S-1: General form of registration statement for all companies including face-amount certificate companies
Published on November 28, 2008
As
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 28,
2008
Registration
No. 333-
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20549
FORM
S-1
REGISTRATION
STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
Nevada
|
NeoGenomics,
Inc.
|
74-2897368
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or
Organization)
|
(Name of Registrant in Our Charter)
|
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
|
Robert P. Gasparini
|
||
12701 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 9
|
12701 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 9
|
|
Fort Myers, Florida 33913
|
Fort Myers, Florida 33913
|
|
(239) 768-0600
|
8731
|
(239) 768-0600
|
(Address and Telephone Number
of Principal Executive Offices and
Principal Place of Business)
|
(Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code Number)
|
(Name, Address and Telephone Number
of Agent for Service)
|
With
copies to:
Clayton
E. Parker, Esq.
Mark
E.
Fleisher, Esq.
K&L
Gates, LLP
200
S.
Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3900
Miami,
Florida 33131
Telephone:
(305) 539-3300
Facsimile:
(305) 358-7095
Approximate
date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As
soon as practicable after this registration statement becomes
effective.
If
any of
the securities being registered on this Form are to be offered on a delayed
or
continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, check the following box. x
If
this
Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to
Rule
462(b) under the Securities Act, please check the following box and list the
Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective
registration statement for the same offering. ¨
If
this
Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the
Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration
statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. ¨
If
this
Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the
Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration
statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. ¨
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.
Large
accelerated filer ¨
|
Accelerated
filer ¨
|
Non-accelerated
filer ¨
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
Smaller
reporting company x
|
CALCULATION
OF REGISTRATION FEE
Proposed Maximum
|
|||||||||||||
Title Of Each Class
Of Securities To Be Registered
|
Amount
To Be
Registered(1)
|
Proposed
Maximum
Offering Price
Per Share(2)
|
Maximum
Aggregate
Offering
Price(2)
|
Amount
Of Registration Fee
|
|||||||||
Common
Stock, par value $0.001
per
share
|
7,000,000 shares
|
$
|
0.72
|
$
|
5,040,000
|
$
|
199
|
||||||
TOTAL
|
7,000,000
shares
|
$
|
0.72
|
$
|
5,040,000
|
$
|
199
|
(1)
|
The
shares of our common stock being registered hereunder are being registered
for sale by the selling stockholders named in the prospectus.
|
(2)
|
Estimated
solely for the purpose of calculating the registration fee pursuant
to
Rule 457(c) under the Securities Act of 1933. For the purposes of
this
table, we have used the average of the closing bid and asked prices
as of
November 25, 2008.
|
The
Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates
as
may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file
a
further amendment which specifically states that this Registration Statement
shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 or until this Registration Statement shall become
effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a),
may determine.
2
SUBJECT
TO COMPLETION, DATED NOVEMBER
28, 2008.
The
information in this prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not
sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission is effective. This prospectus is not an offer to sell
these securities and we are not soliciting offers to buy these securities in
any
state where the offer or sale is not permitted.
PROSPECTUS
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
7,000,000
Shares of Common Stock
This
prospectus relates to the sale of up to 7,000,000 shares of the common stock,
par value $0.001 per share, of NeoGenomics, Inc., a Nevada corporation, by
the
selling stockholders named in this prospectus in the section “Selling
Stockholders”. In this prospectus we refer to NeoGenomics, Inc., a Nevada
corporation, individually as the “Parent
Company”
and
collectively with all of its subsidiaries as "Company,"
"we,"
"us,"
"our"
and
"NeoGenomics".
The
Company is not selling any shares of common stock in this offering and therefore
will not receive any proceeds from this offering. All costs associated with
this
registration will be borne by the Company. The prices at which the selling
stockholders may sell the shares will be determined by the prevailing market
price for the shares or in negotiated transactions.
Our
common stock is quoted on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board under the
symbol “NGNM.OB”. On November 25, 2008, the last reported sale price of our
common stock on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board was $0.74 per
share.
One
of
the selling stockholders, Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC, is an "underwriter"
within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities
Act”).
The
other selling stockholders may be "underwriters" within the meaning of the
Securities Act.
These
securities are speculative and involve a high degree of
risk. Please
refer to “Risk Factors” beginning on page 10 for a discussion of these
risks.
Neither
the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission
has
approved or disapproved of these securities or determined if this prospectus
is
truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal
offense.
The
date
of this prospectus is________, 2008.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
PROSPECTUS
SUMMARY
|
1
|
|
THE
OFFERING
|
4
|
|
SUMMARY
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
6
|
|
RISK
FACTORS
|
10
|
|
FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS
|
21
|
|
SELLING
STOCKHOLDERS
|
22
|
|
THE
FUSION TRANSACTION
|
23
|
|
USE
OF PROCEEDS
|
26
|
|
PLAN
OF DISTRIBUTION
|
27
|
|
MANAGEMENT’S
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
|
28
|
|
DESCRIPTION
OF BUSINESS
|
40
|
|
MANAGEMENT
|
49
|
|
PRINCIPAL
STOCKHOLDERS
|
56
|
|
MARKET
PRICE OF AND DIVIDENDS ON THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND OTHER
STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
|
59
|
|
CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
|
60
|
|
DESCRIPTION
OF CAPITAL STOCK
|
62
|
|
LEGAL
MATTERS
|
64
|
|
EXPERTS
|
64
|
|
AVAILABLE
INFORMATION
|
64
|
|
CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NEOGENOMICS, INC.
|
F-i
|
i
The
following is only a summary of the information, Financial Statements and the
Notes thereto included in this prospectus. You should read the entire prospectus
carefully, including “Risk Factors” and our Financial Statements and the Notes
thereto before making any investment decision.
Our
Company
NeoGenomics
operates a network of cancer-focused genetic testing
laboratories. The Company’s growing network of laboratories currently
offers the following types of testing services to pathologists, oncologists,
urologists, hospitals, and other laboratories throughout the United
States:
a)
|
cytogenetics
testing, which analyzes human
chromosomes;
|
b)
|
Fluorescence
In-Situ Hybridization (“FISH”)
testing, which analyzes abnormalities at the chromosomal and gene
levels;
|
c)
|
flow
cytometry testing, which analyzes gene expression of specific markers
inside cells and on cell surfaces;
and
|
d)
|
molecular
testing which involves analysis of DNA and RNA to diagnose and predict
the
clinical significance of various genetic sequence
disorders.
|
All
of
these testing services are widely utilized in the diagnosis and prognosis of
various types of cancer.
The
medical testing laboratory market can be broken down into three segments:
clinical lab testing, anatomic pathology testing, and genetic and molecular
testing. Clinical lab testing is typically done by laboratories that specialize
in high volume, highly automated, lower complexity tests on easily procured
specimens such as blood and urine. Clinical lab tests often involve
testing of a less urgent nature, for example, cholesterol testing and testing
associated with routine physical exams.
Anatomic
pathology (“AP”)
testing involves evaluation of tissue, as in surgical pathology, or cells as
in
cytopathology. The most widely performed AP procedures include the
preparation and interpretation of pap smears, skin biopsies, and tissue
biopsies.
Genetic
and molecular testing typically involves analyzing chromosomes, genes or base
pairs of DNA or RNA for abnormalities. New tests are being developed
at an accelerated pace, thus this market niche continues to expand
rapidly. Genetic and molecular testing requires highly specialized
equipment and credentialed individuals (typically MD or PhD level) to certify
results and typically yields the highest average revenue per test of the three
market segments. The estimated size of this market and the
related parts of the AP testing market that we address is approximately $4-$5
Billion.
Our
primary focus is to provide high complexity laboratory testing for the
community-based pathology and oncology marketplace. Within these key
market segments, we currently provide our services to pathologists and
oncologists in the United States that perform bone marrow and/or peripheral
blood sampling for the diagnosis of blood and lymphoid tumors (leukemias and
lymphomas) and archival tissue referral for analysis of solid tumors such as
breast cancer. A secondary strategic focus targets community-based
urologists due to the availability of a new FISH-based test for the initial
diagnosis of bladder cancer and early detection of recurrent
disease. We focus on community-based practitioners for two reasons.
First, academic pathologists and associated clinicians tend to have their
testing needs met within the confines of their university
affiliation. Secondly, most of the cancer care in the United States
is administered by community based practitioners, not in academic centers,
due
to ease of local access. Moreover, within the community-based
pathologist segment it is not our intent to willingly compete with our customers
for testing services that they may seek to perform
themselves. Fee-for-service pathologists for example, derive a
significant portion of their annual revenue from the interpretation of biopsy
specimens. Unlike other larger laboratories, which strive to perform
100% of such testing services themselves, we do not intend to compete with
our
customers for such specimens. Rather, our high complexity cancer testing focus
is a natural extension of and complementary to many of the services that our
community-based customers often perform within their own
practices. As such, we believe our relationship as a non-competitive
consultant, empowers these physicians to expand their testing breadth and
provide a menu of services that matches or exceeds the level of service found
in
academic centers of excellence around the country.
1
We
continue to make progress growing our testing volumes and revenue beyond our
historically focused effort in Florida due to our expanding field sales
footprint. As of November 25, 2008, NeoGenomics’ sales and marketing
organization had 14 territory business managers, three regional managers, a
National Director of Sales and three team members in business development and
marketing, and we have received business from 30 states throughout the
country. Recent, key hires included various territory business
managers (sales representatives) in the Northeastern, Southeastern, and Western
states. We expect to hire one more account manager during 2008 and to
continue to scale our sales team rapidly during 2009. As more sales
representatives are added, we believe that the base of our business outside
of
Florida will continue to grow and ultimately eclipse that which is generated
within the state.
We
are
successfully competing in the marketplace based on the quality and
comprehensiveness of our test results, and our innovative flexible levels of
service, industry-leading turn-around times, regionalization of laboratory
operations and ability to provide after-test support to those physicians
requesting consultation.
2007
saw
the refinement of our industry leading NeoFISHTM
technical component-only FISH service offering. Upon the suggestion
of our installed customer base, we made numerous usability and technical
enhancements throughout last year. The result has been a product line
for NeoGenomics that continues to resonate very well with our client
pathologists. Utilizing NeoFISHTM,
such
clients are empowered to extend the outreach efforts of their practices and
exert a high level of sign out control over their referral work in a manner
that
was previously unobtainable.
NeoFLOWTM
tech-only flow cytometry was launched as a companion service to
NeoFISHTM
in late
2007. NeoFLOWTM
has been
a key growth driver in 2008. Moreover, the combination of
NeoFLOWTM
and
NeoFISHTM
serves
to strengthen the market differentiation of each product line for NeoGenomics
and allows us to compete more favorably against larger, more entrenched
competitors in our testing niche.
We
increased our professional level staffing for global requisitions requiring
interpretation in 2007 and 2008. We currently employ three full-time
MDs as our medical directors and pathologists, two PhDs as our scientific
directors and cytogeneticists, and two part-time MDs acting as consultants
and
backup pathologists for case sign out purposes. We have plans to hire
several more hematopathologists as our product mix continues to expand beyond
tech-only services and more sales emphasis is focused on our ability to issue
consolidated reporting with case interpretation under our Genetic Pathology
Solutions (GPSTM)
product
line.
We
believe NeoGenomics’ average 3-5 day turn-around time for our cytogenetics
services continues to remain an industry-leading benchmark for national
laboratories. The timeliness of results continues to increase the
usage patterns of cytogenetics and acts as a driver for other add-on testing
requests by our referring physicians. Based on anecdotal information,
we believe that typical cytogenetics labs have 7-14 day turn-around times on
average with some labs running as high as 21 days. Traditionally,
longer turn-around times for cytogenetics tests have resulted in fewer FISH
and
other molecular tests being ordered since there is an increased chance that
the
test results will not be returned within an acceptable diagnostic window when
other adjunctive diagnostic test results are available. We believe
our turn-around times result in our referring physicians requesting more of
our
testing services in order to augment or confirm other diagnostic tests, thereby
giving us a significant competitive advantage in marketing our services against
those of other competing laboratories.
High
complexity laboratories within the cancer testing niche have frequently operated
a core facility on one or both coasts to service the needs of their customers
around the country. Informal surveys of customers and prospects
uncovered a desire to do business with a laboratory with national breadth but
with a more local presence. In such a scenario, specimen integrity,
turnaround-time of results, client service support, and interaction with our
medical staff are all enhanced. We currently operate three laboratory
locations in Fort Myers, Florida, Irvine, California and Nashville, Tennessee,
each of which has received the appropriate state, Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments (“CLIA”),
and
College of American Pathologists (“CAP”)
licenses and accreditations. As situations dictate and opportunities
arise, we will continue to develop and open new laboratories, seamlessly linked
together by our optimized Laboratory Information System (“LIS”),
to
better meet the regionalized needs of our customers.
2007
brought progress in the NeoGenomics Contract Research Organization
(“CRO”)
division based at our Irvine, California facility. This division was
created to take advantage of our core competencies in genetic and molecular
high
complexity testing and act as a vehicle to compete for research projects and
clinical trial support contracts in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical
industries. The CRO division will also act as a development conduit
for the validation of new tests which can then be transferred to our clinical
laboratories and be offered to our clients. We envision the CRO as a
way to infuse some intellectual property into the mix of our services and in
time create a more “vertically integrated” laboratory that can potentially offer
additional clinical services of a more proprietary nature. 2007 brought the
first revenue to NeoGenomics’ CRO division. This initial revenue
stream was small due to the size of the contracts closed. During 2008 we began
to scale revenues from the CRO division and we currently expect to grow this
business significantly during 2009.
2
During
2008, we began offering additional tests that broaden our focus from genetic
and
molecular testing to more traditional types of anatomic pathology testing (i.e.
immunohistochemistry) that are complementary to our current test
offerings. At no time do we expect to intentionally compete with
fee-for-service pathologists for services of this type, and Company sales
efforts will operate under a strict “right of first refusal” philosophy that
supports rather than undercuts the practice of community-based
pathology. We believe that by adding additional types of tests to our
product offering we will be able to capture increases in our testing volumes
through our existing customer base as well as more easily attract new customers
via the ability to package our testing services more appropriately to the needs
of the market.
The
above
market strategy continues to bear fruit for the Company, resulting in strong
year over year growth of 78% in FY 2007 versus FY 2006. For the nine
months ended September 30, 2008, we experienced even stronger year over year
revenue growth of 83% versus the comparable period in FY 2007. Our average
revenue/requisition in FY 2007 was approximately $702, which was an increase
of
approximately 4% from FY 2006. For the nine months ended September 30, 2008,
our
average revenue/requisition was approximately $803 which was an increase of
approximately 16% from the comparable period in 2007. Our average revenue/test
in FY 2007 was approximately $548, which was an increase of approximately 9%
over FY 2006. Our average revenue/test for the nine months ended
September 30, 2008 was approximately $612, which was an increase of
approximately 14% over the comparable period in FY 2007. FY 2007 saw a slight
erosion of average tests per requisition due to the overwhelming success of
our
bladder cancer FISH product line, which tends to be a singly ordered test
request. New sales hires and a new focus on global workups with
interpretation and our integrated GPS product line allowed us to increase
average number of tests per requisition for the nine months ended September
30,
2008 from the comparable period in FY 2007. For the three months ended September
30, 2008, average number of tests per requisition was 1.33 and we expect this
number to continue to increase during 2009.
For
the twelve months ended December 31
|
FY
2007
|
FY
2006
|
%
Inc (Dec)
|
|||||||
Customer
Requisitions Received (Cases)
|
16,385
|
9,563
|
71.3
|
%
|
||||||
Number
of Tests Performed
|
20,998
|
12,838
|
63.6
|
%
|
||||||
Average
Number of Tests/Requisition
|
1.28
|
1.34
|
(4.5
|
%)
|
||||||
Total
Testing Revenue
|
$
|
11,504,725
|
$
|
6,475,996
|
77.7
|
%
|
||||
Average
Revenue/Requisition
|
$
|
702.15
|
$
|
677.19
|
3.7
|
%
|
||||
Average
Revenue/Test
|
$
|
547.90
|
$
|
504.44
|
8.6
|
%
|
For
the nine months ended September 30
|
FY
2008
|
FY
2007
|
%
Inc (Dec)
|
|||||||
Customer
Requisitions Received (Cases)
|
17,758
|
11,123
|
59.7
|
%
|
||||||
Number
of Tests Performed
|
23,049
|
14,332
|
60.8
|
%
|
||||||
Average
Number of Tests/Requisition
|
1.31
|
1.29
|
1.6
|
%
|
||||||
Total
Testing Revenue
|
$
|
14,094,959
|
$
|
7,709,408
|
82.8
|
%
|
||||
Average
Revenue/Requisition
|
$
|
802.77
|
$
|
693.01
|
15.8
|
%
|
||||
Average
Revenue/Test
|
$
|
611.52
|
$
|
537.91
|
13.7
|
%
|
We
believe this bundled approach to testing represents a clinically sound practice
that is medically valid. Within the subspecialty field of hematopathology,
such
a bundled approach to the diagnosis and prognosis of blood and lymph node
diseases has become the standard of care throughout the country. In
addition, as the average number of tests performed per requisition increases,
we
believe this should drive increases in our revenue and afford the Company
significant synergies and efficiencies in our operations and sales and marketing
activities.
About
Us
Our
principal executive offices are located at 12701 Commonwealth Drive, Suite
5,
Fort Myers, Florida 33913. Our telephone number is (239)
768-0600. Our website can be accessed at www.neogenomics.org.
3
THE
OFFERING
This
prospectus relates to the offer and sale of up to 7,000,000 shares of our common
stock by the selling stockholders described below.
Fusion
Capital
On
November 5, 2008, the Company and Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company (“Fusion
Capital”),
entered into a Common Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase
Agreement”),
and a
Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration
Rights Agreement”).
Under
the Purchase Agreement, Fusion Capital is obligated, under certain conditions,
to purchase shares from us in an aggregate amount of $8.0 million from time
to
time over a thirty (30) month period. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement,
Fusion Capital has received a commitment fee consisting of 400,000 shares of
our
common stock. As of November 25, 2008, there were 32,112,546 shares outstanding
(20,028,487 shares held by non-affiliates) excluding the 3,000,000 shares
offered by Fusion Capital pursuant to this prospectus which it has not yet
purchased from us. If all of such 3,000,000 shares offered hereby were issued
and outstanding as of the date hereof, the 3,000,000 shares would represent
8.5%
of the total common stock outstanding or 13.0% of the non-affiliates shares
outstanding as of the date hereof.
Under
the
Purchase Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement we are required to
register and have included in the offering pursuant to this prospectus (1)
400,000 shares which have already been issued as a commitment fee, (2) 17,500
shares which we have issued to Fusion Capital as an expense reimbursement and
(3) at least 3,000,000 shares which we may sell to Fusion Capital after the
registration statement of which this prospectus is a part is declared effective.
All 3,417,500 shares, 10.6% of our outstanding on November 5, 2008, the date
of
the Purchase Agreement, are being offered pursuant to this prospectus. Under
the
Purchase Agreement, we have the right but not the obligation to sell more than
the 3,000,000 shares to Fusion Capital. As of the date hereof, we do not
currently have any plans or intent to sell to Fusion Capital any shares beyond
the 3,000,000 shares offered hereby. However, if we elect to sell more than
the
3,000,000 shares (which we have the right but not the obligation to do), we
must
first register such additional shares under the Securities Act before we can
elect to sell such additional shares to Fusion Capital. In the event we elect
to
do so, this could cause substantial dilution to our shareholders. The number
of
shares ultimately offered for sale by Fusion Capital is dependent upon the
number of shares purchased by Fusion Capital under the Purchase Agreement.
We
do not
have the right to commence any sales of our shares to Fusion Capital until
the
SEC has declared effective the registration statement of which this prospectus
is a part. After the SEC has declared effective such registration statement,
generally we have the right but not the obligation from time to time to sell
our
shares to Fusion Capital in amounts between $50,000 and $1.0 million depending
on certain conditions. We have the right to control the timing and amount of
any
sales of our shares to Fusion Capital. The purchase price of the shares will
be
determined based upon the market price of our shares without any fixed discount
at the time of each sale. Fusion Capital shall not have the right nor the
obligation to purchase any shares of our common stock on any business day that
the price of our common stock is below $0.45. There are no negative covenants,
restrictions on future fundings, penalties or liquidated damages in the Purchase
Agreement or the Registration Rights Agreement. The Purchase Agreement may
be
terminated by us at any time at our discretion without any cost to us. The
Purchase Agreement provides that neither party has the ability to amend the
Purchase Agreement and the obligations of both parties are
non-transferable.
Other
Selling Stockholders
· |
Aspen
Select Healthcare, LP (“Aspen”),
which intends to sell up to 2,540,585 shares of common stock previously
issued and sold by the Company to Aspen on April 15, 2003 (the
“2003
Aspen Placement”).
Aspen received registration rights with respect to these shares
and therefore, such shares are being registered
hereunder;
|
· |
Mary
S. Dent, the spouse of Dr. Michael Dent, who is our Chairman of the
Board
and founder, who intends to sell up to 643,267 shares of common stock
previously issued and sold by the Company to Dr. Dent as founder
shares.
Such shares were subsequently transferred to Mary Dent in February
2007.
Dr. Dent received registration rights with respect to these shares
and
therefore, such shares are being registered hereunder;
and
|
4
· |
Those
shareholders other than Aspen and Mary Dent who are set forth in
the
section herein entitled “Selling Stockholders” who intend to sell up to an
aggregate of 398,648 shares of common stock which they received in
a
distribution from Aspen in September 2007. All of such shares were
originally purchased by Aspen in the 2003 Aspen Placement. Aspen
received
registration rights with respect to these shares and has assigned
such
rights to these selling stockholders and therefore, such shares are
being
registered hereunder.
|
Please
refer to “Selling Stockholders” beginning on page 22.
The
Company is not selling any shares of common stock in this offering and therefore
will not receive any proceeds from this offering. All costs associated with
this
registration will be borne by the Company. The prices at which the selling
stockholders may sell the shares will be determined by the prevailing market
price for the shares or in negotiated transactions.
Our
common stock is quoted on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board under the
symbol “NGNM.OB”. On November 25, 2008, the last reported sale price of our
common stock on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board was $0.74 per
share.
Common
Stock Offered
|
7,000,000
shares by selling stockholders
|
|
Offering
Price
|
Market
price
|
|
Common
Stock Currently Outstanding
|
32,112,546
shares as of November 25, 2008
|
|
Use
of Proceeds
|
We
will not receive any proceeds of the shares offered by the selling
stockholders. See “Use of Proceeds”.
|
|
Risk
Factors
|
The
securities offered hereby involve a high degree of risk. See “Risk
Factors” beginning on page 10 for a discussion of these
risks.
|
|
Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board Symbol
|
NGNM.OB
|
5
The
Summary Consolidated Financial Information set forth below was excerpted from
the Company’s unaudited Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended
September 30, 2008 and 2007, as filed with the SEC.
Statement
of Operations Data
For the Nine Months Ended
|
|||||||
September 30,
|
September 30,
|
||||||
2008
|
2007
|
||||||
Net
Revenue
|
$
|
14,094,959
|
$
|
7,709,408
|
|||
Cost
of Revenue
|
6,577,549
|
3,623,860
|
|||||
Gross
Profit
|
7,517,410
|
4,085,548
|
|||||
Other
Operating Expenses:
|
|||||||
General
and administrative
|
7,706,284
|
5,664,053
|
|||||
Interest
expense, net
|
199,336
|
205,806
|
|||||
Total
Operating Expenses
|
7,905,620
|
5,869,859
|
|||||
Net
Loss
|
$
|
(388,210
|
)
|
$
|
(1,784,311
|
)
|
|
Net
Loss Per Share - Basic And Fully Diluted
|
$
|
(0.01
|
)
|
$
|
(0.06
|
)
|
|
Weighted
Average Number Of Shares Outstanding – Basic and Fully
Diluted
|
31,414,065
|
29,221,778
|
6
Balance
Sheet Data
As of
|
||||||||||
September 30,
|
December 31,
|
|||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||||
Current
Assets
|
|
|||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$
|
631,365
|
$
210,573
|
|||||||
Accounts
receivable (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $283,111 and
$414,548, respectively)
|
3,381,066
|
3,236,751
|
||||||||
Inventories
|
344,608
|
304,750
|
||||||||
Other
current assets
|
900,146
|
400,168
|
||||||||
Total
current assets
|
5,257,185
|
4,152,242
|
||||||||
Property
and equipment (net of accumulated depreciation of $1,374,942 and
$862,030,
respectively)
|
2,495,146
|
2,108,083
|
||||||||
Other
assets
|
275,087
|
260,575
|
||||||||
Total
Assets
|
$
|
8,027,418
|
$
6,520,900
|
|||||||
Liabilities
And Stockholders’ Equity:
|
||||||||||
Current
Liabilities
|
||||||||||
Accounts
payable
|
$
|
1,904,694
|
$
1,799,159
|
|||||||
Accrued
expenses and other liabilities
|
955,405
|
1,319,580
|
||||||||
Revolving
credit line
|
1,176,221
|
-
|
||||||||
Short-term
portion of equipment capital leases
|
449,776
|
242,966
|
||||||||
Total
current liabilities
|
4,486,096
|
3,361,705
|
||||||||
Long
Term Liabilities
|
||||||||||
Long-term
portion of equipment capital leases
|
1,054,321
|
837,081
|
||||||||
Total
Liabilities
|
5,540,417
|
4,198,786
|
||||||||
Stockholders’
Equity
|
||||||||||
Common
stock, $.001 par value, (100,000,000 shares authorized; 31,686,355
and
31,391,660 shares issued and outstanding, respectively)
|
31,686
|
31,391
|
||||||||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
17,373,756
|
16,820,954
|
||||||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(14,918,441
|
)
|
(14,530,231)
|
|||||||
Total
stockholders’ equity
|
2,487,001
|
2,322,114
|
||||||||
Total
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
|
$
|
8,027,418
|
$
6,520,900
|
7
The
Summary Consolidated Financial Information set forth below was excerpted from
the Company’s Annual Reports on Form 10-KSB for the years ended December 31,
2007 and 2006, as filed with the SEC.
Statement
of Operations Data
For the Years Ended
December 31,
|
|||||||
2007
|
2006
|
||||||
Net
Revenue
|
$
|
11,504,725
|
$
|
6,475,996
|
|||
Cost
of Revenue
|
5,522,775
|
2,759,190
|
|||||
Gross
Profit
|
5,981,950
|
3,716,806
|
|||||
Other
Operating Expense:
|
|||||||
General
and administrative
|
9,122,922
|
3,576,812
|
|||||
Income
/ (Loss) from Operations
|
(3,140,972
|
)
|
139,994
|
||||
Other
Income / (Expense):
|
|||||||
Other
income
|
24,256
|
55,.970
|
|||||
Interest
expense
|
(263,456
|
)
|
(325,625
|
)
|
|||
Other
income / (expense) – net
|
(239,200
|
)
|
(269,655
|
)
|
|||
Net
Loss
|
$
|
(3,380,172
|
)
|
$
|
(129,661
|
)
|
|
Net
Loss Per Share – Basic and Diluted
|
$
|
(0.11
|
)
|
$
|
(0.00
|
)
|
|
Weighted
Average Number of Shares Outstanding – Basic and
|
|||||||
Diluted
|
29,764,289
|
26,166,031
|
8
Balance
Sheet Data
As of
|
|||||||
December 31,
2007
|
December 31,
2006
|
||||||
Assets:
|
|||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$
|
210,573
|
$
|
126,266
|
|||
Accounts
receivable (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $414,548 and
103,463, respectively)
|
3,236,751
|
1,549,758
|
|||||
Inventories
|
304,750
|
117,362
|
|||||
Other
current assets
|
400,168
|
102,172
|
|||||
Total
current assets
|
4,152,242
|
1,895,558
|
|||||
Property
and equipment (net of accumulated depreciation of $862,030 and $494,942,
respectively)
|
2,108,083
|
1,202,487
|
|||||
Other
assets
|
260,575
|
33,903
|
|||||
Total
Assets
|
$
|
6,520,900
|
$
|
3,131,948
|
|||
Liabilities
& Stockholders’ Equity:
|
|||||||
Current
Liabilities
|
|||||||
Account
payable
|
$
|
1,799,159
|
$
|
697,754
|
|||
Accrued
compensation
|
370,496
|
133,490
|
|||||
Accrued
expenses and other liabilities
|
574,084
|
67,098
|
|||||
Legal
contingency
|
375,000
|
-
|
|||||
Due
to affiliates (net of discount of $39,285)
|
-
|
1,635,715
|
|||||
Short-term
portion of equipment capital leases
|
242,966
|
94,430
|
|||||
Total
current liabilities
|
3,361,705
|
2,628,487
|
|||||
Long-Term
Liabilities
|
|||||||
Long-term
portion of equipment capital leases
|
837,081
|
448,947
|
|||||
Total
Liabilities:
|
4,198,786
|
3,077,434
|
|||||
Commitments
and contingencies
|
|||||||
Stockholders’
Equity:
|
|||||||
Common
Stock, $0.01 par value, (100,000,000 shares authorized;
And
31,391,660 and 27,061,476 shares issued and outstanding
at
December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively)
|
31,391
|
27,061
|
|||||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
16,820,954
|
11,300,135
|
|||||
Deferred
stock compensation
|
-
|
(122,623
|
)
|
||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(14,530,231
|
)
|
(11,150,059
|
)
|
|||
Total
stockholders’ equity
|
2,322,114
|
54,514
|
|||||
Total
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
|
$
|
6,520,900
|
$
|
3,131,948
|
|||
9
RISK
FACTORS
We
are subject to various risks that may materially harm our business, financial
condition and results of operations. An investor should carefully consider
the
risks and uncertainties described below and the other information in this filing
before deciding to purchase our common stock. If any of these risks or
uncertainties actually occurs, our business, financial condition or operating
results could be materially harmed. In that case, the trading price of our
common stock could decline or we may be forced to cease
operations.
Risks
Related To Our Business
We
Have A Limited Operating History Upon Which You Can Evaluate Our Business And
Unforeseen Risks May Harm The Success Of Our Business
We
commenced revenue operations in 2002 and are just beginning to generate
meaningful revenue. Accordingly, we have a limited operating history
upon which an evaluation of us and our prospects can be based. We and
our prospects must be considered in light of the risks, expenses and
difficulties frequently encountered by companies in the rapidly evolving market
for healthcare and medical laboratory services. To address these
risks, we must, among other things, respond to competitive developments,
attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel, implement and successfully
execute our sales strategy, develop and market additional services, and upgrade
our technological and physical infrastructure in order to scale our
revenues. We may not be successful in addressing such
risks. Our limited operating history makes the prediction of future
results of operations difficult or impossible.
We
May Not Be Able To Implement Our Business Strategies Which Could Impair Our
Ability To Continue Operations
Implementation
of our business strategies will depend in large part on our ability to (i)
attract and maintain a significant number of customers; (ii) effectively provide
acceptable products and services to our customers; (iii) obtain adequate
financing on favorable terms to fund our business strategies; (iv) maintain
appropriate procedures, policies, and systems; (v) hire, train, and retain
skilled employees; (vi) continue to operate with increasing competition in
the
medical laboratory industry; (vii) establish, develop and maintain name
recognition; and (viii) establish and maintain beneficial relationships with
third-party insurance providers and other third party payors. Our
inability to obtain or maintain any or all these factors could impair our
ability to implement our business strategies successfully, which could have
material adverse effects on our results of operations and financial
condition.
We
May Be Unsuccessful In Managing Our Growth Which Could Prevent The Company
From
Becoming Profitable
Our
recent growth has placed, and is expected to continue to place, a significant
strain on our managerial, operational and financial resources. To
manage our potential growth, we must continue to implement and improve our
operational and financial systems and to expand, train and manage our employee
base. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our
operations and our systems, procedures or controls may not be adequate to
support our operations. Our management may not be able to achieve the
rapid execution necessary to fully exploit the market opportunity for our
products and services. Any inability to manage growth could have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, potential
profitability and financial condition.
Part
of
our business strategy may be to acquire assets or other companies that will
complement our existing business. At this time, we are unable to predict whether
or when any material transaction will be completed should negotiations
commence. If we proceed with any such transaction, we may not
effectively integrate the acquired operations with our own
operations. We may also seek to finance any such acquisition by debt
financings or issuances of equity securities and such financing may not be
available on acceptable terms or at all.
We
May Incur Greater Costs Than Anticipated, Which Could Result In Sustained
Losses
We
used
reasonable efforts to assess and predict the expenses necessary to pursue our
business plan. However, implementing our business plan may require more
employees, capital equipment, supplies or other expenditure items than
management has predicted. Similarly, the cost of compensating
additional management, employees and consultants or other operating costs may
be
more than we estimate, which could result in sustained losses.
10
We
Rely On A Limited Number Of Third Parties For Manufacture And Supply Of Certain
Of Our Critical Laboratory Instruments And Materials, And We May Not Be Able
To
Find Replacement Suppliers Or Manufacturers In A Timely Manner In The Event
Of
Any Disruption, Which Could Adversely Affect Our
Business.
We
rely
on third parties for the manufacture and supply of some of our critical
laboratory instruments, equipment and materials that we need to perform our
specialized diagnostic services, and rely on a limited number of suppliers
for
certain laboratory materials and some of the laboratory equipment with which
we
perform our diagnostic services. We do not have long-term
contracts with our suppliers and manufacturers that commit them to supply
equipment and materials to us. Because we cannot ensure the actual production
or
manufacture of such critical equipment and materials, or the ability of our
suppliers to comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, we may
be
subject to significant delays caused by interruption in production or
manufacturing. If any of our third party suppliers or manufacturers were to
become unwilling or unable to provide this equipment or these materials in
required quantities or on our required timelines, we would need to identify
and
acquire acceptable replacement sources on a timely basis. While we have
developed alternate sourcing strategies for the equipment and materials we
use,
we cannot be certain that these strategies will be effective and even if we
were
to identify other suppliers and manufacturers for the equipment and materials
we
need to perform our specialized diagnostic services, there can be no assurance
that we will be able to enter into agreements with such suppliers and
manufacturers or otherwise obtain such items on a timely basis or on acceptable
terms, if at all. If we encounter delays or difficulties in securing necessary
laboratory equipment or materials, including consumables, we would face an
interruption in our ability to perform our specialized diagnostic services
and
experience other disruptions that would adversely affect our business, results
of operations and financial condition.
We
May Face Fluctuations In Results Of Operations Which Could Negatively Affect
Our
Business Operations And We Are Subject To Seasonality In Our
Business
As
a
result of our limited operating history and the relatively limited information
available on our competitors, we may not have sufficient internal or
industry-based historical financial data upon which to calculate anticipated
operating expenses. Management expects that our results of operations
may also fluctuate significantly in the future as a result of a variety of
factors, including, but not limited to: (i) the continued rate of growth, usage
and acceptance of our products and services; (ii) demand for our products and
services; (iii) the introduction and acceptance of new or enhanced products
or
services by us or by competitors; (iv) our ability to anticipate and effectively
adapt to developing markets and to rapidly changing technologies; (v) our
ability to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel; (vi) the
initiation, renewal or expiration of significant contracts with our major
clients; (vii) pricing changes by us, our suppliers or our competitors; (viii)
seasonality; and (ix) general economic conditions and other
factors. Accordingly, future sales and operating results are
difficult to forecast. Our expenses are based in part on our
expectations as to future revenues and to a significant extent are relatively
fixed, at least in the short-term. We may not be able to adjust spending in
a timely manner to compensate for any unexpected revenue
shortfall. Accordingly, any significant shortfall in relation to our
expectations would have an immediate adverse impact on our business, results
of
operations and financial condition. In addition, we may determine
from time to time to make certain pricing or marketing decisions or acquisitions
that could have a short-term material adverse affect on our business, results
of
operations and financial condition and may not result in the long-term benefits
intended. Furthermore, in Florida, currently our primary referral
market for lab testing services, a meaningful percentage of the population,
returns to homes in the Northern U.S. to avoid the hot summer
months. This may result in seasonality in our
business. Because of all of the foregoing factors, our operating
results could be less than the expectations of investors in future
periods.
We
Substantially Depend Upon Third Parties For Payment Of Services, Which Could
Have A Material Adverse Affect On Our Cash Flows And Results Of
Operations
The
Company is a clinical medical laboratory that provides medical testing services
to doctors, hospitals, and other laboratories on patient specimens that are
sent
to the Company. In the case of most specimen referrals that are
received for patients that are not in-patients at a hospital or institution
or
otherwise sent by another reference laboratory, the Company generally has to
bill the patient’s insurance company or a government program for its
services. As such it relies on the cooperation of numerous third
party payors, including but not limited to Medicare, Medicaid and various
insurance companies, in order to get paid for performing services on behalf
of
the Company’s clients. Wherever possible, the amount of such third
party payments is governed by contractual relationships in cases where the
Company is a participating provider for a specified insurance company or by
established government reimbursement rates in cases where the Company is an
approved provider for a government program such as Medicare. However,
the Company does not have a contractual relationship with many of the insurance
companies with whom it deals, nor is it necessarily able to become an approved
provider for all government programs. In such cases, the Company is
deemed to be a non-participating provider and there is no contractual assurance
that the Company is able to collect the amounts billed to such insurance
companies or government programs. Currently, the Company is not a
participating provider with the majority of the insurance companies it bills
for
its services. Until such time as the Company becomes a participating
provider with such insurance companies, there can be no contractual assurance
that the Company will be paid for the services it bills to such insurance
companies, and such third parties may change their reimbursement policies for
non-participating providers in a manner that may have a material adverse effect
on the Company’s cash flow or results of operations.
11
Our
Business Is Subject To Rapid Scientific Change, Which Could Have A Material
Adverse Affect On Our Business, Results of Operations And Financial
Condition
The
market for genetic and molecular testing services is characterized by rapid
scientific developments, evolving industry standards and customer demands,
and
frequent new product introductions and enhancements. Our future
success will depend in significant part on our ability to continually improve
our offerings in response to both evolving demands of the marketplace and
competitive service offerings, and we may be unsuccessful in doing
so.
The
Market For Our Services Is Highly Competitive, Which Could Have A Material
Adverse Affect On Our Business, Results Of Operations And Financial
Condition
The
market for genetic and molecular testing services is highly competitive and
competition is expected to continue to increase. We compete with other
commercial medical laboratories in addition to the in-house laboratories of
many
major hospitals. Many of our existing competitors have significantly
greater financial, human, technical and marketing resources than we
do. Our competitors may develop products and services that are
superior to ours or that achieve greater market acceptance than our
offerings. We may not be able to compete successfully against current
and future sources of competition and in such case, this may have a material
adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial
condition.
We
Face The Risk of Capacity Constraints, Which Could Have A Material Adverse
Affect On Our Business, Results Of Operations And Financial
Condition
We
compete in the market place primarily on three factors: a) the
quality and accuracy of our test results; b) the speed or turn-around times
of
our testing services; and c) our ability to provide after-test support to those
physicians requesting consultation. Any unforeseen increase in the
volume of customers could strain the capacity of our personnel and systems,
which could lead to inaccurate test results, unacceptable turn-around times,
or
customer service failures. In addition, as the number of customers
and cases increases, our products, services, and infrastructure may not be
able
to scale accordingly. Any failure to handle higher volume of requests
for our products and services could lead to the loss of established customers
and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and
financial condition.
If
we
produce inaccurate test results, our customers may choose not to use us in
the
future. This could severely harm our business, results of operations
and financial condition. In addition, based on the importance of the
subject matter of our tests, inaccurate results could result in improper
treatment of patients, and potential liability for us.
We
May Fail to Protect Our Facilities, Which Could Have A Material Adverse Affect
On Our Business, Results Of Operations And Financial
Condition
The
Company’s operations are dependent in part upon its ability to protect its
laboratory operations against physical damage from fire, floods, hurricanes,
power loss, telecommunications failures, break-ins and similar
events. The Company does not presently have an emergency back-up
generator in place at its Fort Myers, Florida, Nashville, Tennessee or Irvine,
California laboratory locations that can mitigate to some extent the effects
of
a prolonged power outage. The occurrence of any of these events could
result in interruptions, delays or cessations in service to customers, which
could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations
and
financial condition.
The
Steps Taken By The Company To Protect Its Proprietary Rights May Not Be
Adequate, Which Could Result In Infringement Or Misappropriation By
Third-Parties
We
regard
our copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and similar intellectual property
as
critical to our success, and we rely upon trademark and copyright law, trade
secret protection and confidentiality and/or license agreements with our
employees, customers, partners and others to protect our proprietary
rights. The steps taken by us to protect our proprietary rights may
not be adequate or third parties may infringe or misappropriate our copyrights,
trademarks, trade secrets and similar proprietary rights. In
addition, other parties may assert infringement claims against us.
12
We
Are Dependent On Key Personnel And Need To Hire Additional Qualified Personnel
In Order For Our Business To Succeed
Our
performance is substantially dependent on the performance of our senior
management and key technical personnel. In particular, our success
depends substantially on the continued efforts of our senior management team,
which currently is composed of a small number of individuals. The
loss of the services of any of our executive officers, our laboratory director
or other key employees could have a material adverse effect on our business,
results of operations and our financial condition.
Our
future success also depends on our continuing ability to attract and retain
highly qualified technical and managerial personnel. Competition for
such personnel is intense and we may not be able to retain our key managerial
and technical employees or may not be able to attract and retain additional
highly qualified technical and managerial personnel in the
future. The inability to attract and retain the necessary technical
and managerial personnel could have a material adverse effect upon our business,
results of operations and financial condition.
The
Failure to Obtain Necessary Additional Capital To Finance Growth And Capital
Requirements, Could Adversely Affect Our Business, Financial Condition And
Results of Operations
We
may
seek to exploit business opportunities that require more capital than what
is
currently planned. We may not be able to raise such capital on
favorable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain such additional
capital, we may be required to reduce the scope of our anticipated expansion,
which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results
of
operations.
