additional funds by means of a debt or equity offering. We will explore whatever capital-raising steps which seem most likely to produce the capital we need to finance our litigation and to fund our proposed business going forward. At the time of this Report, we are currently offering through a private placement shares of our common stock in order to raise needed capital. In the future, we may raise additional capital though equity or debt offerings. If we are not successful in our litigation efforts or cannot raise needed funds, our proposed business will most likely fail.

On January 20, 2012, we completed the acquisition of 100% of Litigation Dynamics, Inc., a Texas corporation (“LDI”). The shares of the pre-merger LDI are to be exchanged for 17,500,000 shares of VR Holdings common stock at the date of the merger. The shareholder of LDI will be able to earn additional shares of our common stock based upon the revenue generated by LDI during the first two years after the merger. For every dollar of revenue generated by LDI during the first two years of operations after the merger, the original shareholder of LDI will receive two shares of our common stock up to a maximum of 20,000,000 additional shares. Subsequent to the merger, LDI will continue to be a provider of hosted litigation eDiscovery software and support services.

Three Months Ended June 30, 2012 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2011

Revenues. We had revenue for the three months ended June 30, 2012 of $60,000 compared to no revenue for the three months ended June 30, 2011. This increase resulted from consulting services rendered by Litigation Dynamics, Inc.

General and Administrative Expenses. Our general and administrative expenses increased from $4,705 in 2011 to $87,074 in 2012. This increase was primarily the result of professional fees incurred in connection with the acquisition of Litigation Dynamics, and operational expenses incurred by Litigations Dynamics, Inc.

Nine Months Ended June 30, 2012 Compared to Nine Months Ended June 30, 2011

Revenues. We had revenue for the nine months ended June 30, 2012 of $60,000 compared to no revenue for the nine months ended June 30, 2011. This increase resulted from consulting services rendered by Litigation Dynamics, Inc.

General and Administrative Expenses. Our general and administrative expenses increased from $56,798 in 2011 to $257,233 in 2012. This increase was primarily the result of professional fees incurred in connection with the acquisition of Litigation Dynamics, and operational expenses of Litigation Dynamics, Inc..

Impairment of Goodwill. We recorded $2,944,539 of impairment expense to write off goodwill acquired from Litigation Dynamics during the nine months ended June 30, 2012.

Net Loss. Our net loss increased to $3,164,136 for 2012 from $56,798 for 2011.

The directors of The Cancer Foundation have agreed that The Cancer Foundation would advance money to VR Holdings to be used to pay legal and other expenses associated with the legal action taken by VR Holdings against our lender group. As a charitable foundation, The Cancer Foundation determined that it was in the best interests of the foundation to attempt to recover gifts that were made to it but not received. The Cancer Foundation believes that this is the best way for it to recover the $80,000,000 donation that it would have received from VR Holdings had the lender group of VR Holdings not taken actions that caused VR Holdings to lose its value. However, it should be understood that even though VR Holdings desired to make the proposed $80,000,000 gift to The Cancer Foundation, the foundation had no legal claim to the money and we were not contractually obligated to make the gift. In addition, The Cancer Foundation determined that it was in the best interests of the foundation to exchange its claim against the lender group for shares of VR Holdings and to pay legal bills and audit expenses of VR Holdings. There is no formal agreement between VR Holdings and The Cancer Foundation concerning the payment of legal and other expenses of VR Holdings, Inc. by The Cancer Foundation. However, The Cancer Foundation may continue to pay bills associated with the current litigation, as funds become available to The Cancer Foundation, but there is no obligation to do so or assurance that funds will be provided.

The Cancer Foundation has paid our expenses for the periods indicated as follows:

Funds were provided to The Cancer Foundation for the periods indicated by investors who purchased shares of our common stock owned by The Cancer Foundation, as follows:

Our primary source of liquidity has been expenses paid by The Cancer Foundation, which were primarily legal and accounting fees. As of June 30, 2012, we had $1,901 in cash and cash equivalents. We have no obligation to repay The Cancer Foundation for any funds advanced on our behalf and there are no agreements reflecting that we have any such obligation.

As of June 30, 2012, we had outstanding liabilities of $865,502, which is payable within 12 months. There are no interest, penalties or fines accruing on the past due amounts. We are attempting to obtain funds from the successful conclusion of our lawsuit. In the event that we are unsuccessful in our litigation or the litigation continues for an extensive period, we would be required to raise additional equity capital. At the time of this Report, we are currently offering through a private placement shares of our common stock in order to raise needed capital. In the future, we may raise additional capital though equity or debt offerings.

