Stonemoney, thanks for the post. I believe you are spot on. Here is an example (and I'd be delighted to point out a number of other issues as well). Take a look at the Neo news release dated Feb 22, 2017, in which Neo referenced $3.5 million worth of non-cash impairment charges. If you read it closely, you will see that it suggests that Neo took the impairment charges to 'write off the intangible values associated with the PathLogic acquisition and a licensing agreement.' Then take a look at transcript from the earnings call - you will see that both Steve and Doug referenced the impairment charges (Steve in presenting and Doug in responding to an analyst question). It all seems rather innocent and straightforward, doesn't it? Since no further questioning ensued, it appears that the analysts accepted the information as above board.
Now, take a look at the actual 10-k from Neo which was filed with the SEC subsequent to the earnings call. Read what was included relative to the license agreement (yes, the license agreement that was generically referenced, but wasn't 'named' in the news release or by Doug or Steve in the earnings call). As you will see, the $3.5 million in impairment charges included $1.9 million relating to the license agreement with HDC.
Interesting that Neo would take a $3.5 million impairment charge and reference only PathLogic by name, particularly when the HDC license agreement represented almost 55% of the total impairment charges. Also interesting that this occurred shortly after HDC's Jan 27, 2017 SEC filing in which it shared its letter of complaint against Neo.
This is only one of multiple issues on the part of Neo that would raise eyebrows.