We
only
have the right to receive $50,000 every four business days under the Purchase
Agreement unless our stock price equals or exceeds $0.75, in which case we
can
sell greater amounts to Fusion Capital as the price of our common stock
increases. Fusion Capital shall not have the right nor the obligation to
purchase any shares of our common stock on any business day that the market
price of our common stock is less than $0.45. Since we are registering 3,000,000
shares for sale under the Purchase Agreement by Fusion Capital pursuant to
the
registration statement of which this prospectus is a part, the selling price
of
our common stock to Fusion Capital will have to average at least $2.67 per
share
for us to receive the maximum proceeds of $8.0 million. Assuming a purchase
price of $0.74 per share (the closing sale price of the common stock on November
25, 2008) and the purchase by Fusion Capital of the full 3,000,000 shares under
the Purchase Agreement, proceeds to us would only be $2,220,000 unless
we
choose to register more than 3,000,000 shares, which we have the right, but
not
the obligation, to do. Subject to approval by our board of directors, we have
the right but not the obligation to sell more than 3,000,000 shares to Fusion
Capital. In the event we elect to sell more than 3,000,000 shares offered
hereby, we will be required to file a new registration statement and have it
declared effective by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.
The
extent we rely on Fusion Capital as a source of funding will depend on a number
of factors, including the prevailing market price of our common stock and the
extent to which we are able to secure working capital from other sources.
Specifically, Fusion Capital shall not have the right nor the obligation to
purchase any shares of our common stock on any business days that the market
price of our common stock is less than $0.45. If obtaining sufficient financing
from Fusion Capital were to prove unavailable or prohibitively dilutive and
if
we are unable to sell enough of our products, we will need to secure another
source of funding in order to satisfy our working capital needs. Even if we
are
able to access the full $8.0 million under the Purchase Agreement with Fusion
Capital, we may still need additional capital to fully implement our business,
operating and development plans. Should the financing we require to sustain
our
working capital needs be unavailable or prohibitively expensive when we require
it, the consequences could be a material adverse effect on our business,
operating results, financial condition and prospects.
Our
Net Revenue Will Be Diminished If Payors Do Not Adequately Cover Or Reimburse
Our Services
There
has
been and will continue to be significant efforts by both federal and state
agencies to reduce costs in government healthcare programs and otherwise
implement government control of healthcare costs. In addition, increasing
emphasis on managed care in the U.S. may continue to put pressure on the pricing
of healthcare services. Uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement
status of new applications or services. Third party payors, including
governmental payors such as Medicare and private payors, are scrutinizing new
medical products and services and may not cover or may limit coverage and the
level of reimbursement for our services. Third party insurance coverage may
not
be available to patients for any of our existing assays or assays we discover
and develop. However, a substantial portion of the testing for which we bill
our
hospital and laboratory clients is ultimately paid by third party payors. Any
pricing pressure exerted by these third party payors on our customers may,
in
turn, be exerted by our customers on us. If government and other third party
payors do not provide adequate coverage and reimbursement for our assays, our
operating results, cash flows or financial condition may decline.
13
Third
Party Billing Is Extremely Complicated And Will Result In Significant Additional
Costs To Us
Billing
for laboratory services is extremely complicated. The customer refers the tests;
the payor is the party that pays for the tests, and the two are not always
the
same. Depending on the billing arrangement and applicable law, we need to bill
various payors, such as patients, insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid,
doctors and employer groups, all of which have different billing requirements.
Additionally, our billing relationships require us to undertake internal audits
to evaluate compliance with applicable laws and regulations as well as internal
compliance policies and procedures. Insurance companies also impose routine
external audits to evaluate payments made. This adds further complexity to
the
billing process.
Among
many other factors complicating billing are:
· |
pricing
differences between our fee schedules and the reimbursement rates
of
the payors;
|
· |
disputes
with payors as to which party is responsible for payment;
and
|
· |
disparity
in coverage and information requirements among various
carriers.
|
We
incur
significant additional costs as a result of our participation in the Medicare
and Medicaid programs, as billing and reimbursement for clinical laboratory
testing are subject to considerable and complex federal and state regulations.
The additional costs we expect to incur include those related to: (1)
complexity added to our billing processes; (2) training and education of our
employees and customers; (3) implementing compliance procedures and oversight;
(4) collections and legal costs; and (5) costs associated with, among other
factors, challenging coverage and payment denials and providing patients with
information regarding claims processing and services, such as advanced
beneficiary notices.
Our
Operations Are Subject To Strict Laws Prohibiting Fraudulent Billing And Other
Abuse, And Our Failure To Comply With Such Laws Could Result In Substantial
Penalties
Of
particular importance to our operations are federal and state laws prohibiting
fraudulent billing and providing for the recovery of non-fraudulent
overpayments, as a large number of laboratories have been forced by the federal
and state governments, as well as by private payors, to enter into substantial
settlements under these laws. In particular, if an entity is determined to
have
violated the federal False Claims Act, it may be required to pay up to three
times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus civil penalties
of
between $5,500 to $11,000 for each separate false claim. There are many
potential bases for liability under the federal False Claims Act. Liability
arises, primarily, when an entity knowingly submits, or causes another to
submit, a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government. Submitting
a
claim with reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of its truth or falsity
could result in substantial civil liability. A trend affecting the healthcare
industry is the increased use of the federal False Claims Act and, in
particular, actions under the False Claims Act’s “whistleblower” or “qui tam”
provisions to challenge providers and suppliers. Those provisions allow a
private individual to bring actions on behalf of the government alleging that
the defendant has submitted a fraudulent claim for payment to the federal
government. The government must decide whether to intervene in the lawsuit
and
to become the primary prosecutor. If it declines to do so, the individual may
choose to pursue the case alone, although the government must be kept apprised
of the progress of the lawsuit. Whether or not the federal government intervenes
in the case, it will receive the majority of any recovery. In addition, various
states have enacted laws modeled after the federal False Claims
Act.
Government
investigations of clinical laboratories have been ongoing for a number of years
and are expected to continue in the future. Written “corporate compliance”
programs to actively monitor compliance with fraud laws and other regulatory
requirements are recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services’
Office of the Inspector General.
The
Failure To Comply With Significant Government Regulation And Laboratory
Operations May Subject The Company To Liability, Penalties Or Limitation Of
Operations
As
discussed in the Government Regulation section of our business description,
we
are subject to extensive state and federal regulatory oversight. Our
laboratory locations may not pass inspections conducted to ensure compliance
with CLIA `88 or with any other applicable licensure or certification laws.
The
sanctions for failure to comply with CLIA `88 or state licensure requirements
might include the inability to perform services for compensation or the
suspension, revocation or limitation of the laboratory location’s CLIA `88
certificate or state license, as well as civil and/or criminal
penalties. In addition, any new legislation or regulation or the
application of existing laws and regulations in ways that we have not
anticipated could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business,
results of operations and financial condition.
14
Existing
federal laws governing Medicare and Medicaid, as well as some other state and
federal laws, also regulate certain aspects of the relationship between
healthcare providers, including clinical and anatomic laboratories, and their
referral sources, including physicians, hospitals and other laboratories.
Certain provisions of these laws, known as the "anti-kickback law" and the
“Stark Laws”, contain extremely broad proscriptions. Violation of these laws may
result in criminal penalties, exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid, and
significant civil monetary penalties. We will seek to structure our
arrangements with physicians and other customers to be in compliance with the
anti-kickback, Stark and state laws, and to keep up-to-date on developments
concerning their application by various means, including consultation with
legal
counsel. However, we are unable to predict how these laws will be
applied in the future and the arrangements into which we enter may become
subject to scrutiny thereunder.
Furthermore,
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”),
and
other state laws contains provisions that affect the handling of claims and
other patient information that are, or have been, transmitted electronically
and
regulate the general disclosure of patient records and patient health
information. These provisions, which address security and confidentiality of
patient information as well as the administrative aspects of claims handling,
have very broad applicability and they specifically apply to healthcare
providers, which include physicians and clinical laboratories. Although we
believe we have complied with the Standards, Security and Privacy rules under
HIPAA and state laws, an audit of our procedures and systems could find
deficiencies. Such deficiencies, if found, could have a material
adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial
condition and subject us to liability.
We
Are Subject To Security Risks Which Could Harm Our
Operations
Despite
the implementation of various security measures by us, our infrastructure is
vulnerable to computer viruses, break-ins and similar disruptive problems caused
by our customers or others. Computer viruses, break-ins or other
security problems could lead to interruption, delays or cessation in service
to
our customers. Further, such break-ins whether electronic or physical
could also potentially jeopardize the security of confidential information
stored in our computer systems of our customers and other parties connected
through us, which may deter potential customers and give rise to uncertain
liability to parties whose security or privacy has been infringed. A
significant security breach could result in loss of customers, damage to our
reputation, direct damages, costs of repair and detection, and other
expenses. The occurrence of any of the foregoing events could have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial
condition.
We
Are Controlled By Existing Stockholders And Therefore Other Stockholders Will
Not Be Able To Direct The Company
Voting
control of the Company is held by a relatively small group of
stockholders. These stockholders effectively retain control of our
Board of Directors and determine all of our corporate actions. In
addition, the Company and stockholders owning and/or having the right to vote
11,987,417 shares, or approximately 37.3% of the Company’s voting shares
outstanding as of November 25, 2008 have executed a Shareholders’ Agreement
that, among other provisions, gives Aspen, our largest stockholder, the right
to
elect three out of the seven directors authorized for our Board, and nominate
one mutually acceptable independent director. Accordingly, it is
anticipated that Aspen and other parties to the Shareholders’ Agreement will
continue to have the ability to elect a controlling number of the members of
our
Board of Directors and the minority stockholders of the Company may not be
able
to elect a representative to our Board of Directors. Such
concentration of ownership may also have the effect of delaying or preventing
a
change in control of the Company.
No
Foreseeable Dividends
We
do not
anticipate paying dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable
future. Rather, we plan to retain earnings, if any, for the operation
and expansion of our business.
There
May Not Be A Viable Public Market For Our Common
Stock
We
cannot
predict the extent to which investor interest in our Company will sustain an
active trading market for our common stock on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin
Board or any other stock market or how liquid any such market might remain.
If
an active public market is not sustained, it may be difficult for our
stockholders to sell their shares of common stock at a price that is attractive
to them, or at all.
15
We
May Become Involved In Securities Class Action Litigation That Could Divert
Management's Attention And Harm Our Business.
The
stock
markets have from time to time experienced significant price and volume
fluctuations that have affected the market prices for the common stock of
diagnostic companies. These broad market fluctuations may cause the market
price
of our common stock to decline. In the past, securities class action litigation
has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market
price
of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because clinical
laboratory service companies have experienced significant stock price volatility
in recent years. We may become involved in this type of litigation in the
future. Litigation often is expensive and diverts management's attention and
resources, which could adversely affect our business.
If
We Are Not The Subject Of Securities Analyst Reports Or If Any Securities
Analyst Downgrades Our Common Stock Or Our Sector, The Price Of Our Common
Stock
Could Be Negatively Affected.
Securities
analysts may publish reports about us or our industry containing information
about us that may affect the trading price of our common stock. There are many
publicly traded companies active in the healthcare industry, which may mean
it
will be less likely that we receive analysts' coverage, which in turn could
affect the price of our common stock. In addition, if a securities or industry
analyst downgrades the outlook for our common stock or one of our competitors'
stocks or chooses to terminate coverage of our common stock, the trading price
of our common stock may also be negatively affected.
Changes
In Regulations, Payor Policies Or Contracting Arrangements With Payors Or
Changes In Other Laws, Regulations Or Policies May Adversely Affect Coverage
Or
Reimbursement For Our Specialized Diagnostic Services, Which May Decrease Our
Revenues And Adversely Affect Our Results Of Operations And Financial
Condition.
Governmental
payors, as well as private insurers and private payors, have implemented and
will continue to implement measures to control the cost, utilization and
delivery of healthcare services, including clinical laboratory and pathology
services. Congress has from time to time considered and implemented changes
to
laws and regulations governing healthcare service providers, including
specialized diagnostic service providers. These changes have adversely affected
and may in the future adversely affect coverage for our services. We also
believe that healthcare professionals will not use our services if third party
payors do not provide adequate coverage and reimbursement for them. These
changes in federal, state, local and third party payor regulations or policies
may decrease our revenues and adversely affect our results of operations and
financial condition. We will continue to be a non-contracting provider until
such time as we enter into contracts with third party payors for whom we are
not
currently contracted. Because a portion of our revenues is from third-party
payors with whom we are not currently contracted, it is likely that we will
be
required to make positive or negative adjustments to accounting estimates with
respect to contractual allowances in the future, which may adversely affect
our
results of operations, our credibility with financial analysts and investors,
and our stock price.
We
Must Hire And Retain Qualified Sales Representatives To Grow Our
Sales.
Our
ability to retain existing customers for our specialized diagnostic services
and
attract new customers is dependent upon retaining existing sales representatives
and hiring new sales representatives, which is an expensive and time-consuming
process. We face intense competition for qualified sales personnel and our
inability to hire or retain an adequate number of sales representatives could
limit our ability to maintain or expand our business and increase sales. Even
if
we are able to increase our sales force, our new sales personnel may not commit
the necessary resources or provide sufficient high quality service and attention
to effectively market and sell our services. If we are unable to maintain and
expand our marketing and sales networks or if our sales personnel do not perform
to our high standards, we may be unable to maintain or grow our existing
business and our results of operations and financial condition will likely
suffer accordingly. If a sales representative ceases employment, we risk the
loss of customer goodwill based on the impairment of relationships developed
between the sales representative and the healthcare professionals for whom
the
sales representative was responsible. This is particularly a risk if the
representative goes to work for a competitor, as the healthcare professionals
that are our customers may choose to use a competitor's services based on their
relationship with the departed sales representative.
16
We
Are Currently Expanding Our Infrastructure, Including Through The Acquisition
And Development Of Additional Office Space And The Expansion Of Our Current
Laboratory Capacity At Our Existing Facilities, And We Intend To Further Expand
Our Infrastructure By Establishing A New Laboratory Facility Which, Among Other
Things, Could Divert Our Resources And May Cause Our Margins To
Suffer.
In
November 2007, we entered into a lease which expires on June 30, 2010 for
additional office space in Fort Myers, Florida to house our expanding Florida
laboratory, administrative, sales, billing and client services departments.
During the first half of 2008, we initiated construction to expand our current
laboratory capacity by building out unimproved areas within our existing Florida
facility. Each expansion of our facilities or systems could divert resources,
including the focus of our management, away from our current business. In
addition, expansions of our facilities may increase our costs and potentially
decrease operating margins, both of which would, individually or in the
aggregate, negatively impact our business, financial condition and results
of
operations.
Performance
Issues, Service Interruptions Or Price Increases By Our Shipping Carrier Could
Adversely Affect Our Business, Results Of Operations And Financial Condition,
And Harm Our Reputation And Ability To Provide Our Specialized Diagnostic
Services On A Timely Basis.
Expedited,
reliable shipping is essential to our operations. One of our marketing
strategies entails highlighting the reliability of our point-to-point transport
of patient samples. We rely heavily on a single carrier, Federal Express, and
also our local courier, for reliable and secure point-to-point transport of
patient samples to our laboratory and enhanced tracking of these patient
samples. Should Federal Express encounter delivery performance issues such
as
loss, damage or destruction of a sample, it may be difficult to replace our
patient samples in a timely manner and such occurrences may damage our
reputation and lead to decreased demand for our services and increased cost
and
expense to our business. In addition, any significant increase in shipping
rates
could adversely affect our operating margins and results of operations.
Similarly, strikes, severe weather, natural disasters or other service
interruptions by delivery services we use would adversely affect our ability
to
receive and process patient samples on a timely basis. If Federal Express or
we
were to terminate our relationship, we would be required to find another party
to provide expedited, reliable point-to-point transport of our patient samples.
There are only a few other providers of such nationwide transport services,
and
there can be no assurance that we will be able to enter into arrangements with
such other providers on acceptable terms, if at all. Finding a new provider
of
transport services would be time-consuming and costly and result in delays
in
our ability to provide our specialized diagnostic services. Even if we were
to
enter into an arrangement with such provider, there can be no assurance that
they will provide the same level of quality in transport services currently
provided to us by Federal Express. If the new provider does not provide the
required quality and reliable transport services, it could adversely affect
our
business, reputation, results of operations and financial
condition.
We
Use Biological And Hazardous Materials That Require Considerable Expertise
And
Expense For Handling, Storage Or Disposal And May Result In Claims Against
Us.
We
work
with hazardous materials, including chemicals, biological agents and compounds,
blood samples and other human tissue that could be dangerous to human health
and
safety or the environment. Our operations also produce hazardous and
biohazardous waste products. Federal, state and local laws and regulations
govern the use, generation, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of
these
materials and wastes. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and
regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and
regulations may impair business efforts. If we do not comply with applicable
regulations, we may be subject to fines and penalties. In addition, we cannot
entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these
materials or wastes. Our general liability insurance and/or workers'
compensation insurance policy may not cover damages and fines arising from
biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the
event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or
penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our operations
could be suspended or otherwise adversely affected.
Our
Failure To Comply With Governmental Payor Regulations Could Result In Our Being
Excluded From Participation In Medicare, Medicaid Or Other Governmental Payor
Programs, Which Would Decrease Our Revenues And Adversely Affect Our Results
Of
Operations And Financial Condition.
Billable
tests which are reimbursable from Medicare and Medicaid accounted for
approximately 46.9% and 51.6% of our revenues for the nine months ended
September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The Medicare program imposes
extensive and detailed requirements on diagnostic services providers, including,
but not limited to, rules that govern how we structure our relationships with
physicians, how and when we submit reimbursement claims and how we provide
our
specialized diagnostic services. Our failure to comply with applicable Medicare,
Medicaid and other governmental payor rules could result in our inability to
participate in a governmental payor program, our returning funds already paid
to
us, civil monetary penalties, criminal penalties and/or limitations on the
operational function of our laboratory. If we were unable to receive
reimbursement under a governmental payor program, a substantial portion of
our
revenues would be lost, which would adversely affect our results of operations
and financial condition.
17
Our
Business Could Be Harmed By Future Interpretations Of Clinical Laboratory
Mark-Up Prohibitions.
Our
laboratory currently uses the services of outside reference laboratories to
provide certain complementary laboratory services to those services provided
directly by our laboratory. Although Medicare policies do not prohibit certain
independent-laboratory-to-independent-laboratory referrals and subsequent
mark-up for services, California and other states have rules and regulations
that prohibit or limit the mark-up of these laboratory-to-laboratory services.
A
challenge to our charge-setting procedures under these rules and regulations
could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations
and
financial condition.
Failure
To Comply With The HIPAA Security And Privacy Regulations May Increase Our
Operational Costs.
The
HIPAA
privacy and security regulations establish comprehensive federal standards
with
respect to the uses and disclosures of Protected Health Information, or PHI,
by
health plans and healthcare providers, in addition to setting standards to
protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic PHI.
The
regulations establish a complex regulatory framework on a variety of subjects,
including the
circumstances under which uses and disclosures of PHI are permitted or required
without a specific authorization by the patient, including but not limited
to
treatment purposes, activities to obtain payments for services and healthcare
operations activities; a patient's rights to access, amend and receive an
accounting of certain disclosures of PHI; the content of notices of privacy
practices for PHI; and administrative, technical and physical safeguards
required of entities that use or receive PHI electronically. We have implemented
policies and procedures related to compliance with the HIPAA privacy and
security regulations, as required by law. The privacy regulations establish
a
uniform federal "floor" and do not supersede state laws that are more stringent.
Therefore, we are required to comply with both federal privacy regulations
and
varying state privacy laws. The federal privacy regulations restrict our ability
to use or disclose patient identifiable laboratory data, without patient
authorization, for purposes other than payment, treatment or healthcare
operations (as defined by HIPAA), except for disclosures for various public
policy purposes and other permitted purposes outlined in the privacy
regulations. The privacy and security regulations provide for significant fines
and other penalties for wrongful use or disclosure of PHI, including potential
civil and criminal fines and penalties. Although the HIPAA statute and
regulations do not expressly provide for a private right of damages, we also
could incur damages under state laws to private parties for the wrongful use
or
disclosure of confidential health information or other private personal
information.
Our
Ability To Comply With The Financial Covenants In Our Credit Agreements Depends
Primarily On Our Ability To Generate Substantial Operating Cash
Flow.
Our
ability to comply with the financial covenants under the agreement with
CapitalSource Funding, LLC will depend primarily on our success in generating
substantial operating cash flow. Our credit agreement contains numerous
financial and other restrictive covenants, including restrictions on purchasing
and selling assets, paying dividends to our shareholders, and incurring
additional indebtedness. Our failure to meet these covenants could result in
a
default and acceleration of repayment of the indebtedness under our credit
facility. If the maturity of our indebtedness were accelerated, we may not
have
sufficient funds to pay such indebtedness. In such event, our lenders would
be
entitled to proceed against the collateral securing the indebtedness, which
includes substantially our entire accounts receivable, to the extent permitted
by our credit agreements and applicable law.
We
Have Potential Conflicts Of Interest Relating To Our Related Party Transactions
Which Could Harm Our Business.
We
have
potential conflicts of interest relating to existing agreements we have with
certain of our directors, officers, principal shareholders, shareholders and
employees. Potential conflicts of interest can exist if a related party director
or officer has to make a decision that has different implications for us and
the
related party. If a dispute arises in connection with any of these agreements,
if not resolved satisfactorily to us, our business could be harmed. There can
be
no assurance that the above or any future conflicts of interest will be resolved
in our favor. If not resolved, such conflicts could harm our
business.
We
Have Material Weaknesses In Our Internal Control Over Financial Reporting That
May Prevent The Company From Being Able To Accurately Report Its Financial
Results Or Prevent Fraud, Which Could Harm Its Business And Operating
Results.
Effective
internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable and accurate
financial reports and prevent fraud. In addition, Section 404 under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires that we assess the design and operating
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. If we cannot provide
reliable and accurate financial reports and prevent fraud, our business and
operating results could be harmed. We have discovered, and may in the future
discover, areas of internal controls that need improvement. We identified four
material weaknesses in our internal controls as of December 31, 2007. These
matters and our efforts regarding remediation of these matters, as well as
efforts regarding internal controls generally are discussed in detail in our
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. However, as our material weaknesses in internal
controls demonstrate, we cannot be certain that the remedial measures taken
to
date will ensure that we design, implement, and maintain adequate controls
over
financial processes and reporting in the future. Remedying the material
weaknesses that have been presently identified, and any additional deficiencies,
significant deficiencies or material weaknesses that we may identify in the
future, could require us to incur significant costs, hire additional personnel,
expend significant time and management resources or make other changes.
Disclosure of our material weaknesses, any failure to remediate such material
weaknesses in a timely fashion or having or maintaining ineffective internal
controls could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial
information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our
common stock and access to capital.
18
Risks
Related To This Offering
The
Sale Of Our Common Stock To Fusion Capital May Cause Dilution And The Sale
Of
The Shares Of Common Stock Acquired By Fusion Capital Could Cause The Price
Of
Our Common Stock To Decline
In
connection with entering into the Purchase Agreement, we authorized the sale
to
Fusion Capital of up to 3,000,000 shares of our common stock. The number of
shares ultimately offered for sale by Fusion Capital under this prospectus
is
dependent upon the number of shares purchased by Fusion Capital under the
Purchase Agreement. The purchase price for the common stock to be sold to Fusion
Capital pursuant to the Purchase Agreement will fluctuate based on the price
of
our common stock. All 3,417,500 shares registered in this offering on behalf
of
Fusion Capital are expected to be freely tradable. It is anticipated that shares
registered in this offering on behalf of Fusion Capital will be sold over a
period of up to 30 months from the date of this prospectus. Depending upon
market liquidity at the time, a sale of shares under this offering at any given
time could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline. Fusion
Capital may ultimately purchase all, some or none of the 3,000,000 shares of
common stock not yet issued but registered in this offering. After it has
acquired such shares, it may sell all, some or none of such shares. Therefore,
sales to Fusion Capital by us under the Purchase Agreement may result in
substantial dilution to the interests of other holders of our common stock.
The
sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock under this offering,
or anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult for us to sell
equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price
that
we might otherwise wish to effect sales. However, we have the right to control
the timing and amount of any sales of our shares to Fusion Capital and the
Purchase Agreement may be terminated by us at any time at our discretion without
any further cost to us.
Future
Sales By Our Stockholders May Adversely Affect Our Stock Price And Our Ability
To Raise Funds In New Stock Offerings
Sales
of
our common stock in the public market following this offering could lower the
market price of our common stock. Sales may also make it more difficult for
us
to sell equity securities or equity-related securities in the future at a time
and price that our management deems acceptable or at all. Of the
32,112,546 shares of common stock outstanding as of November 25, 2008,
22,609,980 shares are freely tradable without restriction, unless held by our
“affiliates”. The remaining 9,502,566 shares of our common
stock which are held by existing stockholders, including the officers and
directors, are “restricted securities” and may be resold in the public market
only if registered or pursuant to an exemption from registration. Some of these
shares may be resold under Rule 144.
The
Selling Stockholders May Sell Their Shares Of Common Stock In The Market, Which
Sales May Cause Our Stock Price To Decline
The
selling stockholders may sell in the public market 7,000,000 shares of our
common stock being registered in this offering. That means that up to 7,000,000
shares may be sold pursuant to this prospectus. Such sales may cause our stock
price to decline.
The
Price You Pay In This Offering Will Fluctuate And May Be Higher Or Lower Than
The Prices Paid By Other People Participating In This
Offering
The
price
in this offering will fluctuate based on the prevailing market price of our
common stock on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board. Accordingly, the
price you pay in this offering may be higher or lower than the prices paid
by
other people participating in this offering.
19
The
Market Price Of Our Common Stock Is Highly Volatile.
The
market price of our common stock has been and is expected to continue to be
highly volatile. Factors, including announcements of technological innovations
by us or other companies, regulatory matters, new or existing products or
procedures, concerns about our financial position, operating results,
litigation, government regulation, developments or disputes relating to
agreements, patents or proprietary rights, may have a significant impact on
the
market price of our common stock. In addition, potential dilutive effects of
future sales of shares of common stock by stockholders and
by
the Company, including Fusion Capital and the other selling stockholders
pursuant to this prospectus, and subsequent sale of common stock by the holders
of warrants and options could have an adverse effect on the market price of
our
shares.
Our
Common Stock Is Deemed To Be “Penny Stock”, Which May Make It More Difficult For
Investors To Sell Their Shares Due To Suitability
Requirements
Our
common stock is deemed to be “penny stock” as that term is defined in Rule
3a51-1 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
“Exchange
Act”). Penny
stocks are stocks:
· |
With
a price of less than $5.00 per
share;
|
· |
That
are not traded on a “recognized” national
exchange;
|
· |
Whose
prices are not quoted on the Nasdaq automated quotation
system;
|
· |
Nasdaq
stocks that trade below $5.00 per share are deemed a “penny stock” for
purposes of Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act;
|
· |
In
issuers with net tangible assets less than $2.0 million (if the issuer
has
been in continuous operation for at least three years) or $5.0 million
(if
in continuous operation for less than three years), or with average
revenues of less than $6.0 million for the last three
years.
|
· |
Broker/dealers
dealing in penny stocks are required to provide potential investors
with a
document disclosing the risks of penny stocks. Moreover, broker/dealers
are required to determine whether an investment in a penny stock
is a
suitable investment for a prospective investor. These requirements
may
reduce the potential market for our common stock by reducing the
number of
potential investors. This may make it more difficult for investors
in our
common stock to sell shares to third parties or to otherwise dispose
of
them. This could cause our stock price to
decline.
|
20
Information
included or incorporated by reference in this prospectus may contain
forward-looking statements. This information may involve known and unknown
risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results,
performance or achievements to be materially different from the future results,
performance or achievements expressed or implied by any forward-looking
statements. Forward-looking statements, which involve assumptions and describe
our future plans, strategies and expectations, are generally identifiable by
use
of the words “may”, “should”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “believe”,
“intend” or “project” or the negative of these words or other variations on
these words or comparable terminology.
This
prospectus contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding,
among other things, (a) our projected sales and profitability, (b) our growth
strategies, (c) anticipated trends in our industry, (d) our future financing
plans and (e) our anticipated needs for working capital. These statements may
be
found under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations” and “Description of Business”, as well as in this
prospectus generally. Actual events or results may differ materially from those
discussed in forward-looking statements as a result of various factors,
including, without limitation, the risks outlined under “Risk Factors” and
matters described in this prospectus generally. In light of these risks and
uncertainties, there can be no assurance that the forward-looking statements
contained in this prospectus will in fact occur.
21
SELLING
STOCKHOLDERS
The
following table presents information regarding our selling stockholders who
intend to sell up to 7,000,000 shares of our common
stock.
Selling Stockholders
|
Shares Beneficially
Owned Before
Offering(1)
|
Percentage of
Outstanding
Shares
Beneficially
Owned Before
Offering(1)
|
Shares To Be
Sold In The
Offering
|
Percentage of
Outstanding
Shares
Beneficially
Owned After
The Offering
|
|||||||||
Fusion
Capital Fund II, LLC(2)
|
417,500
|
1.3
|
%
|
3,417,500
|
0.0
|
%
|
|||||||
Aspen
Select Healthcare, LP(3)
|
12,065,220
|
34.3
|
%
|
2,540,585
|
26.7
|
%
|
|||||||
Mary
S. Dent(4)
|
2,640,046
|
8.1
|
%
|
643,267
|
5.7
|
%
|
|||||||
Steven
C. Jones(5)
|
13,303,302
|
37.4
|
%
|
238,826
|
29.2
|
%
|
|||||||
Jones
Network, LP(6)
|
107,143
|
*
|
|
107,143
|
0.0
|
%
|
|||||||
Marvin
E. Jaffe(7)
|
61,012
|
*
|
|
21,429
|
*
|
|
|||||||
Steven
C. Jones ROTH IRA(8)
|
20,450
|
*
|
|
18,750
|
*
|
|
|||||||
Peter
M. Peterson(9)
|
12,174,778
|
34.5
|
%
|
12,500
|
25.1
|
%
|
|||||||
Total(10):
|
16,498,944
|
45.6
|
%
|
7,000,000
|
35.5
|
%
|
*
|
Less
than one percent (1%).
|
(1)
|
Applicable
percentage of ownership is based on 32,112,546 shares of our common
stock
outstanding as of November 25, 2008, together with securities exercisable
or convertible into shares of common stock within sixty (60) days
of
November 25, 2008, for each stockholder. Beneficial ownership
is determined in accordance with the rules of the SEC and generally
includes voting or investment power with respect to
securities. Shares of common stock are deemed to be
beneficially owned by the person holding such securities for the
purpose
of computing the percentage of ownership of such person, but are
not
treated as outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage
ownership of any other person. Note that affiliates are subject
to Rule 144 and insider trading regulations - percentage computation
is
for form purposes only.
|
(2)
|
Steven
G. Martin and Joshua B. Scheinfeld, the principals of Fusion Capital,
are
deemed to be beneficial owners of all of the shares of common stock
owned
by Fusion Capital. Messrs. Martin and Scheinfeld have shared voting
and
disposition power over the shares being offered under this prospectus.
As
of the date hereof, 417,500 shares of our common stock have been
previously acquired by Fusion Capital, consisting of 400,000 shares
we
issued to Fusion Capital as a commitment fee and 17,500 shares
that were
issued as an expense reimbursement. The Company may elect in its
sole
discretion to sell to Fusion Capital up to an additional 3,000,000
shares
under the Purchase Agreement. Fusion Capital does not presently
beneficially own those shares as determined in accordance with
the rules
of the SEC.
|
(3)
|
Aspen
Select Healthcare, LP (“Aspen”)
has direct ownership of 6,488,279 shares and has certain warrants
to
purchase 3,050,000 shares, all of which are currently
exercisable. Aspen’s beneficial ownership also includes
2,526,941 shares to which Aspen has received a voting
proxy. The general partner of Aspen is Medical Venture
Partners, LLC, an entity controlled by Steven C. Jones and Peter
M.
Peterson.
|
(4)
|
Mary
S. Dent is the spouse of Dr. Michael T. Dent, our chairman and
founder.
Mrs. Dent has direct ownership of 1,202,471 shares which she received
in a
spousal transfer from Dr. Dent in February 2007. Ms. Dent’s beneficial
ownership also includes (i) 900,000 shares held in a trust for
the benefit
of Dr. Dent’s children (of which Dr. Dent and his attorney are the sole
trustees), (ii) warrants exercisable by Dr. Dent within 60 days
of
November 25, 2008 to purchase 137,575 shares and (iii) options
exercisable
by Dr. Dent within 60 days of November 25, 2008 to purchase 400,000
shares.
|
(5)
|
Steven
C. Jones is the Acting Principal Financial Officer of the Company
and a
member of the Company’s Board of Directors. Mr. Jones and his spouse have
direct ownership of 724,826 shares. Mr. Jones also has warrants
exercisable within 60 days of November 25, 2008 to purchase an
additional
91,881 shares. Mr. Jones’ beneficial ownership also includes
(i) 107,143 shares owned by Jones Network, LP, a family limited
partnership that Mr. Jones controls, (ii) 250,000 warrants exercisable
within 60 days of November 25, 2008 owned by Aspen Capital Advisors,
LLC,
a company that Mr. Jones controls, (iii) 32,475 warrants exercisable
within 60 days of November 25, 2008 owned by Gulf Pointe Capital,
LLC, a
company that Mr. Jones and Mr. Peterson control and (iv) 31,757
shares
held in certain individual retirement and custodial
accounts. In addition, as a managing member of the general
partner of Aspen, he has the right to vote all shares controlled
by Aspen,
thus all Aspen shares and currently exercisable warrants have been
included in his beneficial ownership totals (see Note 3). The shares
to be
sold in this offering were received in a distribution from
Aspen.
|
(6)
|
Jones
Network, LP is a family limited partnership controlled by Steven
C. Jones.
The shares to be sold in this offering were received in a distribution
from Aspen.
|
(7)
|
Marvin
Jaffe is a member of the Company’s Board of Directors and has direct
ownership of 21,429 shares and warrants exercisable within 60 days
of
November 25, 2008 to purchase 39,583 shares. The shares to be sold
in this
offering were received in a distribution from
Aspen.
|
(8)
|
The
shares being sold in this offering were received in a distribution
from
Aspen.
|
(9)
|
Peter
M. Peterson is a member of the Company’s board of directors and has direct
ownership of 12,500 shares and warrants exercisable within 60 days
of
November 25, 2008 to purchase an additional 64,583 shares. In addition,
as
a managing member of the general partner of Aspen, he has the right
to
vote all shares controlled by Aspen, thus all Aspen shares and
currently
exercisable warrants have been added to his beneficial ownership
totals
(see Note 3). Mr. Peterson’s beneficial ownership also includes
32,475 warrants exercisable within 60 days of November 25, 2008
owned by
Gulf Pointe Capital, LLC, a company that Mr. Jones and Mr. Peterson
control. The shares to be sold in this offering were received in
a
distribution from Aspen.
|
(10) |
The
total number of shares listed does not double count the shares
that may be
beneficially attributable to more than one person.
|
22
THE
FUSION TRANSACTION
General
On
November 5, 2008, the Company and Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company (“Fusion
Capital”),
entered into a Common Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase
Agreement”),
and a
Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration
Rights Agreement”).
Under
the Purchase Agreement, Fusion Capital is obligated, under certain conditions,
to purchase shares from us in an aggregate amount of $8.0 million from time
to
time over a thirty (30) month period. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement,
Fusion Capital has received a commitment fee consisting of 400,000 shares of
our
common stock. As of November 25, 2008, there were 32,112,546 shares outstanding
(20,028,487 shares held by non-affiliates) excluding the 3,000,000 shares
offered by Fusion Capital pursuant to this prospectus which it has not yet
purchased from us. If all of such 3,000,000 shares offered hereby were issued
and outstanding as of the date hereof, the 3,000,000 shares would represent
8.5%
of the total common stock outstanding or 13.0% of the non-affiliates shares
outstanding as of the date hereof.
Under
the
Purchase Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement we are required to
register and have included in the offering pursuant to this prospectus (1)
400,000 shares which have already been issued as a commitment fee, (2) 17,500
shares which we have issued to Fusion Capital as an expense reimbursement and
(3) at least 3,000,000 shares which we may sell to Fusion Capital after the
registration statement of which this prospectus is a part is declared effective.
All 3,417,500 shares, 10.6% of our outstanding on November 5, 2008, the date
of
the Purchase Agreement, are being offered pursuant to this prospectus. Under
the
Purchase Agreement, we have the right but not the obligation to sell more than
the 3,000,000 shares to Fusion Capital. As of the date hereof, we do not
currently have any plans or intent to sell to Fusion Capital any shares beyond
the 3,000,000 shares offered hereby. However, if we elect to sell more than
the
3,000,000 shares (which we have the right but not the obligation to do), we
must
first register such additional shares under the Securities Act before we can
elect to sell such additional shares to Fusion Capital. In the event we elect
to
do so, this could cause substantial dilution to our shareholders. The number
of
shares ultimately offered for sale by Fusion Capital is dependent upon the
number of shares purchased by Fusion Capital under the Purchase Agreement.
We
do not
have the right to commence any sales of our shares to Fusion Capital until
the
SEC has declared effective the registration statement of which this prospectus
is a part. After the SEC has declared effective such registration statement,
generally we have the right but not the obligation from time to time to sell
our
shares to Fusion Capital in amounts between $50,000 and $1.0 million depending
on certain conditions. We have the right to control the timing and amount of
any
sales of our shares to Fusion Capital. The purchase price of the shares will
be
determined based upon the market price of our shares without any fixed discount
at the time of each sale. Fusion Capital shall not have the right nor the
obligation to purchase any shares of our common stock on any business day that
the price of our common stock is below $0.45. There are no negative covenants,
restrictions on future fundings, penalties or liquidated damages in the Purchase
Agreement or the Registration Rights Agreement. The Purchase Agreement may
be
terminated by us at any time at our discretion without any cost to us. The
Purchase Agreement provides that neither party has the ability to amend the
Purchase Agreement and the obligations of both parties are
non-transferable.
Purchase
Of Shares Under The Purchase Agreement
Under
the
Purchase Agreement, on any business day selected by us, we may direct Fusion
Capital to purchase up to $50,000 of our common stock. The purchase price per
share is equal to the lesser of:
•
|
the
lowest sale price of our common stock on the purchase date;
or
|
•
|
the
average of the three lowest closing sale prices of our common stock
during
the twelve consecutive business days prior to the date of a purchase
by
Fusion Capital.
|
The
purchase price will be equitably adjusted for any reorganization,
recapitalization, non-cash dividend, stock split, or other similar transaction
occurring during the business days used to compute the purchase price. We may
direct Fusion Capital to make multiple purchases from time to time in our sole
discretion; no sooner than every four business days.
23
Our
Right To Increase the Amount to be Purchased
In
addition to purchases of up to $50,000 from time to time, we may also from
time
to time elect on any single business day selected by us to require Fusion
Capital to purchase our shares in an amount up to $100,000 provided that our
share price is not below $0.75 during the three business days prior to and
on
the purchase date. We may increase this amount to up to $250,000 if our share
price is not below $1.20 during the three business days prior to and on the
purchase date. This amount may also be increased to up to $500,000 if our share
price is not below $2.40 during the three business days prior to and on the
purchase date. This amount may also be increased to up to $1.0 million if our
share price is not below $5.00 during the three business days prior to and
on
the purchase date. We may direct Fusion Capital to make multiple large purchases
from time to time in our sole discretion; however, at least two business days
must have passed since the most recent large purchase was completed. The price
at which our common stock would be purchased in this type of larger purchases
will be the lesser of (i) the lowest sale price of our common stock on the
purchase date and (ii) the lowest purchase price (as described above) during
the
previous seven business days prior to the purchase date.
Minimum
Purchase Price
Under
the
Purchase Agreement, we have set a minimum purchase price (“floor price”) of
$0.45. However, Fusion Capital shall not have the right nor the obligation
to
purchase any shares of our common stock in the event that the purchase price
would be less the floor price. Specifically, Fusion Capital shall not have
the
right or the obligation to purchase shares of our common stock on any business
day that the market price of our common stock is below $0.45.
Events
of Default
Generally,
Fusion Capital may terminate the Purchase Agreement without any liability or
payment to the Company upon the occurrence of any of the following events of
default:
•
|
the
effectiveness of the registration statement of which this prospectus
is a
part of lapses for any reason (including, without limitation, the
issuance
of a stop order) or is unavailable to Fusion Capital for sale of
our
common stock offered hereby and such lapse or unavailability continues
for
a period of 20 consecutive business days or for more than an aggregate
of
60 business days in any 365-day
period;
|
•
|
suspension
by our principal market of our common stock from trading for a period
of
three consecutive business days;
|
•
|
the
de-listing of our common stock from our principal market provided
our
common stock is not immediately thereafter trading on the American
Stock
Exchange, the Nasdaq Global Market, the Nasdaq Capital Market, the
Nasdaq
Global Select Market or the New York Stock
Exchange;
|
•
|
the
transfer agent‘s failure for five business days to issue to Fusion Capital
shares of our common stock which Fusion Capital is entitled to under
the
Purchase Agreement;
|
•
|
any
material breach of the representations or warranties or covenants
contained in the Purchase Agreement or any related agreements which
has or
which could have a material adverse effect on us subject to a cure
period
of five business days; or
|
•
|
any
participation or threatened participation in insolvency or bankruptcy
proceedings by or against us; or
|
• |
a
material adverse change in our business;
|
24
Our
Termination Rights
We
have
the unconditional right at any time for any reason to give notice to Fusion
Capital terminating the Purchase Agreement without any cost to us.
No
Short-Selling or Hedging by Fusion Capital
Fusion
Capital has agreed that neither it nor any of its affiliates shall engage in
any
direct or indirect short-selling or hedging of our common stock during any
time
prior to the termination of the Purchase Agreement.
Effect
of Performance of the Purchase Agreement on Our
Stockholders
All
3,417,500 shares registered in this offering are expected to be freely tradable.