There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain such additional capital through equity or debt financing, or any combination thereof, or on satisfactory terms or at all. Additionally, no assurance can be given that any such financing, if obtained, will be adequate to meet our ultimate capital needs and to support our growth. If adequate capital cannot be obtained on a timely basis and on satisfactory terms, our operations would be materially negatively impacted. Further, if we do not obtain additional funding during the year 2012, we may enter into bankruptcy and possibly cease operations thereafter. As a result of the above discussed conditions, there exists substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

General inflation in the economy has driven the operating expenses of many businesses higher. We will continuously seek methods of reducing costs and streamlining operations while maximizing efficiency through improved internal operating procedures and controls. While we are subject to inflation as described above, our management believes that inflation currently does not have a material effect on our operating results. However, inflation may become a factor in the future.

The preparation of financial statements and related disclosures in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires us to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the amounts reported. Note 1 of Notes to Financial Statements describes the significant accounting policies used in the preparation of the financial statements. Certain of these significant accounting policies are considered to be critical accounting policies, as defined below.

A critical accounting policy is defined as one that is both material to the presentation of our financial statements and requires management to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments that could have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Specifically, critical accounting estimates have the following attributes:

We are required to make assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain at the time of the estimate; and

Different estimates we could reasonably have used, or changes in the estimate that are reasonably likely to occur, would have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Estimates and assumptions about future events and their effects cannot be determined with certainty. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions believed to be applicable and reasonable under the circumstances. These estimates may change as new events occur, as additional information is obtained and as our operating environment changes. These changes have historically been minor and have been included in the consolidated financial statements as soon as they became known. Based on a critical assessment of our accounting policies and the underlying judgments and uncertainties affecting the application of those policies, management believes that our financial statements are fairly stated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, and present a meaningful presentation of our financial condition and results of operations.

In preparing our financial statements to conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, we make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in our financial statements and accompanying notes. These estimates include useful lives for fixed assets for depreciation calculations and assumptions for valuing options and warrants. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

We plan to fund our proposed operations from some or all of our litigation efforts. If we are unsuccessful in our litigation, we will have to raise capital by means of borrowings or the sale of shares of our common stock. At the time of this Report, we are currently offering through a private placement shares of our common stock in order to raise needed capital. In the future, we may raise additional capital though equity or debt offerings. At present, we do not have any commitments with respect to future financings. If we are unable to raise the capital we need to finance our business, including the proposed business of Litigation Dynamics going forward, and our litigation is unsuccessful, our proposed business will likely fail.

At present, we do not have sufficient capital on hand to fund our proposed operations for the next 12 months. We estimate that we will need at least $400,000 to fund our operations over the next 12 months in addition to repaying or refinancing $300,000 of debt for Litigation Dynamics. These operating funds will be spent to fund the current ligation that has been filed and to pay our operating expenses. Recently, The Cancer Foundation, Inc., a charitable foundation established in 1968 by the uncles and father of Mr. Morton M. Lapides, Sr., who along with his wife are the controlling stockholders of Deohge Corp., our majority stockholder, has made capital contributions of money to pay most of our current operating expenses. However, we cannot continue to rely upon any future funding from The Cancer Foundation, Inc.

The Cancer Foundation has paid our expenses for the periods indicated were as follows:

Funds were provided to The Cancer Foundation for the periods indicated by investors who purchased shares of our common stock owned by The Cancer Foundation, as follows:

Although we are committed to the continued development and growth of our business, we will need to engage specialized key personnel, such as underwriters and legal personnel, to assess risks of investing in lawsuits and to assist VR Holdings in the execution of our business model, inasmuch as John E. Baker, our chief executive officer, does not possess the requisite level of expertise to perform such functions. Further, Mr. Baker will not devote his entire working efforts to our business, since he is currently employed as chief financial officer and treasurer of Inware Technologies, Inc. It is possible that we will not be able to locate and hire such specialized personnel on acceptable terms.

Although we are committed to the continued development and growth of our business, we will need to engage specialized key personnel, such as experienced litigation support professionals, paralegals, and IT professionals to assist Litigation Dynamics in the execution of our business model. It is possible that we will not be able to locate and hire such specialized personnel on acceptable terms.

We conduct all of our transactions in U.S. dollars. We are therefore not directly subject to the risks of foreign currency fluctuations and do not hedge or otherwise deal in currency instruments in an attempt to minimize such risks.

In December 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued ASC Topic No. 2010-29 Business Combinations (ASC Topic 805) — Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for Business Combinations which amended ASC Topic 805 “Business Combinations” to specify that if a public entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as though the business combination that occurred during the year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual reporting period only. The ASC also expands the supplemental pro forma disclosures under ASC Topic 805 to include a description of the nature and the amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue and earnings. The ASC is effective prospectively for business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2010 (October 1, 2011 for VR Holdings). The adoption of this ASC did not have a material impact on VR Holdings’ consolidated financial statements.

There has been no material change in our market risks since the end of the fiscal year 2011.

