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.
And I wonder who knew about the upcoming D&D revocation on the Tues the 16th.
I'll bet the SEC is wondering too.
Here's a fact for you. Mosky changed his story on Sept 16th. Three months after the revocation.
Why???????
It didn't work.
"By your logic all the filings are done...because the company "had to" file them."
D&D did file a report on his audit work. His audit work is done. But I really don't have a clue as to your point. Maybe your point is since D&D made mistakes in other audits, then ALL his work is faulty. If so, I disagree with your logic. The PCOAB didn't say this or anyway close to this absolute. His SPNG audit wasn't even an issue with the revocation personnel. Did you even read the June 16th report because the report doesn't say ALL his work was faulty???? He got nailed on the cover-up.
Not only are the depositions fact, the SEC has all the related audit workpapers. Reilly has them too."
Again an assumption, this time literally stated to be fact. You do know what a fact*** is, right?
No assumption, the SEC has this power. Not to use would be foolish on their part. I don't think they used a half-azz approach with evidence for the 16 issues. The formal investigation was over 3 months. LOL but depositions are easy for guys asking the questions, they generally have all the time in the world. It's simply a fact finding exercise and/or a confirmation process. Do you, The loanranger, believe they didn't have depositions?????? Would love to hear your reasons why the investigators skipped over this little exercise.
Do you know anyone on this board that has any FACT concerning the actions of SPNG management, what they were thinking, what they said behind closed doors and how it relates to any SEC filing?????? Could you please point them out.
An educated quess, based on actual experience in these matters, is the best you are going to get on a message board. Dude I'm sorry, but this exercise is about making solid investment choices. Without inside information, an educated guess is the best you're going to get.
I really don't get your attitude, but Thanks anyway.
Dear Loanranger
D&D had to observe inventory, whether he actually did it or hired another CPA, I don't know. If he didn't complete this audit procedure, then it would be considered an audit "scope limitation", and would need to be disclosed in his opinion letter. Nothing was disclosed in the FY 2008 audit opinion, therefore this audit procedure was done.
Not only are the depositions fact, the SEC has all the related audit workpapers. Reilly has them too.
D&D knew in advance. He didn't try to fight it at the end. This PCAOB review lasted years. He got caught lying and adjusting workpapers, after the fact, in late 2008. He was caught and they nailed him. And he knew it well in advance, at least 60 days. Maybe 90. The US agencies will always give you one last chance to make a statement or submitt evidence, before the final verdict. The "Wells" is a perfect exaqmple of this. The IRS has the same procedure, except it's a 2 part process. State CPA socities the same thing. Its SOP.
Somebody had a talk with Mosky. Maybe not Siegal, but someone did about the "retirement vs revocation" lie. A very serious admission, and soon thereafter, the formal SEC investigation started. Shazammmmmmmm
Revocation process doesn't happen overnight. D&D knew well in adavance. They didn't even try to fight the revocation.
The hiring process for a new CPA takes about 4~6 weeks. This is due to the DD required by the new CPA. This includes discussions with the prior CPA and written confirmation of such actions (another requirement of GAAS). The offical date was July 15th, which should agree with the the date of the CPA engagement letter. This also is not an overnight process.
Mosky has 4 days to notify shareholders. I believe the required 8k was dated July 28th. Not only did it make a false and misleading statement, it was way over due. Confirmation of this fact, is an easy process for the SEC. Mosky knew the day he started looking for a new CPA.
Mosky stated D&D retired, and later revised it to revocation. Any way you cut it, its false and misleading. Unless, of course, you believe "retirement vs revocation" is no big deal.
He has no "leg" to stand on, and Rosen knows this little fact. The admission of his false and misleading statement screws him. And its not a case of "He said, she said". There are 3 other parties that can confirm the real facts.
Mosky knew in May about D&D. D&D had to observe inventory at the Dicon plants on May 31st. Its a requirement of GAAS (Generally accepted auditing standards). If D&D was going to do any work on FY 09, it would be in writing (CPA engagement letter, another GAAS requirement). Why do the audit work, if he knew about the PCAOB issues. Its a simple matter of getting paid, avoiding lawsuits and professional ethics.
The SEC knows this to be a fact, based on depositions with D&D, R&H and review of PCAOB evidence files. All they need to do is ask R&H for confirmation about Mosky's first contact. Line that up with the D&D deposition and its over.
Mosky had 4 days to file the required 8k about D&D resignation and the related reasons. He lied about this information 8 weeks later (50 days late), and corrected himself on Sept 16th (105 days Late). This admission of his lie, is based on advice from the much heralded SEC attorney Siegal IMO. The admission of his lie is what it is.
During this period, there were two dumps. Black Friday and Sept 1st 10k release date. In addition, professional pumpers were hired. Rosen will kill him on this lack of disclosure. It'll be Mosky's word against the depositions of D&D, R&H and the PCAOB files. The Sept 16th admission of the lie is the killer.
He's done. JMHO, but Helloooooooo Rosen.
IMO this is exactly the SEC problem regarding the Accounting issues (one of many, I'm sure), and the reason why Rielly was retained. Mosky makes note of this in the 2008 10k, but as usual, its clear as mud.
Breaking News - SpongeTech®'s "Stocking Stuffer" is a Perfect Gift for the Holidays
Why is this still running on the SPNG website??????
How about "Breaking News - Mosky Puts down the wine bottle and issues a shareholder letter outlining the unaudited Balance Sheets and Income Statements for the past 12 months"
We get more SPNG financial information from MSG, then we get from the M&M boys.