It is anticipated that shares registered in this offering will be sold over
a
period of up to 30 months from the date of this prospectus. The sale by Fusion
Capital of a significant amount of shares registered in this offering at any
given time could cause the market price of our common stock to decline and
to be
highly volatile. Fusion Capital may ultimately purchase all, some or none of
the
3,000,000 shares of common stock not yet issued but registered in this offering.
After it has acquired such shares, it may sell all, some or none of such shares.
Therefore, sales to Fusion Capital by us under the Purchase Agreement may result
in substantial dilution to the interests of other holders of our common stock.
However, we have the right to control the timing and amount of any sales of
our
shares to Fusion Capital and the Purchase Agreement may be terminated by us
at
any time at our discretion without any cost to us.
In
connection with entering into the Purchase Agreement, we authorized the sale
to
Fusion Capital of up to 3,000,000 shares of our common stock or 9.3%
of
our outstanding common stock on November 5, 2008 (the date of the Purchase
Agreement). We estimate that we will sell no more than 3,000,000 shares to
Fusion Capital under the Purchase Agreement all of which are included in this
offering. We have the right to terminate the Purchase Agreement without any
payment or liability to Fusion Capital at any time, including in the event
that
all 3,000,000 shares are sold to Fusion Capital under the Purchase Agreement.
Subject to approval by our board of directors, we have the right but not the
obligation to sell more than 3,000,000 shares to Fusion Capital. In the event
we
elect to sell more than the 3,000,000 shares offered hereby, we will be required
to file a new registration statement and have it declared effective by the
U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission. The number of shares ultimately offered
for
sale by Fusion Capital under this prospectus is dependent upon the number of
shares purchased by Fusion Capital under the Purchase Agreement. The following
table sets forth the amount of proceeds we would receive from Fusion Capital
from the sale of shares at varying purchase prices:
Assumed Average
Purchase Price
|
Number of Shares to be
Sold if Full Purchase
|
Percentage of Outstanding
Shares After Giving Effect to the
Issuance to Fusion Capital(1)
|
Proceeds from the Sale of Shares
to Fusion Capital Under the
Purchase Agreement
|
|||
$0.45
|
3,000,000
|
8.5%
|
$1,350,000
|
|||
$0.74(2)
|
3,000,000
|
8.5%
|
$2,220,000
|
|||
$1.00
|
3,000,000
|
8.5%
|
$3,000,000
|
|||
$1.50
|
3,000,000
|
8.5%
|
$4,500,000
|
|||
$2.00
|
3,000,000
|
8.5%
|
$6,000,000
|
|||
$2.50
|
3,000,000
|
8.5%
|
$7,500,000
|
|||
$2.67
|
3,000,000
|
8.5%
|
$8,000,000
|
(1)
|
The
denominator is based on 32,112,546 shares outstanding as of November
25,
2008, which includes the 417,500 shares previously issued to Fusion
Capital,. The numerator is based on the number of shares issuable
under
the Purchase Agreement at the corresponding assumed purchase price
set
forth in the adjacent column.
|
(2)
|
Closing
sale price of our shares on November 25,
2008.
|
25
USE
OF PROCEEDS
This
prospectus relates to shares of our common stock that may be offered and sold
from time to time by the selling stockholders. We will receive no proceeds
from
the sale of shares of common stock in this offering. However, we may receive
up
to $8.0 million in proceeds from the sale of our common stock to Fusion Capital
under the Purchase Agreement. Any proceeds from Fusion Capital we receive under
the Purchase Agreement will be used for working capital and general corporate
purposes.
26
PLAN
OF DISTRIBUTION
The
common stock offered by this prospectus is being offered by the selling
stockholders. The common stock may be sold or distributed from time
to time by the selling stockholders directly to one or more purchasers or
through brokers, dealers, or underwriters who may act solely as agents at market
prices prevailing at the time of sale, at prices related to the prevailing
market prices, at negotiated prices, or at fixed prices, which may be
changed. The sale of the common stock offered by this prospectus may
be effected in one or more of the following methods:
|
•
|
ordinary
brokers’ transactions;
|
|
•
|
transactions
involving cross or block trades;
|
|
•
|
through
brokers, dealers, or underwriters who may act solely as agents
|
|
•
|
“at
the market” into an existing market for the common stock;
|
|
•
|
in
other ways not involving market makers or established business markets,
including direct sales to purchasers or sales effected through agents;
|
|
•
|
in
privately negotiated transactions; or
|
|
•
|
any
combination of the foregoing.
|
In
order
to comply with the securities laws of certain states, if applicable, the shares
may be sold only through registered or licensed brokers or
dealers. In addition, in certain states, the shares may not be sold
unless they have been registered or qualified for sale in the state or an
exemption from the registration or qualification requirement is available and
complied with.
Brokers,
dealers, underwriters, or agents participating in the distribution of the shares
as agents may receive compensation in the form of commissions, discounts, or
concessions from the selling stockholders and/or purchasers of the common stock
for whom the broker-dealers may act as agent. The compensation paid
to a particular broker-dealer may be less than or in excess of customary
commissions.
One
of
the selling stockholders, Fusion Capital, is an “underwriter” within the meaning
of the Securities Act. The other selling stockholders may be "underwriters"
within the meaning of the Securities Act.
Neither
we nor the selling stockholders can presently estimate the amount of
compensation that any agent will receive. We know of no existing
arrangements between the selling stockholders, any other stockholder, broker,
dealer, underwriter, or agent relating to the sale or distribution of the shares
offered by this prospectus. At the time a particular offer of shares
is made, a prospectus supplement, if required, will be distributed that will
set
forth the names of any agents, underwriters, or dealers and any compensation
from the selling stockholders, and any other required information.
We
will
pay all expenses incident to the registration, offering, and sale of the shares
to the public other than commissions or discounts of underwriters,
broker-dealers, or agents. We have also agreed to indemnify certain
selling stockholders, including Fusion Capital, and related persons against
specified liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act.
Insofar
as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act may be
permitted to our directors, officers, and controlling persons, we have been
advised that in the opinion of the SEC this indemnification is against public
policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is, therefore, unenforceable.
Fusion
Capital and its affiliates have agreed not to engage in any direct or indirect
short selling or hedging of our common stock during the term of the Purchase
Agreement.
We
have
advised the selling stockholders that while they are engaged in a distribution
of the shares included in this prospectus they are required to comply with
Regulation M promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. With certain exceptions, Regulation M precludes the selling
stockholders, any affiliated purchasers, and any broker-dealer or other person
who participates in the distribution from bidding for or purchasing, or
attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase any security which is
the
subject of the distribution until the entire distribution is
complete. Regulation M also prohibits any bids or purchases made in
order to stabilize the price of a security in connection with the distribution
of that security. All of the foregoing may affect the marketability of the
shares offered by this prospectus.
This
offering will terminate on the date that all shares offered by this prospectus
have been sold by the selling stockholders.
27
MANAGEMENT’S
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
Introduction
The
following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the
Consolidated Financial Statements, and the Notes thereto included herein. The
information contained below includes statements of the Company’s or management’s
beliefs, expectations, hopes, goals and plans that, if not historical, are
forward-looking statements subject to certain risks and uncertainties that
could
cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in the
forward-looking statements. See “Forward-Looking Statements.” Our actual results
could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking
statements as a result of various factors, including those discussed below
and
elsewhere in this prospectus, particularly under the heading “Risk
Factors.”
Overview
NeoGenomics
operates a network of cancer testing laboratories that specifically target
the
rapidly growing genetic and molecular testing segment of the medical laboratory
industry. We currently operate in three laboratory locations: Fort Myers,
Florida, Nashville, Tennessee and Irvine, California. We currently offer
throughout the United States the following types of testing services to
oncologists, pathologists, urologists, hospitals, and other laboratories: a)
cytogenetics testing, which analyzes human chromosomes, b) Fluorescence In-Situ
Hybridization (“FISH”)
testing, which analyzes abnormalities at the chromosome and gene levels, c)
flow
cytometry testing services, which analyzes gene expression of specific markers
inside cells and on cell surfaces, d) morphological testing, which analyzes
cellular structures and e) molecular testing which involves analysis of DNA
and
RNA and prediction of the clinical significance of various cancers. All of
these
testing services are widely used in the diagnosis and prognosis of various
types
of cancer.
Our
common stock is listed on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board under the symbol
“NGNM.OB.”
Critical
Accounting Policies
The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with United States generally
accepted accounting principles requires our management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the
reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Our
management routinely makes judgments and estimates about the effects of matters
that are inherently uncertain. For a complete description of our
significant accounting policies, see Note B to our Consolidated Financial
Statements included herein.
Our
critical accounting policies are those where we have made difficult, subjective
or complex judgments in making estimates, and/or where these estimates can
significantly impact our financial results under different assumptions and
conditions. Our critical accounting policies are:
·
|
Revenue
Recognition
|
·
|
Accounts
Receivable
|
·
|
Accounting
For Contingencies
|
·
|
Stock
Based Compensation
|
Revenue
Recognition
The
Company recognizes revenues in accordance with the SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin
No. 104, “Revenue Recognition”, when the price is fixed or determinable,
persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the service is performed and
collectability of the resulting receivable is reasonably assured.
28
The
Company’s specialized diagnostic services are performed based on a written test
requisition form and revenues are recognized once the diagnostic services have
been performed, the results have been delivered to the ordering physician,
the
payor has been identified and eligibility and insurance have been
verified. These diagnostic services are billed to various payors,
including Medicare, commercial insurance companies, other directly billed
healthcare institutions such as hospitals and clinics, and
individuals. The Company reports revenues from contracted payors,
including Medicare, certain insurance companies and certain healthcare
institutions, based on the contractual rate, or in the case of Medicare,
published fee schedules. The Company reports revenues from
non-contracted payors, including certain insurance companies and individuals,
based on the amount expected to be collected. The difference between
the amount billed and the amount expected to be collected from non-contracted
payors is recorded as a contractual allowance to arrive at the reported
revenues. The expected revenues from non-contracted payors are based
on the historical collection experience of each payor or payor group, as
appropriate. In each reporting period, the Company reviews its
historical collection experience for non-contracted payors and adjusts its
expected revenues for current and subsequent periods accordingly.
Trade
Accounts Receivable and Allowance For Doubtful Accounts
We
record
accounts receivable net of estimated discounts, contractual allowances and
allowances for bad debts. We provide for accounts receivable that
could become uncollectible in the future by establishing an allowance to reduce
the carrying value of such receivables to their estimated net realizable
value. We estimate this allowance based on the aging of our accounts
receivable and our historical collection experience for each type of
payor. Receivables are charged off to the allowance account at the
time they are deemed uncollectible. In the event that the actual
amount of payment received differs from the previously recorded estimate of
an
account receivable, an adjustment to revenue is made in the current period
at
the time of final collection and settlement. During 2007, we recorded
approximately $24,000 of net total incremental revenue from tests in which
we
underestimated the revenue in 2006 relative to the amounts that we were
ultimately paid in 2007. This was less than 1% of our total FY 2007
revenue and less than 1% of our FY 2006 revenue. These adjustments are not
material to the Company’s results of operations in any period
presented. Our estimates of net revenue are subject to change based
on the contractual status and payment policies of the third party payor’s with
whom we deal. We regularly refine our estimates in order to make our
estimated revenue for future periods as accurate as possible based on our most
recent collection experience with each third party payor.
The
following tables present the dollars and percentage of the Company’s net
accounts receivable from customers outstanding by aging category at December
31,
2007 and 2006. All of our receivables were pending approval by
third-party payors as of the date that the receivables were
recorded:
NEOGENOMICS
AGING OF RECEIVABLES BY PAYOR GROUP
December
31, 2007
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payor
Group
|
0-30
|
%
|
30-60
|
%
|
60-90
|
%
|
90-120
|
%
|
>
120
|
%
|
Total
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Client
|
$
|
159,649
|
4
|
%
|
$
|
148,909
|
4
|
%
|
$
|
200,073
|
5
|
%
|
$
|
69,535
|
2
|
%
|
$
|
122,753
|
3
|
%
|
$
|
700,919
|
19
|
%
|
|||||||||||||
Commercial
Insurance
|
427,876
|
12
|
%
|
184,761
|
5
|
%
|
126,477
|
3
|
%
|
66,922
|
2
|
%
|
487,387
|
13
|
%
|
1,293,423
|
35
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Medicaid
|
918
|
0
|
%
|
904
|
0
|
%
|
2,331
|
0
|
%
|
1,292
|
0
|
%
|
11,892
|
0
|
%
|
17,337
|
0
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Medicare
|
662,560
|
18
|
%
|
293,870
|
8
|
%
|
94,755
|
3
|
%
|
70,579
|
2
|
%
|
486,002
|
13
|
%
|
1,607,766
|
44
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Self
Pay
|
9,745
|
0
|
%
|
6,324
|
0
|
%
|
6,889
|
0
|
%
|
3,238
|
0
|
%
|
5,658
|
0
|
%
|
31,854
|
1
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Total
|
$
|
1,260,748
|
34
|
%
|
$
|
634,768
|
17
|
%
|
$
|
430,525
|
12
|
%
|
$
|
211,566
|
6
|
%
|
$
|
1,113,692
|
31
|
%
|
$
|
3,651,299
|
100
|
%
|
December
31, 2006
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payor
Group
|
0-30
|
%
|
30-60
|
%
|
60-90
|
%
|
90-120
|
%
|
>
120
|
%
|
Total
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Client
|
$
|
146,005
|
9
|
%
|
$
|
150,698
|
10
|
%
|
$
|
79,481
|
5
|
%
|
$
|
8,606
|
1
|
%
|
$
|
33,827
|
2
|
%
|
$
|
418,617
|
27
|
%
|
|||||||||||||
Commercial
Insurance
|
133,333
|
8
|
%
|
105,464
|
7
|
%
|
58,026
|
4
|
%
|
48,847
|
3
|
%
|
35,248
|
2
|
%
|
380,918
|
24
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Medicaid
|
325
|
0
|
%
|
650
|
0
|
%
|
2,588
|
0
|
%
|
400
|
0
|
%
|
-
|
0
|
%
|
3,963
|
0
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Medicare
|
293,298
|
19
|
%
|
282,463
|
18
|
%
|
71,283
|
5
|
%
|
68,830
|
4
|
%
|
56,598
|
4
|
%
|
772,472
|
49
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Self
Pay
|
135
|
0
|
%
|
2,058
|
0
|
%
|
723
|
0
|
%
|
-
|
0
|
%
|
-
|
0
|
%
|
2,916
|
0
|
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Total
|
$
|
573,096
|
36
|
%
|
$
|
541,333
|
35
|
%
|
$
|
212,101
|
13
|
%
|
$
|
126,683
|
8
|
%
|
$
|
125,673
|
8
|
%
|
$
|
1,578,886
|
100
|
%
|
The
large
increase in our accounts receivable greater than 120 days as of December 31,
2007 as compared to December 31, 2006 was the result of several
factors. In the fourth quarter of 2006, the Company implemented a new
billing system that was not scalable as our volume continued to grow and this
made accounts receivable management very difficult. In 2007, as we
grew, we determined that we also needed proper management in this
area. Accordingly, in the fourth quarter of 2007, we reorganized our
entire billing department and made a decision to replace the existing billing
system. As a result we discovered an issue with incorrectly filed claims, that
were aged significantly, and the clean-up of these claims was ongoing through
the first half of 2008. At September 30, 2008 only 22% of our Accounts
Receivable was aged greater than 120 days. The new billing system went live
in
March 2008 and is designed specifically for laboratory billing and has been
a
significant improvement over the previous billing system.
29
Based
on
a detailed analysis, we believe that our $415,000 allowance for doubtful
accounts, which represents approximately 11% of our receivables balance, is
adequate as of December 31, 2007. At December 31, 2006, our allowance
for doubtful accounts was $103,000 or 6% of accounts receivable.
Accounting
for Contingencies
When
involved in litigation or claims, in the normal course of our business, we
follow the provisions of SFAS No. 5, Accounting
for Contingencies, to
record
litigation or claim-related expenses. We evaluate, among other factors, the
degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a
reasonable estimate of the amount of loss. We accrue for settlements when the
outcome is probable and the amount or range of the settlement can be reasonably
estimated. In addition to our judgments and use of estimates, there are inherent
uncertainties surrounding litigation and claims that could result in actual
settlement amounts that differ materially from estimates. With
respect to claims brought against the Company by Accupath Diagnostics
Laboratories, Inc. (“US
Labs”),
on
April 23, 2008, the Company and US Labs entered into a settlement agreement
and
release (the “Settlement
Agreement”);
whereby, both parties agreed to settle and resolve all claims asserted in and
arising out of the aforementioned lawsuit. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
we are required to pay $500,000 to US Labs, of which $250,000 was paid on May
1,
2008 with funds from the Company’s insurance carrier and the remaining $250,000
shall be paid by the Company on the last day of each month in equal installments
of $31,250 commencing on May 31, 2008. Under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, there are certain provisions agreed to in the event of default.
As of
October 31, 2008 the remaining amount due was $62,500, and no events of default
had occurred.
Stock
Based Compensation.
Prior
to
January 1, 2006, we accounted for stock-based awards and our Employee Stock
Purchase Plan using the intrinsic method in accordance with APB Opinion
No. 25, “Accounting
for Stock Issued to Employees”,
FASB
Interpretation No. 44 (“FIN
44”)“Accounting
for Certain Transactions Involving Stock-Based Compensation, an Interpretation
of APB Opinion No. 25”,
FASB
Technical Bulletin No. 97-1 (“FTB
97-1”)“Accounting
under Statement 123 for Certain Employee Stock Purchase Plans with a Look-Back
Option”,
and
related interpretations and provided the required pro forma disclosures of
SFAS
123 ”Accounting
for Stock-Based Compensation”. In
accordance with APB 25, non-cash, stock-based compensation expense was
recognized for any options for which the exercise price was below the market
price on the actual grant date and for any grants that were modified from their
original terms. The charge for the options with an exercise price below
the market price on the actual grant date was equal to the number of options
multiplied by the difference between the exercise price and the market price
of
the option shares on the actual grant date. That expense was amortized
over the vesting period of the options. The charge for modifications of
options in general was equal to the number of options modified multiplied by
the
difference between the market price of the options on the modification date
and
the grant price. The charge for modified options was taken over the
remaining service period, if any.
Effective
January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS 123(R), which requires the measurement at
fair value and recognition of compensation expense for all stock-based payment
awards. We selected the modified prospective method of adoption which
recognizes compensation expense for the fair value of all stock-based payments
granted after January 1, 2006 and for the fair value of all awards granted
to employees prior to January 1, 2006 that remain unvested on the date of
adoption. We used the trinomial lattice valuation model to estimate fair
value of stock option grants made on or after January 1, 2006. The
trinomial lattice option-pricing model requires the estimation of highly complex
and subjective variables. These variables include expected volatility,
expected life of the award, expected dividend rate and expected risk-free rate
of return. The assumptions for expected volatility and expected life are
the two assumptions that most significantly affect the grant date fair value.
The expected volatility is a blended rate based on both the historical
volatility of our stock price and the volatility of certain peer company stock
prices. The expected term assumption for our stock option grants was
determined using trinomial lattice simulation model which projects future option
holder behavior patterns based upon actual historical option exercises.
SFAS 123(R) also requires the application of a forfeiture rate to the
calculated fair value of stock options on a prospective basis. Our
assumption of forfeiture rate represents the historical rate at which our
stock-based awards were surrendered prior to vesting over the trailing four
years. If our assumption of forfeiture rate changes, we would have to
make a cumulative adjustment in the current period. We monitor the
assumptions used to compute the fair value of our stock options and similar
awards on a regular basis and we will revise our assumptions as
appropriate. See Note B – Summary of
Significant Accounting Policies section, “Stock-based
compensation” subsection and Note F – Stock Based Compensation in the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of our Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
as filed with the SEC on April 14, 2008 for more information regarding the
valuation of stock-based compensation.
30
Results
of Operations for the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2008 as Compared
to the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2007
Revenue
Revenues
increased 61.7%, or $1.9 million, to $5.1 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2008 as compared to $3.1 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2007. For the nine months ended September 30, 2008, revenues
increased 82.8%, or $6.4 million, to $14.1 million as compared to $7.7 million
for the nine months ended September 30, 2007. The increase in revenues for
the
three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2008, as compared to the
same periods in the prior year was primarily attributable to increases in case
and testing volume resulting from wide acceptance of our bundled testing product
offering and our industry leading turnaround times, which has resulted in new
customers.
Test
volume increased 48.3%, or 2,730 tests, to 8,384 tests for the three months
ended September 30, 2008 as compared to 5,654 tests for the three months ended
September 30, 2007. For the nine months ended September 30, 2008, test volume
increased 60.8%, or 8,717 tests, to 23,049 tests as compared to 14,332 tests
for
the nine months ended September 30, 2007. Average revenue per test increased
9.1% to $602.43 for the three months ended September 30, 2008 as compared to
$552.30 for the three months ended September 30, 2007. For the nine months
ended
September 30, 2008, average revenue per test increased 13.7% to $611.52 as
compared to $537.91 for the nine months ended September 30, 2007. The increase
in average revenue per test is primarily attributable to an increase in certain
Medicare reimbursements for 2008, and an increase in our test mix of flow
cytometry testing, which has the highest reimbursement rate of any test we
offer. Revenues per test are a function of both the nature of the test and
the
payer (Medicare, Medicaid, third party insurer, institutional client etc.).
Our
policy is to record as revenue the amounts that we expect to collect based
on
published or contracted amounts and/or prior experience with each payer. We
have
established a reserve for uncollectible amounts based on estimates of what
we
will collect from a) third-party payers with whom we do not have a contractual
arrangement or sufficient experience to accurately estimate the amount of
reimbursement we will receive, b) co-payments directly from patients, and c)
those procedures that are not covered by insurance or other third party payers.
The Company’s allowance for doubtful accounts decreased 31.7%, or approximately
$132,000 to $283,000, as compared to $415,000 at December 31, 2007. The
allowance for doubtful accounts was approximately 7.7% and 11.4% of accounts
receivable on September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, respectively. This
decrease is primarily attributed to our new billing system that went live in
the
first quarter of 2008, and the strong billings and collections team we built
in
the last year. We expect to return to an allowance between 6%-7% of our gross
receivables by the end of the year, as we continue to resolve claims that are
greater than 150 days outstanding.
Cost
of Revenue
Cost
of
revenue includes payroll and payroll related costs for performing tests,
depreciation of laboratory equipment, rent for laboratory facilities, laboratory
reagents, probes and supplies, and delivery and courier costs relating to the
transportation of specimens to be tested.
Cost
of
revenue increased 66.7%, or $1.0 million, to $2.5 million for the three months
ended September 30, 2008 as compared to $1.5 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2007. For the nine months ended September 30, 2008, cost of
revenue increased 81.5%, or $3.0 million, to $6.6 million as compared to $3.6
million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007. The increase in cost
of
revenue for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2008, as
compared to the same periods in the prior year was primarily attributable to
increases in all areas of costs of revenue as the Company scaled its operations
in order to meet increasing demand. Cost of revenue as a percentage of revenue
increased to 50.2% for the three months ended September 30, 2008 as compared
to
48.7% for the three months ended September 30, 2007. For the nine months ended
September 30, 2008 cost of revenue as a percentage of sales decreased to 46.7%
as compared to 47.0% for the nine months ended September 30, 2007.
Accordingly,
this resulted in gross margin decreasing to 49.8% for the three months ended
September 30, 2008 as compared to 51.0% for the three months ended September
30,
2007. For the nine months ended September 30, 2008 gross margin increased to
53.3% as compared to 53.0% for the nine months ended September 30, 2007. The
decrease in gross margins for the three months ended September 30, 2008 as
compared to the three months ended September 30, 2007 is primarily attributable
to increased courier cost and personnel and related expenses as well as certain
one-time charges associated with validating our new Immunohistochemistry test
offerings and the completion of a low margin contract in our contract research
organization. In addition, during the three months ended September 30, 2008,
we
had higher than usual outsourcing fees related to the performance of certain
molecular tests that we have now brought back in house.
31
General
and Administrative Expenses
General
and administrative expenses increased 21.0%, or $457,000, to $2.6 million for
the three months ended September 30, 2008 as compared to $2.2 million for the
three months ended September 30, 2007. For the nine months ended September
30,
2008 general and administrative expenses increased 36.1%, or $2.0 million,
to
$7.7 million as compared to $5.7 million for the nine months ended September
30,
2007. The increases in general and administrative expenses are primarily a
result of adding sales and marketing personnel as well as corporate personnel
to
generate and support revenue growth. We anticipate general and administrative
expenses will continue to grow as a result of our expected revenue growth.
However, we expect these expenses to decline as a percentage of revenue as
our
infrastructure costs stabilize.
General
and administrative expenses as a percentage of revenue decreased to 52.2% for
the three months ended September 30, 2008 as compared to 69.8% for the three
months ended September 30, 2007. For the nine months ended September 30, 2008
general and administrative expenses as a percentage of revenue decreased to
54.7% as compared to 73.5% for the nine months ended September 30, 2007. These
decreases as compared to the same periods last year were primarily a result
of
greater economies of scale in our business from spreading our wage expense
over
a greater revenue base as well as a decrease in professional fees as a result
of
settling the litigation with US Labs earlier this year.
Bad
debt
expense increased 22.8%, or $52,000, to $280,000 for the three months ended
September 30, 2008 as compared to $228,000 for the three months ended September
30, 2007. For the nine months ended September 30, 2008 bad debt expense
increased 116.4%, or $589,000 to $1,095,000 as compared to $506,000 for the
nine
months ended September 30, 2007. This increase was a result of the significant
increases in revenue. Bad debt expense as a percentage of revenue was 5.6%
for
the three months ended September 30, 2008 as compared to 7.3% for the months
ended September 30, 2007. For the nine months ended September 30, 2008 bad
debt
expense as a percentage of revenue was 7.8% as compared to 6.6% for the nine
months ended September 30, 2007.
The
decrease in bad debt expense as a percentage of revenue for the three months
ended September 30, 2008 as compared to three months ended September 30, 2007
is
the result of many changes we have made in our billing practices as well as
the
implementation of a more effective billing system, which we believe has
corrected the billing issues we experienced towards the end of last year. Moving
forward, we expect that bad debt expense as a percentage of revenue will run
between 5%-7% of revenue.
The
increase in bad debt expense as a percentage of revenue for the nine months
ended September 30, 2008 as compared to the nine months ended September 30,
2007
was a result of the increased reserves that we took earlier this year to address
the previously discussed billing issues we experienced in late
2007.
Interest
Expense, net
Interest
expense net, which primarily represents interest on borrowing arrangements,
increased 423.5%, or $61,000 to $75,000 for the three months ended September
30,
2008 as compared to $14,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2007.
For
the nine months ended September 30, 2008 interest expense, net decreased 3.1%,
or $6,000 to $199,000 as compared to $206,000 for the nine months ended
September 30, 2007. Interest expense for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2008 is related to our new credit facility with Capital Source,
while interest expense for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007
was related to our previous credit facility with Aspen Select Healthcare, LP
(“Aspen”),
which
had a higher average balance and higher interest rate, but was paid off in
the
second quarter of 2007, thus resulting in no interest expense in the third
quarter of 2007 as compared to the third quarter of 2008.
Net
Income (Loss)
As
a
result of the foregoing, we reported a net loss of approximately $(195,000)
or
($0.01) per share for the three months ended September 30, 2008 as compared
to a
net loss of approximately ($591,000) or ($0.02) per share for the three months
ended September 30, 2007, an improvement of $396,000. For the nine months ended
September 30, 2008, we reported a net loss of approximately ($388,000) or
($0.01) per share as compared to a net loss of ($1,784,000) or ($0.06) per
share
for the nine months ended September 30, 2007, an improvement of almost $1.4
million.
32
Results
Of Operations For The Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2007 As Compared With
The
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2006
Revenue
During
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, our revenues increased approximately
78% to $11,505,000 from $6,476,000 during the fiscal year ended December 31,
2006. This was the result of an increase in testing volume of 64% and a 9%
increase in average revenue per test. This volume increase is the result of
wide acceptance of our bundled testing product offering and our industry leading
turnaround times resulting in new customers. The increase in average
revenue per test is a direct result of restructuring arrangements with certain
existing customers that increased average revenue per test and realigning our
pricing policies with new customers.
During
the twelve months ended December 31, 2007, our average revenue per customer
requisition increased by approximately 4% to $702.15 from $677.19 in
2006. Our average revenue per test increased by approximately 9% to
$547.90 in 2007 from $504.44 in 2006. This was primarily a result of
price increases to certain customers as well as product and payor mix
changes. Revenues per test are a function of both the nature of
the test and the payor (Medicare, Medicaid, third party insurer, institutional
client etc.). Our policy is to record as revenue the amounts that we
expect to collect based on published or contracted amounts and/or prior
experience with the payor. We have established a reserve for
uncollectible amounts based on estimates of what we will collect from a)
third-party payors with whom we do not have a contractual arrangement or
sufficient experience to accurately estimate the amount of reimbursement we
will
receive, b) co-payments directly from patients, and c) those procedures that
are
not covered by insurance or other third party payors. On
December 31, 2007, our Allowance for Doubtful Accounts was approximately
$414,500, a 301% increase from our balance at December 31, 2006 of
$103,500. The allowance for doubtful accounts was approximately 11.3%
and 6.5% of accounts receivables on December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006,
respectively. This increase was the result of an increase in
Accounts Receivable due to increased revenues and the increase in the percentage
of our aged accounts receivable greater than 120 days.
Cost
of Revenue
During
2007, our cost of revenue, as a percentage of gross revenue, increased from
43%
in 2006 to 48% in 2007. This was primarily a result of increases in
the number of employees and related benefits as well as increased lab supply
and
postage/delivery costs from opening new lines of business and meeting the
increase in testing volumes.
Gross
Profit
As
a
result of the 78% increase in revenue and our 48% cost of revenue, our gross
profit increased 61% to $5,982,000 in 2007, from a gross profit of $3,717,000
in
2006. When expressed as a percentage of revenue, our gross margins decreased
from 57.4% in 2006 to 52.1% in 2007. The increase in gross profit was
largely a result of higher testing volumes in 2007, and the decrease in gross
profit margin was due to the increased costs in 2007 for employee labor and
benefits, lab supplies, and postage and delivery costs.
General
and Administrative Expenses
During
2007, our general and administrative expenses increased by approximately 155%
to
$9,123,000 from approximately $3,577,000 in 2006. General and administrative
expenses, as a percentage of sales was 79% as of December 31, 2007,
compared with 55% as of December 31, 2006, an increase of 24%. This
increase was primarily a result of higher personnel and personnel-related
expenses associated with the increase in management and sales and administrative
headcount that was necessary to manage the significant increases in test volumes
described above. In addition to management, sales, and administrative personnel,
our general and administrative expenses also include all overhead and technology
expenses as well, which have also increased as a result of higher test
volumes. We also incurred significant expenses related to scaling our
operations to meet our ongoing business plan and significant expenses associated
with the litigation with US Labs that was recently settled (see Note L to our
financial statements). For the year ended December 31, 2007, we
incurred approximately $619,000 of litigation related expenses, net of
reimbursements from our insurance company, as compared to approximately $159,000
of such litigation related expenses for the year ended December 31,
2006. Bad debt expense for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006
was $1,013,804 and $444,133, respectively. This increase was
necessitated by the significant increase in revenues noted above and to a lesser
extent by the issues denoted in our critical accounting policies regarding
accounts receivable management.
33
Other
Income/Expense
Net
other
income/expense, which primarily consists of interest expense, decreased
approximately 11% in 2007 to approximately $239,000 from approximately $270,000
for 2006. Interest expense is comprised of interest payable on
advances under our Credit Facility with Aspen and interest paid for capital
lease obligations. The year-over-year decrease is primarily
attributed to paying off the Aspen credit facility on June 7, 2007.
Net
Loss
As
a
result of the foregoing, our net loss increased from ($130,000) in 2006 to
($3,380,000) in 2007, an increase of approximately 2,500%.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
During
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, our operating activities used
approximately $2,643,000 in cash compared with $694,000 used in the fiscal
year
ended 2006. This amount primarily represented cash tied-up in
receivables as a result of increased revenues and to a lesser extent cash used
to pay the expenses associated with our operations as well as fund our other
working capital. We also spent approximately $516,000 on new
equipment in 2007 compared with $399,000 in 2006. Through the sale of
equity securities, which provided approximately $5,287,000, we were able to
retire the $1,675,000 due on our credit facility with Aspen and finance
operations. This resulted in net cash provided by financing activities of
approximately $3,443,000 in 2007 compared to $1,208,000 in 2006. At
December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, we had cash and cash equivalents of
approximately $211,000, and $126,000 respectively.
During
the nine months ended September 30, 2008, our operating activities used
approximately $182,000 in cash compared with approximately $2,189,000 used
in
the nine months ended September 30, 2007. We invested approximately $370,000
on
new equipment during the nine months ended September 30, 2008, compared with
approximately $407,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2007. As of
November 5, 2008, we had approximately $625,000 in cash on hand and $1,250,000
of availability under our Credit Facility with CapitalSource. On November 5,
2008, we entered into the Purchase Agreement with Fusion Capital, that provides
for future sales of our common stock to Fusion Capital in amounts up to $8.0
million over the next 30 months in amounts and at times that are solely in
our
discretion. If we elect to sell stock to Fusion Capital under the Purchase
Agreement, any proceeds received by us would be used for general corporate
purposes or to pursue strategic opportunities that may arise. On November 5,
2008, we also entered into a master lease agreement with Leasing Technologies
International, Inc. (“LTI”)
which
allows us to draw as much as $1.0 million over the next twelve months to
purchase capital equipment. At the present time, we anticipate that based on
i)
our current business plan and operations, ii) our existing cash balances, iii)
the availability of our accounts receivable credit facility with CapitalSource,
iv) the availability of equity capital under the Purchase Agreement, and v)
the
availability of equipment financing under the master lease agreement with LTI,
we will have adequate liquidity for at least the next twelve months. This
estimate of our cash needs does not include any additional funding which may
be
required for growth in our business beyond that which is planned or cash that
may be required to pursue strategic transactions or acquisitions. In the event
that the Company grows faster than we currently anticipate or we engage in
strategic transactions or acquisitions and our cash on hand and/or our
availability under the CapitalSource Credit Facility, the Purchase Agreement,
or
the LTI master lease agreement is not sufficient to meet our financing needs,
we
may need to raise additional capital from other sources. In such event, we
may
not be able to obtain such funding on attractive terms, or at all, and the
Company may be required to curtail its operations. In the event that we do
need
to raise additional capital, we would seek to raise this additional money
through issuing a combination of debt and/or equity securities primarily through
banks and/or other large institutional investors. At September 30, 2008, we
had
stockholders’ equity of $2,487,000.
We
currently forecast capital expenditures in order to execute on our business
plan. The amount and timing of such capital expenditures will be determined
by
the volume of business, but we currently anticipate that we will need to
purchase approximately $1.5 million to $2.0 million of additional capital
equipment during the next twelve months. We plan to fund these expenditures
through capital lease financing arrangements and through our master lease
agreement with LTI. If we are unable to obtain such funding, we will need to
pay
cash for these items or we will be required to curtail our equipment purchases,
which may have an impact on our ability to continue to grow our
revenues.
Aspen
Credit Facility
On
March
23, 2005, Aspen and the Company entered into an amended and restated loan
agreement, which provided for a revolving credit facility in an amount of up
to
$1.5 million (which was subsequently increased to $1.7 million) (the
“Aspen
Credit Facility”).
The
Aspen Credit Facility was paid in full in June 2007 and it expired on September
30, 2007.
34
Standby
Equity Distribution Agreement
On
June
6, 2005, we entered into a Standby Equity Distribution Agreement (the
“SEDA”)
with
Cornell Capital Partners, LP. Pursuant to the SEDA, the Company
could, at its discretion, periodically sell to Cornell Capital Partners shares
of common stock for a total purchase price of up to $5.0
million. On August 1, 2007, the SEDA expired and we
decided not to renew it.
The
following sales of common stock were made under our SEDA with Cornell Capital
Partners since it was first declared effective on August 1, 2005:
Request Date
|
Completion Date
|
Shares of
Common
Stock
|
Gross
Proceeds
|
Yorkville
Fee
|
Escrow Fee
|
Net
Proceeds
|
ASP(1)
|
|||||||||||||||
8/29/2005
|
9/8/2005 |
63,776
|
$
|
25,000
|
$
|
1,250
|
$
|
500
|
$
|
23,250
|
||||||||||||
12/10/2005
|
12/18/2005 |
241,779
|
50,000
|
2,500
|
500
|
47,000
|
||||||||||||||||
Subtotal
– 2005
|
305,555
|
$
|
75,000
|
$
|
3,750
|
$
|
1,000
|
$
|
70,250
|
$
|
0.25
|
|||||||||||
7/19/2006
|
7/28/2006 |
83,491
|
53,000
|
2,500
|
500
|
50,000
|
||||||||||||||||
8/8/2006
|
8/16/2006 |
279,486
|
250,000
|
12,500
|
500
|
237,000
|
||||||||||||||||
10/18/2006
|
10/23/2006 |
167,842
|
200,000
|
10,000
|
500
|
189,500
|
||||||||||||||||
Subtotal
– 2006
|
530,819
|
$
|
503,000
|
$
|
25,000
|
$
|
1,500
|
$
|
476,500
|
$
|
0.95
|
|||||||||||
12/29/2006
|
1/10/2007 |
98,522
|
150,000
|
7,500
|
500
|
142,000
|
||||||||||||||||
1/16/2007
|
1/24/2007 |
100,053
|
150,000
|
7,500
|
500
|
142,000
|
||||||||||||||||
2/1/2007
|
2/12/2007 |
65,902
|
100,000
|
5,000
|
500
|
94,500
|
||||||||||||||||
2/19/2007
|
2/28/2007 |
166,611
|
250,000
|
12,500
|
500
|
237,000
|
||||||||||||||||
2/28/2007
|
3/7/2007 |
180,963
|
250,000
|
12,500
|
500
|
237,000
|
||||||||||||||||
4/5/2007
|
4/16/2007 |
164,777
|
250,000
|
12,500
|
500
|
237,000
|
||||||||||||||||
4/20/2007
|
4/30/2007 |
173,467
|
250,000
|
12,500
|
500
|
237,000
|
||||||||||||||||
Subtotal
– 2007
|
950,295
|
$
|
1,400,000
|
$
|
70,000
|
$
|
3,500
|
$
|
1,326,500
|
$
|
1.48
|
|||||||||||
Total
Since Inception
|
1,786,669
|
$
|
1,978,000
|
$
|
98,750
|
$
|
6,000
|
$
|
1,873,250
|
$
|
1.19
|
(1)
|
Average
Selling Price of shares issued.
|
Private
Placement
During
the period from May 31, 2007 through June 6, 2007, we sold 2,666,667 shares
of
our common stock to ten unaffiliated accredited investors (the “Investors”)
at a
price of $1.50 per share in a private placement of our common stock (the
“Private
Placement”). The
Private Placement generated gross proceeds to the Company of $4.0 million,
and
after estimated transaction costs, the Company received net cash proceeds of
approximately $3.8 million. The Company also issued warrants to
purchase 98,417 shares of our Common Stock to Noble International Investments,
Inc. (“Noble”),
in
consideration for its services as a placement agent for the Private Placement
and paid Noble a cash fee of $147,625. Additionally, the Company
issued to Aspen Capital Advisors, LLC (“ACA”) warrants
to purchase 250,000 shares at $1.50 per share and paid ACA a cash fee of
$52,375 in consideration for ACA’s services to the Company in connection with
the Private Placement. The Private Placement involved the issuance
of the aforementioned unregistered securities in transactions that we believed
were exempt from registration under the Securities Act. All of the
aforementioned stockholders received registration rights (“Registration
Rights”)
for
the Private Placement shares so purchased and we filed a registration statement
on Form SB-2 on July 12, 2007 to register these shares (the “Registration
Statement”).
Certain of the Investors also purchased 1,500,000 shares and 500,000 warrants
from Aspen in a separate transaction that occurred simultaneously with the
Private Placement and the Company agreed to an assignment of Aspen’s
registration rights for such shares and warrants, and those shares and warrants
were included in this Registration Statement.
35
The
Registration Rights contained a provision that if the Registration Statement
was
not declared effective within 120 days of the Private Placement, we would be
responsible for partial relief of the damages resulting from a holder’s
inability to sell the shares covered by the Registration
Statement. Beginning after 120 days from the date that the Private
Placement was consummated, the Company is obligated to pay as liquidated damages
to each holder of shares covered by the Registration Statement (“Registered
Securities”)
an
amount equal to one half percent (0.5%) of the purchase price of the Registered
Securities for each thirty (30) day period that the Registration Statement
is
not effective after the required effective date specified in the Registration
Rights Agreement. Such liquidated damages may be paid, at the
holder’s option, either in cash or shares of our common stock, after demand
therefore has been made.
In
August, 2007, we received a comment letter from the Accounting Staff of the
SEC
regarding certain disclosure and accounting questions with respect to our FY
2006 annual report filed on Form 10-KSB. In September 2007, we
responded to the SEC Staff and filed an amended Form 10-KSB/A that responded
to
the matters raised by the Staff. In October 2007, we received a
follow up comment letter from the Staff that continued to question the
accounting we use in connection with non-cash employee stock-based compensation
and warrants issued under the newly adopted
SFAS 123(R). We responded to the Staff’s October 2007
letter in March 2008, and resolved all open issues in May 2008.
As
a
result of the aforementioned SEC correspondence, the Company was not able to
register the securities issued in the Private Placement within the allowed
120
period, and was thus responsible for damages. Accordingly, as of
December 31, 2007, in accordance with FASB Staff Position 00-19-2,
“Accounting for Registration Payment Arrangements” we had accrued approximately
$282,000 in penalties as liquidated damages from the end of the 120 day period
through May 2008. Such penalties are included in Accrued Expenses and
Other Liabilities. The Registration Statement registering the Private Placement
shares was declared effective by the SEC on July 1, 2008. In September 2008,
the
Company paid $40,500 in cash and issued 170,088 shares of common stock at $1.00
per share (an aggregate value of $170,088) for a total value of $210,588 to
the
holders of the Private Placement shares to settle the penalty amounts due.