The term disclosure controls and procedures means controls and other procedures of an issuer that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the issuer in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78a, et seq.) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by an issuer in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the issuer’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

The term internal control over financial reporting is defined as a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the issuer’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the issuer’s board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and includes those policies and procedures that:

Pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the issuer;

Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the issuer are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the issuer; and

Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the issuer’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Our management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal controls over financial reporting will prevent all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of inherent limitations in all control systems, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements, and no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the registrant have been detected. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Evaluation of Disclosure and Controls and Procedures. Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. We carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report. The evaluation was undertaken in consultation with our accounting personnel. Based on that evaluation, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at June 30, 2012 due to the lack of accounting personnel. We intend to hire additional employees when we obtain sufficient capital.

Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting. There were no changes in the internal controls over our financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

In accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the registrant has duly caused this Amended report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, this Amended report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.


Large accelerated filer [ ]	Accelerated filer [ ]
Non-accelerated filer [ ]	Smaller reporting company [ X ]



ASSETS
	June 30,	September 30,
	2012	2011
Current assets:
Cash	$ 1,901	$ -
Accounts receivable	60,000
Due from related parties	-	-
Prepaid expenses	2,940	-
Total current assets	64,841
Total assets	$ 64,841	$ -

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ DEFICIT

Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities	$ 395,487	$ 257,875
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities – related parties	23,500	-
Due to related party	43,616	-
Note payable	50,000	-
Notes payable in default	300,000	-
Total liabilities	812,603	257,875

Shareholders’ deficit:
Common stock, $0.000001 par value; 550,000,000 shares authorized, 458,789,037 and 440,758,343 shares issued and outstanding, respectively	459	441
Additional paid-in capital	11,319,950	8,645,719
Accumulated deficit	(15,492,955)	(15,492,955)
Earnings during development stage	3,424,784	6,588,920
Total shareholders’ deficit	(747,762)	(257,875)

Total liabilities and shareholders’ deficit	$ 64,841	$ -


Assets acquired:
Cash	$	7,472
Receivables		111,972
Goodwill		2,944,539
Total assets acquired		3,063,983

Liabilities assumed:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities		51,315
Due to related party		87,668
Notes payable		300,000
Total liabilities assumed		438,983

Net assets acquired	$	2,625,000

Consideration paid:
Preliminary 17,500,000 shares of common stock valued at $0.15 per share	$	2,625,000
Contingent shares of common stock to be issued		-
Total estimated consideration	$	2,625,000


	June 30, 2012				September 30, 2011
Note payable dated April 8, 2011 with interest at 18%; principal and interest due on November 30, 2011; unsecured; currently in default.	$	75,000		$	–
Note payable dated April 25, 2011 with interest at 18%; principal and interest due on May 31, 2012; unsecured; currently in default.		50,000			–
Note payable dated April 19, 2011 with interest at 18%; principal and interest due on May 31, 2012; unsecured; currently in default.		5,000			–
Note payable dated March 21, 2011 with interest at 18%; principal and interest due on May 31, 2012; unsecured; currently in default.		45,000			–
Note payable dated April 8, 2011 with interest at 18%; principal and interest due on November 30, 2011; unsecured; currently in default.		75,000			–
Note payable dated May 5, 2011 with interest at 18%; principal and interest due on January 31, 2012; unsecured; currently in default.		50,000			–
Note payable dated May 23, 2012 with interest at 10%: with interest paid quarterly and principal due May 23, 2013: additional principal payment due equal to 10% of sale of common stock. Total	$	50,000 350,000	$		- –


Period	Amount
Year ended September 30, 2008	$15,000
Year ended September 30, 2009	$19,567
Year ended September 30, 2010	$116,961
Year ended September 30, 2011	$15,216
Nine months ended June 30, 2012	$986


		Nine Months Ended June 30, 2012		Nine Months Ended June 30, 2011

Revenues	$	129,500	$	-
Net loss	$	108,530	$	-
Net loss per share – basic and diluted		(0.00)		(0.00)
Weighted average shares outstanding – basic and diluted		458,702,263		429,285,266


Stockholder	Shares Purchased	Date Purchased	Amount Paid
Edwin C. Fulton	300,000	10/23/2009	$30,000
Vivek Sood	50,000	10/23/2009	5,000
Chris Urban	100,000	3/15/2010	10,000
Total	450,000		$45,000


Exhibit No.	Identification of Exhibit
31.1*	Certification of John E. Baker, Chief Executive Officer of VR Holdings, Inc., pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
31.2*	Certification of John E. Baker, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of VR Holdings, Inc., pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.1*	Certification of John E. Baker, Chief Executive Officer of VR Holdings, Inc., pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.2*	Certification of John E. Baker, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of VR Holdings, Inc., pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
101.INS*	XBRL Instance Document
101.SCH*	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema
101.CAL*	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase
101.DEF*	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase
101.LAB*	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Lable Linkbase
101.PRE*	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase


Signature	Title	Date
/s/ John E. Baker	Chief Executive Officer and Director	September 10, 2012
/s/ John E. Baker	Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, and Director	September 10, 2012