Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Not sure, but per the 10kNT it was 10.2 million, before NOL carryforward of roughly 2.5M (a guess, but the NOL is close to this number)
And that tax return would show the 2008 and 2009 balance sheets and the 2009 income statement. I wonder if the SEC has a copy.
SPNG Income Taxes - Due Feb 15th.
I wonder if the IRS, States and Locals were paid. It appears cash flow was very tight around this time.
Absolutely they are, but they had 15 million invested when the "crap hit the fan". They have tried all their "mini" pumps and cash transfers to SPNG, but nothing has worked.
Joining Rosen is a "no-brainer". Wouldn't you OT????
I agree on "its a lot", but I have no doubt "its all good".
You misunderstood, Pike has played this two ways. Buying SPNG shares and buying Rosen. And Rosen is a very cheap way to go, under the circumstances. Pike is playing both ends. If it gets to Rosen, its an easy "play" for Pike and Rosen to "cut a deal".
OT you have it all wrong. The "new auditor", Mr Rielly will take the blame for this little mistake. All his fault I'm sure.
Pike, via Rosen and the boys. He has his butt covered two ways.
So there's a direct connection between the POST owners and/or editors and Patch/Timmy/JanesandJohns.
Could you give me the para # in the lawsuit making that connection.
Also didn't Heller/SNPG state The Post had certain facts correctly stated?????? Do you have a % on correctly stated facts and the inaccurate ones?????
There are lawsuits, an SEC investigation, A Wells Notice, bounced checks, questionable customer websites, weird foriegn addresses etc etc etc. And the SEC investigation started well before first POST story. SOP for the SEC to conduct an "informal investigation" before the first one.
Whats a jury to think?????? That M&M were Boy Scouts!!!!!!
Mr Mosky told me directly.
If that meets your definition of "inside connection", then most definitely YES I have an "inside connection".
And what re audits are you talking about????
And the reason he was retained as the "Internal Consultant"?????
Only 4 months and still no 10K. WOW
That's why I doubt he's not around anymore. WHAT, MAYBE he goes in everyday and looks at the same books and records and continues to check over his own "consulting" workpapers supporting the 10K every day, day after day after day. Nice work if you can get it.
providing auditing work for E&Y clients, not SPNG. Doing a hell'va job too. 4 months and still no 10k
Are you sure he wasn't retained to help out with the Wells Notice Mess????
Mr R is not a new auditor. He's working under the direction of Mr Mosky. Hardly independent. And he's doing what he is told by SPNG management. And nothing more.
I wonder if he's still around. I doubt it, with all the current problems.
And if he is, he's doing a "Bang-up" job. Only 4 months and still no 10K.
WOW and I thought the SEC had to be notified via an 8k. Never heard of TWO different auditors auditing the same books and records. This is taking the auditing requirement of INDEPENDENCE to a whole new level.
And the new auditing firm's NAME?????
Whose the new "competent auditor"???? Did R&H get replaced?????
Interesting that SPNG made a change. Maybe STOX was correct.
Please defined "settled".
Nice post!!!! Connecting Patch, Timmy and Terry to the NY Post will be impossible. At the very least, 90% of the NY Post's accounts are accurate.
Put M&M on the stand to explain the Wells Notice, and the POST (and their deep pockets) WALK.
Thanks Ranger. Beginning cash is the same as ending cash. Thats why the Cash Flow statement says "for the year ended May 31st, 20xx, and not "year beginning June 1st 20xx". Read the whole statement carefully, the term "year beginning" is never used in FS preparation, unless its a period of less than one year (usually start-ups).
In addition, auditors may have to go back post-2007 years to establish values and costs associated with "intangible assets" and "depreciation schedules", for example.
One of the biggest problems facing the SPNG auditor is going back and identifing the "unrecorded Liablities" associated with family and friends providing services for free. No one works for free, and it simply violates the "matching concept" and "arms-length transactions" requirements of GAAP. Deals were "cut", and those deals need to be accounted for and properly disclosed in the year in which they occured. Unless, of course, you think people work for free.
They have to go back to prior years to do a complete audit on the 2009 10k. And thats why #28 is a joke.
Sorry Ranger at 15. But the bottom line is, RH has to audit 2 Income and Cash Flow Statements, but 3 Balance Sheets. Word it any way you want.
Ranger your points are way off base.