The
remaining $71,412 in accrued penalties was reversed in September 2008 as certain
shareholders had previously sold their shares, thus forfeiting their rights
to
any liquidated damages.
On
June
6, 2007, the Company issued to Lewis Asset Management (“LAM”)
500,000 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $0.26 per share and
received gross proceeds of $130,000 upon the exercise by LAM of 500,000 warrants
which were purchased by LAM from Aspen on that day.
On
June
7, 2007, we used part of the net proceeds of the Private Placement to pay off
the $1.7 million principal balance of the Aspen Credit Facility.
On
August
15, 2007 our Board of Directors voted to issue warrants to purchase 533,334
shares of our common stock to the investors who purchased shares in the Private
Placement. Such warrants have an exercise price of $1.50 per share
and are exercisable for a period of two years. Such warrants also
have a provision for piggyback registration rights in the first year and demand
registration rights in the second year.
Revolving
Credit and Security Agreement
On
February 1, 2008, we entered into a Revolving Credit and Security Agreement
(“Credit
Facility”
or
“Credit
Agreement”)
with
CapitalSource Finance LLC (“Lender”)
pursuant to which the Lender shall make available to us a revolving credit
facility in a maximum principal amount at any time outstanding of up to Three
Million Dollars ($3,000,000) (the “Facility
Cap”).
Subject to the provisions of the Credit Agreement, the Lender shall make
advances to us from time to time during the three year term following the
closing date, and the revolving Credit Facility may be drawn, repaid and redrawn
from time to time as permitted under the Credit Agreement. Interest on
outstanding advances under the Credit Facility shall be payable monthly in
arrears on the first day of each calendar month at an annual rate of one-month
LIBOR plus 3.25% in accordance with the terms of the Credit Agreement, subject
to a LIBOR floor of 3.14%. As of September 30, 2008, the effective
annual interest rate of the Credit Agreement was 6.5%. To secure the
payment and performance in full of the Obligations (as defined in the Credit
Agreement), we granted to the Lender a continuing security interest in and
lien
upon, all of our rights, title and interest in and to our Accounts (as such
term is defined in the Credit Agreement), which primarily consist of accounts
receivable. Furthermore, pursuant to the Credit Agreement, the Parent
Company guaranteed the punctual payment when due, whether at stated maturity,
by
acceleration or otherwise, of all of our obligations. The Parent Company’s
guaranty is a continuing guarantee and shall remain in force and effect until
the indefeasible cash payment in full of the Guaranteed Obligations (as defined
in the Credit Agreement) and all other amounts payable under the Credit
Agreement.
36
On
November 3, 2008 the Company and CapitalSource signed a first amendment to
the
Credit Agreement. This amendment increased the amount allowable under the
Credit Agreement to pay towards the settlement of the US Labs lawsuit to
$250,000 from $100,000 and documented other administrative agreements between
NeoGenomics and CapitalSource.
Common
Stock Purchase Agreement
On
November 5, 2008, we entered into the Purchase Agreement with Fusion
Capital. The Purchase Agreement, which has a term of 30 months, provides
for the future funding of up to $8.0 million from sales of our common stock
to
Fusion Capital on a when and if needed basis as determined by us in our sole
discretion. On October 10, 2008, we issued to Fusion Capital 17,500 shares
of our common stock and $17,500 as a due diligence expense reimbursement. In
addition, on November 5, 2008, we issued to Fusion Capital 400,000 shares of
our
common stock as a non-refundable commitment fee. Concurrently with entering
into
the Purchase Agreement, we entered into the Registration Rights Agreement with
Fusion Capital. Under the Registration Rights Agreement, we agreed to file
a registration statement with the SEC covering the 417,500 shares that have
already been issued to Fusion Capital and at least 3.0 million shares that
may
be issued to Fusion Capital under the Purchase Agreement.
Under
the
Purchase Agreement, after the SEC has declared effective the registration
statement related to the transaction, we have the right to sell to Fusion
Capital shares of our common stock from time to time in amounts between $50,000
and $1.0 million, depending on the market price of our common stock. The
purchase price of the shares related to any future funding under the Purchase
Agreement will be based on the prevailing market prices of our stock at the
time
of such sales without any fixed discount, and the Company will control the
timing and amount of any sales of shares to Fusion Capital. Fusion Capital
shall not have the right or the obligation to purchase any shares of our common
stock on any business day that the price of our common stock is below $0.45
per
share. The Purchase Agreement may be terminated by us at any time at our
discretion without any further cost to us. There are no negative
covenants, restrictions on future funding from other sources, penalties, further
fees or liquidated damages in the agreement.
Given
our
current liquidity position from cash on hand and our availability under our
Credit Facility with CapitalSource, we have no immediate plans to issue common
stock under the Purchase Agreement. If and when we do elect to sell shares
to
Fusion Capital under the Purchase Agreement, we expect to do so
opportunistically and only under conditions deemed favorable by the
Company. Any proceeds received by the Company from sales under the
Purchase Agreement will be used for general corporate purposes, working capital,
and/or for expansion activities.
Equipment
Lease Line
On
November 5, 2008, our wholly-owned subsidiary entered into a master lease
agreement with Leasing Technologies International, Inc. (“LTI”).
The
master lease agreement establishes the general terms and conditions pursuant
to
which the subsidiary may lease equipment pursuant to a $1,000,000 lease line.
Advances under the lease line may be made for one year by executing equipment
schedules for each advance. The lease term of any equipment schedules issued
under the lease line will be for 36 months. The lease rate factor applicable
for
each equipment schedule is 0.0327/month. If the subsidiary makes use of the
entire lease line, the monthly rent would be $32,700. Monthly rent for the
leased equipment is payable in advance on the first day of each month. The
obligations of the subsidiary are guaranteed by the Parent Company. At the
end
of the term of each equipment schedule the subsidiary may:
(a) Renew
the
lease with respect to such equipment for an additional 12 months at fair market
value;
(b) Purchase
the equipment at fair market value, which price will not be less than 10% of
cost nor more than 14% of cost;
(c) Extend
the term for an additional six months at 35% of the monthly rent paid by lessee
during the initial term, equipment may then be purchased for the lesser of
fair
market value or 8% of cost; or
(a) Return
the equipment subject to a remarketing charge equal to 6% of cost.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In
September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements”
(“SFAS
157”).
SFAS
157 provides a new single authoritative definition of fair value and provides
enhanced guidance for measuring the fair value of assets and liabilities and
requires additional disclosures related to the extent to which companies measure
assets and liabilities at fair value, the information used to measure fair
value, and the effect of fair value measurements on earnings. SFAS 157 was
effective for the Company as of January 1, 2008 for financial assets and
financial liabilities within its scope and did not have a material impact on
our
consolidated financial statements.
37
In
February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FAS 157-2 “Effective Date
of FASB Statement No. 157” (“FSP
FAS 157-2”)
which
defers the effective date of SFAS 157 for all non-financial assets and
non-financial liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed at
fair
value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least annually),
to
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008 and interim periods within those
fiscal years for items within the scope of FSP FAS 157-2. The Company is
currently assessing the impact, if any, of SFAS 157 and FSP FAS 157-2 for
non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities on its consolidated financial
statements.
In
February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159 “The Fair Value Option for Financial
Assets and Financial Liabilities – Including an Amendment of FASB Statement No.
115” (“SFAS
159”).
SFAS 159 permits an entity to measure many financial instruments and
certain other items at fair value that are not currently required to be measured
at fair value. The Company adopted this statement as of January 1, 2008 and
has
elected not to apply the fair value option to any of its financial instruments.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in
Consolidated Financial Statements – an amendment of ARB No. 51” (“SFAS
160”).
SFAS
160 requires all entities to report noncontrolling (minority) interests in
subsidiaries as equity in the consolidated financial statements. Its intention
is to eliminate the diversity in practice regarding the accounting for
transactions between an entity and noncontrolling interests. This statement
is
effective for the Company as of January 1, 2009 and currently, we do not expect
it to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007), “Business
Combinations” (“SFAS No. 141R”),
which
replaces SFAS No 141. The statement retains the purchase method of
accounting for acquisitions, but requires a number of changes, including changes
in the way assets and liabilities are recognized in purchase accounting. It
also
changes the recognition of assets acquired and liabilities assumed arising
from
contingencies, requires the capitalization of in-process research and
development at fair value, and requires the expensing of acquisition-related
costs as incurred. SFAS 141 (revised) is effective for periods beginning on
or after January 1, 2009, and currently, we do not expect it to have a material
impact on the Company’s financial statements unless we engage in any business
combinations. The adoption of this accounting pronouncement will cause us
to expense all previously capitalized expenses related to possible business
combinations and
all
future costs of possible business combinations as they are
incurred.
In
May
2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 163, “Accounting for Financial Guarantee
Insurance Contracts—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 60” (“SFAS
No. 163”).
This Statement interprets FASB Statement No. 60 and amends existing accounting
pronouncements to clarify their application to the financial guarantee insurance
contracts included within the scope of this Statement.
In
March
2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, “Disclosures about Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities” (“SFAS 161”).
SFAS 161 requires expanded disclosures regarding the location and amount of
derivative instruments in an entity’s financial statements, how derivative
instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS 133,
“Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” and how
derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial
position, operating results and cash flows. SFAS 161 is effective for
periods beginning on or after November 15, 2008, and currently, we do not
expect it to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements..
In
May
2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 162, “The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles” (“SFAS
162”).
This
statement identifies the sources of accounting principles and the framework
for
selecting the principles to be used in the preparation of financial statements
of nongovernmental entities that are presented in conformity with GAAP. While
this statement formalizes the sources and hierarchy of GAAP within the
authoritative accounting literature, it does not change the accounting
principles that are already in place. This statement will be effective 60 days
following the SEC’s approval of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
amendments to AU Section 411, “The Meaning of Present Fairly in Conformity
With Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.” SFAS 162 is not currently
expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.
38
US
Labs Settlement
On
April
23, 2008, the Company and US Labs entered into the Settlement Agreement;
whereby, both parties agreed to settle and resolve all claims asserted in and
arising out of US Labs’ lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers
and employees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, we are required to pay
$500,000 to US Labs, of which $250,000 was paid on May 1, 2008 with funds from
the Company’s insurance carrier and the remaining $250,000 shall be paid by the
Company on the last day of each month in equal installments of $31,250
commencing on May 31, 2008. Under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, there are certain provisions agreed to in the event of default.
As of
October 31, 2008, the remaining amount due was $62,500, and no events of default
had occurred.
FCCI
Litigation
A
civil
lawsuit is currently pending between the Company and its liability insurer,
FCCI
Commercial Insurance Company ("FCCI")
in the
20th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Lee County, Florida (Case No.
07-CA-017150). FCCI filed the suit on December 12, 2007 in response to the
Company's demands for insurance benefits with respect to an underlying action
involving US Labs (a settlement agreement has since been reached in the
underlying action, and thus that case has now concluded). Specifically, the
Company maintains that the underlying plaintiff's allegations triggered the
subject insurance policy's personal and advertising injury coverage. In the
lawsuit, FCCI seeks a court judgment that it owes no obligation to the Company
regarding the underlying action (FCCI does not seek monetary damages). The
Company has counterclaimed against FCCI for breach of the subject insurance
policy, and seeks recovery of defense costs incurred in the underlying matter,
amounts paid in settlement thereof, and fees and expenses incurred in litigating
with FCCI. The court recently denied a motion by FCCI for judgment on the
pleadings, and the parties are proceeding with discovery. We intend to
aggressively pursue all remedies in this matter and believe that the courts
will
ultimately find that FCCI had a duty to provide coverage in the US Labs
litigation.
Employment
Contracts
On
March
12, 2008, we entered into an employment agreement with Robert Gasparini, our
President and Chief Scientific Officer to extend his employment with the Company
for an additional four year term. This employment agreement was
retroactive to January 1, 2008 and provides that it will automatically renew
after the initial four year term for one year increments unless either party
provides written notice to the other party with their intention to terminate
the
agreement 90 days before the end of the initial term. The employment
agreement specifies an initial base salary of $225,000/year with specified
salary increases tied to meeting revenue goals. Mr. Gasparini is also
entitled to receive cash bonuses for any given fiscal year in an amount equal
to
30% of his base salary if he meets certain targets established by the Board
of
Directors. In addition, Mr. Gasparini was granted 784,000 stock options
that have a seven year term so long as Mr. Gasparini remains an employee of
the
Company. These options are scheduled to vest according to the passage
of time and the meeting of certain performance-based milestones. Mr.
Gasparini’s employment agreement also specifies that he is entitled to four
weeks of paid vacation per year and other insurance benefits. In the event
that
Mr. Gasparini is terminated without cause by the Company, the Company has agreed
to pay Mr. Gasparini’s base salary and maintain his employee benefits for a
period of twelve months.
On
June
24, 2008, we entered into an employment agreement with Jerome J. Dvonch, our
Director of Finance and Principle Accounting Officer, to extend his employment
with the Company for an additional four year term. This employment
agreement became effective on July 1, 2008 and provides that it will
automatically renew after the initial four year term for one year increments
unless either party provides written notice to the other party of their
intention to terminate the agreement at least one month before the end of the
initial term (or any renewal term). The employment agreement
specifies an initial base salary of $150,000/year. Mr. Dvonch is also
eligible to receive an annual performance based cash bonus at the discretion
of
the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. In addition, Mr. Dvonch
was granted an option to purchase 100,000 shares of our common stock at an
exercise price of $1.01 per share. These options are scheduled to vest according
to the passage of time and the meeting of certain performance-based
milestones. Mr. Dvonch’s employment agreement also specifies that he
is entitled to four weeks of paid vacation per year and other insurance
benefits. In the event that Mr. Dvonch is terminated without cause by the
Company, the Company has agreed to pay Mr. Dvonch’s base salary and
maintain his benefits for a period of six months.
39
DESCRIPTION
OF BUSINESS
NeoGenomics
operates a network of cancer-focused genetic testing
laboratories. The Company’s growing network of laboratories currently
offers the following types of testing services to pathologists, oncologists,
urologists, hospitals, and other laboratories throughout the United
States:
a)
|
cytogenetics
testing, which analyzes human
chromosomes;
|
b)
|
Fluorescence
In-Situ Hybridization (“FISH”)
testing, which analyzes abnormalities at the chromosomal and gene
levels;
|
c)
|
flow
cytometry testing, which analyzes gene expression of specific markers
inside cells and on cell surfaces;
and
|
d)
|
molecular
testing which involves analysis of DNA and RNA to diagnose and predict
the
clinical significance of various genetic sequence
disorders.
|
All
of
these testing services are widely utilized in the diagnosis and prognosis of
various types of cancer.
The
medical testing laboratory market can be broken down into three segments:
clinical lab testing, anatomic pathology testing, and genetic and molecular
testing. Clinical lab testing is typically done by laboratories that specialize
in high volume, highly automated, lower complexity tests on easily procured
specimens such as blood and urine. Clinical lab tests often involve
testing of a less urgent nature, for example, cholesterol testing and testing
associated with routine physical exams.
Anatomic
pathology (“AP”)
testing involves evaluation of tissue, as in surgical pathology, or cells as
in
cytopathology. The most widely performed AP procedures include the
preparation and interpretation of pap smears, skin biopsies, and tissue
biopsies.
Genetic
and molecular testing typically involves analyzing chromosomes, genes or base
pairs of DNA or RNA for abnormalities. New tests are being developed
at an accelerated pace, thus this market niche continues to expand
rapidly. Genetic and molecular testing requires highly specialized
equipment and credentialed individuals (typically MD or PhD level) to certify
results and typically yields the highest average revenue per test of the three
market segments. The estimated size of this market and the
related parts of the AP testing market that we address is approximately $4-$5
Billion.
Our
primary focus is to provide high complexity laboratory testing for the
community-based pathology and oncology marketplace. Within these key
market segments, we currently provide our services to pathologists and
oncologists in the United States that perform bone marrow and/or peripheral
blood sampling for the diagnosis of blood and lymphoid tumors (leukemias and
lymphomas) and archival tissue referral for analysis of solid tumors such as
breast cancer. A secondary strategic focus targets community-based
urologists due to a new FISH-based test for the initial diagnosis of bladder
cancer and early detection of recurrent disease. We focus on
community-based practitioners for two reasons. First, academic pathologists
and
associated clinicians tend to have their testing needs met within the confines
of their university affiliation. Secondly, most of the cancer care in
the United States is administered by community based practitioners, not in
academic centers, due to ease of local access. Moreover, within the
community-based pathologist segment it is not our intent to willingly compete
with our customers for testing services that they may seek to perform
themselves. Fee-for-service pathologists for example, derive a
significant portion of their annual revenue from the interpretation of biopsy
specimens. Unlike other larger laboratories, which strive to perform
100% of such testing services themselves, we do not intend to compete with
our
customers for such specimens. Rather, our high complexity cancer testing focus
is a natural extension of and complementary to many of the services that our
community-based customers often perform within their own
practices. As such, we believe our relationship as a non-competitive
consultant, empowers these physicians to expand their testing breadth and
provide a menu of services that matches or exceeds the level of service found
in
academic centers of excellence around the country.
We
continue to make progress growing our testing volumes and revenue beyond our
historically focused effort in Florida due to our expanding field sales
footprint. As of November 25, 2008, NeoGenomics’ sales and marketing
organization had 14 territory business managers, three regional managers, a
National Director of Sales and three team members in business development and
marketing, and we have received business from 30 states throughout the
country. Recent, key hires included various territory business
managers (sales representatives) in the Northeastern, Southeastern, and Western
states. We expect to hire one more account manager during 2008 and to
continue to scale our sales team rapidly during 2009. As more sales
representatives are added, we believe that the base of our business outside
of
Florida will continue to grow and ultimately eclipse that which is generated
within the state.
40
We
are
successfully competing in the marketplace based on the quality and
comprehensiveness of our test results, and our innovative flexible levels of
service, industry-leading turn-around times, regionalization of laboratory
operations and ability to provide after-test support to those physicians
requesting consultation.
2007
saw
the refinement of our industry leading NeoFISHTM
technical component-only FISH service offering. Upon the suggestion
of our installed customer base, we made numerous usability and technical
enhancements throughout last year. The result has been a product line
for NeoGenomics that continues to resonate very well with our client
pathologists. Utilizing NeoFISHTM,
such
clients are empowered to extend the outreach efforts of their practices and
exert a high level of sign out control over their referral work in a manner
that
was previously unobtainable.
NeoFLOWTM
tech-only flow cytometry was launched as a companion service to
NeoFISHTM
in late
2007. NeoFLOWTM
has been
a key growth driver in 2008. Moreover, the combination of
NeoFLOWTM
and
NeoFISHTM
serves
to strengthen the market differentiation of each product line for NeoGenomics
and allows us to compete more favorably against larger, more entrenched
competitors in our testing niche.
We
increased our professional level staffing for global requisitions requiring
interpretation in 2007 and 2008. We currently employ three full-time
MDs as our medical directors and pathologists, two PhDs as our scientific
directors and cytogeneticists, and two part-time MDs acting as consultants
and
backup pathologists for case sign out purposes. We have plans to hire
several more hematopathologists as our product mix continues to expand beyond
tech-only services and more sales emphasis is focused on our ability to issue
consolidated reporting with case interpretation under our Genetic Pathology
Solutions (GPSTM)
product
line.
We
believe NeoGenomics’ average 3-5 day turn-around time for our cytogenetics
services continues to remain an industry-leading benchmark for national
laboratories. The timeliness of results continues to increase the
usage patterns of cytogenetics and acts as a driver for other add-on testing
requests by our referring physicians. Based on anecdotal information,
we believe that typical cytogenetics labs have 7-14 day turn-around times on
average with some labs running as high as 21 days. Traditionally,
longer turn-around times for cytogenetics tests have resulted in fewer FISH
and
other molecular tests being ordered since there is an increased chance that
the
test results will not be returned within an acceptable diagnostic window when
other adjunctive diagnostic test results are available. We believe
our turn-around times result in our referring physicians requesting more of
our
testing services in order to augment or confirm other diagnostic tests, thereby
giving us a significant competitive advantage in marketing our services against
those of other competing laboratories.
High
complexity laboratories within the cancer testing niche have frequently operated
a core facility on one or both coasts to service the needs of their customers
around the country. Informal surveys of customers and prospects
uncovered a desire to do business with a laboratory with national breadth but
with a more local presence. In such a scenario, specimen integrity,
turnaround-time of results, client service support, and interaction with our
medical staff are all enhanced. We currently operate three laboratory
locations in Fort Myers, Florida, Irvine, California and Nashville, Tennessee,
each of which has received the appropriate state, Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments (“CLIA”),
and
College of American Pathologists (“CAP”)
licenses and accreditations. As situations dictate and opportunities
arise, we will continue to develop and open new laboratories, seamlessly linked
together by our optimized Laboratory Information System (“LIS”),
to
better meet the regionalized needs of our customers.
2007
brought progress in the NeoGenomics Contract Research Organization
(“CRO”)
division based at our Irvine, California facility. This division was
created to take advantage of our core competencies in genetic and molecular
high
complexity testing and act as a vehicle to compete for research projects and
clinical trial support contracts in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical
industries. The CRO division will also act as a development conduit
for the validation of new tests which can then be transferred to our clinical
laboratories and be offered to our clients. We envision the CRO as a
way to infuse some intellectual property into the mix of our services and in
time create a more “vertically integrated” laboratory that can potentially offer
additional clinical services of a more proprietary nature. 2007 brought the
first revenue to NeoGenomics’ CRO division. This initial revenue
stream was small due to the size of the contracts closed. During 2008 we began
to scale revenues from the CRO division and we currently expect to grow this
business significantly during 2009.
41
During
2008, we began offering additional tests that broaden our focus from genetic
and
molecular testing to more traditional types of anatomic pathology testing (i.e.
immunohistochemistry) that are complementary to our current test
offerings. At no time do we expect to intentionally compete with
fee-for-service pathologists for services of this type, and Company sales
efforts will operate under a strict “right of first refusal” philosophy that
supports rather than undercuts the practice of community-based
pathology. We believe that by adding additional types of tests to our
product offering we will be able to capture increases in our testing volumes
through our existing customer base as well as more easily attract new customers
via the ability to package our testing services more appropriately to the needs
of the market.
The
above
market strategy continues to bear fruit for the Company, resulting in strong
year over year growth of 78% in FY 2007 versus FY 2006. For the nine
months ended September 30, 2008, we experienced even stronger year over year
revenue growth of 83% versus the comparable period in FY 2007. Our average
revenue/requisition in FY 2007 was approximately $702, which was an increase
of
approximately 4% from FY 2006. For the nine months ended September 30, 2008,
our
average revenue/requisition was approximately $803 which was an increase of
approximately 16% from the comparable period in 2007. Our average revenue/test
in FY 2007 was approximately $548, which was an increase of approximately 9%
over FY 2006. Our average revenue/test for the nine months ended
September 30, 2008 was approximately $612, which was an increase of
approximately 14% over the comparable period in FY 2007. FY 2007 saw a slight
erosion of average tests per requisition due to the overwhelming success of
our
bladder cancer FISH product line, which tends to be a singly ordered test
request. New sales hires and a new focus on global workups with
interpretation and our integrated GPS product line allowed us to increase
average number of tests per requisition for the nine months ended September
30,
2008 from the comparable period in FY 2007. For the three months ended September
30, 2008, average number of tests per requisition was 1.33 and we expect this
number to continue to increase during 2009.
For
the twelve months ended December 31
|
FY
2007
|
FY
2006
|
%
Inc (Dec)
|
|||||||
Customer
Requisitions Received (Cases)
|
16,385
|
9,563
|
71.3
|
%
|
||||||
Number
of Tests Performed
|
20,998
|
12,838
|
63.6
|
%
|
||||||
Average
Number of Tests/Requisition
|
1.28
|
1.34
|
(4.5
|
)%
|
||||||
Total
Testing Revenue
|
$
|
11,504,725
|
$
|
6,475,996
|
77.7
|
%
|
||||
Average
Revenue/Requisition
|
$
|
702.15
|
$
|
677.19
|
3.7
|
%
|
||||
Average
Revenue/Test
|
$
|
547.90
|
$
|
504.44
|
8.6
|
%
|
For
the nine months ended September 30
|
FY
2008
|
FY
2007
|
%
Inc (Dec)
|
|||||||
Customer
Requisitions Received (Cases)
|
17,758
|
11,123
|
59.7
|
%
|
||||||
Number
of Tests Performed
|
23,049
|
14,332
|
60.8
|
%
|
||||||
Average
Number of Tests/Requisition
|
1.31
|
1.29
|
1.6
|
%
|
||||||
Total
Testing Revenue
|
$
|
14,094,959
|
$
|
7,709,408
|
82.8
|
%
|
||||
Average
Revenue/Requisition
|
$
|
802.77
|
$
|
693.01
|
15.8
|
%
|
||||
Average
Revenue/Test
|
$
|
611.52
|
$
|
537.91
|
13.7
|
%
|
We
believe this bundled approach to testing represents a clinically sound practice
that is medically valid. Within the subspecialty field of hematopathology,
such
a bundled approach to the diagnosis and prognosis of blood and lymph node
diseases has become the standard of care throughout the country. In
addition, as the average number of tests performed per requisition increases,
we
believe this should drive increases in our revenue and afford the Company
significant synergies and efficiencies in our operations and sales and marketing
activities.
Business
of NeoGenomics
Services
We
currently offer four primary types of testing services: cytogenetics,
flow cytometry, FISH testing and molecular testing.
Cytogenetics
Testing. Cytogenetics
testing involves analyzing chromosomes taken from the nucleus of cells and
looking for abnormalities in a process called karyotyping. A
karyotype evaluates the entire 46 human chromosomes by number and banding
patterns to identify abnormalities associated with disease. In
cytogenetics testing, we typically analyze chromosomes from 20
different cells. Examples of cytogenetics testing at NeoGenomics
include bone marrow
aspirate or peripheral blood analysis to diagnose various types of leukemias
and
lymphomas.
42
Cytogenetics
testing by large national reference laboratories and other competitors has
historically taken anywhere from 7-14 days on average to obtain a complete
diagnostic report. We believe that as a result of this timeframe,
many practitioners have refrained to some degree from ordering such tests
because the results traditionally were not returned within an acceptable
diagnostic window. NeoGenomics has designed our laboratory operations
in order to complete cytogenetics tests for most types of biological samples,
produce a final diagnostic report and make it available via fax or
online viewing within 3-5 days. We have consistently delivered these
turnaround times over the last three years without taking shortcuts that can
undermine the quality of the delivered result. These turnaround times
are among the best in the industry and we believe that more physicians are
incorporating cytogenetics testing into their diagnostic regimens, thus
affording NeoGenomics the opportunity to drive the incremental growth of our
business via this product line for the foreseeable future.
Flow
Cytometry Testing. Flow
cytometry testing analyzes clusters of differentiation on cell
surfaces. Gene expression of many cancers creates protein-based
clusters of differentiation on the cell surfaces that can then be traced back
to
a specific lineage or type of cancer. Flow cytometry is a method of
separating liquid specimens or disaggregated tissue into different constituent
cell populations. This methodology is used to determine which of these cell
types is abnormal in a patient specific manner. Flow cytometry is
important in developing an accurate diagnosis, defining the patient’s prognosis,
and clarifying what treatment options may be optimal. Flow cytometry testing
is
performed using sophisticated lasers and will typically analyze over 100,000
individual cells in an automated fashion. Flow cytometry testing is
highly complementary with cytogenetics and the combination of these two testing
methodologies allows the results from one test to complement the findings of
the
other methodology, which can lead to a more accurate snapshot of a patient’s
disease state.
FISH
Testing. As
an
adjunct to traditional chromosome analysis, we offer Fluorescence In Situ
Hybridization (FISH) testing to extend our capabilities beyond routine
cytogenetics. FISH testing permits identification of the most
frequently occurring numerical chromosomal abnormalities in a rapid manner
by
looking at centromeres or specific genes that are implicated in
cancer. During the past 5 years, FISH testing has demonstrated its
considerable diagnostic potential. The development of molecular probes by using
DNA sequences of differing sizes, complexity, and specificity, coupled with
technological enhancements (direct labeling, multicolor probes, computerized
signal amplification, and image analysis) make FISH a powerful and diagnostic
and prognostic tool.
Molecular
Testing. Molecular
testing primarily involves the analysis of DNA to diagnose DNA & RNA
abnormalities in liquid and solid tumors. There are approximately 1.0
– 2.0 million base pairs of DNA in each of the estimated 20,000 genes located
across the 46 chromosomes in the nucleus of every cell. Molecular
testing allows us to look for variations in this DNA that are associated with
specific types of diseases. Today there are molecular tests for about
500 genetic diseases. However, the majority of these tests remain
available under the limited research use only designation and are only offered
on a restricted basis to family members of someone who has been diagnosed with
a
genetic condition. About 50 molecular tests are now available for the
diagnosis, prognosis or monitoring of various types of cancers and physicians
are becoming more comfortable ordering such adjunctive tests. We
currently provide these tests on an outsourced basis. We anticipate
in the near future performing some of the more popular tests within our
facilities as the number of requests continues to increase. Although
reimbursement rates for these new molecular tests still need to improve, we
believe that molecular testing is an important and growing market segment with
many new diagnostic tests being developed every year. We are
committed to providing the latest and most accurate testing to clients and
we
will invest accordingly when market demand warrants.
Distribution
Methods
The
Company currently performs testing services at each of its’ three main clinical
laboratory locations: Fort Myers, Florida, Nashville, Tennessee and Irvine,
California, and then produces a report for the requesting
physician. The Company currently out sources all of its molecular
testing to third parties, but expects to validate some of this testing in-house
in FY 2008 and offer it to customers to best meet client demand.
Competition
We
are
engaged in segments of the medical testing laboratory industry that are highly
competitive. Competitive factors in the genetic and molecular testing
business generally include reputation of the laboratory, range of services
offered, pricing, convenience of sample collection and pick-up, quality of
analysis and reporting and timeliness of delivery of completed
reports.
Our
competitors in the United States are numerous and include major medical testing
laboratories and biotechnology research companies. Many of these
competitors have greater financial resources and production
capabilities. These companies may succeed in developing service
offerings that are more effective than any that we have or may develop and
may
also prove to be more successful than we are in marketing such services. In
addition, technological advances or different approaches developed by one or
more of our competitors may render our products obsolete, less effective or
uneconomical.
43
We
estimate that the United States market for genetics and molecular testing is
divided among approximately 300 laboratories. However, approximately 80% of
these laboratories are attached to academic institutions and only provide
clinical services to their affiliate university hospitals. We further believe
that less than 20 laboratories market their services nationally. We
believe that the industry as a whole is still quite fragmented, with the top
20
laboratories accounting for approximately 50% of market revenues.
We
intend
to continue to gain market share by offering industry leading turnaround times,
a broad service menu, high-quality test reports, and enhanced post-test
consultation services. In addition, we have a fully integrated and
interactive internet-enabled Laboratory Information System that enables us
to
report real time results to customers in a secure environment.
Suppliers
The
Company orders its laboratory and research supplies from large national
laboratory supply companies such as Fisher Scientific, Inc., Invitrogen and
Beckman Coulter and does not believe any disruption from any one of these
suppliers would have a material effect on its business. The Company
orders the majority of its FISH probes from Abbott Laboratories and as a result
of their dominance of that marketplace and the absence of any competitive
alternatives, if they were to have a disruption and not have inventory available
it could have a material effect on our business. This risk cannot be
completely offset due to the fact that Abbott Laboratories has patent protection
which limits other vendors from supplying these probes.
Dependence
on Major Customers
We
currently market our services to pathologists, oncologists, urologists,
hospitals and other clinical laboratories. During 2007, we performed
20,998 individual tests. Ongoing sales efforts have decreased
dependence on any given source of revenue. Notwithstanding this fact,
several key customers still account for a disproportionately large case volume
and revenues. Accordingly, for the year ended December 31, 2007, one
customer accounted for 25% of total revenue and all others were less than 10%
of
total revenue individually. During the year ended December 31, 2006,
three customers accounted for 26%, 18% and 17% of total revenue,
respectively. In the event that we lost one of these customers, we
would potentially lose a significant percentage of our
revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2007, Medicare and
one commercial insurance provider accounted for 44% and 10% of the Company’s
total accounts receivable balance, respectively.
Trademarks
The
“NeoGenomics” name and logo has been trademarked with the United States Patent
and Trademark Office.
Number
of Employees
As
of
November 25, 2008, we had 116 full-time employees. In addition, our Acting
Principal Financial Officer and four pathologists serve as consultants to the
Company on a part-time basis. Our employees are not represented by any union
and
we believe our employee relations are good.
Government
Regulation
Our
business is subject to government regulation at the federal, state and local
levels, some of which regulations are described under “Clinical Laboratory
Operations,” “Anti-Fraud and Abuse Laws,” “The False Claims Act,” and
“Confidentiality of Health Information” below.
Clinical
Laboratory Operations
Licensure
and Accreditation
The
Company operates clinical laboratories in Fort Myers, Florida, Nashville,
Tennessee, and Irvine, California. All locations have obtained CLIA
licensure under the federal Medicare program, the Clinical Laboratories
Improvement Act of 1967 and the Clinical Laboratory Amendments of 1988
(collectively “CLIA
‘88”)
as
well as state licensure as required in Florida, Tennessee, and California.
CLIA
‘88 provides for the regulation of clinical laboratories by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (“HHS”).
Regulations promulgated under the federal Medicare guidelines, CLIA ‘88 and the
clinical laboratory licensure laws of the various states affect our testing
laboratories. All locations are also accredited by the College of American
Pathologists and actively participate in CAP’s proficiency testing programs and
educational challenges for all tests offered by the Company. Proficiency testing
programs involve actual testing of specimens that have been prepared by an
entity running an approved program for testing by a clinical
laboratory.
44
The
federal and state certification and licensure programs establish standards
for
the operation of clinical laboratories, including, but not limited to, personnel
and quality control. Compliance with such standards is verified by periodic
inspections by inspectors employed by federal or state regulatory agencies
as
well as routine internal inspections conducted by the Company’s Quality
Assurance team which is comprised of representatives of all departments of
the
Company.
Quality
of Care
The
quality of care provided by the Company to its customers is of paramount
importance to the Company and a distinct differentiator from many of our
competitors. As such, all employees are committed to providing
accurate, reliable, and consistent services at all times. Any concerns regarding
the quality of testing or services provided by the Company are immediately
communicated to Company management and if necessary, the Compliance Department,
or Human Resources Department. All employees are responsible for the Company’s
commitment to quality and immediately communicating activities that do not
support quality.
Compliance
Program
The
healthcare industry is one of the most highly regulated industries with respect
to federal and state oversight of fraud, waste, and abuse. As such the Company
has implemented a compliance program that is overseen by the senior management
of the Company to assure compliance with the vast regulations and governmental
guidance. Our program consists of training / education of the employees and
monitoring / audits of Company practices. The Company actively discusses with
the Board of Directors any compliance related findings as well as any compliance
related issues that may have a material effect on the Company.
Hotline
The
Company provides a hotline for employees who wish to anonymously or
confidentially report suspected violations of our codes of conduct,
policies/procedures, or laws and regulations. Employees are strongly encouraged
to report any suspected violation if they do not feel the problem can be
appropriately addressed through the normal chain of command. The hotline does
not replace other resources available to employees, including supervisors,
managers and human resources staff, but is an alternate channel available 24
hours a day, 365 days a year. The Company does not allow any retaliation against
an employee who reports a compliance related issue in good faith.
Anti-Fraud
and Abuse Laws
Existing
federal laws governing Medicare and Medicaid, as well as some other state and
federal laws, also regulate certain aspects of the relationship between
healthcare providers, including clinical and anatomic laboratories, and their
referral sources, including physicians, hospitals and other laboratories. One
provision of these laws, known as the “anti-kickback law,” contains extremely
broad proscriptions. Violation of this provision may result in criminal
penalties, exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs,
and
significant civil monetary penalties.
In
January 1990, following a study of pricing practices in the clinical laboratory
industry, the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”)
of HHS
issued a report addressing how these pricing practices relate to Medicare and
Medicaid. The OIG reviewed the industry’s use of one fee schedule for physicians
and other professional accounts and another fee schedule for
patients/third-party payors, including Medicare, in billing for testing
services, and focused specifically on the pricing differential when profiles
(or
established groups of tests) are ordered.
45
Existing
federal law authorizes the Secretary of HHS to exclude providers from
participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs if they charge state
Medicaid programs or Medicare fees “substantially in excess” of their “usual and
customary charges.” On September 2, 1998, the OIG issued a final rule in which
it indicated that this provision has limited applicability to services for
which
Medicare pays under a Prospective Payment System or a fee schedule, such as
anatomic pathology services and clinical laboratory services. In several
Advisory Opinions, the OIG has provided additional guidance regarding the
possible application of this law, as well as the applicability of the
anti-kickback laws to pricing arrangements. The OIG concluded in a 1999 Advisory
Opinion that an arrangement under which a laboratory offered substantial
discounts to physicians for laboratory tests billed directly to the physicians
could potentially trigger the “substantially in excess” provision and might
violate the anti-kickback law, because the discounts could be viewed as being
provided to the physician in exchange for the physician’s referral to the
laboratory of non-discounted Medicare business, unless the discounts could
otherwise be justified. The Medicaid laws in some states also have prohibitions
related to discriminatory pricing.
Under
another federal law, known as the “Stark” law or “self-referral prohibition,”
physicians who have an investment or compensation relationship with an entity
furnishing clinical laboratory services (including anatomic pathology and
clinical chemistry services) may not, subject to certain exceptions, refer
clinical laboratory testing for Medicare patients to that entity. Similarly,
laboratories may not bill Medicare or Medicaid or any other party for services
furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral. Violation of these provisions
may
result in disallowance of Medicare and Medicaid claims for the affected testing
services, as well as the imposition of civil monetary penalties and application
of False Claims submissions penalties. Some states also have laws similar to
the
Stark law.
The
False Claims Act
The
Civil
False Claims Act originally
enacted in 1863 and subsequently amended several times pertains
to any federally funded program and defines “Fraudulent” as: knowingly
submitting a false claim, i.e. actual knowledge of the falsity of the claim,
reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of the falsity of the claim. These
are the claims to which criminal penalties are applied. Penalties include
permissive exclusion in federally funded programs by Center for Medicare
Services (“CMS”)
as
well as $11,500 plus treble damages per false claim submitted, and can include
imprisonment. High risk areas include but are not limited to accurate
use and selection of CPT codes, ICD-9 codes provided by the ordering physician,
billing calculations, performance and billing of reported testing, use of reflex
testing, and accuracy of charges at fair market value.
We
will
seek to structure our arrangements with physicians and other customers to be
in
compliance with the Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law, State laws, and the Civil
False Claims Act and to keep up-to-date on developments concerning their
application by various means, including consultation with legal
counsel. However, we are unable to predict how these laws will be
applied in the future, and the arrangements into which we enter could become
subject to scrutiny there under.
In
February 1997 (as revised in August 1998), the OIG released a model compliance
plan for laboratories that is based largely on corporate integrity agreements
negotiated with laboratories that had settled enforcement action brought by
the
federal government related to allegations of submitting false
claims. We believe that we comply with the aspects of the model plan
that we deem appropriate to the conduct of our business.
Confidentiality
of Health Information
The
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”)
contains provisions that affect the handling of claims and other patient
information that are, or have been used or disclosed by healthcare providers.
These provisions, which address security and confidentiality of PHI (Protected
Health Information or “patient information”) as well as the administrative
aspects of claims handling, have very broad applicability and they specifically
apply to healthcare providers, which include physicians and clinical
laboratories. Rules implementing various aspects of HIPAA are continuing to
be
developed. The HIPAA Rules include the following components which have already
been implemented at our locations and industry wide: The Privacy Rule which
granted patients rights regarding their information also pertains to the proper
uses and disclosures of PHI by healthcare providers in written and verbal
formats required implementation no later than April 14, 2003 for all covered
entities except small health plans which had another year for implementation.
The Electronic Health Care Transactions and Code Sets Standards which
established standard data content and formats for submitting electronic claims
and other administrative healthcare transactions required implementation no
later than October 16, 2003 for all covered entities. On April 20, 2005, CMS
required compliance with the Security Standards which established standards
for
electronic uses and disclosures of PHI for all covered entities except small
health plans who had an additional year to meet compliance. Currently, the
industry, including all of our locations, is working to comply with the National
Provider Identification number to replace all previously issued provider
(organizational and individual) identification numbers. This number is being
issued by CMS and must be used on all covered transactions after May 30, 2007
by
all covered entities except small health plans which have an additional year
to
meet compliance with this rule.
In
addition to the HIPAA rules described above, we are subject to state laws
regarding the handling and disclosure of patient records and patient health
information. These laws vary widely, and many states are passing new laws in
this area. Penalties for violation include sanctions against a laboratory’s
licensure as well as civil or criminal penalties. We believe we are
in compliance with current state law regarding the confidentiality of health
information and continue to keep abreast of new or changing state laws as they
become available.
46
Other
Our
operations currently are, or may be in the future, subject to various federal,
state and local laws, regulations and recommendations relating to data
protection, safe working conditions, laboratory and manufacturing practices
and
the purchase, storage, movement, use and disposal of hazardous or potentially
hazardous substances used in connection with our research work and manufacturing
operations, including radioactive compounds and infectious disease agents.
Although we believe that our safety procedures comply with the standards
prescribed by federal, state and local regulations, the risk of contamination,
injury or other accidental harm cannot be eliminated completely. In the event
of
an accident, we could be held liable for any damages that result and any
liabilities could exceed our resources. Failure to comply with such laws could
subject an entity covered by these laws to fines, criminal penalties and/or
other enforcement actions.
Pursuant
to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, laboratories have a general duty
to
provide a work place to their employees that is safe from hazard. Over the
past
few years, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
has
issued rules relevant to certain hazards that are found in the laboratory.
