NeoMedia Technologies, Inc (NEOM)

[AlfonszyD]

Pop

If Neomedia is now saying licensing like this is now apart of their " ordinary course of business"... Which based upon reading over their last 10q...they are pretty much saying it's their only course of business, with selling campaigns, etc...as an after thought.

This is directly from the link you posted about when an 8k should be filed as a "material definitive agreement:"

Must Report "Material Definitive Agreements" Within Four Business Days

Beginning on August 23, 2004, a public company must, within four business days, file a current report on Form 8-K to report:

-entry into a new material definitive agreement not made in the ordinary course of business (Item 1.01);
-material amendment of an existing material definitive agreement (Item 1.01); and/or
-termination, whether by the company or another party, of a current material definitive agreement (Item 1.02)
http://www.perkinscoie.com/news/pubs_detail.aspx?publication=628&op=updates

In those other examples you posted your exactly right, they did 8k them as Mat Def Agreements. But that was in past years when their business model was a bit different and with a different CFOs interpretation.

However, if Neomedia is now saying licensing like is in their ordinary course of business now, they filed it correctly. I guess your taking RnR perspective that it must be less then the 450k borrowing agreements because those are filed as 1.01. I believe those have to be based upon the debt agreements, not because of the dollar amount but because each new round of borrowing falls into a "material amendment" because it alters the total debt outstanding, that's why they always file an new exhibit each time stating the new total debt. The dollar amount is irrelevant, it's because that exhibit is filed with new debt levels and changes things.

I have no idea nor do any of us how lucrative this deal is, but I think it's a stretch to determine in fact it's less then the 450k because of how it was filed. The positive spin one could make rather then being negative....is things have changed and these deals are now in the "ordinary course of business"...rather then a one off like in the past examples. If there is a string of new licensing agreements soon, then its def a ordinary course of business deal going forward. If not, then this may be nothing more then fluff....I don't think anyone knows.

I agree with your post in the past the pps plunged because they fudged the PR and not issuing an 8k the same day showing that it was at least legit. I think that had more to do with the plummet in the pps. No one knew anything at that point....and I don't think anyone still does.