interesting comments, page-28

Third attempt bignote

"also I do think it should be the protocol for NEO to orovide the same info as GGP "

Well you could argue that. In a way it would have been appreciated if NEO had made some comment.
But again the main thrust of this announcement was to explain to GGP shareholders what the company had done and why with respect to the raising of funds via a share placement.
That issue has nothing to do with NEO.

Certainly the update on where things were at with testing and production so far should have been made available to shareholders in the other companies.
However the history has been that GGP has produced all announcements (as the Operator) using its letter head and then duplicated that same release for NEO and MDA without any attempt by those companies to show their letter heads on the announcements.

In this instance it must have decided that the announcement did not concern NEO and MDA shareholders as its primary thrust was to comment about the share placement.
Regretable and disappointing I agree