In
addition, OSHA has promulgated regulations containing requirements healthcare
providers must follow to protect workers from blood borne pathogens. Failure
to
comply with these regulations, other applicable OSHA rules or with the general
duty to provide a safe work place could subject employers, including a
laboratory employer such as the Company, to substantial fines and
penalties.
History
On
October 29, 1998, the Parent Company was incorporated in the State of Nevada
as
American Communications Enterprises, Inc. The Parent Company changed its name
to
Neogenomics, Inc. on December 14, 2001.
Properties
In
August
2003, we entered into a three year lease for 5,200 square feet at our laboratory
facility in Fort Myers, Florida. On June 29, 2006, we signed an
amendment to the original lease which extended the lease through June 30, 2011.
The amendment included the rental of an additional 4,400 square feet adjacent
to
our current facility. The lease was further amended on January 17, 2007 but
this
amendment did not materially alter the terms of the lease. As of December 31,
2007, total payments of approximately $773,000 remained over the remaining
life
of the lease, including annual increases of rental payments of 3% per year.
Such
amount excludes estimated operating and maintenance expenses and property taxes.
In
November 2007, we entered into a two year sublease, beginning January 1, 2008,
for 16,900 square feet of space which is directly adjacent to our main
laboratory location in Fort Myers, Florida. Payments under this sublease are
expected to total $688,000 over
the
life of the lease.
As
part
of the acquisition of The Center for CytoGenetics, Inc. by the Company on April
18, 2006, we assumed the lease of an 850 square foot facility in Nashville,
Tennessee, which we subsequently stopped using because the space was not
adequate. The lease expired on August 31, 2008. The average monthly rental
expense was approximately $1,350 per month. On June 15, 2006, we entered into
a
lease for a new facility totaling 5,386 square feet of laboratory space in
Nashville, Tennessee. This space is adequate to accommodate our current plans
for the Tennessee laboratory. As part of the lease, we have the right of first
refusal on an additional 2,420 square feet, if needed, directly adjacent to
the
facility. The lease is a five year lease and results in total payments by us
of
approximately $340,000.
On
April
5, 2007, we entered into a lease for 8,195 square feet of laboratory space
in
Irvine, California. The lease is a five year lease and results in total payments
by the Company of approximately $771,000 including estimated operating and
maintenance expenses and property taxes. This lease will expire on
April 30, 2012.
47
Legal
Proceedings
On
October 26, 2006, US Labs filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles (entitled Accupath Diagnostics
Laboratories, Inc. v. NeoGenomics, Inc., et al., Case No. BC 360985) (the
“Lawsuit”)
against the Company and Robert Gasparini, as an individual, and certain other
employees and non-employees of NeoGenomics (the “Defendants”)
with
respect to claims arising from discussions with current and former employees
of
US Labs. On March 18, 2008, we reached a preliminary agreement to
settle US Labs’ claims, and in accordance with SFAS No. 5, Accounting
For Contingencies,
as of
December 31, 2007 we accrued a $375,000 loss contingency, which consisted of
$250,000 to provide for the Company’s expected share of this settlement, and
$125,000 to provide for the Company’s share of the estimated legal
fees.
On
April
23, 2008, the Company and US Labs entered into the Settlement Agreement;
whereby, both parties agreed to settle and resolve all claims asserted in and
arising out of the aforementioned lawsuit. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
the Defendants are required to pay $500,000 to US Labs, of which $250,000 was
paid on May 1, 2008 with funds from the Company’s insurance carrier and the
remaining $250,000 will be paid by the Company on the last day of each month
in
equal installments of $31,250 commencing on May 31, 2008. Under the terms of
the
Settlement Agreement, there are certain provisions agreed to in the event of
default. As of October 31, 2008, the remaining amount due was $62,500, and
no
events of default had occurred.
A
civil
lawsuit is currently pending between the Company and its liability insurer,
FCCI
Commercial Insurance Company ("FCCI")
in the
20th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Lee County, Florida (Case No.
07-CA-017150). FCCI filed the suit on December 12, 2007 in response to the
Company's demands for insurance benefits with respect to an underlying action
involving US Labs (a settlement agreement has since been reached in the
underlying action, and thus that case has now concluded as discussed above).
Specifically, the Company maintains that the underlying plaintiff's allegations
triggered the subject insurance policy's personal and advertising injury
coverage. In the lawsuit, FCCI seeks a court judgment that it owes no obligation
to the Company regarding the underlying action (FCCI does not seek monetary
damages). The Company has counterclaimed against FCCI for breach of the subject
insurance policy, and seeks recovery of defense costs incurred in the underlying
matter, amounts paid in settlement thereof, and fees and expenses incurred
in
litigating with FCCI. The court recently denied a motion by FCCI for judgment
on
the pleadings, and the parties are proceeding with discovery. We intend to
aggressively pursue all remedies in this matter and believe that the courts
will
ultimately find that FCCI had a duty to provide coverage in the US Labs
litigation.
48
MANAGEMENT
Officers
And Directors
The
following table sets forth the names, ages, and titles of each of our directors
and executive officers and employees expected to make a significant contribution
to us as of November 25, 2008.
Name
|
Age
|
Position
|
||
Board
of Directors:
|
||||
Robert
P. Gasparini
|
53
|
President
and Chief Science Officer, Board Member
|
||
Steven
C. Jones
|
45
|
Acting
Principal Financial Officer, Board Member
|
||
Michael
T. Dent
|
43
|
Chairman
of the Board
|
||
George
G. O’Leary
|
45
|
Board
Member
|
||
Peter
M. Peterson
|
51
|
Board
Member
|
||
Marvin
E. Jaffe
|
72
|
Board
Member
|
||
William
J. Robison
|
72
|
Board
Member
|
||
Other
Executives:
|
||||
Robert
J. Feeney
|
40
|
Vice
President of Business Development
|
||
Matthew
William Moore
|
34
|
Vice
President of Research and Development
|
||
Jerome
J. Dvonch
|
40
|
Principal
Accounting Officer
|
Family
Relationships
There
are
no family relationships between or among the members of the Board of Directors
or other executives. With the exception of Mr. Robison, Dr. Jaffe and Mr.
O’Leary, the directors and other executives of the Company are not directors
or
executive officers of any company that files reports with the
SEC. Mr. Robison also serves on the Board of MWI Veterinary Supply
Inc. (NASDAQ GM: MWIV) and Dr. Jaffe serves on the board of Immunomedics, Inc.
(NASDAQ GM: IMMU). Mr. O’Leary also serves on the Boards of NeoMedia
Technologies Inc. (OTC:NEOM.OB), Smartire Systems Inc. (OTC:SMTR.OB),
NS8 Corp. (OTC:NSEO.OB) and Futuremedia Plc (NASDAQ: FMDA).
Legal
Proceedings
None
of
the members of the Board of Directors or other executives has been involved
in
any bankruptcy proceedings, criminal proceedings, any proceeding involving
any
possibility of enjoining or suspending members of our Board of Directors or
other executives from engaging in any business, securities or banking
activities, and have not been found to have violated, nor been accused of having
violated, any federal or state securities or commodities laws.
Elections
Members
of our Board of Directors are elected at the annual meeting of stockholders
and
hold office until their successors are elected. Our officers
are appointed by the Board of Directors and serve at the pleasure of the Board
and are subject to employment agreements, if any, approved and ratified by
the
Board.
The
Company, Michael Dent, Aspen, John Elliot, Steven Jones and Larry Kuhnert are
parties to the Amended and Restated Shareholders’ Agreement dated March 21,
2005, that, among other provisions, gives Aspen, our largest stockholder, the
right to elect three out of the seven directors authorized for our Board of
Directors, and to nominate one mutually acceptable independent
director. In addition, Michael Dent and the executive management of
the Company has the right to elect one director for our Board of Directors,
until the earlier of (i) Dr. Dent’s resignation as an officer or director of the
Company or (ii) the sale by Dr. Dent of 50% or more of the number of shares
of
our common stock that he held on March 21, 2005.
49
Robert
P. Gasparini, M.S. - President and Chief Science Officer, Board
Member
Mr.
Gasparini has served as our President and Chief Science Officer of NeoGenomics
since January 2005. Prior to assuming the role of President and Chief Science
Officer, Mr. Gasparini was a consultant to the Company beginning in May 2004.
Prior to NeoGenomics, Mr. Gasparini was the Director of the Genetics Division
for US Pathology Labs, Inc. (US Labs) from January 2001 to December 2004. During
this period, Mr. Gasparini started the Genetics Division for US Labs and grew
annual revenues of this division to $30 million over a 30 month period. Prior
to
US Labs, Mr. Gasparini was the Molecular Marketing Manager for Ventana Medical
Systems from 1999 to 2001. Prior to Ventana, Mr. Gasparini was the Assistant
Director of the Cytogenetics Laboratory for the Prenatal Diagnostic Center
from
1993 to 1998 an affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital and part of Harvard
University. While at the Prenatal Diagnostic Center, Mr. Gasparini was also
an
Adjunct Professor at Harvard University. Mr. Gasparini is a licensed Clinical
Laboratory Director and an accomplished author in the field of Cytogenetics.
He
received his BS degree from The University of Connecticut in Biological Sciences
and his Master of Health Science degree from Quinnipiac University in Laboratory
Administration.
Steven
C. Jones - Acting Principal Financial Officer, Board
Member
Mr.
Jones
has served as Acting Principal Financial Officer and Director since October
2003. He is Chairman of the Board of Aspen Capital Group, a diversified
financial services firm. He also serves as managing member of the general
partner of Aspen Select Healthcare, LP, a private equity fund established to
make investments in the healthcare industry. Prior to forming Aspen Capital
Group, Mr. Jones served as the President and Managing Director of Aspen Capital
Advisors. Prior to that, Mr. Jones was a chief financial officer at various
public and private companies and was a Vice President in the Investment Banking
Group at Merrill Lynch & Co. Mr. Jones received his B.S. degree in Computer
Engineering from the University of Michigan in 1985 and his MBA from the Wharton
School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1991. Mr. Jones also serves on
the
Board of Directors of Disc Motion Technologies, Inc. and T3 Communications,
Inc.
Michael
T. Dent M.D. - Chairman of the Board
Dr.
Dent
is our founder and Chairman of the Board. Dr. Dent was our President and Chief
Executive Officer from June 2001, when he founded NeoGenomics, to April 2004.
From April 2004 until April 2005, Dr. Dent served as our President and Chief
Medical Officer. Dr. Dent founded the Naples Women’s Center in 1996 and
continues his practice to this day. He received his training in Obstetrics
and
Gynecology at the University of Texas in Galveston. He received his M.D. degree
from the University of South Carolina in Charleston, S.C. in 1992 and a B.S.
degree from Davidson College in Davidson, N.C. in 1986. He is a member of the
American Association of Cancer Researchers and a Diplomat and fellow of the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He sits on the Board of
the
Florida Life Science Biotech Initiative.
George
G. O’Leary - Board Member
Mr.
O’Leary is a director of NeoGenomics and is currently running his own consulting
firm, SKS Consulting of South Florida Corp. where he consults for NeoGenomics
as
well as several other companies. Prior to that he was President of US Medical
Consultants, LLC. Prior to assuming his duties with US Medical, he was a
consultant to the company and acting Chief Operating Officer. Prior to
NeoGenomics, Mr. O’Leary was the President and CFO of Jet Partners, LLC from
2002 to 2004. During that time he grew annual revenues from $12 million to
$17.5
million. Prior to Jet Partners, Mr. O’Leary was CEO and President of
Communication Resources Incorporated (CRI) from 1996 to 2000. During that time
he grew annual revenues from $5 million to $40 million. Prior to CRI, Mr.
O’Leary held various positions including Vice President of Operations for
Cablevision Industries from 1987 to 1996. Mr. O’Leary was a CPA with Peat
Marwick Mitchell from 1984 to 1987. Mr. O’Leary also serves on the Boards of
NeoMedia (OTC:NEOM.OB), Smartire (OTC:SMTR.OB), NS8 (OTC:NSEO.OB) and
Futuremedia (NASDAQ: FMDA). He received his BBA in Accounting from Siena College
in Albany, New York.
Peter
M. Peterson - Board Member
Mr.
Peterson is a director of NeoGenomics and is the founder of Aspen Capital
Partners, LLC which specializes in capital formation, mergers &
acquisitions, divestitures, and new business start-ups. Prior to forming Aspen
Capital Partners in 2001, Mr. Peterson was Managing Director of Investment
Banking with H. C. Wainwright & Co. Prior to H.C. Wainwright, Mr. Peterson
was president of First American Holdings and Managing Director of Investment
Banking. Prior to First American, he served in various investment banking roles
and was the co-founder of ARM Financial Corporation. Mr. Peterson was one of
the
key individuals responsible for taking ARM Financial public on the OTC market
and the American Stock Exchange. Under Mr. Peterson’s financial leadership, ARM
Financial Corporation was transformed from a diversified holding company into
a
national clinical laboratory company with 14 clinical laboratories and ancillary
services with over $100 million in assets. He has also served as an officer
or
director for a variety of other companies, both public and private. Mr. Peterson
earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the
University of Florida.
50
William
J. Robison – Board Member
Mr.
Robison, who is retired, spent his entire 41 year career with Pfizer,
Inc. At Pfizer, he rose through the ranks of the sales organization
and became Senior Vice President of Pfizer Labs in 1986. In 1990, he
became General Manager of Pratt Pharmaceuticals, a then-new division of the
U.S.
Pharmaceuticals Group, and in 1992 he became the President of the Consumer
Health Care Group. In 1996 he became a member of Pfizer’s Corporate
Management Committee and was promoted to the position of Executive Vice
President and head of Worldwide Corporate Employee Resources. Mr.
Robison retired from Pfizer in 2001 and currently serves as a consultant and
board member to various companies. Mr. Robison is a board member and
an executive committee member of the USO of Metropolitan New York,
Inc. He is also on the board of directors of the Northeast Louisiana
University foundation, a member of the Human Resources Roundtable Group, the
Pharmaceutical Human Resource Council, the Personnel Round Table, and on the
Employee Relations Steering Committee for The Business Round
Table. He also serves on the Board of Directors of Pericor
Therapeutics, Inc. and MWI Supply Veterinary Inc. (NASDAQ GM: MWIV)
Marvin
E. Jaffe – Board Member
Dr.
Jaffe, who is also retired, spent his entire working career in the
pharmaceutical industry and has been responsible for the pre-clinical and
clinical development of new drugs and biologics in nearly every therapeutic
area. He began his career at Merck & Co and spent 18 years
with Merck, rising to the position of Senior Vice-President of Medical
Affairs. After leaving Merck, Dr. Jaffe became the founding President
of the R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute (PRI), a Johnson &
Johnson Company. PRI was established for the purpose of
providing globally integrated research and development support to several
companies within the J&J pharmaceutical sector including Ortho
Pharmaceutical, McNeil Pharmaceutical, Ortho Biotech and Cilag. Dr.
Jaffe retired from Johnson & Johnson in 1994 and currently serves as a
consultant and board member to various companies in the biopharmaceutical and
biotechnology industries. He is currently a director of Immunomedics,
Inc. (NASDAQ Global Market: IMMU). He was also on the Boards of
Genetic Therapy, Inc., Vernalis Group, plc., Celltech Group, plc. and Matrix
Pharmaceuticals which were acquired by other companies.
Robert
J. Feeney, Ph.D. - Vice President of Business
Development
Mr.
Feeney has served as Vice President of Business Development since March 2008.
Prior to that, he served as our Vice President of Sales and Marketing from
January 2006 to March 2007. Prior to NeoGenomics, he served in a dual capacity
as the Director of Marketing and the Director of Scientific & Clinical
Affairs for US Labs, a division of Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp).
Prior to that, Dr. Feeney held a variety of roles including the National Manager
of Clinical Affairs and the Central Regional Sales Manager position where he
managed up to 33% of the sales force. In his first full year with US Labs,
he
grew revenue from $1 million to $17 million in this geography. Prior to US
Labs,
Dr. Feeney was employed with Eli Lilly and Company as an Associate Marketing
Manager and with Impath Inc., now a wholly owned division of Genzyme Genetics,
where he held various positions including Regional Sales Manager and District
Sales Manager assignments. Dr. Feeney has over 14 years of sales and marketing
experience with 17 years in the medical industry. Dr. Feeney received his
Bachelors of Science degree in Biology from Dickinson College and his doctoral
degree in Cellular and Developmental Biology from the State University of New
York.
Matthew
William Moore, Ph.D. - Vice President of Research and
Development
Mr.
Moore
has served as Vice President of Research and Development since July 2006. Prior
to that he served as Vice President of Research and Development for Combimatrix
Molecular Diagnostics, a subsidiary of Combimatrix Corporation, a biotechnology
company, developing novel microarray, Q-PCR and Comparative Genomic
Hybridization based diagnostics. Prior to Combimatrix Molecular Diagnostics,
he
served as a senior scientist with US Labs, a division of Laboratory Corporation
of America (LabCorp) where he was responsible for the initial implementation
of
the Molecular in
Situ Hybridization
and Molecular Genetics programs. Mr. Moore received his Bachelors of Science
degree in Biotechnology, where he graduated with honors and his doctoral degree
from the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Jerome
J. Dvonch - Director of Finance, Principal Accounting
Officer
Mr.
Dvonch has served as director of finance since August 2005 and as acting
principal accounting officer since August 2006. From June 2004 through July
2005, Mr. Dvonch was Associate Director of Financial Planning and Analysis
with
Protein Design Labs, a bio-pharmaceutical company. From September 2000 through
June 2004, Mr. Dvonch held positions of increasing responsibility including
Associate Director of Financial Analysis and Reporting with Exelixis, Inc.,
a
biotechnology company. He also was Manager of Business Analysis for Pharmchem
Laboratories, a drug testing laboratory. Mr. Dvonch has extensive experience
in
strategic planning, SEC reporting and accounting in the life science industry.
He also has experience in mergers and acquisitions and with debt/equity
financing transactions. Mr. Dvonch is a Certified Public Accountant and received
his M.B.A. from the Simon School of Business at the University of Rochester.
He
received his B.B.A. in accounting from Niagara University.
51
Audit
Committee
Currently,
the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors is comprised of Steven C. Jones
and George O’Leary. The Board of Directors believes that both Mr. Jones and Mr.
O’Leary are “audit committee financial experts” as defined by Item 407 of
Regulation S-K of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Neither Mr. Jones
nor Mr. O’Leary are considered to be “independent” pursuant to Rule 4350(d) of
the Marketplace Rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market.
Compensation
Committee
The
Compensation Committee is responsible for establishing the Company’s executive
officer compensation policies and administering such policies. The Compensation
Committee studies, recommends and implements the amount, terms and conditions
of
payment of certain forms of compensation. The Company’s executive officers,
other than Mr. Jones, do not play a role in determining or recommending the
amount or form of executive or director compensation. Currently,
the Compensation Committee is comprised of all of the Company’s directors other
than Mr. Gasparini. Mr. Jones, Mr. Peterson, Dr. Dent and Dr. Jaffe
are not considered “independent” as that term is defined by Rule 4200(a)(15) of
the Marketplace Rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market. However, Mr.
O’Leary and Mr. Robison are considered to be independent. The Compensation
Committee does not have a written charter.
Independent
Directors
Mr.
O’Leary and Mr. Robinson are considered to be “ independent” as that term is
defined by Rule 4200(a)(15) of the Marketplace Rules of The Nasdaq Stock
Market.
Code
of Ethics
We
adopted a Code of Ethics for our senior financial officers and the principal
executive officer during 2004, which was filed with the SEC as an exhibit to
the
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB dated April 15, 2005.
Executive
Compensation
The
following Summary Compensation Table sets forth all compensation earned and
accrued, in all capacities, during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007
and
2006, by our Named Executive Officers.
Name and
Principal Position
|
Year
|
Salary
|
Bonus
|
Stock
Award
|
Option
Award(1)
|
Non-
Equity
Incentive
Plan
Compen-
sation
|
Non-
qualified
Deferred
Compen-
sation
Earnings
|
All Other
Compen-
sation
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Robert
P. Gasparini
|
2007
|
$
|
209,061
|
$
|
10,000
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
46,000
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
265,061
|
|||||||||||
President
and Chief
|
2006
|
183,500
|
-
|
-
|
18,271
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
201,771
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Science
Officer
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert
J. Feeney
|
2007
|
161,192
|
12,375
|
-
|
39,593
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
213,160
|
|||||||||||||||||||
V.P.
of Business
|
2006
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Development
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Matthew
W. Moore
|
2007
|
167,221
|
-
|
-
|
9,534
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
176,755
|
|||||||||||||||||||
V.
P. of Research
|
2006
|
66,635
|
-
|
-
|
3,884
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
70,519
|
|||||||||||||||||||
and
Development
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerome
J. Dvonch
|
2007
|
123,077
|
6,000
|
-
|
31,759
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
160,836
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Principal
|
2006
|
92,846
|
-
|
-
|
4,936
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
97,782
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Accounting
Officer
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steven
C. Jones
|
2007
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
127,950
|
(2)
|
127,950
|
||||||||||||||||||
Acting
Principal Financial
|
2006
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
71,000
|
(2)
|
71,000
|
||||||||||||||||||
Officer
and Director
|
52
(1)
|
See
Note F to our Consolidated Financial Statements included herein for
a
description on the valuation methodology of stock option awards.
Pursuant
to Regulation SK, Item 402, Paragraph (c)(2)(v), amounts indicated
are the
portion of the grant date fair value of options that are recognized
under
SFAS 123 (R) for the year
indicated.
|
(2)
|
Mr.
Jones acts as a consultant to the Company and the amounts indicated
represent the consulting expense accrued for the periods indicated
for his
services as our Acting Principal Financial
Officer.
|
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End
The
following table sets forth information with respect concerning outstanding
equity awards held by our named executive officers as of December 31, 2007.
Name and
Principal Position
|
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Exercisable
|
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Unexercisable
|
Equity Incentive
Plan Awards-Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised &
Unearned
Options
|
Option
Exercise
Price
|
Option
Expiration
Date
|
|||||||||||
Robert
P. Gasparini
|
635,000
|
-
|
-
|
0.25
|
1/1/2015
|
|||||||||||
President
and Chief
|
100,000
|
-
|
-
|
1.47
|
2/13/2017
|
|||||||||||
Science
Officer
|
||||||||||||||||
Robert
J. Feeney
|
34,375
|
221,875
|
-
|
1.50
|
12/31/2016
|
|||||||||||
V.P.
of Business
|
||||||||||||||||
Development
|
||||||||||||||||
Matthew
W. Moore
|
25,000
|
62,500
|
-
|
0.71
|
8/1/2016
|
|||||||||||
V.P.
of Research
|
8,125
|
-
|
-
|
1.47
|
2/13/2017
|
|||||||||||
and
Development
|
||||||||||||||||
Jerome
J. Dvonch
|
26,650
|
6,000
|
-
|
0.37
|
7/28/2015
|
|||||||||||
Principal
|
11,667
|
23,333
|
-
|
1.00
|
9/15/2016
|
|||||||||||
Accounting
Officer
|
19,167
|
-
|
-
|
1.47
|
2/13/2017
|
|||||||||||
25,000
|
25,000
|
-
|
1.49
|
3/15/2017
|
||||||||||||
Steven
C. Jones
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
NA
|
||||||||||||
Acting
Principal
|
||||||||||||||||
Financial
Officer
|
||||||||||||||||
and
Director
|
53
Director
Compensation
Each
of
our non-employee directors is entitled to receive cash compensation. As of
November 25, 2008, the reimbursement was as follows:
·
|
$20,000/year
|
·
|
Additional
$5,000/year for committee chairmen
|
·
|
$1,000
for each board meeting physically
attended
|
·
|
$500
for each board meeting attended via conference
call
|
We
also
reimburse our directors for out of pocket expenses incurred in connection with
attendance at board and committee meetings. The following table provides
information concerning the compensation of our directors for the year ended
December 31, 2007.
Name
|
Fees
Earned
or Paid in
Cash
|
Stock
Awards
|
Warrant/
Option
Awards(1)
|
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
|
Change in
Pension Value
and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings
|
All Other
Compensation
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||
Michael
T. Dent (2)
|
$
|
3,200
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
24,438
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
27,638
|
||||||||
Steven
Jones (2)
|
3,200
|
-
|
24,438
|
-
|
-
|
127,950
|
(4)
|
155,588
|
||||||||||||||
George
O'Leary (2)
|
2,600
|
-
|
52,563
|
(5)
|
-
|
-
|
9,500
|
64,663
|
||||||||||||||
Peter
Peterson (2)
|
1,400
|
-
|
24,438
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
25,838
|
|||||||||||||||
William
Robison (3)
|
2,000
|
-
|
11,688
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
13,688
|
|||||||||||||||
Marvin
Jaffe (3)
|
1,000
|
-
|
11,688
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
12,688
|
(1)
|
On
June 6, 2007, upon the conclusion of the private placement and sale
of
2.67 million shares of our common stock at $1.50/share to disinterested
third parties, the board approved certain warrant compensation for
each
director as an additional incentive to the nominal per meeting fees
in
place. From the inception of the Company up until this time, no
stock-based compensation had ever been awarded to directors. All
warrants
issued to directors had a strike price equal to the private placement
price per share ($1.50/share), a five year term and a three year
vesting
period. For those directors who had been a director for at least
two years
as of the date of the award, 25% of the warrants issued were deemed
to
have vested upon issue. All of the remaining warrants were deemed
to vest
ratably over a 36 month period. All of the warrants issued were valued
using the Black Scholes option/warrant valuation model with the following
assumptions: expected volatility – 35%, expected life – 4 years, risk-free
rate – 4.5%, and dividend yield – 0%. The Company is expensing the value
of these warrants over the vesting period pursuant to the methodology
outlined in SFAS 123(R). Pursuant to Regulation SK, Item 402, Paragraph
(k)(2)(iii), amounts indicated are the amounts expensed for such
warrants
under SFAS 123 (R) for the year ended December 31,
2007.
|
(2) |
Awarded
100,000 warrants as Board Member
compensation
|
(3)
|
Awarded
75,000 warrants as Board Member
compensation
|
(4)
|
Other
compensation for Mr. Jones reflects his consulting compensation for
serving as our Acting Principle Financial
Officer.
|
(5)
|
In
addition to Mr. O’Leary’s Board compensation warrants, Mr. O’Leary was
also awarded 100,000 warrants on March 15, 2007 in connection with
certain
consulting services performed on behalf of the Company. Such warrants
have
a strike price of $1.49/share and a five year term. Half of such
warrants
were deemed vested up front and the remaining half vest ratably over
a 24
month period. Such warrants had a value of $36,000 using the Black
Scholes
option/warrant valuation model.
|
54
Employment
Agreements
Robert
P. Gasparini
On
March
12, 2008, we entered into an employment agreement with Robert Gasparini, our
President and Chief Scientific Officer, to extend his employment with the
Company for an additional four year term. This employment agreement
was retroactive to January 1, 2008 and provides that it will automatically
renew
after the initial four year term for one year increments unless either party
provides written notice to the other party of their intention to terminate
the
agreement 90 days before the end of the initial term (or any renewal
term). The employment agreement specifies an initial base salary of
$225,000/year with specified salary increases tied to hitting revenue
goals. Mr. Gasparini is also entitled to receive cash bonuses for any
given fiscal year in an amount equal to 30% of his base salary if he meets
certain targets established by the Board of Directors. In addition, Mr.
Gasparini was granted 784,000 stock options that have a seven year term so
long
as Mr. Gasparini remains an employee of the Company. These options
are scheduled to vest according to the passage of time and the meeting of
certain performance-based milestones. Mr. Gasparini’s employment
agreement also specifies that he is entitled to four weeks of paid vacation
per
year and other insurance benefits. In the event that Mr. Gasparini is terminated
without cause by the Company, the Company has agreed to pay Mr. Gasparini’s base
salary and maintain his benefits for a period of twelve
months.
Jerome
J. Dvonch
On
June
24, 2008, we entered into an employment agreement with Jerome J. Dvonch, our
Director of Finance and Principle Accounting Officer, to extend his employment
with the Company for an additional four year term. This employment
agreement became effective on July 1, 2008 and provides that it will
automatically renew after the initial four year term for one year increments
unless either party provides written notice to the other party of their
intention to terminate the agreement at least one month before the end of the
initial term (or any renewal term). The employment agreement
specifies an initial base salary of $150,000/year. Mr. Dvonch is also
eligible to receive an annual performance based cash bonus at the discretion
of
the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. In addition, Mr. Dvonch
was granted an option to purchase 100,000 shares of our common stock at an
exercise price of $1.01 per share. These options are scheduled to vest according
to the passage of time and the meeting of certain performance-based
milestones. Mr. Dvonch’s employment agreement also specifies that he
is entitled to four weeks of paid vacation per year and other insurance
benefits. In the event that Mr. Dvonch is terminated without cause by the
Company, the Company has agreed to pay Mr. Dvonch’s base salary and
maintain his benefits for a period of six months.
55
PRINCIPAL
STOCKHOLDERS
The
following table sets forth information as of November 25, 2008, with respect
to
each person known by the Company to own beneficially more than 5% of the
Company’s outstanding common stock, each director and officer of the Company and
all directors and executive officers of the Company as a group. The
Company has no other class of equity securities outstanding other than common
stock.
Title of Class
|
Name And Address
Of Beneficial Owner
|
Amount
and Nature
Of
Beneficial
Ownership
|
Percent Of
Class(1)
|
|||||||
Common
|
Aspen
Select Healthcare, LP(2)
|
|
||||||||
1740
Persimmon Drive, Suite 100
|
||||||||||
Naples,
Florida 34109
|
12,065,220
|
34.3
|
%
|
|||||||
Common
|
Steven
C. Jones(3)
|
|
||||||||
c/o
NeoGenomics, Inc.
|
||||||||||
12701
Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 5
|
||||||||||
Fort
Myers, Florida 33193
|
13,303,302
|
37.4
|
%
|
|||||||
Common
|
Michael
T. Dent, M.D.(4)
|
|
||||||||
c/o
NeoGenomics, Inc.
|
||||||||||
12701
Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 5
|
||||||||||
Fort
Myers, Florida 33193
|
2,640,046
|
8.1
|
%
|
|||||||
Common
|
George
O’Leary(5)
|
|
||||||||
c/o
NeoGenomics, Inc.
|
||||||||||
12701
Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 5
|
||||||||||
Fort
Myers, Florida 33193
|
310,417
|
|
*
|
|||||||
Common
|
Robert
P. Gasparini(6)
|
|
||||||||
c/o
NeoGenomics, Inc.
|
||||||||||
12701
Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 5
|
||||||||||
Fort
Myers, FL 33193
|
731,000
|
2.2
|
%
|
|||||||
Common
|
Peter
M. Peterson(7)
|
|
||||||||
c/o
NeoGenomics, Inc.
|
||||||||||
12701
Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 5
|
||||||||||
Fort
Myers, Florida 33193
|
12,174,778
|
34.5
|
%
|
|||||||
Common
|
William
J. Robison(8)
|
|
||||||||
c/o
NeoGenomics, Inc.
|
||||||||||
12701
Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 5
|
||||||||||
Fort
Myers, Florida 33193
|
109,296
|
|
*
|
|||||||
Common
|
Marvin
E. Jaffe, M.D.(9)
|
|
||||||||
c/o
NeoGenomics, Inc.
|
||||||||||
12701
Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 5
|
||||||||||
Fort
Myers, Florida 33193
|
61,012
|
|
*
|
56
Title of Class
|
Name And Address
Of Beneficial Owner
|
Amount
and Nature
Of
Beneficial
Ownership
|
Percent Of
Class(1)
|
|||||||
Common
|
Robert
J. Feeney(10)
|
|
||||||||
c/o
NeoGenomics, Inc.
|
||||||||||
12701
Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 5
|
||||||||||
Fort
Myers, Florida 33193
|
81,250
|
|
*
|
|||||||
Common
|
Matthew
W. Moore(11)
|
|
||||||||
c/o
NeoGenomics, Inc.
|
||||||||||
12701
Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 5
|
||||||||||
Fort
Myers, Florida 33193
|
45,625
|
|
*
|
|||||||
Common
|
Jerome
J. Dvonch(12)
|
|
||||||||
c/o
NeoGenomics, Inc.
|
||||||||||
12701
Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 5
|
||||||||||
Fort
Myers, Florida 33193
|
108,500
|
|
*
|
|||||||
Common
|
Directors
and Officers
as
a Group (10 persons)(13)
|
|
17,467,533
|
46.5
|
%
|
|||||
Common
|
SKL
Family Limited Partnership and
|
|||||||||
A.
Scott Logan Revocable Living Trust(14)
|
|
|||||||||
984
Oyster Court
|
||||||||||
Sanibel,
Florida 33957
|
3,533,750
|
10.7
|
%
|
|||||||
Common
|
1837
Partners, LP., 1837 Partners, QP,LP., and
|
|||||||||
1837
Partner Ltd. (RMB Capital)(15)
|
|
|||||||||
115
S. LaSalle, 34th floor
|
||||||||||
Chicago,
Illinois 60603
|
3,507,615
|
10.8
|
%
|
*
|
Less
than 1%
|
(1)
|
Beneficial
ownership is determined in accordance within the rules of the SEC
and
generally includes voting and investment power with respect to securities.
Shares of common stock subject to securities exercisable or convertible
into shares of common stock that are currently exercisable or exercisable
within sixty days of November 25, 2008 are deemed to be beneficially
owned
by the person holding such securities for the purpose of computing
the
percentage of ownership of such persons, but are not treated as
outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership
of any
other person. Percentage of ownership is based on 32,112,546 shares
of common stock outstanding as of November 25,
2008.
|
(2)
|
Aspen
Select Healthcare, LP (“Aspen”)
has direct ownership of 6,488,279 shares and has certain warrants
to
purchase 3,050,000 shares, all of which are currently
exercisable. Aspen’s total also includes 2,526,941 shares to
which Aspen has received a voting proxy. The general partner of
Aspen is Medical Venture Partners, LLC, an entity controlled by Steven
C.
Jones and Peter M. Peterson.
|
(3)
|
Steven
C. Jones, Acting Principal Financial Officer and director of the
Company,
and his spouse have direct ownership of 756,583 shares. Mr. Jones
also has
warrants exercisable within sixty days of November 25, 2008 to purchase
an
additional 91,881 shares. Totals for Mr. Jones also include (i)
107,143 shares owned by Jones Network, LP, a family limited partnership
that Mr. Jones controls, (ii) 250,000 warrants exercisable within
sixty
days of November 25, 2008 owned by Aspen Capital Advisors, LLC, a
company
that Mr. Jones controls (iii) 32,475 warrants exercisable within
60 days
of November 25, 2008 owned by Gulf Pointe Capital, LLC, a company
that Mr.
Jones and Mr. Peterson control, and (iv) 31,757 shares held in certain
individual retirement and custodial accounts. In
addition, as a managing member of the general partner of Aspen, he
has the
right to vote all shares controlled by Aspen, thus all Aspen shares
and
currently exercisable warrants have been added to his total (see
Note
2).
|
57
(4)
|
Michael
T. Dent, M.D. is a director of the Company. Dr. Dent’s beneficial
ownership includes 900,000 shares held in a trust for the benefit
of Dr.
Dent’s children (of which Dr. Dent and
his attorney are the sole trustees), warrants exercisable within
sixty days of November 25, 2008 to purchase 137,575 shares and options
exercisable within sixty days of November 25, 2008 to purchase 400,000
shares. Dr. Dent’s beneficial ownership also includes 1,202,471 shares
owned directly by Dr. Dent’s spouse.
|
(5)
|
George
O’Leary, a director of the Company, has direct ownership of warrants
to
purchase 260,417 shares, which are exercisable within sixty days
of
November 25, 2008. Mr. O’Leary also has options to purchase 50,000 shares,
which
are exercisable within 60 days of November 25,
2008.
|
(6)
|
Robert
P. Gasparini, President of the Company, has direct ownership of 10,000
shares, and has options to purchase 721,000 shares, which are exercisable
within sixty days of November 25,
2008.
|
(7)
|
Peter
M. Peterson is a member of the Company’s board of directors and has direct
ownership of 12,500 shares and warrants exercisable within 60 days
of
November 25, 2008 to purchase an additional 64,583 shares. In addition,
as
a managing member of the general partner of Aspen, he has the right
to
vote all shares controlled by Aspen, thus all Aspen shares and currently
exercisable warrants have been added to his total (see Note
2). Mr. Peterson’s beneficial ownership also includes 32,475
warrants exercisable within 60 days of November 25, 2008 owned by
Gulf
Pointe Capital, LLC, a company that Mr. Jones and Mr. Peterson control.
|
(8)
|
William
J. Robison, a director of the Company, has direct ownership of 58,713
shares and warrants to purchase 50,583 shares, which are exercisable
within 60 days of November 25,
2008.
|
(9)
|
Marvin
E. Jaffe, M.D., a director of the Company, has direct ownership of
21,429
shares and warrants to purchase 39,583 shares, which are exercisable
within 60 days of November 25,
2008.
|
(10)
|
Robert
J. Feeney, Vice President of Business Development, has options to
purchase
81,250 shares, which are exercisable within 60 days of November 25,
2008.
|
(11)
|
Matthew
W. Moore, Vice President of Research and Development, has options
to
purchase 45,625 shares, which are exercisable within 60 days of November
25, 2008.
|
(12)
|
Jerome
J. Dvonch, Principal Accounting Officer, has options to
purchase 108,500 shares, which are exercisable within 60 days of
November 25, 2008.
|
(13)
|
The
total number of shares listed does not double count the shares that
may be
beneficially attributable to more than one person.
|
(14)
|
SKL
Family Limited Partnership has direct ownership of 2,000,000 shares
and
warrants exercisable within 60 days of November 25, 2008 to purchase
900,000 shares. A. Scott Logan Living Revocable Trust has direct
ownership
of 533,750 shares and warrants exercisable within 60 days of November
25,
2008 to purchase 100,000 shares. A. Scott Logan is the general partner
of
SKL Limited Family Partnership and trustee for A. Scott Logan Living
Revocable Trust.
|
(15)
|
RMB
Capital and its affiliates have direct ownership of 3,172,615 shares
and
warrants exercisable within 60 days of November 25, 2008 to purchase
320,000 shares. RMB Capital makes all the investment decisions
for the 1837 Partners LP., 1837 Partners QP, LP and 1837 Partners
LTD who
own the vast majority shares of the shares listed. Amounts for
RMB capital also include 15,000 shares owned personally by its
members.
|
58
MARKET
PRICE OF AND DIVIDENDS
ON
THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND OTHER STOCKHOLDER
MATTERS
Our
common stock is currently listed on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board under
the symbol “NGNM.OB”. Set forth below is a table summarizing the high and low
bid quotations for our common stock during the last two fiscal years and the
most recent interim period.
YEAR 2008
|
High Bid
|
Low Bid
|
|||||
4th
Quarter 2008 (to November 25)
|
$
|
1.05
|
$
|
0.62
|
|||
3rd
Quarter 2008
|
$
|
1.15
|
$
|
0.83
|
|||
2nd
Quarter 2008
|
$
|
1.35
|
$
|
0.86
|
|||
1st
Quarter 2008
|
$
|
1.12
|
$
|
0.77
|
YEAR 2007
|
High Bid
|
Low Bid
|
|||||
4th
Quarter 2007
|
$
|
1.59
|
$
|
1.02
|
|||
3rd
Quarter 2007
|
$
|
1.70
|
$
|
1.05
|
|||
2nd
Quarter 2007
|
$
|
1.90
|
$
|
1.41
|
|||
1st
Quarter 2007
|
$
|
1.79
|
$
|
1.39
|
YEAR 2006
|
High Bid
|
Low Bid
|
|||||
4th
Quarter 2006
|
$
|
2.05
|
$
|
0.94
|
|||
3rd
Quarter 2006
|
$
|
1.25
|
$
|
0.60
|
|||
2nd
Quarter 2006
|
$
|
0.78
|
$
|
0.45
|
|||
1st
Quarter 2006
|
$
|
0.72
|
$
|
0.12
|
The
above
table is based on over-the-counter quotations. These quotations reflect
inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, markdown or commissions, and may
not represent actual transactions. All historical data was obtained from the
www.BigCharts.com web site. As of November 25, 2008, the last reported price
of
our common stock was $0.71 per share.
As
of
November 25, 2008, there were 454 stockholders of record of our common stock,
excluding shareholders who hold their shares in brokerage accounts in “street
name”. Of the 32,112,546 shares of common stock outstanding as
of November 25, 2008, 22,609,980 shares are freely tradable without
restriction, unless held by our “affiliates”. The remaining 9,502,566
shares of our common stock which are held by existing stockholders, including
the officers and directors, are “restricted securities” and may be resold in the
public market only if registered or pursuant to an exemption from registration.
Some of these shares may be resold under Rule 144.
Dividend
Policy
We
have
never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock. We intend to retain
all future earnings to finance future growth and therefore, do not anticipate
paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
59
CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
On
March
11, 2005, we entered into an agreement with HCSS, LLC and eTelenext, Inc. to
enable NeoGenomics to use eTelenext’s Accessioning Application, AP Anywhere
Application and CMQ Application. HCSS is a holding company created to build
a
small laboratory network for the 50 small commercial genetics laboratories
in
the United States. HCSS is owned 66.7% by Dr. Michael T. Dent, our Chairman.
By
becoming the first customer of HCSS in the small laboratory network, the Company
saved approximately $152,000 in up front licensing fees. Under the terms of
the
agreement, the Company paid $22,500 over three months to customize this software
and will pay an annual membership fee of $6,000 per year and monthly transaction
fees of between $2.50 - $10.00 per completed test, depending on the volume
of
tests performed. The eTelenext system is an elaborate laboratory information
system (“LIS”)
that
is in use at many larger labs. By assisting in the formation of the small
laboratory network, the Company will be able to increase the productivity of
its
technologists and have on-line links to other small labs in the network in
order
to better manage its workflow.
On
March
23, 2005, Aspen Select Healthcare, LP (formerly known as MVP 3, LP)
(“Aspen”)
and
the Company entered into an amended and restated loan agreement, which provided
for a revolving credit facility in an amount of up to $1.5 million (which was
subsequently increased to $1.7 million) (the “Aspen
Credit Facility”).