2. There is no requirement at this point to file a new set of statements for 2008.
3. No financial statements for 2008 will be filed unless the re-audit results in a need to adjust and restate the 2008 audited results. Hence, there would be no need to re-audit the y/e 5/31/07 financial statements.
What do you think is in the 2009 10K? The 2009 and 2008 financial statements. And they have to be audited by a new auditor. You are aware that the 2009 10k is a comparative set of financial statements.
In order to accurately state a 2009 10K, the auditor has to audit the 2007 Balance Sheet. This 2007 Balance Sheet is needed to prove the accuracy of the 2008 Income and Cash Flow statements.
Need proof of this Fact!!!!! Just review any 2009 set of audited financial statements and look at the Cash Flow statement for the comparative 2008 year. See "begining cash", thats from the 2007 Balance Sheet. And thats just ONE example of how the 2007 Balance Sheet plays a part in the 2009 10K.
The magical starting point is the May 31, 2007 Balance Sheet. An auditor has to audit these amounts. Why? Because it provides for the accuracy of the 2008 Income and Cash Flow statements. Without auditing the 2007 Balance Sheet an auditor can not issued an opinion on 2008 Income and Cash Flow statements, other than "no opinion". And "no opinions" are unacceptable to the SEC, under these circumstances.
In addition, auditors may have to go back post-2007 years to establish values and costs associated with "intangible assets" and "depreciation schedules", for example.
One of the biggest problems facing the auditor is going back and identifing the "unrecorded Liablities" associated with family and friends providing services for free. No one works for free, and it simply violates the "matching concept" and "arms-length transactions" requirements of GAAP. Deals were "cut", and those deals need to be accounted for and properly disclosed in the year in which they occured. Unless, of course, you think people work for free.
Thats why #28 is a joke.
And in order to audit 08-09, the auditor needs 2007 numbers. And for sure go back to 2006, and before, to establish certain correct and accurate Balance Sheet information.
Metter will be laughed out of court on issue #28.
As an auditor you should know this Ckirby. About as basic as you can get.
The auditor had to, at the least, audit two years (2007 and 2008) to establish 2008 numbers. #28 is a joke, because she just read Metters own words and reported as such.
But SEC ask for the 2008 Income and Cash flow statements. An auditor has to go back to 2007 to establish the accuracy of these statements.
The 2007 Balance Sheet is a LOCK. In addition, parts of 2001 ~ 2006 will also have a bearing on the 2008 numbers. Auditors have to go back to establish various values.
GAAP requires it. Kaja was correct in her statement.
The heck if they didn't. The 2008 numbers had to be re-audited and 2007 plays a major part of that year. Basic accounting.
And #28 is, in fact, suing Kaja because she read Metter own words concerning the SEC letter, and reported as such.
And 2007 has a significant bearing on 2008. Basic accounting.
And all this auditing work was the reason for the HUGE delay. Per Mosky - "working overtime to get done", hiring consultants, and whatever.
Rosen will have a field day with #28
"Any year" means the 10ks would have to be reissued for 2007 (covering 2007 and 2006), 2005 (covering 2005 and 2004), 2003 and so on.
#28 seems to confirm a lie about the late release of the audited 2009 10K. The 8K issued on 9/16 and #28 say different things. And the stock promoters really ran with this in Sept 2009. #28 and the 8k can’t both be correctly stated.
8k “the Company would be required to have its financial statements re-audited by a PCAOB-registered firm for any year previously audited by Drakeford in order for the Company to include such financial statements in its future filings with the SEC”
#28 “only 2008”
Look for the 10K on Friday. And the defendants will be blamed.
Nice cover-up Mosky
It will be turned into a very public, SHAREHOLDERS Meeting.
Opens all the books and records, including SEC interviews with R&H, D&T and D&D.
Everything will be on the table.
Jane Doe/John Doe will be identified by the defendants via depositions. Could be 10, could be 50.
As stated earlier, they want the revocation to happen. Thats why the retail shareholders hear nothing from management.
What happen the the $10-20 Million that SPNG advance Dicon from March 1st to July 9th???? For inventory production "1jk1". A little strange that a $250,000 LC was necessary. What happen to all the "advance cash for inventory production"????????
A very valid question.
So to "stand by an unknown number" means nothing and is, in fact, insulting the the retail investor.
"Yes we (I) stand by our numbers" is complete and utter BS.
The question I have is "What are their numbers?????"