The
Aspen Credit Facility was paid in full in June 2007 and it expired on September
30, 2007.
The
Company, Michael Dent, Aspen, John Elliot, Steven Jones and Larry Kuhnert are
parties to the Amended and Restated Shareholders’ Agreement dated March 21, 2005
(the “Shareholders
Agreement”),
that,
among other provisions, gives Aspen, our largest stockholder, the right to
elect
three out of the seven directors authorized for our Board of Directors, and
to
nominate one mutually acceptable independent director. In addition,
Michael Dent and the executive management of the Company has the right to elect
one director for our Board of Directors, until the earlier of (i) Dr. Dent’s
resignation as an officer or director of the Company or (ii) the sale by Dr.
Dent of 50% or more of the number of shares of our common stock that he held
on
March 21, 2005.
On
January 18, 2006, the Company and Aspen entered into a letter agreement that,
among other things, (i) granted Aspen five year warrants to purchase 150,000
shares of common stock at an exercise price of $0.26 per share in exchange
for
the waiver of certain preemptive rights, (ii) granted Aspen the right (which
was
subsequently exercised) to purchase 1,000,000 shares of common stock for $0.20
per share and to receive a five year warrant to purchase 450,000 shares of
common stock at an exercise price of $0.26 per share, (iii) granted Aspen a
five
year warrant to purchase up to 450,000 shares of common stock with an exercise
price of $0.26 per share in connection with the increase in the amount of the
Aspen Credit Facility to $1.7 million, and (iv) provided that existing warrants
held by Aspen to purchase 2,500,000 shares of common stock were fully vested
and
the exercise price per share was reset to $0.31 per share.
During
the period from January 18 through January 21, 2006, the Company entered into
agreements with four shareholders who are parties to the Shareholders Agreement,
to exchange five year warrants to purchase an aggregate of 150,000 shares of
stock at a purchase price of $0.26 per share for such stockholders’ waiver of
their pre-emptive rights under the Shareholders Agreement.
On
January 21, 2006, the Company entered into a subscription agreement (the
“Subscription”)
with
SKL, whereby SKL purchased 2,000,000 shares (the “Subscription
Shares”)
of
common stock at a purchase price of $0.20 per share for $400,000. Under the
terms of the Subscription, the Subscription Shares are restricted for a period
of 24 months and then carry piggyback registration rights to the extent that
exemptions under Rule 144 are not available to SKL. In connection with the
Subscription, the Company also issued a five year warrant to purchase 900,000
shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.26 per
share. SKL had no previous affiliation with the Company.
On
May
14, 2007, the Board of Directors approved the grant of 100,000 warrants to
each
non-employee director. There has not been any definitive agreement as
to the terms but 25% will vest immediately and the remaining warrants will
vest
an additional 25% over each of the next three years. The Board of
Directors also approved an increase in its’ per board meeting fees to
non-employee director’s from $600 to $1,000 for each meeting.
In
consideration for its services and assistance with the sale of 2,666,667 shares
of our common stock during the period from May 31, 2007 through June 6, 2007,
Aspen Capital Advisors, LLC received: (i) warrants to purchase 250,000
shares of our common stock, and (ii) a cash fee equal to $52,375. The
warrants have a five year term, an exercise price equal to $1.50 per share,
cashless exercise provisions, customary anti-dilution provisions and the same
other terms, conditions, rights and preferences as those shares sold to the
investors in the private placement. Mr. Steven Jones, a director of the Company,
is a Managing Director of Aspen Capital Advisors.
60
On
September 30, 2008, the Company entered into a sale leaseback arrangement for
approximately $130,000 of used laboratory equipment with Gulf Pointe Capital,
LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a private equity partnership managed
by Steven Jones and Peter Peterson, who are each members of our board of
directors. Marvin Jaffe, another member of our board of directors, is a limited
partner in this partnership. This sale/leaseback transaction was entered into
after it was determined that Leasing Technologies International Inc. was unable
to consummate this transaction under its proposed lease line with the Company
and Messrs Jones, Peterson and Jaffe recused themselves from all aspects of
both
sides of this transaction. The lease has a 30 month term and a lease rate factor
of 0.0397/month, which equates to monthly payments of $5,154.88 during the
term.
Gulf Pointe Capital also received 32,475 warrants with an exercise price of
$1.08, and a five year term. 25% of the warrants vested upfront and 75% vested
on October 2, 2008 when the lease was funded. At the end of the term the Company
options are as follows:
a) Purchase
not less than all of the equipment for its then fair market value not to exceed
15% of the original equipment cost.
b) Extend
the lease term for a minimum of six months.
c) Return
not less than all the equipment at conclusion of the lease term.
During
2007, 2006 and 2005, Steven C. Jones, a director of the Company, earned
$127,950, $71,000 and $51,000, respectively, for various consulting work
performed in connection with his duties as Acting Principal Financial Officer.
During the nine month period ended September 30, 2008, Mr. Jones earned $105,000
for such consulting work.
During
2007 and 2006, George O’Leary, a director of the Company, earned $9,500 and
$20,900, respectively, for various consulting work performed for the
Company. During the nine month period ended September 30, 2008, Mr.
O’Leary earned $9,500 in cash for various consulting work performed for the
Company. On March 15, 2007, Mr. O’Leary was awarded 100,000 warrants for certain
consulting services performed on behalf of the Company. These
warrants had an exercise price of $1.49/share and a five year
term. Half of these warrants were deemed vested on issuance and the
other half vest ratably over a 24 month period. On January 18,
2006, Mr. O’Leary was also awarded an option to purchase 50,000 shares of common
stock in connection with his services to the Company related to renegotiating
the Aspen Credit Facility and closing equity financing from a disinterested
third party.
61
DESCRIPTION
OF CAPITAL STOCK
Common
Stock
We
are
authorized to issue 100,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per
share, of which 32,112,546 shares were issued and outstanding as of November
25,
2008.
The
securities being offered hereby are common stock. The outstanding shares of
our
common stock are fully paid and non-assessable. The holders of common stock
are
entitled to one vote per share for the election of directors and with respect
to
all other matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. Shares of our common
stock do not have cumulative voting rights, which means that the holders of
more
than 50% of such shares voting for the election of directors can elect 100%
of
the directors if they choose to do so. Our common stock does not have preemptive
rights, meaning that the common stockholders’ ownership interest in the Company
would be diluted if additional shares of common stock are subsequently issued
and the existing stockholders are not granted the right, at the discretion
of
the Board of Directors, to maintain their ownership interest in our
Company.
Upon liquidation,
dissolution or winding-up of the Company, our assets, after the payment of
debts
and liabilities and any liquidation preferences of, and unpaid dividends on,
any
class of preferred stock then outstanding, will be distributed pro-rata to
the
holders of our common stock. The holders of our common stock do not have
preemptive or conversion rights to subscribe for any of our securities and
have
no right to require us to redeem or purchase their shares. The
holders of common stock are entitled to share equally in dividends, if, as
and
when declared by our Board of Directors, out of funds legally available
therefore, subject to the priorities given to any class of preferred stock
which
may be issued.
Preferred
Stock
We
are
authorized to issue 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.001
per
share (the “Preferred
Stock”). Preferred
Stock may be issued from time to time in one or more series. The Board of
Directors is authorized to fix or alter the dividend rights, dividend rate,
conversion rights, voting rights, rights and terms of redemption (including
sinking fund provisions), the redemption price or prices, the liquidation
preferences of any wholly unissued series of Preferred Stock, and the number
of
shares constituting any such series and the designation thereof, or any of
them;
and to increase or decrease the number of shares of any series subsequent to
the
issue of shares of that series, but not below the number of shares of such
series then outstanding and which the Company may be obligated to issue under
options, warrants or other contractual commitments. In case the number of shares
of any series shall be so decreased, the shares constituting such decrease
shall
resume the status which they had prior to the adoption of the resolution
originally fixing the number of shares of such series. As of the date
of this prospectus, no such shares have been designated.
Warrants
As
of
November 25, 2008, warrants to purchase 5,837,838 shares of our common stock
were outstanding, 5,592,005 of which were vested. The exercise prices
of these warrants range from $0.26 to $1.50 per share.
Options
As
of
November 25, 2008, options to purchase 3,735,126 shares of our common stock
were
outstanding. The exercise prices of these options range from $0.16 to
$1.82 per share.
Transfer
Agent
The
Company’s transfer agent is Standard Registrar & Transfer Company located at
12528 South 1840 East Draper, Utah, 84020. The
transfer agent’s telephone number is (801) 571-8844.
Reports
To Stockholders
We
intend
to furnish our stockholders with annual reports which will describe the nature
and scope of our business and operations for the prior year and will contain
a
copy of our audited financial statements for the most recent fiscal
year.
62
Indemnification
Of Directors And Executive Officers And Limitation On
Liability
Our
Articles of Incorporation eliminate the liability of our directors and officers
for breaches of fiduciary duties as directors and officers, except to the extent
otherwise required by the Nevada Revised Statutes and where the breach involves
intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of the law.
Nevada
Revised Statutes 78.750, 78.751 and 78.7502 have similar provisions that provide
for discretionary and mandatory indemnification of officers, directors,
employees, and agents of a corporation. Under these provisions, such persons
may
be indemnified by a corporation against expenses, including attorney’s fees,
judgment, fines and amounts paid in settlement, actually and reasonably incurred
by him in connection with the action, suit or proceeding, if he acted in good
faith and in a manner which he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed
to
the best interests of the corporation and with respect to any criminal action
or
proceeding had no reasonable cause to believe his conduct was
unlawful.
To
the
extent that a director, officer, employee or agent has been successful on the
merits or otherwise in defense of any action, suit or proceeding, or in defense
of any claim, issue or matter, he must be indemnified by us against expenses,
including attorney’s fees, actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection
with the defense.
Any
indemnification, unless ordered by a court or advanced by us, must be made
only
as authorized in the specific case upon a determination that indemnification
of
the director, officer, employee or agent is proper in the circumstances. The
determination must be made:
·
|
By
the stockholders;
|
·
|
By
our Board of Directors by majority vote of a quorum consisting of
directors who were not parties to that act, suit or
proceeding;
|
·
|
If
a majority vote of a quorum consisting of directors who were not
parties
to the act, suit or proceeding cannot be obtained, by independent
legal
counsel in a written opinion; or
|
·
|
If
a quorum consisting of directors who were not parties to the act,
suit or
proceeding cannot be obtained, by independent legal counsel in a
written
opinion;
|
·
|
Expenses
of officers and directors incurred in defending a civil or criminal
action, suit or proceeding must be paid by us as they are incurred
and in
advance of the final disposition of the action, suit or proceeding,
upon
receipt of an undertaking by the director or officer to repay the
amount
if it is ultimately determined by a court of competent jurisdiction
that
he is not entitled to be indemnified by
us.
|
·
|
To
the extent that a director, officer, employee or agent has been successful
on the merits or otherwise in defense of any action, suit or proceeding
referred to in subsections 1 and 2, or in defense of any claim, issue
or
matter therein, we shall indemnify him against expenses, including
attorneys’ fees, actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection
with the defense.
|
Insofar
as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act may be
permitted to directors, officers, and controlling persons of the registrant
pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, the registrant has been
advised that in the opinion of the SEC such indemnification is against public
policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is, therefore, unenforceable.
In
the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other
than
the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a director,
officer, or controlling person in the successful defense of any action, suit,
or
proceeding) is asserted by such director, officer, or controlling person
connected with the securities being registered, we will, unless in the opinion
of our counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit
to a
court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification
by
us is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and will be
governed by the final adjudication of such issue.
63
LEGAL
MATTERS
The
validity of the shares offered hereby has been opined on for us by Burton,
Bartlett & Glogovac.
EXPERTS
Our
consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2007 and for the
years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 included or referred to in this
prospectus have been audited by Kingery & Crouse, P.A., independent
registered public accountants, and are included in this prospectus in reliance
on this firm as experts in accounting and auditing.
AVAILABLE
INFORMATION
We
have
filed with the SEC a registration statement on Form S-1 under the Securities
Act
with respect to the securities offered by this prospectus. This prospectus,
which forms a part of the registration statement, does not contain all the
information set forth in the registration statement, as permitted by the rules
and regulations of the SEC. For further information with respect to us and
the
securities offered by this prospectus, reference is made to the registration
statement.
Statements
contained in this prospectus as to the contents of any contract or other
document that we have filed as an exhibit to the registration statement are
qualified in their entirety by reference to the exhibits for a complete
statement of their terms and conditions. The registration statement and other
information may be read and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain
information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC
at
1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains a web site at http://www.sec.gov
that
contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information
regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.
64
CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NEOGENOMICS, INC.
|
PAGE
|
|
CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
|
||
Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2008 and
December 31, 2007
|
F-1
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three and Nine Months
Ended
September 30, 2008 and 2007
|
F-2
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Nine Months Ended September
30, 2008 and 2007
|
F-3
|
|
Notes
to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of September
30, 2008
|
F-4
|
|
PAGE
|
|
CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—DECEMBER 31, 2007
|
||
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
F-10
|
|
Consolidated
Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2007
|
F-11
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2007 and
2006
|
F-12
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2007
and 2006
|
F-13
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2007 and
2006
|
F-14
|
|
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements as of and for the years ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006
|
F-15
|
F-i
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(unaudited)
September 30,
2008
|
December 31,
2007
|
||||||
ASSETS
|
|||||||
CURRENT
ASSETS
|
|||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$
|
631,365
|
$
|
210,573
|
|||
Accounts
receivable (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $283,111 and
$414,548, respectively)
|
3,381,066
|
3,236,751
|
|||||
Inventories
|
344,608
|
304,750
|
|||||
Other
current assets
|
900,146
|
400,168
|
|||||
Total
current assets
|
5,257,185
|
4,152,242
|
|||||
PROPERTY
AND EQUIPMENT
(net of accumulated depreciation of $1,374,942 and
$862,030,respectively)
|
2,495,146
|
2,108,083
|
|||||
OTHER
ASSETS
|
275,087
|
260,575
|
|||||
TOTAL
ASSETS
|
$
|
8,027,418
|
$
|
6,520,900
|
|||
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
|||||||
CURRENT
LIABILITIES
|
|||||||
Accounts
payable
|
$
|
1,904,694
|
$
|
1,799,159
|
|||
Accrued
expenses and other liabilities
|
955,405
|
1,319,580
|
|||||
Revolving
credit line
|
1,176,221
|
-
|
|||||
Short-term
portion of equipment capital leases
|
449,776
|
242,966
|
|||||
Total
current liabilities
|
4,486,096
|
3,361,705
|
|||||
LONG
TERM LIABILITIES
|
|||||||
Long-term
portion of equipment capital leases
|
1,054,321
|
837,081
|
|||||
TOTAL
LIABILITIES
|
5,540,417
|
4,198,786
|
|||||
STOCKHOLDERS’
EQUITY
|
|||||||
Common
stock, $.001 par value, (100,000,000 shares authorized; 31,686,355
and
31,391,660 shares issued and outstanding, respectively)
|
31,686
|
31,391
|
|||||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
17,373,756
|
16,820,954
|
|||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(14,918,441
|
)
|
(14,530,231
|
)
|
|||
Total
stockholders’ equity
|
2,487,001
|
2,322,114
|
|||||
TOTAL
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
$
|
8,027,418
|
$
|
6,520,900
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements.
F-1
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(unaudited)
For the
Nine-
Months
Ended
September
30, 2008
|
For the
Nine-
Months
Ended
September
30, 2007
|
For the
Three-
Months
Ended
September
30, 2008
|
For the
Three-
Months
Ended
September
30, 2007
|
||||||||||
NET
REVENUE
|
$
|
14,094,959
|
$
|
7,709,408
|
$
|
5,050,796
|
$
|
3,122,714
|
|||||
COST
OF REVENUE
|
6,577,549
|
3,623,860
|
2,535,318
|
1,521,313
|
|||||||||
GROSS
PROFIT
|
7,517,410
|
4,085,548
|
2,515,478
|
1,601,401
|
|||||||||
OPERATING
EXPENSES
|
|||||||||||||
General
and administrative
|
7,706,284
|
5,664,053
|
2,635,608
|
2,178,339
|
|||||||||
Interest
expense, net
|
199,336
|
205,806
|
74,995
|
14,325
|
|||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
7,905,620
|
5,869,859
|
2,710,603
|
2,192,664
|
|||||||||
NET
INCOME (LOSS)
|
$
|
(388,210
|
)
|
$
|
(1,784,311
|
)
|
$
|
(195,125
|
)
|
$
|
(591,263
|
)
|
|
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE | |||||||||||||
-
Basic
|
$
|
(0.01
|
)
|
$
|
(0.06
|
)
|
$
|
(0.01
|
)
|
$
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
-
Diluted
|
$
|
(0.01
|
)
|
$
|
(0.06
|
)
|
$
|
(0.01
|
)
|
$
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES
OUTSTANDING
|
|||||||||||||
-
Basic
|
31,414,065
|
29,221,778
|
31,440,327
|
31,309,353
|
|||||||||
-
Diluted
|
31,414,065
|
29,221,778
|
31,440,327
|
31,309,353
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements.
F-2
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
FOR
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 AND 2007
(unaudited)
September 30, 2008
|
September 30, 2007
|
||||||
CASH
FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
|
|||||||
Net
Loss
|
$
|
(388,210
|
)
|
$
|
(1,784,311
|
)
|
|
Adjustments
to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating
activities:
|
|||||||
Provision
for bad debts
|
1,095,387
|
506,286
|
|||||
Depreciation
|
512,913
|
295,297
|
|||||
Impairment
of assets
|
-
|
2,235
|
|||||
Amortization
of debt issue costs
|
35,321
|
15,615
|
|||||
Amortization
of lease cap costs
|
4,080
|
2,516
|
|||||
Amortization
of relocation costs
|
8,862
|
15,450
|
|||||
Amortization
of credit facility warrants
|
-
|
39,285
|
|||||
Stock-based
compensation
|
229,539
|
203,850
|
|||||
Non-cash
consulting expenses
|
99,813
|
121,879
|
|||||
Changes
in assets and liabilities, net:
|
|||||||
(Increase)
decrease in accounts receivable, net of write-offs
|
(1,239,702
|
)
|
(1,765,635
|
)
|
|||
(Increase)
decrease in inventories
|
(39,857
|
)
|
(299,269
|
)
|
|||
(Increase)
decrease in pre-paid expenses
|
(405,841
|
)
|
(191,434
|
)
|
|||
(Increase)
decrease in deposits
|
(14,512
|
)
|
(16,925
|
)
|
|||
Increase
(decrease) in accounts payable and other liabilities
|
(79,447
|
)
|
665,998
|
||||
NET
CASH USED IN OPERATING ACTIVITIES
|
(181,654
|
)
|
(2,189,163
|
)
|
|||
CASH
FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
|
|||||||
Purchases
of property and equipment
|
(370,218
|
)
|
(406,747
|
)
|
|||
Purchase
of convertible debenture
|
-
|
(200,000
|
)
|
||||
NET
CASH USED IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES
|
(370,218
|
)
|
(606,747
|
)
|
|||
CASH
FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
|
|||||||
Advances
/ (repayments) to affiliates, net
|
-
|
(1,675,000
|
)
|
||||
Advances
/ (repayments) on credit facility
|
1,176,221
|
-
|
|||||
Repayment
of capital leases
|
(244,612
|
)
|
(110,000
|
)
|
|||
Issuance
of common stock and warrants for cash, net of transaction
expenses
|
41,055
|
5,266,578
|
|||||
Repayment
of notes payable
|
-
|
(2,000
|
)
|
||||
NET
CASH PROVIDED BY FINANCING ACTIVITIES
|
972,664
|
3,479,578
|
|||||
NET
INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
420,792
|
683,668
|
|||||
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF PERIOD
|
210,573
|
126,266
|
|||||
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF PERIOD
|
$
|
631,365
|
$
|
809,934
|
|||
SUPPLEMENTAL
DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION
|
|||||||
Interest
paid
|
$
|
171,606
|
$
|
169,320
|
|||
Income
taxes paid
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
|||
NON-CASH
INVESTING AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES
|
|||||||
Equipment
leased under capital leases, including $140,000 in accrued expenses
at
December 31, 2007
|
$
|
538,761
|
$
|
464,811
|
|||
Equipment
purchased and included in accounts payable at September 30,
2008
|
$
|
126,227
|
$
|
-
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements.
F-3
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AS
OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
NOTE
A – NATURE OF BUSINESS AND BASIS OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT
PRESENTATION
Nature
of Business
NeoGenomics,
Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the “Parent”) and its subsidiary, NeoGenomics,
Inc., a Florida corporation, doing business as NeoGenomics Laboratories (“NEO”,
“NeoGenomics” or the “Subsidiary”) (collectively referred to as “we”, “us”,
“our”, or the “Company”) operates as a certified “high complexity” clinical
laboratory in accordance with the federal government’s Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”), and is dedicated to the delivery of
clinical diagnostic services to pathologists, oncologists, urologists,
hospitals, and other laboratories throughout the United States.
Basis
of Presentation
The
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts
of
the Parent and the Subsidiary. All significant intercompany accounts and
balances have been eliminated in consolidation.
The
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company are
unaudited and include all adjustments, in the opinion of management, which
are
necessary to make the financial statements not misleading. Except as otherwise
disclosed, all such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. Interim
results are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year.
The
interim condensed consolidated financial statements and notes are presented
in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission and do not contain certain information included in the Company’s 2007
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. Therefore, the interim condensed consolidated
financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated
financial statements and notes thereto contained in the Company’s annual
report.
Net
Income (Loss) Per Common Share
We
compute net income (loss) per share in accordance with Financial Accounting
Standards Statement No. 128 “Earnings per Share” (“SFAS 128”) and Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 98 (“SAB 98”). Under
the provisions of SFAS No. 128 and SAB 98, basic net income (loss) per share
is
computed by dividing the net income (loss) available to common stockholders
by
the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period.
Diluted net income (loss) per share is computed by dividing the net income
(loss) for the period by the weighted average number of common and common
equivalent shares outstanding during the period. Common equivalent shares
outstanding as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, which consisted of employee
stock
options and certain warrants issued to consultants and other providers of
financing to the Company, were excluded from diluted net loss per common share
calculations as of such dates because they were anti-dilutive. For the three
and
nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, we reported net loss per share
and as such basic and diluted loss per share were equivalent.
Recently
Issued Accounting Pronouncements
In
September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“SFAS
157”). SFAS 157 provides a new single authoritative definition of fair value and
provides enhanced guidance for measuring the fair value of assets and
liabilities and requires additional disclosures related to the extent to which
companies measure assets and liabilities at fair value, the information used
to
measure fair value, and the effect of fair value measurements on earnings.
SFAS
157 was effective for the Company as of January 1, 2008 for financial assets
and
financial liabilities within its scope and did not have a material impact on
our
consolidated financial statements.
In
February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FAS 157-2 “Effective Date
of FASB Statement No. 157” (“FSP FAS 157-2”) which defers the effective date of
SFAS 157 for all non-financial assets and non-financial
liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in
the
financial statements on a recurring basis (at least annually), to fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2008 and interim periods within those fiscal years
for items within the scope of FSP FAS 157-2. The Company is currently assessing
the impact, if any, of SFAS 157 and FSP FAS 157-2 for non-financial assets
and
non-financial liabilities on its consolidated financial
statements.
F-4
In
February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159 “The Fair Value Option for Financial
Assets and Financial Liabilities – Including an Amendment of FASB Statement No.
115.” (“SFAS 159”). SFAS 159 permits an entity to measure many financial
instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not currently
required to be measured at fair value. The Company adopted this Statement as
of
January 1, 2008 and has elected not to apply the fair value option to any of
its
financial instruments.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in
Consolidated Financial Statements – an amendment of ARB No. 51.” (“SFAS 160”).
SFAS 160 requires all entities to report noncontrolling (minority) interests
in
subsidiaries as equity in the consolidated financial statements. Its intention
is to eliminate the diversity in practice regarding the accounting for
transactions between an entity and noncontrolling interests. This Statement
is
effective for the Company as of January 1, 2009 and currently, we do not expect
it to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.
In
May
2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 162 (“SFAS 162”), “The Hierarchy of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles” (“SFAS 162”). This statement
identifies the sources of accounting principles and the framework for selecting
the principles to be used in the preparation of financial statements of
nongovernmental entities that are presented in conformity with GAAP. While
this
statement formalizes the sources and hierarchy of GAAP within the authoritative
accounting literature, it does not change the accounting principles that are
already in place. This statement will be effective 60 days following the SEC’s
approval of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board amendments to AU
Section 411, “The Meaning of Present Fairly in Conformity With Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles.” SFAS 162 is not expected to have a material
impact on the Company’s financial statements.
NOTE
B – DEBT OBLIGATION
Revolving
Credit and Security Agreement
On
February 1, 2008, our subsidiary, NeoGenomics, Inc., a Florida corporation
(“Borrower”), entered into a Revolving Credit and Security Agreement (the
“Credit Facility” or “Credit Agreement”) with CapitalSource Finance LLC
(“CapitalSource”), the terms of which provide for borrowings based on eligible
accounts receivable up to a maximum borrowing of $3,000,000, as defined in
the
Credit Agreement. Subject to the provisions of the Credit Agreement,
CapitalSource shall make advances to us from time to time during the three
(3)
year term, and the Credit Facility may be drawn, repaid and redrawn from time
to
time as permitted under the Credit Agreement.
Interest
on outstanding advances under the Credit Facility are payable monthly in arrears
on the first day of each calendar month at an annual rate based on the one-month
LIBOR plus 3.25%, subject to a LIBOR floor of 3.14%. At September 30, 2008,
the
effective rate of interest was 6.50%.
To
secure
the payment and performance in full of the Obligations (as defined in the Credit
Agreement), we granted CapitalSource a continuing security interest in and
lien
upon, all of our rights, title and interest in and to our Accounts (as defined
in the Credit Agreement), which primarily consist of accounts receivable and
cash balances held in lock box accounts. Furthermore, pursuant to the Credit
Agreement, the Parent guaranteed the punctual payment when due, whether at
stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, of all of our obligations. The
Parent guaranty is a continuing guarantee and shall remain in force and effect
until the indefeasible cash payment in full of the Guaranteed Obligations (as
defined in the Credit Agreement) and all other amounts payable under the Credit
Agreement.
On
September 30, 2008, the available credit under the Credit Facility was
approximately $851,000 and the outstanding borrowing was $1,176,221 after
netting of $66,857 in compensating cash on hand. Subsequent to September 30,
2008, the Company and CapitalSource signed a first amendment to the Credit
Agreement, as further explained in Note G.
NOTE
C – LIQUIDITY
Our
condensed consolidated financial statements are prepared using accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America applicable to
a
going concern, which contemplate the realization of assets and liquidation
of
liabilities in the normal course of business. At September 30, 2008, we had
stockholders’ equity of $2,487,001. On February 1, 2008, we entered into a
revolving credit facility with CapitalSource Finance, LLC, which allows us
to
borrow up to $3,000,000 based on a formula which is based upon our eligible
accounts receivable, as defined in the Credit Agreement. As of September 30,
2008, we had approximately $631,000 in cash on hand and $851,000 of availability
under our Credit Facility. On November 5, 2008, we entered into a common stock
purchase agreement with Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC (“Fusion”) that provides for
future sales of our common stock to Fusion in amounts up to $8.0 million over
the next 30 months in amounts and at times that are solely in our discretion
as
described in Footnote G. On November 5, 2008, we also entered into a master
lease agreement with Leasing Technologies International, Inc which allows us
to
draw as much as $1.0 million over the next twelve months to purchase capital
equipment as described in Footnote G. As such, we believe we have adequate
resources to meet our operating commitments for the next twelve months and
accordingly our condensed consolidated financial statements do not include
any
adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset
amounts or the amounts and classification of liabilities that might be necessary
should we be unable to continue as a going concern.
F-5
NOTE
D – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
US
Labs Settlement
On
October 26, 2006, Accupath Diagnostics Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a US Labs, a
California corporation (“US Labs”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (entitled Accupath
Diagnostics Laboratories, Inc. v. NeoGenomics, Inc., et al., Case No. BC 360985)
(the “Lawsuit”) against the Company and Robert Gasparini, as an individual, and
certain other employees and non-employees of NeoGenomics (the “Defendants”) with
respect to claims arising from discussions with current and former employees
of
US Labs. On March 18, 2008, we reached a preliminary agreement to settle US
Labs' claims, and in accordance with SFAS No. 5, Accounting
For Contingencies,
as of
December 31, 2007 we accrued a $375,000 loss contingency, which consisted of
$250,000 to provide for the Company's expected share of this settlement, and
$125,000 to provide for the Company's share of the estimated legal fees up
to
the date of settlement.
On
April
23, 2008, the Company and US Labs entered into a Settlement Agreement and
Release (the "Settlement Agreement") whereby both parties agreed to settle
and
resolve all claims asserted in and arising out of the aforementioned lawsuit.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants are required to pay
$500,000 to US Labs, of which $250,000 was paid with funds from the Company's
insurance carrier in May 2008 and the remaining $250,000 is being paid by the
Company in equal installments of $31,250 commencing on May 31, 2008. Under
the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, there are certain provisions agreed to in
the
event of default. As of September 30, 2008, the remaining amount due was
$93,750, and no events of default had occurred.
Private
Placement of Common Stock and Related SEC Review
During
2007, we received a comment letter from the SEC Staff questioning certain
matters disclosed in our Form 10-KSB as of and for the year ended December
31,
2006. As a result, we were unable to effectively complete the Registration
Statement filed in connection with the June 2007 private placement (the “Private
Placement”) of the Company’s common stock. As of December 31, 2007 and pursuant
to the terms of the Private Placement, the Company accrued $282,000 in penalties
as liquidated damages, which were expected to be incurred for the period
commencing on the 120th
day
following the Private Placement through June 2008, the date we anticipated
to be
able to effectively complete the Registration Statement for the Private
Placement shares.
On
April
29, 2008, we filed an amended 2006 Form 10-KSB/A with the SEC, and on April
30,
2008 we received correspondence from the SEC that they have completed their
review and that they had no further comments.
On
June
3, 2008, we filed a Registration Statement on Form S-1/A, and received a notice
of effectiveness for the Private Placement shares on July 1, 2008. In September,
2008 the Company paid $40,500 in cash and issued 170,088 shares of common stock
at $1.00 per share for a value of $170,088 for a total of $210,588 to the
holders of the Private Placement shares to settle the penalty amounts due.
The
remaining $71,412 in accrued penalties was reversed in September, 2008 as
certain shareholders had previously sold their shares, thus forfeiting their
rights to any penalties paid.
NOTE
E – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
During
the nine month periods ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, Steven C. Jones,
a
director of the Company, earned $105,000 and $50,000, respectively, for various
consulting work performed in connection with his duties as Acting Principal
Financial Officer.
F-6
During
the nine month periods ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, George O’Leary, a
director of the Company, earned $9,500 and $9,500, respectively, in cash for
various consulting work performed for the Company.
On
September 30, 2008, the Company entered into a sale leaseback arrangement for
approximately $130,000 of used laboratory equipment with Gulfpointe Capital,
LLC. Three members of our board of directors Steven Jones, Peter Petersen and
Marvin Jaffe are affiliated with Gulfpointe Capital, LLC. This sale/leaseback
transaction was entered into after it was determined that Leasing Technologies
International Inc. was unable to consummate this transaction under the lease
line described in Footnote G and Messrs Jones, Peterson and Jaffe recused
themselves from all aspects of both sides of this transaction. The lease has
a
30 month term and a lease rate factor of 0.0397/month, which equates to monthly
payments of $5,154.88 during the term. Gulfpointe Capital, LLC also received
32,475 warrants with an exercise price of $1.08, and a five year term. 25%
of
the warrants vested upfront and 75% vested on October 2, 2008 when the lease
was
funded. At the end of the term the Company options are as follows:
d) |
Purchase
not less than all of the equipment for its then Fair Market Value
(“FMV”)
not to exceed 15% of the original equipment
cost.
|
e) |
Extend
the lease term for a minimum of six (6)
months.
|
f) |
Return
not less than all the equipment at conclusion of the lease
term.
|
NOTE
F – POWER 3 MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.
On
April
2, 2007, we entered into an agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) with Power3
Medical Products, Inc., a New York Corporation (“Power3”), regarding the
formation of a joint venture Contract Research Organization (“CRO”) and the
issuance of convertible debentures and related securities by Power3 to us.
Power3 is an early stage company engaged in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of protein biomarkers. Under the terms of the agreement,
NeoGenomics and Power3 agreed to enter into a joint venture agreement pursuant
to which the parties would jointly own a CRO and begin commercializing Power3’s
intellectual property portfolio of seventeen patents pending by developing
diagnostic tests and other services around one or more of the more than 500
differentially expressed protein biomarkers that Power3 believes it has
discovered to date. Power3 has agreed to license all of its intellectual
property on a non-exclusive basis to the CRO for selected commercial
applications as well as provide certain management personnel. We will provide
access to cancer samples, management and sales & marketing personnel,
laboratory facilities and working capital. Subject to final negotiation, we
will
own a minimum of 60% and up to 80% of the new CRO venture.
As
part
of the agreement, we provided $200,000 of working capital to Power3 by
purchasing a convertible debenture on April 17, 2007 pursuant to a Securities
Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) between us and Power3. The
debenture has a term of two years and a 6% per annum interest rate which is
payable quarterly on the last calendar day of each quarter. We were also granted
two options to increase our stake in Power3 to up to 60% of Power3’s fully
diluted shares. The first option (the “First Option”) is a fixed option to
purchase convertible preferred stock of Power3 that is convertible into such
number of shares of Power3 Common Stock, in one or more transactions, up to
20%
of Power3’s voting Common Stock at a purchase price per share, which will also
equal the initial conversion price per share, equal to the lesser of (a) $0.20
per share, or (b) $20,000,000 divided by the fully-diluted shares outstanding
on
the date of the exercise of the First Option. This First Option is exercisable
for a period starting on the date of purchase of the convertible debenture
by
NeoGenomics and extending until the day which is the later of (y) November
16,
2007 or (z) the date that certain milestones specified in the agreement have
been achieved. As of September 30, 2008, the milestones described in the letter
agreement had not been met. The First Option is exercisable in cash or
NeoGenomics Common Stock at our option, provided, however, that we must include
at least $1.0 million of cash in the consideration if we elect to exercise
this
First Option. The second option (the “Second Option”), which is only exercisable
to the extent that we have exercised the First Option, provides that we will
have the option to increase our stake in Power3 to up to 60% of fully diluted
shares of Power3 over the twelve month period beginning on the expiration date
of the First Option in one or a series of transactions by purchasing additional
convertible preferred stock of Power3 that is convertible into voting Common
Stock and the right to receive additional warrants. The purchase price per
share, and the initial conversion price of the Second Option convertible
preferred stock will, to the extent such Second Option is exercised within
six
months of exercise of the First Option, be the lesser of (a) $0.40 per share
or
(b) $40,000,000 divided by the fully diluted shares outstanding on the date
of
exercise of the Second Option. The purchase price per share, and the initial
conversion price of the Second Option convertible preferred stock will, to
the
extent such Second Option is exercised after six months, but within twelve
months of exercise of the First Option, be the lesser of (y) $0.50 per share
or
(z) an equity price per share equal to $50,000,000 divided by the fully diluted
shares outstanding on the date of any purchase. The exercise price of the Second
Option may be paid in cash or in any combination of cash and our Common Stock
at
our option.
F-7
As
of
September 30, 2008, the parties were engaged in negotiations to clarify and
amend certain terms of the Letter Agreement. Until such time as an agreement
can
be reached with Power3 modifying the original terms of the Letter Agreement,
it
is the position of NeoGenomics that Power3 has not yet met the milestones
outlined in the original agreement and, as a result, the First Option and Second
Option are still valid.
The
convertible debenture, because it is convertible into restricted shares of
stock, is recorded under the fair value method at its initial cost of $200,000
if the stock price of Power3 is less than $0.20 per share or at fair value
if
the stock price of Power3 is greater than $0.20 per share. As of September
30,
2008, the stock price of Power3 was less than $0.20 per share and, accordingly,
the convertible debenture is carried at cost and is included in Other
Assets.
NOTE
G – SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
Common
Stock Purchase Agreement
On
November 5, 2008, we entered into a common stock purchase agreement (the “Stock
Agreement”) with Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC an Illinois limited liability
company (“Fusion”). The Stock Agreement, which has a term of 30 months,
provides for the future funding of up to $8.0 million from sales of our common
stock to Fusion on a when and if needed basis as determined by us in our sole
discretion. In consideration for entering into this Stock Agreement, on
October 10, 2008, we issued to Fusion 17,500 shares of our common stock (valued
at $14,700 on the date of issuance) and $17,500 as a due diligence expense
reimbursement. In addition, on November 5, 2008, we issued to Fusion 400,000
shares of our common stock (valued at $280,000 on the date of issuance) as
a
commitment fee. Concurrently with entering into the Stock Agreement, we
entered into a registration rights agreement with Fusion. Under the
registration rights agreement, we agreed to file a registration statement with
the SEC covering the 417,500 shares that have already been issued to Fusion
and
at least 3.0 million shares that may be issued to Fusion under the Stock
Agreement. Presently, we expect to sell no more than the initial 3.0
million shares to Fusion during the term of this Stock
Agreement.
Under
the
Stock Agreement, after the SEC has declared effective the registration statement
related to the transaction, we have the right to sell to Fusion shares of our
common stock from time to time in amounts between $50,000 and $1.0 million,
depending on the market price of our common stock. The purchase price of
the shares related to any future funding under the Stock Agreement will be
based
on the prevailing market prices of our stock at the time of such sales without
any fixed discount, and the Company will control the timing and amount of any
sales of shares to Fusion. Fusion shall not have the right or the
obligation to purchase any shares of our common stock on any business day that
the price of our common stock is below $0.45 per share. The Stock
Agreement may be terminated by us at any time at our discretion without any
cost
to us. There are no negative covenants, restrictions on future funding
from other sources, penalties, further fees or liquidated damages in the
agreement.
Given
our
current liquidity position from cash on hand and our availability under our
Credit Facility with CapitalSource, we have no immediate plans to issue common
stock under the Stock Agreement. If and when we do elect to sell shares to
Fusion under this agreement, we expect to do so opportunistically and only
under
conditions deemed favorable by the Company. Any proceeds received by the
Company from sales under the Stock Agreement will be used for general corporate
purposes, working capital, and/or for expansion activities.
Equipment
Lease Line
On
November 5, 2008, the Subsidiary entered into a master lease agreement with
Leasing Technologies International, Inc. The master lease agreement establishes
the general terms and conditions pursuant to which the Subsidiary may lease
equipment pursuant to a $1,000,000 lease line. Advances under the lease line
may
be made for one year by executing equipment schedules for each advance. The
lease term of any equipment schedules issued under the lease line will be for
36
months. The lease rate factor applicable for each equipment schedule is
0.0327/month. If the Subsidiary makes use of the entire lease line, the monthly
rent would be $32,700. Monthly rent for the leased equipment is payable in
advance on the first day of each month. The obligations of the Subsidiary are
guaranteed by the Parent Company. At the end of the term of each equipment
schedule the Subsidiary may:
(d) |
Renew
the lease with respect to such equipment for an additional 12 months
at
fair market value;
|
(e) |
Purchase
the equipment at fair market value, which price will not be less
than 10%
of cost nor more than 14% of cost;
|
(f) |
Extend
the term for an additional six months at 35% of the monthly rent
paid by
lessee during the initial term, equipment may then be purchased for
the
lesser of fair market value or 8% of cost;
or
|
F-8
(b) |
Return
the equipment subject to a remarketing charge equal to 6% of
cost.
|
First
Amendment to Revolving Credit and Security Agreement
On
November 3, 2008 the Company and CapitalSource signed a first amendment to
the
Credit Agreement. This amendment increased the amount allowable under the
Credit Agreement to pay towards the settlement of the US Labs lawsuit to
$250,000 from $100,000 and documented other administrative agreements between
NeoGenomics and CapitalSource.
END
OF
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
F-9
REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To
the
Board of Directors and Stockholders of NeoGenomics, Inc.:
We
have
audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of NeoGenomics, Inc. (the
“Company”), as of December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31,
2007 and 2006. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on these financial statements based on our audits.
We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States of America). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we
engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial
reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over
financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial
reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts
and
disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.
In
our
opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31,
2007, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006, in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America.
/s/
Kingery & Crouse, P.A
Tampa,
FL
April
14, 2008
F-10
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2007
ASSETS
|
||||
CURRENT
ASSETS
|
||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$
|
210,573
|
||
Accounts
receivable (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of
$414,548)
|
3,236,751
|
|||
Inventories
|
304,750
|
|||
Other
current assets
|
400,168
|
|||
Total
current assets
|
$
|
4,152,242
|
||
|
||||
PROPERTY
AND EQUIPMENT
(net of accumulated depreciation of $862,030)
|
$
|
2,108,083
|
||
|
||||
OTHER
ASSETS
|
$
|
260,575
|
||
|
||||
TOTAL
ASSETS
|
$
|
6,520,900
|
||
|
||||
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
||||
|
||||
CURRENT
LIABILITIES
|
||||
Accounts
payable
|
$
|
1,799,159
|
||
Accrued
compensation
|
370,496
|
|||
Accrued
expenses and other liabilities
|
574,084
|
|||
Legal
contingency (Note G)
|
375,000
|
|||
Short-term
portion of equipment capital leases
|
242,966
|
|||
Total
current liabilities
|
$
|
3,361,705
|
||
|
||||
LONG
TERM LIABILITIES
|
||||
Long-term
portion of equipment capital leases
|
$
|
837,081
|
||
|
||||
TOTAL
LIABILITIES
|
$
|
4,198,786
|
||
Commitments
and contingencies
|
||||
STOCKHOLDERS’
EQUITY
|
||||
Common
stock, $.001 par value, (100,000,000 shares authorized;
31,391,660
|
||||
shares
issued and outstanding)
|
$
|
31,391
|
||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
16,820,954
|
|||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(14,530,231
|
)
|
||
Total stockholders’ equity
|
2,322,114
|
|||
|
||||
TOTAL
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
$
|
6,520,900
|
See
notes
to consolidated financial statements.
F-11
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOR
THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007 AND 2006
|
2007
|
2006
|
|||||
|
|||||||
NET
REVENUE
|
$
|
11,504,725
|
$
|
6,475,996
|
|||
COST
OF REVENUE
|
5,522,775
|
2,759,190
|
|||||
GROSS
MARGIN
|
$
|
5,981,950
|
$
|
3,716,806
|
|||
OTHER
OPERATING EXPENSE
|
|||||||
General
and administrative
|
$
|
9,122,922
|
$
|
3,576,812
|
|||
|
|||||||
INCOME
/ (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS
|
$
|
(3,140,972
|
)
|
$
|
139,994
|
||
|
|||||||
OTHER
INCOME / (EXPENSE):
|
|||||||
Other
income
|
$
|
24,256
|
$
|
55,970
|
|||
Interest
expense
|
(263,456
|
)
|
(325,625
|
)
|
|||
Other
income / (expense) – net
|
$
|
(239,200
|
)
|
$
|
(269,655
|
)
|
|
NET
LOSS
|
(3,380,172
|
)
|
(129,661
|
)
|
|||
NET
LOSS PER SHARE -
Basic and Diluted
|
$
|
(0.11
|
)
|
$
|
(0.00
|
)
|
|
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE NUMBER
OF
SHARES OUTSTANDING – Basic
and Diluted
|
29,764,289
|
26,166,031
|
See
notes
to consolidated financial statements.
F-12
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
FOR
THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007 AND 2006
|
Common
|
Common
|
Additional
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Stock
|
Stock
|
Paid-In
|
Stock
|
Accumulated
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Shares
|
Amount
|
Capital
|
Compensation
|
Deficit
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Balances,
December 31, 2005
|
22,836,754
|
$
|
22,836
|
$
|
10,005,308
|
$
|
(2,685
|
)
|
$
|
(11,020,398
|
)
|
$
|
(994,939
|
)
|
|||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Common
stock issuances for cash
|
3,530,819
|
3,531
|
1,099,469
|
-
|
-
|
1,103,000
|
|||||||||||||
Common
stock issued for acquisition
|
100,000
|
100
|
49,900
|
-
|
-
|
50,000
|
|||||||||||||
Transaction
fees and expenses
|
-
|
-
|
(80,189
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
(80,189
|
)
|
|||||||||||
Adjustment
of credit facility discount
|
-
|
-
|
2,365
|
-
|
-
|
2,365
|
|||||||||||||
Exercise
of stock options and warrants
|
546,113
|
546
|
66,345
|
-
|
-
|
66,891
|
|||||||||||||
Warrants
and stock issued for services
|
7,618
|
8
|
7,642
|
-
|
-
|
7,650
|
|||||||||||||
Payment
of note on Yorkville Capital fee
|
-
|
-
|
(50,000
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
(50,000
|
)
|
|||||||||||
Stock
issued to settle accounts payable
|
40,172
|
40
|
15,627
|
-
|
-
|
15,667
|
|||||||||||||
Stock
compensation expense
|
-
|
-
|
63,730
|
-
|
-
|
63,730
|
|||||||||||||
Reclassification
of deferred compensation to additional paid in capital upon adoption
of
SFAS 123R
|
-
|
-
|
(2,685
|
)
|
2,685
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
(129,661
|
)
|
(129,661
|
)
|
|||||||||||
Balances,
December 31, 2006
|
27,061,476
|
$
|
27,061
|
$
|
11,177,512
|
-
|
$
|
(11,150,059
|
)
|
$
|
54,514
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Common
stock issuances for cash
|
4,154,684
|
4,155
|
5,574,682
|
-
|
-
|
5,578,837
|
|||||||||||||
Transaction
fees and expenses
|
-
|
-
|
(346,110
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
(346,110
|
)
|
|||||||||||
Exercise
of stock options and warrants
|
175,500
|
175
|
53,619
|
-
|
-
|
53,794
|
|||||||||||||
Warrants
issued for services
|
-
|
-
|
159,153
|
-
|
-
|
159,153
|
|||||||||||||
Stock
compensation expense
|
-
|
-
|
202,098
|
-
|
-
|
202,098
|
|||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
(3,380,172
|
)
|
(3,380,172
|
)
|
|||||||||||
Balances,
December 31, 2007
|
31,391,660
|
$
|
31,391
|
$
|
16,820,954
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
(14,530,231
|
)
|
$
|
2,322,114
|
See
notes
to consolidated financial statements.
F-13
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
FOR
THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007 AND 2006
|
2007
|
2006
|
|||||
CASH
FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
|
|||||||
Net
Loss
|
$
|
(3,380,172
|
)
|
$
|
(129,661
|
)
|
|
Adjustments
to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating
activities:
|
|||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
451,459
|
233,632
|
|||||
Impairment
of assets
|
2,235
|
53,524
|
|||||
Amortization
of credit facility warrants and debt issue costs
|
54,900
|
72,956
|
|||||
Stock
based compensation
|
202,098
|
63,730
|
|||||
Non-cash
consulting
|
159,153
|
7,650
|
|||||
Other
non-cash expenses
|
29,423
|
59,804
|
|||||
Provision
for bad debts
|
1,013,804
|
444,133
|
|||||
Changes
in assets and liabilities, net:
|
|||||||
(Increase)
decrease in accounts receivable, net of write-offs
|
(2,700,797
|
)
|
(1,442,791
|
)
|
|||
(Increase)
decrease in inventory
|
(187,388
|
)
|
(57,362
|
)
|
|||
(Increase)
decrease in prepaid expenses
|
(343,032
|
)
|
(101,805
|
)
|
|||
(Increase)
decrease in other current assets
|
(26,671
|
)
|
(31,522
|
)
|
|||
Increase
(decrease) in deferred revenues
|
-
|
(100,000
|
)
|
||||
Increase
(decrease) in legal contingency
|
375,000
|
-
|
|||||
Increase
(decrease) in accounts payable and other liabilities
|
1,707,397
|
233,930
|
|||||
NET
CASH USED IN OPERATING ACTIVITIES
|
(2,642,591
|
)
|
(693,782
|
)
|
|||
|
|||||||
CASH
FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
|
|||||||
Purchases
of property and equipment
|
(516,144
|
)
|
(398,618
|
)
|
|||
Investment
in other assets (Power 3)
|
(200,000
|
)
|
-
|
||||
NET
CASH USED IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES
|
(716,144
|
)
|
(398,618
|
)
|
|||
|
|||||||
CASH
FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
|
|||||||
Advances
(repayments) from/to affiliates, net
|
(1,675,000
|
)
|
175,000
|
||||
Notes
payable
|
(2,000
|
)
|
2,000
|
||||
Repayment
of capital lease obligations
|
(166,479
|
)
|
(58,980
|
)
|
|||
Issuance
of common stock and warrants for cash , net of transaction
expenses
|
5,286,521
|
1,089,702
|
|||||
NET
CASH PROVIDED BY FINANCING ACTIVITIES
|
3,443,042
|
1,207,722
|
|||||
|
|||||||
NET
CHANGE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
84,307
|
115,322
|
|||||
|
|||||||
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF YEAR
|
126,266
|
10,944
|
|||||
|
|||||||
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF YEAR
|
$
|
210,573
|
$
|
126,266
|
|||
|
|||||||
SUPPLEMENTAL
DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION
|
|||||||
Interest
paid
|
$
|
204,670
|
$
|
269,316
|
|||
Equipment
leased under capital leases
|
$
|
703,145
|
$
|
602,357
|
|||
Income
taxes paid
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
|||
Common
stock issued for acquisition
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
50,000
|
|||
Common
stock issued in settlement of financing fees
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
50,000
|
See
notes
to consolidated financial statements.
F-14
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DECEMBER
31, 2007
NOTE
A –
Nature of Business and Basis of Presentation
NeoGenomics,
Inc., a Nevada Company, was formed in 1998 under the name of American
Communications Enterprises, Inc. (“ACE”, the “Parent”, or the “Parent
Company”).
NeoGenomics,
Inc., a Florida company, doing business as NeoGenomics Laboratories (“NEO”,
“NeoGenomics” or ”Subsidiary”) was formed in June 2001, and agreed to
be acquired by ACE in a reverse acquisition in November
2001. NeoGenomics operates as a certified “high complexity” clinical
laboratory in accordance with the federal government’s Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”), and is dedicated to the delivery of
clinical diagnostic services to pathologists, oncologists, urologists,
hospitals, and other laboratories throughout the United States.
ACE
succeeded to NEO’s name in January, 2002, and NeoGenomics remains a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Parent Company. (NEO and ACE are collectively referred to
as
“we”, “us”, “our” or the “Company”).
The
accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the
Parent and the Subsidiary. All significant intercompany accounts and
balances have been eliminated in consolidation.
Certain
amounts in the prior year’s consolidated financial statements have been
reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.
NOTE
B –
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Use
of
Estimates
The
Company prepares its consolidated financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. These principles require management to make estimates,
judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets,
liabilities, revenues and expenses, together with amounts disclosed in the
related notes to the consolidated financial statements. Actual
results and outcomes may differ from management’s estimates, judgments and
assumptions. Significant estimates, judgments and assumptions used in
these consolidated financial statements include, but are not limited to, those
related to revenues, accounts receivable and related reserves, contingencies,
useful lives and recovery of long-term assets, income and other taxes, and
the
fair value of stock-based compensation. These estimates, judgments,
and assumptions are reviewed periodically and the effects of material revisions
in estimates are reflected in the consolidated financial statements
prospectively from the date of the change in estimate.
Revenue
Recognition
The
Company recognizes revenues in accordance with the Securities and Exchange
Commission’s (the “Commission”) Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104, “Revenue
Recognition”, when the price is fixed or determinable, persuasive evidence of an
arrangement exists, the service is performed and collectability of the resulting
receivable is reasonably assured.
The
Company’s specialized diagnostic services are performed based on a written test
requisition form and revenues are recognized once the diagnostic services
have
been performed, the results have been delivered to the ordering physician,
the
payor has been identified and eligibility and insurance have been verified.
These diagnostic services are billed to various payors, including Medicare,
commercial insurance companies, other directly billed healthcare institutions
such as hospitals and clinics, and individuals. The Company reports revenues
from contracted payors, including Medicare, certain insurance companies and
certain healthcare institutions, based on the contractual rate, or in the
case
of Medicare, published fee schedules. The Company reports revenues from
non-contracted payors, including certain insurance companies and individuals,
based on the amount expected to be collected. The difference between the
amount
billed and the amount expected to be collected from non-contracted payors
is
recorded as a contractual allowance to arrive at the reported revenues. The
expected revenues from non-contracted payors are based on the historical
collection experience of each payor or payor group, as appropriate. In each
reporting period, the Company reviews its historical collection experience
for
non-contracted payors and adjusts its expected revenues for current and
subsequent periods accordingly.
F-15
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
Costs
of Revenues
Costs
of
revenues consists primarily of lab related materials and supplies, salaries
related to laboratory personnel, allocated facility costs, and depreciation
of
equipment used to deliver the Company’s services.
Accounting
for Contingencies
When
involved in litigation or claims, in the normal course of our business, we
follow the provisions of SFAS No. 5, Accounting
for Contingencies, to
record
litigation or claim-related expenses. We evaluate, among other factors, the
degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a
reasonable estimate of the amount of loss. We accrue for settlements when the
outcome is probable and the amount or range of the settlement can be reasonably
estimated. In addition to our judgments and use of estimates, there are inherent
uncertainties surrounding litigation and claims that could result in actual
settlement amounts that differ materially from estimates. With
respect to the agreement to settle the claims brought against the Company by
US
Labs, as of December 31, 2007 we have accrued a $375,000 loss contingency,
which
consists of $250,000 to provide for the Company’s expected portion of this
settlement, and $125,000 to provide for the Company’s portion of the estimated
legal fees up to the date of settlement.
Accounts
Receivable and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
Accounts
receivable are reported at realizable value, net of allowance for doubtful
accounts (the “Allowance”), which is estimated and recorded in the period the
related revenue is recorded based on the historical collection experience for
each type of payor. In addition, the Allowance is adjusted
periodically, based upon an evaluation of historical collection experience
with
specific payors, payor types, and other relevant factors, including regularly
assessing the state of our billing operations in order to identify issues which
may impact the collectability of receivables or reserve
estimates. Revisions to the Allowance are recorded as an adjustment
to bad debt expense within general and administrative expenses. After
appropriate collection efforts have been exhausted, specific receivables deemed
to be uncollectible are charged against the Allowance in the period they are
deemed uncollectible. Recoveries of receivables previously
written-off are recorded as credits to the Allowance.
Statement
of Cash Flows
For
purposes of the statement of cash flows, we consider all highly liquid
investments purchased with an original maturity of three months or less to
be
cash equivalents.
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments and Concentrations of Credit
Risk
The
carrying value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts
payable, accrued expenses and liabilities and other current assets and
liabilities are considered reasonable estimates of their respective fair values
due to their short-term nature. The Company maintains its cash and
cash equivalents with domestic financial institutions that the Company believes
to be of high credit standing. The Company believes that, as of
December 31, 2007, its concentration of credit risk related to cash and cash
equivalents was not significant.
F-16
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
Concentrations
of credit risk with respect to revenue and accounts receivable are primarily
limited to certain customers to whom the Company provides a significant volume
of its services to, and to specific payors of our services such as Medicare,
and
individual insurance companies. The Company’s customer base consists
of a large number of geographically dispersed customers diversified across
various customer types. The Company continues to focus its sales
efforts to decrease the dependency on any given source of revenue and decrease
its credit risk from any one large customer or payor type, these efforts have
led to the significant decrease of our credit risk from the previous
year. Accordingly, for the year ended December 31, 2007 one customer
accounted for 25% of total revenue and all others were less than 10% of total
revenue individually. During the year ended December 31, 2006, three
customers accounted for 26%, 18% and 17% of total revenue,
respectively. In the event that we lost one of these customers, we
would potentially lose a significant percentage of our
revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2007, Medicare and
one commercial insurance provider accounted for 44% and 10% of the Company’s
total accounts receivable balance, respectively.
The
Company orders the majority of its FISH probes from one vendor and as a result
of their dominance of that marketplace and the absence of any competitive
alternatives, if they were to have a disruption and not have inventory available
it could have a material effect on our business. This risk cannot be
completely offset due to the fact that they have patent protection which limits
other vendors from supplying these probes.
Inventories
Inventories,
which consist principally of testing supplies, are valued at the lower of cost
or market, using the first-in, first-out method (FIFO)
Property
and Equipment
Property
and equipment are recorded at cost, net of accumulated depreciation and
amortization. Property and equipment generally includes purchases of
items with a cost greater than $1,000 and a useful life greater than one
year. Depreciation and amortization are computed on a straight line
basis over the estimated useful lives of the assets.
Leasehold
improvements are amortized over the shorter of the related lease terms or their
estimated useful lives. Property and equipment acquired under capital
leases are depreciated over the shorter of the related lease terms or the useful
lives of the assets. The Company periodically reviews the estimated
useful lives of property and equipment. Changes to the estimated useful lives
are recorded prospectively from the date of the change. Upon
retirement or sale, the cost of the assets disposed of and the related
accumulated depreciation are removed from the accounts and any resulting gain
or
loss is included in income (loss) from operations. Repairs and
maintenance costs are expensed as incurred.
Income
Taxes
We
compute income taxes in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Statement
No. 109 “Accounting for Income Taxes” (“SFAS 109”). Under SFAS 109,
deferred taxes are recognized for the tax consequences of temporary differences
by applying enacted statutory rates applicable to future years to differences
between the financial statement carrying amounts and the tax bases of existing
assets and liabilities. Also, the effect on deferred taxes of a
change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that included the
enactment date. Temporary differences between financial and tax
reporting arise primarily from the use of different depreciation methods for
property and equipment as well as impairment losses and the timing of
recognition of bad debts.
F-17
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
Stock-Based
Compensation
For
the
years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, the Company maintained a stock
option plan covering potential equity grants including primarily the issuance
of
stock options. In addition, effective January 1, 2007, the Company
began sponsoring an Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”), whereby eligible
employees are entitled to purchase Common Stock monthly, by means of limited
payroll deductions, at a 5% discount from the fair market value of the Common
Stock as of specific dates. The Company’s ESPP plan is considered
exempt from fair value accounting under SFAS No. 123R since the discount offered
to employees is only 5%. See Note F for a detailed description
of the Company’s plans.
Effective
January 1, 2006, we adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123(R), “Share-Based
Payment”
(“SFAS
123(R)”), which is a revision of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123, “Accounting
for Stock-Based Compensation”
(“SFAS
123”). SFAS 123(R) supersedes our previous accounting under Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 25“Accounting
for Stock Issued to Employees”
(“APB
25”) and disclosure under SFAS 123. In March 2005, the SEC issued
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107 (“SAB 107”) relating to SFAS
123(R). We have applied the provisions of SAB 107 in our adoption of
SFAS 123(R). Under SFAS 123(R), compensation cost for all
stock-based awards, including grants of employee stock options, restricted
stock
and other equity awards, is measured at fair value at grant date and recognized
as compensation expense on a straight line basis over the employees’ expected
requisite service period. In addition, SFAS 123(R) requires the
benefits of tax deductions in excess of recognized compensation expense to
be
reported as a financing cash flow, rather than as an operating cash flow as
prescribed under previous accounting rules. The Company selected the
modified prospective method of adoption, which recognizes compensation expense
for the fair value of all share-based payments granted after January 1,
2006 and for the fair value of all awards granted to employees prior to
January 1, 2006 that remain unvested on the date of
adoption. This method does not require a restatement of prior
periods. However, awards granted and still unvested on the date of
adoption are attributed to expense under SFAS 123(R), including the application
of forfeiture rates on a prospective basis. Our forfeiture rate
represents the historical rate at which our stock-based awards were surrendered
prior to vesting. SFAS 123(R) requires forfeitures to be estimated at the
time of grant and revised on a cumulative basis, if necessary, in subsequent
periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. Prior to
fiscal year 2006, the Company accounted for forfeitures as they occurred, for
the purposes of pro forma information under SFAS 123.
Tax
Effects of Stock-Based Compensation
We
will
only recognize a tax benefit from windfall tax deductions for stock-based awards
in additional paid-in capital if an incremental tax benefit is realized after
all other tax attributes currently available have been utilized.
Net
Loss Per Common Share
We
compute loss per share in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards
Statement No. 128 “Earnings per Share” (“SFAS 128”) and SEC Staff Accounting
Bulletin No. 98 (“SAB 98”). Under the provisions of SFAS No. 128 and
SAB 98, basic net loss per share is computed by dividing the net loss available
to common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares
outstanding during the period. Diluted net loss per share is computed
by dividing the net loss for the period by the weighted average number of common
and common equivalent shares outstanding during the period. Common
equivalent shares outstanding as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, which consisted
of employee stock options and certain warrants issued to consultants and other
providers of financing to the Company, were excluded from diluted net loss
per
common share calculations as of such dates because they were
anti-dilutive. During the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, we
reported net loss per share and as such basic and diluted loss per share were
equivalent.
F-18
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
Recent
Pronouncements
In
February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159 “The Fair Value Option for Financial
Assets and Financial Liabilities” (SFAS 159”). SFAS 159 provides
companies with an option to irrevocably elect to measure certain financial
assets and financial liabilities at fair value on an instrument-by-instrument
basis with the resulting changes in fair value recorded in
earnings. The objective of SFAS 159 is to reduce both the complexity
in accounting for financial instruments and the volatility in earnings caused
by
using different measurement attributes for financial assets and financial
liabilities. SFAS 159 is effective for the Company as of January 1,
2008 and as of this effective date, the Company has elected not to apply the
fair value option to any of its financial assets for financial
liabilities.
In
September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“SFAS
157”). SFAS 157 provides a new single authoritative definition of fair value and
provides enhanced guidance for measuring the fair value of assets and
liabilities and requires additional disclosures related to the extent to which
companies measure assets and liabilities at fair value, the information used
to
measure fair value, and the effect of fair value measurements on
earnings. SFAS 157 is effective for the Company as of January 1, 2008
for financial assets and financial liabilities within its scope and it is not
expected to have a material impact on its consolidated financial
statements. In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No.
FAS 157-2 “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157” (“FSP FAS 157-2”) which
defers the effective date of SFAS 157 for all non-financial assets and
non-financial liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed at
fair
value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least annually),
for
fiscal years beginning after November 14, 2008 and interim periods within those
fiscal years for items within the scope of FSP FAS 157-2. The Company
is currently assessing the impact, if any, of SFAS 157 and FSP FAS 157-2 for
non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities on its consolidated financial
statements.
NOTE
C –
LIQUIDITY
Our
consolidated financial statements are prepared using accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America applicable to a going
concern, which contemplate the realization of assets and liquidation of
liabilities in the normal course of business. At December 31,
2007, we had stockholders’ equity of approximately $2,322,000. On
February 1, 2008, we entered into a revolving credit facility with CapitalSource
Finance, LLC, which allows us to borrow up to $3,000,000 based on a formula
which is tied to our eligible accounts receivable that are aged less than 150
days (See Note L). As of March 31, 2008 we had approximately
$283,000 in cash on hand and $983,000 of availability under our Credit Facility.
As such, we believe we have adequate resources to meet our operating
commitments for the next twelve months and accordingly our consolidated
financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the
recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or the amounts
and
classification of liabilities that might be necessary should we be unable to
continue as a going concern.
F-19
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
NOTE
D –
PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, NET
Property
and equipment consisted of the following at December 31, 2007:
|
|
Estimated
Useful Lives in Years |
|||||
Equipment
|
$
|
2,319,601
|
3-7
|
||||
Leasehold
Improvements
|
51,989
|
3-5
|
|||||
Furniture
& Fixtures
|
163,324
|
7
|
|||||
Computer
Hardware
|
152,405
|
3
|
|||||
Computer
Software
|
209,134
|
3
|
|||||
Assets
not yet placed in service
|
73,660
|
-
|
|||||
Subtotal
|
2,970,113
|
||||||
Less
accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
(862,030
|
)
|
|||||
Furniture
and Equipment, net
|
$
|
2,108,083
|
Depreciation
and amortization expense on property and equipment, including leased assets,
for
the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, was $451,459 and $233,632,
respectively.
Property
and equipment under capital leases, included above, consists of the following
at
December 31, 2007:
Equipment
|
$
|
1,127,889
|
||
Furniture
& Fixtures
|
22,076
|
|||
Computer
Hardware
|
49,086
|
|||
Computer
Software
|
94,963
|
|||
Subtotal
|
1,294,014
|
|||
Less
accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
(248,711
|
)
|
||
Property
and Equipment under capital leases, net
|
$
|
1,045,303
|
NOTE
E –
INCOME TAXES
We
recognized losses for financial reporting purposes for the years ended December
31, 2007 and 2006, in the accompanying consolidated statements of
operations. Accordingly, no provisions for income taxes and/or
deferred income taxes payable have been provided in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements.
At
December 31, 2007, we have net operating loss carryforwards of approximately
$4,700,000, the significant difference between this amount, and our accumulated
deficit arises primarily from certain stock based compensation that is
considered to be a permanent difference. Assuming our net operating
loss carryforwards are not disallowed because of certain “change in control”
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, these net operating loss carryforwards
expire in various years through the year ended December 31,
2027. However, we have established a valuation allowance to fully
reserve our deferred income tax assets as such assets did not meet the required
asset recognition standard established by SFAS 109. Our valuation allowance
increased by $1,014,110 during the year ended December 31, 2007.
F-20
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
At
December 31, 2007, our current and non-current deferred income tax assets
(assuming an effective income tax rate of approximately 39%) consisted of the
following:
Net
current deferred income tax asset:
|
||||
|
||||
Allowance
for doubtful accounts
|
$
|
159,900
|
||
Less
valuation allowance
|
(159,900
|
)
|
||
Total
|
$
|
-
|
Net
non-current deferred income tax asset:
|
||||
|
||||
Net
operating loss carryforwards
|
$
|
1,830,450
|
||
Accumulated
depreciation and impairment
|
(166,000
|
)
|
||
Subtotal
|
1,664,450
|
|||
Less
valuation allowance
|
(1,664,450
|
)
|
||
Total
|
$
|
-
|
NOTE
F –
INCENTIVE STOCK OPTIONS AND AWARDS
Stock
Option Plan
On
October 31, 2006, our shareholders and Board of Directors amended and restated
the NeoGenomics Equity Incentive Plan, which was originally approved in October
2003 (the “Plan”). The Plan permits the grant of stock awards and
stock options to officers, directors, employees and
consultants. Options granted under the Plan are either outright stock
awards, Incentive Stock Options (“ISOs”) or Non-Qualified Stock Options
(“NQSO’s). As part of this amendment and restatement, the
shareholders and Board of Directors approved an increase in the shares reserved
under the Plan from 10% of our outstanding common stock at any given time to
12%
of our Adjusted Diluted Shares Outstanding, which equated to 4,463,643 shares
of
our common stock as of December 31, 2007. Adjusted Diluted Shares
Outstanding are defined as basic common shares outstanding on the measurement
date plus that number of shares that would be issued if all convertible debt,
convertible preferred equity securities and warrants were assumed to be
converted into common stock on the measurement date. The definition
of Adjusted Diluted Shares Outstanding specifically excludes any unexercised
stock options that may be outstanding under either the Stock Option Plan or
the
ESPP on any measurement date. As of December 31, 2007, option and
stock awards totaling 2,796,044 shares were outstanding and 497,549 option
and
stock awards had been exercised, leaving a total of 1,170,050 options and stock
awards available for future issuance. Options typically have a 5-10
year life and vest over 3 or 4 years but each grant’s vesting and exercise price
provisions are determined at the time the awards are granted by the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors or by the President by virtue of authority
delegated to him by the Compensation Committee.
F-21
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
Adoption
of SFAS 123(R)
Effective
January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS 123(R), which requires the measurement and
recognition of compensation expense in the Company’s statement of operations for
all share-based payment awards made to our employees and directors, including
employee stock options and employee stock purchases related to all our
stock-based compensation plans based on estimated fair values.
SFAS
123(R) requires companies to estimate the fair value of stock-based compensation
on the date of grant using an option-pricing model. The fair value of
the award is recognized as expense over the requisite service periods in our
consolidated statement of operations using the straight-line method consistent
with the methodology used under SFAS 123. Under SFAS 123(R) the
attributed stock-based compensation expense must be reduced by an estimate
of
the annualized rate of stock option forfeitures. For grants prior to
the January 1, 2006 adoption date of SFAS 123(R), The unrecognized expense
of
awards not yet vested at the date of adoption is recognized in net income (loss)
in the periods after the date of adoption, using the same valuation method
and
assumptions determined under the original provisions of SFAS 123.
We
estimate the fair value of stock-based awards using the trinomial lattice
model. This model determines the fair value of stock-based
compensation and is affected by our stock price on the date of the grant as
well
as assumptions regarding a number of highly complex and subjective
variables. These variables include expected term, expected risk-free
rate of return, expected volatility, and expected dividend yield, each of which
is more fully described below. The assumptions for expected term and
expected volatility are the two assumptions that significantly affect the
grant date fair value.
Expected
Term: The
expected term of an option is the period of time that such option is expected
to
be outstanding. The average expected term is determined using the
trinomial lattice simulation model.
Risk-free
Interest Rate: We
base the risk-free interest rate used in the trinomial lattice valuation method
on the implied yield at the grant date of the U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issue
with an equivalent term to the stock-based award being valued. Where
the expected term of a stock-based award does not correspond with the term
for
which a zero coupon interest rate is quoted, we used the nearest interest rate
from the available maturities.
Expected
Stock Price Volatility: Effective
January 1, 2006, we evaluated the assumptions used to estimate volatility
and determined that, under SAB 107, we should use a blended average of our
volatility and the volatility of the nearest peer companies. We
believe that the use of this blended average peer volatility is more reflective
of market conditions and a better indicator of our expected volatility due
to
the limited trading history available for our Company since its last change
of
control, prior to which we operated under a different business
model.
Dividend
Yield: Since
we have never paid a dividend and do not expect to begin doing so in the
foreseeable future, we have assumed a 0% dividend yield in valuing our
stock-based awards.
The
fair
value of stock option awards granted during the years ended December 31, 2007
and 2006 was estimated as of the grant date using the trinomial lattice model
with the following weighted average assumptions:
2007
|
2006
|
||||||
Expected
term (in years)
|
4.7
|
5.4
|
|||||
Risk-free
interest rate (%)
|
4.6
|
%
|
4.8
|
%
|
|||
Expected
volatility (%)
|
35
|
%
|
36
|
%
|
|||
Dividend
yield (%)
|
0
|
%
|
0
|
%
|
|||
Weighted
average fair value/share at grant date
|
$
|
0.45
|
$
|
0.23
|
F-22
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
The
status of our stock options and stock awards are summarized as
follows:
|
Number
of
Shares |
Weighted
Average |
|||||
|
|
Exercise
Price |
|||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2005
|
1,735,000
|
$
|
0.27
|
||||
|
|||||||
Granted
|
1,011,897
|
0.68
|
|||||
Exercised
|
(211,814
|
)
|
0.30
|
||||
Canceled
|
(428,083
|
)
|
0.42
|
||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2006
|
2,107,000
|
0.43
|
|||||
|
|||||||
Granted
|
1,232,583
|
1.48
|
|||||
Exercised
|
(175,500
|
)
|
0.31
|
||||
Canceled
|
(368,039
|
)
|
1.14
|
||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2007
|
2,796,044
|
0.81
|
|||||
Exercisable
at December 31, 2007
|
1,721,874
|
$
|
0.55
|
The
following table summarizes information about our options outstanding at December
31, 2007:
Options Outstanding Expected to Vest
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Range of
Exercise prices(s) |
Number
Outstanding |
Weighted
Average Remaining Contractual Life (yrs) |
Weighted
Average Exercise Price |
Number
Exercisable |
Options
Exercisable
Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual Life(Yrs)
|
Weighted
Average Exercise price |
|||||||||||||
|
1,120,000
|
6.6
|
$
|
0.25
|
1,120,000
|
6.6
|
$
|
.025
|
|||||||||||
0.31-0.46
|
94,750
|
7.4
|
0.35
|
68,750
|
7.4
|
0.35
|
|||||||||||||
0.47-0.71
|
389,000
|
8.4
|
.62
|
159,666
|
8.2
|
0.62
|
|||||||||||||
0.72-1.08
|
60,000
|
8.7
|
1.00
|
20,001
|
8.7
|
1.00
|
|||||||||||||
1.09-1.47
|
608,042
|
7.0
|
1.39
|
256,042
|
9.0
|
1.45
|
|||||||||||||
1.48-1.82
|
524,252
|
8.6
|
1.55
|
97,415
|
8.7
|
1.54
|
|||||||||||||
|
2,796,044
|
7.4
|
$
|
0.81
|
1,721,874
|
7.3
|
$
|
0.55
|
As
of
December 31, 2007, the aggregate intrinsic value of all stock options
outstanding and expected to vest was approximately $1.2 million and the
aggregate intrinsic value of currently exercisable stock options was
approximately $1.1 million. The Intrinsic value of each option
share is the difference between the fair market value of NeoGenomics common
stock and the exercise price of such option share to the extent it is
“in-the-money”. Aggregate Intrinsic value represents the value that
would have been received by the holders of in-the-money options had they
exercised their options on the last trading day of the year and sold the
underlying shares at the closing stock price on such day. The
intrinsic value calculation is based on the $1.08 closing stock price of
NeoGenomics Common Stock on December 31, 2007, the last trading day of
2007. The total number of in-the-money options outstanding and
exercisable as of December 31, 2007 was 1,368,417.
F-23
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
The
total
intrinsic value of options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2007
and 2006 was approximately $200,000 and $215,000,
respectively. Intrinsic value of exercised shares is the total value
of such shares on the date of exercise less the cash received from the option
holder to exercise the options. The total cash proceeds received from
the exercise of stock options was approximately $54,000 and $63,000 for the
years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The total
fair value of options granted during the years ended December 31, 2007 and
2006
was approximately $561,000 and 236,000, respectively. The total
fair value of option shares vested during the years ended December 31, 2007
and 2006 was approximately $276,000 and $91,000, respectively, before taking
into consideration cancellations and expected forfeitures for such
options.
As
of
December 31, 2007, there was approximately $312,500 of total unrecognized
stock-based compensation cost, net of expected forfeitures, related to unvested
stock options granted under the Plan. This cost is expected to be
recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.6 years.
NOTE
G –
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Operating
Leases
The
Company leases its laboratory and office facilities under non-cancelable
operating leases. These operating leases expire at various dates
through April 2012 and generally require the payment of real estate taxes,
insurance, maintenance and operating costs. In November 2007, the
Company entered into a facility lease agreement with a sub-landlord for
additional 16,125 square feet of office space at our corporate headquarters
in
Fort Myers, Florida. In addition, we maintain laboratory and office
space in Irvine California and Nashville Tennessee.
The
minimum aggregate future obligations under non-cancelable operating leases
as of
December 31, 2007 are as follows:
Years
ending December 31,
|
||||
2008
|
$
|
714,735
|
||
2009
|
732,724
|
|||
2010
|
654,430
|
|||
2011
|
325,618
|
|||
2012
|
57,140
|
|||
Total
minimum lease payments
|
$
|
2,484,647
|
for
the
years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 was $510,825 and $135,785, respectively
and is included in costs of revenues and in general and administrative expenses,
depending on the allocation of work space in each facility. Certain
of the Company’s facility leases include rent escalation clauses. The
Company normalizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the
lease for known changes in lease payments over the life of the
lease.
Capital
Leases
The
Company entered into capital lease obligations primarily related to property
and
equipment for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 with fair market value
aggregating $703,145 and $602,357, respectively. Such lease
agreements expire at various times through 2012 and the weighted average
interest rates for these leases approximated 13% at December 31, 2007. Most
of
these leases contain bargain purchase options that allow us to purchase the
leased property for a minimal amount upon the expiration of the lease
term.
F-24
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
Future
minimum lease payments under capital lease obligations are:
Years
ending December 31,
|
||||
2008
|
$
|
373,344
|
||
2009
|
373,344
|
|||
2010
|
344,728
|
|||
2011
|
211,276
|
|||
2012
|
78,507
|
|||
Total
future minimum lease payments
|
1,381,199
|
|||
Less
amount representing interest
|
(301,152
|
)
|
||
Present
value of future minimum lease payments
|
1,080,047
|
|||
Less
current maturities
|
(242,966
|
)
|
||
Obligations
under capital leases – long term
|
$
|
837,081
|
Property
and equipment covered under the lease agreements (see Note D) is pledged as
collateral to secure the performance of the future minimum lease payments
above.
Litigation
On
October 26, 2006, Accupath Diagnostics Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a US Labs, a
California corporation (“US Labs”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (the “Court”) against the
Company and Robert Gasparini, as an individual, and certain other employees
and
non-employees of NeoGenomics with respect to claims arising from discussions
with current and former employees of US Labs. On March 18, 2008, we
reached a preliminary agreement to settle US Labs’ claims (see Note
L). As a result, as of December 31, 2007 we have accrued a $375,000
loss contingency, which consists of $250,000 to provide for the Company’s
expected share of this settlement, and $125,000 to provide for the Company’s
share of the estimated legal fees up to the date of settlement.
Ongoing
SEC Review of our Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2006
As
further explained in Note I, the Company received a comment letter in connection
with its 2006 Form 10KSB. As a result, we have not yet been able to
go effective on the Registration Statement filed in connection with the June
2007 Private Placement of the Company’s common stock. This has
resulted in the Company accruing a $282,000 loss contingency as of December
31,
2007.
NOTE
H –
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
During
2007 and 2006, Steven C. Jones, a director of the Company, earned $127,950
and
$71,000, respectively, for various consulting work performed in connection
with
his duties as Acting Principal Financial Officer.
During
2007 and 2006, George O’Leary, a director of the Company, earned $9,500 and
$20,900, respectively, in cash for various consulting work performed for the
Company. On March 15, 2007, Mr. O’Leary was also awarded 100,000
warrants for certain consulting services performed on behalf of the
Company. These warrants had an exercise price of $1.49/share and a
five year term. Half of these warrants were deemed vested on issuance
and the other half vest ratably over a 24 month period. On
January 18, 2006, Mr. O’Leary was awarded 50,000 non-qualified stock options in
connection with his services to the Company related to renegotiating the Aspen
Credit Facility and closing equity financing from a disinterested third
party.
F-25
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
On
February 18, 2005, we entered into a binding agreement with Aspen Select
Healthcare, LP (formerly known as MVP 3, LP) (“Aspen”) to refinance our existing
indebtedness of $740,000 owed to Aspen and provide for additional liquidity
of
up to $760,000 to the Company. Under the terms of the agreement,
Aspen agreed to make available to us up to $1.5 million (subsequently increased
to $1.7 million, as described below) of debt financing in the form of a
revolving credit facility (the “Aspen Credit Facility”) with an initial maturity
of March 31, 2007. Aspen is managed by its General Partner, Medical
Venture Partners, LLC, which is controlled by a director of
NeoGenomics. As part of this agreement, we also agreed to issue to
Aspen a five year warrant to purchase up to 2,500,000 shares of common stock
at
an initial exercise price of $0.50/share. An amended and restated
loan agreement for the Aspen Credit Facility and other ancillary documents,
including the warrant agreement, which more formally implemented the agreements
made on February 18, 2005 were executed on March 23, 2005. All
material terms were identical to the February 18, 2005 agreement. We
incurred $53,587 of transaction expenses in connection with refinancing the
Aspen Credit Facility, which were capitalized and amortized to interest expense
over the term of the agreement. The Aspen Credit Facility was paid in
full on June 7, 2007.
We
recorded $131,337 for the value of such Warrant as of the February 18, 2005
measurement date as a discount to the face amount of the Credit
Facility. The Company is amortizing such discount to interest expense
over the 24 months of the Credit Facility. The fair value of the
warrants issued to Aspen was determined using the Black Scholes option valuation
model, based on the following factors, which were present on the measurement
date for such warrants:
Strike
price
|
$
|
0.50
|
Market
price
|
$
|
0.35
|
|||||
Term
|
5
years
|
Volatility
|
22.7
|
%
|
||||||
Risk-free
rate
|
4.50
|
%
|
Dividend
yield
|
0
|
%
|
|||||
Warrant
value
|
$
|
0.0525347
|
Number
of warrants
|
$
|
2,500
|
|||||
Total
value
|
$
|
131,337
|
In
addition, as a condition to the Aspen Credit Facility , the Company, Aspen,
and
certain individual shareholders agreed to amend and restate their shareholders’
agreement to provide that Aspen will have the right to appoint up to three
of
seven of our directors and one mutually acceptable independent
director. We also entered into an amended and restated Registration
Rights Agreement, dated March 23, 2005 with Aspen and certain individual
shareholders, which grants to Aspen certain demand registration rights (with
no
provision for liquidated damages) and which grants to all parties to the
agreement, piggyback registration rights.
On
January 18, 2006, the Company entered into a binding letter agreement (the
“Aspen Letter Agreement”) with Aspen, which provided, among other things,
that:
(a)
Aspen
waived certain pre-emptive rights in connection with the sale of $400,000 of
common stock at a purchase price of $0.20/share and the granting of 900,000
warrants with an exercise price of $0.26/share to SKL Limited Partnership,
LP
(“SKL” as more fully described below) in exchange for five year warrants to
purchase 150,000 shares at an exercise price of $0.26/share (the “Waiver
Warrants”).
(b)
Aspen
had the right, up to April 30, 2006, to purchase up to $200,000 of restricted
shares of the Company’s common stock at a purchase price per share of
$0.20/share (1,000,000 shares) and receive a five year warrant to purchase
450,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.26/share
in connection with such purchase (the “Equity Purchase Rights”). On March 14,
2006, Aspen exercised its Equity Purchase Rights.
(c)
Aspen
and the Company amended the loan agreement (the “Credit Facility Amendment”),
dated March, 2005 to extend the maturity date until September 30, 2007, and
to
modify certain covenants. In addition, Aspen had the right, until
April 30, 2006, to provide the Company up to $200,000 of additional secured
indebtedness to the Company under the Aspen Credit Facility Amendment and to
receive a five year warrant to purchase up to 450,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock with an exercise price of $0.26/share (the “New Debt
Rights”). On March 30, 2006, Aspen exercised its New Debt Rights and
entered into the definitive transaction documentation for the Credit Facility
Amendment and other such documents required under the Aspen Letter
Agreement.
F-26
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
(d)
The
Company agreed to amend and restate the Initial Warrants, dated March 23, 2005,
which more formally implemented the original agreement made on February 18,
2005
with respect to such warrants, to provide that all 2,500,000 warrant shares
were
vested and the exercise price was reset to $0.31 per share. The
difference, between the value of the warrants on the original February, 18,
2005
measurement date which was calculated using an exercise price of $0.50/share,
and their value on the January 18, 2006 modification date which was calculated
using an exercise price of $0.31/share, amounted to $2,365 and, was credited
to
additional paid-in capital and included in deferred financing fees.
(e)
The
Company agreed to amend the Registration Rights Agreement, dated March 23,
2005
(the “Registration Rights Agreement”), between the parties to incorporate the
Initial Warrants, the Waiver Warrants and any new shares or warrants issued
to
Aspen in connection with the Equity Purchase Rights or the New Debt
Rights.
(f)
All
Waiver Warrants, the Initial Warrants and all warrants issued to Aspen and
SKL
in connection with the purchase of equity or debt securities are exercisable
at
the option of the holder for a term of five years, and each such warrant
contains provisions that allow for a physical exercise, a net cash exercise
or a
net share settlement. We used the Black-Scholes pricing model to
estimate the fair value of all such warrants as of the date of issue for each,
using the following approximate assumptions: dividend yield of 0%, expected
volatility of 14.6 – 19.3% (depending on the date of agreement), risk-free
interest rate of 4.5%, and an expected term of 3 - 5 years.
The
Aspen Credit Facility was paid in full in June 2007 and it expired on September
30, 2007.
During
the period from January 18 - 21, 2006, the Company entered into agreements
with
four other shareholders who are parties to the certain Shareholders’ Agreement
dated March 23, 2005, to exchange five year warrants to purchase an aggregate
of
150,000 shares of stock at an exercise price of $0.26/share for such
shareholders’ waiver of their pre-emptive rights under the Shareholders’
Agreement.
On
January 21, 2006 the Company entered into a subscription agreement (the
“Subscription”) with SKL Family Limited Partnership, LP, a New Jersey limited
partnership, whereby SKL purchased 2.0 million shares (the “Subscription
Shares”) of the Company’s common stock at a purchase price of $0.20/share for
$400,000. Under the terms of the Subscription, the Subscription Shares are
restricted for a period of 24 months and then carry piggyback registration
rights to the extent that exemptions under Rule 144 are not available to SKL.
In
connection with the Subscription, the Company also issued a five year warrant
to
purchase 900,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of
$0.26/share. SKL has no previous affiliation with the
Company.
On
March
11, 2005, we entered into an agreement with HCSS, LLC and eTelenext, Inc. to
enable NeoGenomics to use eTelenext, Inc’s Accessioning Application, AP Anywhere
Application and CMQ Application. HCSS, LLC is a holding company
created to build a small laboratory network for the 50 small commercial genetics
laboratories in the United States. HCSS, LLC is owned 66.7% by Dr.
Michael T. Dent, our Chairman. Under the terms of the agreement, the
Company paid $22,500 over three months to customize this software and will
pay
an annual membership fee of $6,000 per year and monthly transaction fees of
between $2.50 - $10.00 per completed test, depending on the volume of tests
performed. The eTelenext system is an elaborate laboratory
information system (LIS) that is in use at many larger
laboratories. By assisting in the formation of the small laboratory
network, the Company will be able to increase the productivity of its
technologists and have on-line links to other small laboratories in the network
in order to better manage its workflow.
On
June
7, 2007, we paid Aspen Capital Advisors, LLC (“ACA”), a company affiliated with
one of our directors, a cash fee of $52,375 and issued to ACA a five year
warrant to purchase 250,000 shares of common stock in consideration for ACA’s
assistance with the June 2007 Private Placement described in Note I
below.
F-27
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
NOTE
I –
EQUITY FINANCING TRANSACTIONS
On
June
6, 2005, we entered into a Standby Equity Distribution Agreement (the
“S.E.D.A.”) with Yorkville Advisors, LLC (“Yorkville” f/k/a Cornell Capital
Partners, LP). Pursuant to the S.E.D.A., the Company could, at its
discretion, periodically sell to Yorkville shares of common stock for a total
purchase price of up to $5.0 million. On June 6, 2006 as a result of not
terminating our S.E.D.A. with Yorkville, a short-term note payable in the amount
of $50,000 became due to Yorkville and was subsequently paid in July 2006 from
the proceeds of a $53,000 advance under the S.E.D.A. On August 1,
2007, the S.E.D.A expired and we decided not to renew it.
The
following sales of common stock were made under our S.E.D.A. with Yorkville
since it was first declared effective on August 1, 2005 through its termination
date of August 1, 2007.
Request
Date
|
Completion Date
|
Shares of
Common Stock |
Gross
Proceeds |
Yorkville
Fee |
Escrow Fee
|
Net
Proceeds |
ASP(1)
|
|||||||||||||||
8/29/2005
|
9/8/2005
|
63,776
|
$
|
25,000
|
$
|
1,250
|
$
|
500
|
$
|
23,250
|
||||||||||||
12/10/2005
|
12/18/2005
|
241,779
|
50,000
|
2,500
|
500
|
47,000
|
||||||||||||||||
Subtotal
– 2005
|
305,555
|
$
|
75,000
|
$
|
3,750
|
$
|
1,000
|
$
|
70,250
|
$
|
0.25
|
|||||||||||
7/19/2006
|
7/28/2006
|
83,491
|
53,000
|
2,500
|
500
|
50,000
|
||||||||||||||||
8/8/2006
|
8/16/2006
|
279,486
|
250,000
|
12,500
|
500
|
237,000
|
||||||||||||||||
10/18/2006
|
10/23/2006
|
167,842
|
200,000
|
10,000
|
500
|
189,500
|
||||||||||||||||
Subtotal
– 2006
|
530,819
|
$
|
503,000
|
$
|
25,000
|
$
|
1,500
|
$
|
476,500
|
$
|
0.95
|
|||||||||||
12/29/2006
|
1/10/2007
|
98,522
|
150,000
|
7,500
|
500
|
142,000
|
||||||||||||||||
1/16/2007
|
1/24/2007
|
100,053
|
150,000
|
7,500
|
500
|
142,000
|
||||||||||||||||
2/1/2007
|
2/12/2007
|
65,902
|
100,000
|
5,000
|
500
|
94,500
|
||||||||||||||||
2/19/2007
|
2/28/2007
|
166,611
|
250,000
|
12,500
|
500
|
237,000
|
||||||||||||||||
2/28/2007
|
3/7/2007
|
180,963
|
250,000
|
12,500
|
500
|
237,000
|
||||||||||||||||
4/5/2007
|
4/16/2007
|
164,777
|
250,000
|
12,500
|
500
|
237,000
|
||||||||||||||||
4/20/2007
|
4/30/2007
|
173,467
|
250,000
|
12,500
|
500
|
237,000
|
||||||||||||||||
Subtotal
– 2007
|
950,295
|
$
|
1,400,000
|
$
|
70,000
|
$
|
3,500
|
$
|
1,326,500
|
$
|
1.48
|
|||||||||||
Total
Since Inception
|
1,786,
669
|
$
|
1,978,000
|
$
|
98,750
|
$
|
6,000
|
$
|
1,873,250
|
$
|
1.19
|
(1) Average
Selling Price of shares issued
In
March
2005 and January 2006, the Company entered into various agreements with Aspen
Select Healthcare, LP, as described in Note H.
During
the period from January 18 - 21, 2006, the Company entered into agreements
with
four other shareholders who are parties to that certain Shareholders’ Agreement,
dated March 23, 2005, to exchange five year warrants to purchase an aggregate
of
150,000 shares of stock at an exercise price of $0.26/share for such
shareholders’ waiver of their pre-emptive rights under the Shareholders’
Agreement.
F-28
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
On
January 21, 2006, the Company entered into a subscription agreement (the
“Subscription”) with SKL Family Limited Partnership, LP, a New Jersey limited
partnership, whereby SKL purchased 2.0 million shares (the “Subscription
Shares”) of the Company’s common stock at a purchase price of $0.20/share for
$400,000. Under the terms of the Subscription, the Subscription Shares are
restricted for a period of 24 months and then carry piggyback registration
rights to the extent that exemptions under Rule 144 are not available to SKL.
In
connection with the Subscription, the Company also issued a five year warrant
to
purchase 900,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of
$0.26/share. SKL has no previous affiliation with the
Company.
During
the period from May 31, 2007 through June 6, 2007, we sold 2,666,667 shares
of
our common stock to ten unaffiliated accredited investors at a price of $1.50
per share in a private placement of our common stock (the “Private
Placement”). The Private Placement generated gross proceeds to the
Company of $4.0 million, and after estimated transaction costs, the Company
received net cash proceeds of approximately $3.8 million. The Company
also issued warrants to purchase 98,417 shares of our Common Stock to Noble
International Investments, Inc., or Noble, in consideration for its services
as
a placement agent for the Private Placement and paid Noble a cash fee of
$147,625. Additionally, the Company issued to Aspen Capital
Advisors, LLC, or ACA, warrants
to purchase 250,000 shares
at
$1.50 per share and paid ACA a cash fee of $52,375 in consideration for ACA’s
services to the Company in connection with the Private
Placement. The Private Placement involved the issuance of the
aforementioned unregistered securities in transactions that we believed were
exempt from registration under Rule 506 promulgated under the Securities
Act. All of the aforementioned stockholders received registration
rights (“Registration Rights”) for the Private Placement shares so purchased and
we filed a registration statement on Form SB-2 on July 12, 2007 to register
these shares (the “Registration Statement”). Certain of the Investors also
purchased 1,500,000 shares and 500,000 warrants from Aspen Select Healthcare,
LP
in a separate transaction that occurred simultaneously with the Private
Placement and the Company agreed to an assignment of Aspen’s registration rights
for such shares and warrants, and those shares and warrants were included in
the
Registration Statement.
The
Registration Rights contained a provision that if the Registration Statement
was
not declared effective within 120 days of the Private Placement, we would be
responsible for partial relief of the damages resulting from a holder’s
inability to sell the shares covered by the Registration
Statement. Beginning after 120 days from the date that the Private
Placement was consummated, the Company is obligated to pay as liquidated damages
to each holder of shares covered by the Registration Statement (“Registered
Securities”) an amount equal to one half percent (0.5%) of the purchase price of
the Registered Securities for each thirty (30) day period that the Registration
Statement is not effective after the required effective date specified in the
Registration Rights Agreement. Such liquidated damages may be paid, at the
holder’s option, either in cash or shares of our Common Stock, after demand
therefore has been made.
In
August, 2007, we received a comment letter from the Accounting Staff of the
SEC
regarding certain disclosure and accounting questions with respect to our 2006
annual report filed on Form 10-KSB. In September 2007, we responded
to the SEC Staff and filed an amended Form 10-KSB/A that responded to the
matters raised by the Staff. In October 2007, we received a follow up
comment letter from the Staff that continued to question the accounting we
use
in connection with non-cash employee stock-based compensation and warrants
issued under the newly adopted SFAS 123(R). We responded to the
Staff’s October 2007 letter in March 2008, and currently anticipate resolving
all open issues by the end of April 2008 and being able to proceed with
registering the Private Placement shares in May 2008.
As
a
result of the aforementioned SEC correspondence, the Company was not able to
register the securities issued in the Private Placement within the allowed
120
period, and was thus responsible for damages. Accordingly, as of
December 31, 2007, in accordance with FASB Staff Position 00-19-2, “Accounting
for Registration Payment Arrangements” we have accrued approximately $282,000 in
penalties as liquidated damages for the period from the end of the 120 day
period through May 2008 when we expect to be able to go effective on the
Registration Statement for the Private Placement shares. Such
penalties are included in Accrued Expenses and Other Liabilities.
On
June
6, 2007, the Company issued to Lewis Asset Management (“LAM”) 500,000 shares of
Common Stock at a purchase price of $0.26 per share and received gross proceeds
of $130,000 upon the exercise by LAM of 500,000 warrants which were purchased
by
LAM from Aspen Select Healthcare, LP on that day.
On
June
7, 2007, we used part of the net proceeds of the Private Placement to pay off
the $1.7 million principal balance of the Credit Facility with Aspen, as further
discussed in Note H.
F-29
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
On
August
15, 2007 our Board of Directors voted to issue warrants to purchase 533,334
shares of our Common Stock to the investors who purchased shares in the Private
Placement. Such warrants have an exercise price of $1.50 per share
and are exercisable for a period of two years. Such warrants also
have a provision for piggyback registration rights in the first year and demand
registration rights in the second year.
NOTE
J –
POWER 3 MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.
On
April
2, 2007, we entered into an agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) with Power3
Medical Products, Inc., a New York Corporation (“Power3”) regarding the
formation of a joint venture Contract Research Organization (“CRO”) and the
issuance of convertible debentures and related securities by Power3 to us.
Power3 is an early stage company engaged in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of protein biomarkers. Under the terms of the agreement,
NeoGenomics and Power3 agreed to enter into a joint venture agreement pursuant
to which the parties will jointly own a CRO and begin commercializing Power3’s
intellectual property portfolio of seventeen patents pending by developing
diagnostic tests and other services around one or more of the more than 500
differentially expressed protein biomarkers that Power3 believes it has
discovered to date. Power3 has agreed to license all of its intellectual
property on a non-exclusive basis to the CRO for selected commercial
applications as well as provide certain management personnel. We will provide
access to cancer samples, management and sales & marketing personnel,
laboratory facilities and working capital. Subject to final negotiation, we
will
own a minimum of 60% and up to 80% of the new CRO venture which is anticipated
to be launched in 2008.
As
part
of the agreement, we provided $200,000 of working capital to Power3 by
purchasing a convertible debenture on April 17, 2007 pursuant to a Securities
Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) between us and
Power3. The debenture has a term of two years and a 6% per annum
interest rate which is payable quarterly on the last calendar day of each
quarter. We were also granted two (2) options to increase our stake
in Power3 to up to 60% of Power3’s fully diluted shares. The first
option (the “First Option”) is a fixed option to purchase convertible preferred
stock of Power3 that is convertible into such number of shares of Power3 Common
Stock, in one or more transactions, up to 20% of Power3’s voting Common Stock at
a purchase price per share, which will also equal the initial conversion price
per share, equal to the lesser of (a) $0.20 per share, or (b) $20,000,000
divided by the fully-diluted shares outstanding on the date of the exercise
of
the First Option. This First Option is exercisable for a period starting on
the
date of purchase of the convertible debenture by NeoGenomics and extending
until
the day which is the later of (y) November 16, 2007 or (z) the date that certain
milestones specified in the agreement have been achieved. As of March 31, 2008,
the milestones described in the letter agreement had not been
met. The First Option is exercisable in cash or NeoGenomics Common
Stock at our option, provided, however, that we must include at least $1.0
million of cash in the consideration if we elect to exercise this First Option.
In addition to purchasing convertible preferred stock as part of the First
Option, we are also entitled to receive such number of warrants to purchase
Power3 Common Stock that will permit us to maintain our ownership percentage
in
Power3 on a fully diluted basis. Such warrants will have a purchase
price equal to the initial conversion price of the convertible preferred stock
that was purchased pursuant to the First Option and will have a five year
term.
The
second option (the “Second Option”), which is only exercisable to the extent
that we have exercised the First Option, provides that we will have the option
to increase our stake in Power3 to up to 60% of fully diluted shares of Power3
over the twelve month period beginning on the expiration date of the First
Option in one or a series of transactions by purchasing additional convertible
preferred stock of Power3 that is convertible into voting Common Stock and
the
right to receive additional warrants. The purchase price per share, and the
initial conversion price of the Second Option convertible preferred stock will,
to the extent such Second Option is exercised within six months of exercise
of
the First Option, be the lesser of (a) $0.40 per share or (b) $40,000,000
divided by the fully diluted shares outstanding on the date of exercise of
the
Second Option. The purchase price per share, and the initial conversion price
of
the Second Option convertible preferred stock will, to the extent such Second
Option is exercised after six months, but within twelve months of exercise
of
the First Option, be the lesser of (y) $0.50 per share or (z) an equity price
per share equal to $50,000,000 divided by the fully diluted shares outstanding
on the date of any purchase. The exercise price of the Second Option may be
paid
in cash or in any combination of cash and our Common Stock at our option. In
addition to purchasing convertible preferred stock as part of the Second Option,
we are also entitled to receive such number of warrants to purchase Power3
Common Stock that will permit us to maintain our ownership percentage in Power3
on a fully diluted basis. Such warrants will have an exercise price
equal to the initial conversion price of the convertible preferred stock being
purchased on that date and will have a five year term.
F-30
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
The
purchase agreement granted us (1) a right of first refusal with respect to
future issuances of Power3 capital stock and (2) the right to appoint a member
of the Power3 board of directors so long as we own ten percent (10%) or more
of
Power3’s outstanding voting securities.
As
of
March 31, 2008, the parties were engaged in good faith negotiations to clarify
and amend certain terms of the original Letter Agreement. As these
negotiations have not yet been concluded the parties have agreed to extend
any
deadlines in the Original Agreement until such time as they reach an agreement
on a more comprehensive amendment to the original Letter Agreement or otherwise
conclude that they are unable to do so.
The
convertible debenture, since it is convertible into restricted shares of stock,
is recorded under the fair value method at its initial cost of $200,000 if
the
stock price of Power3 is less than $0.20 per share or at fair value if the
stock
price of Power3 is greater than $0.20 per share. As of December 31, 2007, the
stock price of Power3 was less than $0.20 per share so the convertible debenture
is reflected at cost.
NOTE
K –
RETIREMENT PLAN
We
maintain a defined-contribution 401(k) retirement plan covering substantially
all employees (as defined). Our employees may make voluntary contributions
to the plan, subject to limitations based on IRS regulations and
compensation. In addition, we match any employees’ contributions on a
dollar to dollar basis up to 1% of the respective employee’s
salary. We made matching contributions of approximately $23,000 and
$16, 200 during the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006,
respectively.
NOTE
L –
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
Revolving
Credit and Security Agreement
On
February 1, 2008, our operating subsidiary, NeoGenomics, Inc., a Florida Company
(“Borrower”), entered into a Revolving Credit and Security Agreement (the
“Credit Facility” or “Credit Agreement”) with CapitalSource Finance LLC (the
“Lender”) pursuant to which the Lender shall make available to us a revolving
credit facility in a maximum principal amount at any time outstanding of up
to
Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) (the “Facility Cap”). Subject to the
provisions of the Credit Agreement, the Lender shall make advances to us from
time to time during the three (3) year term following the closing date and
the
revolving Credit Facility may be drawn, repaid and redrawn from time to time
as
permitted under the Credit Agreement. Interest on outstanding advances under
the
revolving facility shall be payable monthly in arrears on the first day of
each
calendar month at an annual rate of one-month LIBOR plus 3.25% in accordance
with the terms of the Credit Agreement, subject to a LIBOR floor of
3.14%. As of March 31, 2008, the effective annual interest rate of
the Agreement was 6.39%. To secure the payment and performance in
full of the Obligations (as defined in the Credit Agreement), we granted to
the
Lender a continuing security interest in and lien upon, all rights, title and
interest in and to the Accounts (as such term is defined in the Agreement),
which primarily consist of accounts receivable. Furthermore, pursuant
to the Credit Agreement, the Parent Company guaranteed the punctual payment
when
due, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, of all
obligations of the Borrower. The Parent Company’s guaranty is a continuing
guarantee and shall remain in force and effect until the indefeasible cash
payment in full of the Guaranteed Obligations (as defined in the Credit
Agreement) and all other amounts payable under the Agreement.
US
Labs Settlement
On
March
18, 2008, we reached a preliminary agreement to settle US Labs’ claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and employees. Under the terms of the
agreement, NeoGenomics, on behalf of all defendants, will make a $250,000
payment to US Labs within thirty days and pay another $250,000 over the
remaining nine months of this year. It is expected that approximately 50% of
these payments will be covered by our insurance policies. As a result, our
fourth quarter financials include an accrual of $375,000 for this loss
contingency, of which $250,000 provides for the Company’s expected share of this
settlement and an additional $125,000 to provide for the Company’s share of the
estimated legal fees incurred in Q1 2008 up to the date of
settlement.
F-31
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS –
AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 2007 (Continued)
Employment
Contracts
On
March
12, 2008, we entered into an employment agreement with Robert Gasparini, our
President and Chief Scientific Officer, to extend his employment with the
Company for an additional four year term. This employment agreement
was retroactive to January 1, 2008 and provides that it will automatically
renew
after the initial four year term for one year increments unless either party
provides written notice to the other party of their intention to terminate
the
agreement 90 days before the end of the initial term. The employment
agreement specifies an initial base salary of $225,000/year with specified
salary increases tied to hitting revenue goals. Mr. Gasparini is also
entitled to receive cash bonuses for any given fiscal year in an amount equal
to
30% of his base salary if he meets certain targets established by the Board
of
Directors. In addition, Mr. Gasparini was granted 784,000 stock options that
have a seven year term so long as Mr. Gasparini remains an employee of the
Company. These options are scheduled to vest according to the passage
of time and the meeting of certain performance-based milestones. Mr.
Gasparini’s employment agreement also specifies that he is entitled to four
weeks of paid vacation per year and other insurance benefits. In the event
that
Mr. Gasparini is terminated without cause by the Company, the Company has agreed
to pay Mr. Gasparini’s base salary and maintain his benefits for a period
of twelve months.
END
OF
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
F-32
PART
II
INFORMATION
NOT REQUIRED IN PROSPECTUS
ITEM
13. OTHER EXPENSES OF ISSUANCE AND DISTRIBUTION
The
following table sets forth estimated expenses expected to be incurred in
connection with the issuance and distribution of the securities being
registered. The Company will pay all expenses in connection with this
offering.
Securities
and Exchange Commission Registration Fee
|
$
|
199
|
||
Printing
and Engraving Expenses
|
$
|
1,000
|
||
Accounting
Fees and Expenses
|
$
|
10,000
|
||
Legal
Fees and Expenses
|
$
|
50,000
|
||
Miscellaneous
|
$
|
3,801
|
||
TOTAL
|
$
|
65,000
|
ITEM
14. INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
Our
Articles of Incorporation eliminate liability of our directors and officers
for
breaches of fiduciary duties as directors and officers, except to the extent
otherwise required by the Nevada Revised Statutes and where the breach involves
intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of the law.
Nevada
Revised Statutes 78.750, 78.751 and 78.7502 have similar provisions that provide
for discretionary and mandatory indemnification of officers, directors,
employees, and agents of a corporation. Under these provisions, such persons
may
be indemnified by a corporation against expenses, including attorney’s fees,
judgment, fines and amounts paid in settlement, actually and reasonably incurred
by him in connection with the action, suit or proceeding, if he acted in good
faith and in a manner which he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed
to
the best interests of the corporation and with respect to any criminal action
or
proceeding had no reasonable cause to believe his conduct was
unlawful.
To
the
extent that a director, officer, employee or agent has been successful on the
merits or otherwise in defense of any action, suit or proceeding, or in defense
of any claim, issue or matter, he must be indemnified by us against expenses,
including attorney’s fees, actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection
with the defense.
Any
indemnification, unless ordered by a court or advanced by us, must be made
only
as authorized in the specific case upon a determination that indemnification
of
the director, officer, employee or agent is proper in the circumstances. The
determination must be made:
·
|
By
the stockholders;
|
·
|
By
our Board of Directors by majority vote of a quorum consisting of
directors who were not parties to that act, suit or
proceeding;
|
·
|
If
a majority vote of a quorum consisting of directors who were not
parties
to the act, suit or proceeding cannot be obtained, by independent
legal
counsel in a written opinion; or
|
·
|
If
a quorum consisting of directors who were not parties to the act,
suit or
proceeding cannot be obtained, by independent legal counsel in a
written
opinion;
|
·
|
Expenses
of officers and directors incurred in defending a civil or criminal
action, suit or proceeding must be paid by us as they are incurred
and in
advance of the final disposition of the action, suit or proceeding,
upon
receipt of an undertaking by the director or officer to repay the
amount
if it is ultimately determined by a court of competent jurisdiction
that
he is not entitled to be indemnified by
us.
|
·
|
To
the extent that a director, officer, employee or agent has been successful
on the merits or otherwise in defense of any action, suit or proceeding
referred to in subsections 1 and 2, or in defense of any claim, issue
or
matter therein, we shall indemnify him against expenses, including
attorneys’ fees, actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection
with the defense.
|
Insofar
as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act, as amended,
may be permitted to directors, officers, and controlling persons of the
registrant pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, the registrant
has been advised that in the opinion of the SEC such indemnification is against
public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is, therefore,
unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification against such
liabilities (other than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred
or
paid by a director, officer, or controlling person in the successful defense
of
any action, suit, or proceeding) is asserted by such director, officer, or
controlling person connected with the securities being registered, we will,
unless in the opinion of our counsel the matter has been settled by controlling
precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether
such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the
Securities Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such
issue.
ITEM
15. RECENT SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES
Except
as
otherwise noted, all of the following shares were issued and options and
warrants granted pursuant to the exemption provided for under Section 4(2)
of
the Securities Act as a “transaction not involving a public
offering”. No commissions were paid, and no underwriter participated,
in connection with any of these transactions. Each such issuance was made
pursuant to individual contracts which are discrete from one another and are
made only with persons who were sophisticated in such transactions and who
had
knowledge of and access to sufficient information about the Company to make
an
informed investment decision. Among this information was the fact that the
securities were restricted securities.
During
2004, we sold 3,040,000 shares of our common stock in a series of private
placements at $0.25 per share to unaffiliated third party investors. These
transactions generated net proceeds to the Company of approximately $740,000
after deducting certain transaction expenses. These transactions involved the
issuance of unregistered stock to accredited investors in transactions that
we
believed were exempt from registration under Rule 506 promulgated under the
Securities Act. All of these shares were subsequently registered on a SB-2
Registration Statement, which was declared effective by the SEC on August 1,
2005.
During
the period from January 1, 2005 to May 31, 2005, we sold 450,953 shares of
our
common stock in a series of private placements at $0.30 - $0.35/share to
unaffiliated third party investors. These transactions generated net proceeds
to
the Company of approximately $146,000. These transactions involved the issuance
of unregistered stock to accredited investors in transactions that we believed
were exempt from registration under Rule 506 promulgated under the Securities
Act. All of these shares were subsequently registered in a registration
statement on Form SB-2, which was declared effective by the SEC on August 1,
2005.
On
March
23, 2005, the Company entered into a Loan Agreement with Aspen Select
Healthcare, LP (“Aspen”)
to
provide up to $1.5 million of indebtedness pursuant to a Credit Facility. As
part of the Credit Facility transaction, the Company also issued to Aspen a
five
year warrant to purchase up to 2,500,000 shares of our common stock at an
original exercise price of $0.50 per share. Steven C. Jones, our Acting
Principal Financial Officer and a director of the Company, is a general partner
of Aspen. On January 18, 2006, the Company agreed to amend and restate this
warrant to provide that all 2,500,000 warrant shares were vested and the
exercise price per share was reset to $0.31 per share.
On
June
6, 2005, we entered into a Standby Equity Distribution Agreement (“SEDA”)
with
Cornell Capital Partners pursuant to which the Company could, at its discretion,
periodically sell to Cornell Capital Partners shares of our common stock for
a
total purchase price of up to $5.0 million. Upon execution of the Standby
Equity Distribution Agreement, Cornell received 381,888 shares of our common
stock as a commitment fee under the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement.
The
Company also issued 27,278 shares of our common stock to Spartan Securities
under a placement agent agreement relating to the Standby Equity Distribution
Agreement. On August 1, 2007, the SEDA expired and we decided not to renew
it.
On
January 18, 2006, the Company issued a warrant to Aspen to purchase 150,000
shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.26 per share. The warrant
has a five year term.
On
March
14, 2006, Aspen purchased 1,000,000 shares of our common stock for $0.20 per
share and received a warrant to purchase 450,000 shares of our common stock
at
an exercise price of $0.26 per share. The warrant has a five year
term.
Aspen
had
the right, through April 30, 2006, to provide up to $200,000 of additional
secured indebtedness to the Company and to receive a five (5) year warrant
to purchase up to 450,000 shares of our common stock with an exercise price
of
$0.26 per share (the “New
Debt Rights”). On
March 30, 2006, Aspen exercised its New Debt Rights.
During
the period from January 18 to January 21, 2006, the Company entered into
agreements with four other stockholders who are parties to a Shareholders’
Agreement dated March 23, 2005, to exchange five year warrants to purchase
an
aggregate of 150,000 shares of stock at an exercise price of $0.26 per share
for
such stockholders’ waiver of their pre-emptive rights under the Shareholders’
Agreement.
On
January 21, 2006 the Company entered into a subscription agreement (the
“Subscription”)
with
SKL Limited Family Partnership, LP (“SKL”),
whereby SKL purchased 2.0 million shares (the “Subscription
Shares”)
of our
common stock at a purchase price of $0.20 per share for $400,000. Under the
terms of the Subscription, the Subscription Shares are restricted for a period
of 24 months and then carry piggyback registration rights to the extent that
exemptions under Rule 144 are not available to SKL. In connection with the
Subscription, the Company also issued a five year warrant to purchase 900,000
shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.26 per share. SKL has
no
previous affiliation with the Company.
During
the period from May 31, 2007 through June 6, 2007, we sold 2,666,667 shares
of
our common stock to unaffiliated accredited investors (the “Investors”)
under
in a private placement (the “Private
Placement”)
at
$1.50 per share. The Private Placement generated gross proceeds to the Company
of $4 million, and after estimated transaction costs, the Company received
net
cash proceeds of $3.75 million. The Company also issued warrants to
purchase 98,417 shares of our common stock to Noble International Investments,
Inc. (“Noble”)
in
consideration for its services as exclusive placement agent under the Private
Placement. Additionally, the Company issued to Aspen warrants
to purchase 250,000 shares
at
$1.50 per share in consideration for Aspen’s services in the fund raising
process of the Private Placement. The Private Placement involved the
issuance of the aforementioned unregistered securities in transactions that
we
believed were exempt from registration under Rule 506 promulgated under the
Securities Act.
On
June
6, 2007, the Company issued to Lewis Asset Management (“LAM”)
500,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $0.26 per share and
received gross proceeds equal to $130,000 upon the exercise by LAM of warrants
which had been previously purchased from Aspen on June 6, 2007.
On
August
31, 2007 the Company issued warrants to purchase 533,334 shares of its common
stock to the investors who purchased shares in the Private Placement. Such
warrants have an exercise price of $1.50 per share and are
exercisable for a period of two years. Such warrants also have a
provision for piggyback registration rights in the first year and demand
registration right in the second year. No shares underlying are being
registered hereunder.
On
September 30, 2008, the Company issued a warrant to Gulf Pointe Capital LLC
to
purchase up to 32,475 shares of our common stock. The warrant has an exercise
price of $1.08 per share and a five year term.
On
October 10, 2008, the Company issued to Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC
(“Fusion
Capital”)
17,500
shares of our common stock as a due diligence expense reimbursement. In
addition, pursuant to the terms of a common stock purchase agreement between
the
Company and Fusion Capital, on November 5, 2008, we issued to Fusion Capital
400,000 shares of our common stock as a commitment fee.
ITEM
16. EXHIBITS
Exhibit No.
|
Description of Exhibit
|
Location
|
||
3.1
|
Articles
of Incorporation, as amended
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form SB-2 as filed
with the SEC on February 10, 1999
|
||
3.2
|
Amendment
to Articles of Incorporation filed with the Nevada Secretary of State
on
January 3, 2002
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as filed with
the SEC on May 20, 2003
|
||
3.3
|
Amendment
to Articles of Incorporation filed with the Nevada Secretary of State
on
April 11, 2003
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as filed with
the SEC on May 20, 2003
|
||
3.4
|
Amended
and Restated Bylaws, dated October 14, 2003
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB as filed
with the SEC on November 14, 2003
|
||
3.5
|
NeoGenomics,
Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB as filed
with the United States SEC on November 14, 2003
|
||
3.6
|
Amended
and Restated NeoGenomics Equity Incentive Plan, dated October 31,
2006
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the SEC on November
17,
2006
|
||
5.1
|
Opinion
of Counsel
|
Provided
herewith.
|
||
10.1
|
Loan
Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc. and Aspen Select Healthcare,
L.P.
dated March 23, 2005
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the
SEC on March 30, 2005
|
||
10.2
|
Amended
and Restated Registration Rights Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc.
and
Aspen Select Healthcare, L.P. and individuals dated March 23,
2005
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the
SEC on March 30, 2005
|
||
10.3
|
Guaranty
of NeoGenomics, Inc., dated March 23, 2005
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the
SEC on March 30, 2005
|
||
10.4
|
Stock
Pledge Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc. and Aspen Select Healthcare,
L.P., dated March 23, 2005
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the
SEC on March 30, 2005
|
||
10.5
|
Warrants
issued to Aspen Select Healthcare, L.P., dated March 23,
2005
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the
SEC on March 30, 2005
|
||
10.6
|
Security
Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc. and Aspen Select Healthcare,
L.P.,
dated March 23, 2005
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the
SEC on March 30, 2005
|
Exhibit No.
|
Description of Exhibit
|
Location
|
||
10.7
|
Amended
and Restated Shareholders’ Agreement dated March 23, 2005 among
Neogenomics, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Michael Dent, Aspen Select
Healthcare, LP, John Elliot, Steven Jones and Larry
Kuhnert
|
Provided
herewith
|
||
10.8
|
Standby
Equity Distribution Agreement with Cornell Capital Partners, L.P.
dated
June 6, 2005
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the
SEC on June 8, 2005
|
||
10.9
|
Registration
Rights Agreement with Cornell Capital Partners, L.P. related to the
Standby Equity Distribution dated June 6, 2005
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the
SEC on June 8, 2005
|
||
10.10
|
Placement
Agent Agreement with Spartan Securities Group, Ltd., related to the
Standby Equity Distribution dated June 6, 2005
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the
SEC on June 8, 2005
|
||
10.11
|
Amended
and Restated Loan Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc. and Aspen Select
Healthcare, L.P., dated March 30, 2006
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as filed with
the SEC on April 1, 2006
|
||
10.12
|
Amended
and Restated Warrant Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc. and Aspen
Select
Healthcare, L.P., dated January 21, 2006
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as filed with
the SEC on April 1, 2006
|
||
10.13
|
Amended
and Restated Security Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc. and Aspen
Select
Healthcare, L.P., dated March 30, 2006
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as filed with
the SEC on April 1, 2006
|
||
10.14
|
Registration
Rights Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc. and Aspen Select Healthcare,
L.P., dated March 30, 2006
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as filed with
the SEC on April 1, 2006
|
||
10.15
|
Warrant
Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc. and SKL Family Limited Partnership,
L.P. issued January 23, 2006
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as filed with
the SEC on April 1, 2006
|
||
10.16
|
Warrant
Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc. and Aspen Select Healthcare,
L.P.
issued March 14, 2006
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as filed with
the SEC on April 1, 2006
|
||
10.17
|
Warrant
Agreement between NeoGenomics, Inc. and Aspen Select Healthcare,
L.P.
issued March 30, 2006
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as filed with
the SEC on April 1, 2006
|
||
10.18
|
Agreement
with Power3 Medical Products, Inc. regarding the Formation of Joint
Venture & Issuance of Convertible Debenture and Related
Securities
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, as filed with
the SEC on April 2, 2007
|
Exhibit No.
|
Description of Exhibit
|
Location
|
||
10.19
|
Securities
Purchase Agreement, dated April 17, 2007, by and between NeoGenomics,
Inc.
and Power3 Medical Products, Inc.
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB, as filed
with the SEC on May 15, 2007
|
||
10.20
|
Convertible
Debenture, dated April 17, 2007, issued by Power3 Medical Products,
Inc.
to NeoGenomics, Inc. in the principal amount of $200,000
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB, as filed
with the SEC on May 15, 2007
|
||
10.21
|
Letter
Agreement, by and between NeoGenomics, Inc. and Noble International
Investments, Inc.
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form SB-2 as filed
with the SEC on July 6, 2007
|
||
10.22
|
Subscription
Documents
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form SB-2 as filed
with the SEC on July 6, 2007
|
||
10.23
|
Investor
Registration Right Agreement
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form SB-2 as filed
with the SEC on July 6, 2007
|
||
10.24
|
Credit
Agreement, dated February 1, 2008, by and between NeoGenomics, Inc.,
the
Nevada corporation, NeoGenomics, Inc., the Florida corporation, and
CapitalSource Finance LLC
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K for the SEC filed
February 7, 2008.
|
||
10.25
|
Employment
Agreement, dated March 12, 2008, between Neogenomics, Inc. and Mr.
Robert
P. Gasparini
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as filed with
the SEC on April 14, 2008
|
||
10.26
|
Employment
Agreement, dated June 24, 2008, between Neogenomics, Inc. and Mr.
Jerome
Dvonch
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008, filed August 14, 2008
|
||
10.27
|
Common
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated November 5, 2008, between Neogenomics,
Inc., a Nevada corporation, and Fusion Capital Fund II,
LLC
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008, filed November 7,
2008
|
||
10.28
|
Registration
Rights Agreement, dated November 5, 2008, between Neogenomics, Inc.,
a
Nevada corporation, and Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008, filed November 7,
2008
|
||
10.29
|
Master
Lease Agreement, dated November 5, 2008, between Neogenomics, Inc.,
a
Florida corporation, and Leasing Technologies International
Inc.
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008, filed November 7,
2008
|
||
10.30
|
Guaranty
Agreement, dated November 5, 2008, between Neogenomics, Inc., a Nevada
corporation, and Leasing Technologies International, Inc.
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008, filed November 7,
2008
|
Exhibit No.
|
Description of Exhibit
|
Location
|
||
10.31
|
First
Amendment to Revolving Credit and Security Agreement, dated November
3,
2008, among Neogenomics, Inc., a Florida corporation, Neogenomics,
Inc., a
Nevada corporation, and CapitalSource Finance LLC
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008, filed November 7,
2008
|
||
14.1
|
NeoGenomics,
Inc. Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers and the Principal
Executive Officer
|
Incorporated
by reference to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the
SEC on April 15, 2005
|
||
21.1
|
Subsidiaries
of Neogenomics, Inc., a Nevada corporation
|
Provided
herewith
|
||
23.1
|
Consent
of Kingery & Crouse, P.A.
|
Provided
herewith
|
||
23.2
|
Consent
of Burton, Bartlett & Glogovac
|
Included
in Exhibit 5.1
|
||
24.1
|
Power
of Attorney
|
Included
in the signature pages to the Registration
Statement.
|
ITEM
17. UNDERTAKINGS
The
undersigned registrant hereby undertakes:
1. To
file, during any period in which offers or sales are being made, a
post-effective amendment to this registration statement:
(a) To
include any prospectus required by Section 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act of
1933;
(b) To
reflect in the prospectus any facts or events arising after the effective date
of this registration statement (or the most recent post-effective amendment
thereof) which, individually or in the aggregate, represent a fundamental change
in the information set forth in this registration statement. Notwithstanding
the
foregoing, any increase or decrease in volume of securities offered (if the
total dollar value of securities offered would not exceed that which was
registered) and any deviation from the low or high end of the estimated maximum
offering range may be reflected in the form of prospects filed with the
Commission pursuant to Rule 424(b) if, in the aggregate, the changes in the
volume and price represent no more than a 20% change in the maximum aggregate
offering price set forth in the “Calculation of Registration Fee” table in the
effective registration statement; and
(c) To
include any material information with respect to the plan of distribution not
previously disclosed in this registration statement or any material change
to
such information in the registration statement.
2. That,
for the purpose of determining any liability under the Securities Act of 1933,
each such post-effective amendment shall be deemed to be a new registration
statement relating to the securities offered herein, and the offering of such
securities at that time shall be deemed to be the initial bona
fide
offering
thereof.
3. To
remove from registration by means of a post-effective amendment any of the
securities being registered hereby which remain unsold at the termination of
the
offering.
4. For
determining liability of the undersigned registrant under the Securities Act
of
1933 to any purchaser in the initial distribution of the securities, the
undersigned registrant undertakes that in a primary offering of securities
of
the undersigned registrant pursuant to this registration statement, regardless
of the underwriting method used to sell the securities to the purchaser, if
the
securities are offered or sold to such purchaser by means of any of the
following communications, the undersigned registrant will be a seller to the
purchaser and will be considered to offer or sell such securities to such
purchaser:
(a) Any
preliminary prospectus or prospectus of the undersigned registrant relating
to
the offering required to be filed pursuant to Rule 424 (Sec.
230.424);
(b) Any
free writing prospectus relating to the offering prepared by or on behalf of
the
undersigned registrant or used or referred to by the undersigned
registrant;
(c) The
portion of any other free writing prospectus relating to the offering containing
material information about the undersigned registrant or its securities provided
by or on behalf of the undersigned registrant; and
(d) Any
other communication that is an offer in the offering made by the undersigned
registrant to the purchaser.
Insofar
as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act of 1933
may
be permitted to directors, officers and controlling persons of the registrant
pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, the registrant has been
advised that in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission such
indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Act, and is,
therefore, unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification against
such liabilities (other than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred
or paid by a director, officer, or controlling person of the registrant in
the
successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such
director, officer, or controlling person in connection with the securities
being
registered, the registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter
has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate
jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public
policy as expressed in the Act, and will be governed by the final adjudication
of such issue.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the registrant has duly
caused this registration statement to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the city of Fort Myers, state of
Florida, on November 28, 2008.
NEOGENOMICS,
INC.
|
||
By:
|
/s/
Robert P. Gasparini
|
|
Name:
|
Robert
P. Gasparini
|
|
Title:
|
President
|
We,
the
undersigned directors and officers of Neogenomics, Inc., do hereby constitute
and appoint Robert P. Gasparini and Steven C. Jones, and each and any of them,
our true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents to do any and all acts and
things in our names and our behalf in our capacities as directors and officers
and to execute any and all instruments for us and in our name in the capacities
indicated below, which said attorneys and agents, or any of them, may deem
necessary or advisable to enable Neogenomics, Inc. to comply with the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and any rules, regulations and requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with this registration
statement, including specifically, but without limitation, any and all
amendments (including post-effective amendments) hereto, and we hereby ratify
and confirm all that said attorneys and agents, or any of them, shall do or
cause to be done by virtue thereof.
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this registration statement
has been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates
indicated.
Signatures
|
Title(s)
|
Date
|
||
/s/ Michael T. Dent
|
Chairman of the Board
|
November 28, 2008
|
||
Michael T. Dent, M.D.
|
||||
/s/ Robert P. Gasparini
|
President and Director
|
November 28, 2008
|
||
Robert P. Gasparini
|
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
|||
/s/ Steven C. Jones
|
Acting Principal Financial Officer and Director
|
November 28, 2008
|
||
Steven C. Jones
|
(Principal Financial Officer)
|
|||
/s/ Jerome J. Dvonch
|
Director of Finance
|
November 28, 2008
|
||
Jerome J. Dvonch
|
(Principal Accounting Officer)
|
|||
/s/ George G. O’Leary
|
Director
|
November 28, 2008
|
||
George G. O’Leary
|
||||
/s/ Peter M. Peterson
|
Director
|
November 28, 2008
|
||
Peter M. Peterson
|
||||
/s/ William J. Robison
|
Director
|
November 28, 2008
|
||
William J. Robison
|
||||
/s/ Marvin E. Jaffe
|
Director
|
November 28, 2008
|
||
Marvin E. Jaffe
|