But being 200 days late on the 10K, is NOT TERRIBLY DAMAGING for SpongeTech AND HIS SHAREHOLDERS?
To go thru this legal exercise, they must have a REALLLLLL problem. Buying time, in exchange for legal fees.
Thats EXACTLY what it means. A Cash shortage
"you imply, by definition,"
What the hell does this mean??????
So if a current Balance Sheet is proven to be accurate, then all Prior year balance Sheets must also be accurate too, including the income statements. Is this what you are saying Reginno????
=========================================================
The $11.0 Million net income was never FORMALLY stated. The 10k extension doesn't mean chit. A Formally (Your words, not mine) stated net income should include a Balance Sheet and the related income statement. The only "formally" thing the shareholders have gotten is "horeschit". And of course. this "horsechit" to subject to audit.
"Subject to audit" means the audit is not over. So you use of "FORMALLY" is a joke.
===========================================================
Never said Mosky "cooked the books". But I will say Mosky's professional accounting background is, at best, very very weak, and thus very dangerous. Mosky never worked for an major accounting firm, never conducted an audit, is not a CPA, never work for in an accounting department under a professional accountant and doesn't know GAAP from his azz. And no clue about GAAS. He's a professional stock promoter. Some of the 10k disclosures were hilarious. He doesn't even know the basic accounting concept of "matching revenues with expenses". And he freely admitted this in the 10k and that the financial statements could not be relied on to make future projections. LOLOLOLOLOL How D&D allowed this is beyond me.
Clearly you don't understand accounting year "cut-offs" and their effects on the Retained Earnings. The pro-forma Balance Sheet will adjust the SPNG BS, to reflect Dicon transaction, and this proforma BS now become the beginning SPNG Balance Sheet for FY 2010. Unless the auditor feels it not material. Which it could be, but I doubt it.
==============================================================
Nine months ending Feb 2010 income I have never discussed. The 12 months ending Feb 2010, YES. And during this 1 year period, I believe the increase in the published (Formal, if you like) Feb 2009 Retained earnings will be $0, due to facts and circumstamnces outlined earlier. Which I think is Positive.
Regarding the $6.1 million in losses for the 9 months ending Feb. 2010, how can this be considered "very positive" for a company that has been claiming $70 million per quarter in orders, and which you would agree on since you have agreed on SPNG historical financials filed with the SEC.
What the company claimed and what actually happen are two different things. Thats why they have auditors. All I see is the FORMAL (You words, not mine) Balance Sheet as of Feb 2009. Everything else, I need to see a FORMAL (Your words, not mine) numbers in some sort of filing. I'll even take an unaudited Balance Sheet and income Statement, at this point.
You could be right. R&H could have used the Whistleblowing regs of SOX. But to much time has gone by, news would have leaked out.
BTW I really enjoy your posts. I really have a lot faith in your thoughts and opinions. Thanks
I believe the "fake customer" issue is bogus. And I'm basing this on the actions of R&H. They would have resigned, in the face of senior management fraud, and reported this fraud to the SEC.
I think they have very serious cash flows problems. This is based on the "cash-flow" needs of a typical manufacturing company. The need for an outside financing source is Job#1. They have no meanful banking relationship according to the filings and PRs. The demands for financing the accounting production cycle, related FG and the subsequent AR collection process (and the Big Boxes are a pain in the azz) is a serious accounting problem that can only be overcome with a adquate financing package. Look at P&G, they have a 40 billion financing package to support 80 billion in revenue. (If memory serves me right, maybe 32 Mil). Spng's Cash-Flow cycle is a least 90-120 days long. Which means if they are going to do $300 million, they need at least a $100 million financing package.
Based on present facts and circumstances, finding a joint venture/buy-out partner is Mosky's only option. One of the PC Limited Partners could be this entity. But you never know how they feel about shareholders. Mosky sure as hell doesn't care.
But you could be right on the bogus customers, who the hell knows. Thats why I'm on the sidelines waiting for $.06, the filings and a new management team. LOLOLOLOL but for those keeping score, I still own a few shares.
HH, I reviewed the 10Q again.
IMO, at least $10 to 15 MIllion was transfered between Dicon and SPNG from Mar 1st to July 9th. This relationship was disclosed by Mosky in the 10Q. Its a "oral" agreement.
The Feb 2009 BS indicates "Deposits on Inventory production" was $2,825,037. This inventory production would have to be observed and various auditing procedures done on May 31st, 2009 (per GAAS). Maybe a day before or after, but in either case, a real live CPA would have to be present at the Dicon production/wharehouse facilities to perform auditing procedures on this WIP/FG inventory on May 31st. This wasn't done, and thus R&H have a "scope limitation". R&H has to roll back the June and July intercompany inventory activity, to arrive at a reasonable May 31st Inventory balance. Throw in the requirements of SFAS 165 and 141, the scope limitation, the Dicon purchase and you have a real auditing nightmare.
But what the real problem is, the need for a 250K LC on July 9th to help finance Dicon activities. What the hell happen to the $10 to 15 Million that was advanced since Feb 28th. IMO this is what MOSKY is hiding. The Dicon fick-up, and the resulting write-off.
Thus the reason for a 2nd opinion, via the D&T interview. process.
Everything you've said just reinforces what I've observed over the years. Namely, that when the acquisition is a subsequent event, it certainly needs to be disclosed and footnoted, though doing anything beyond preparing froforma financial statements showing the effect of the business combination is not necessary.
See my post concerning SFAS # 165 and 141
How do you know there's an intercompany inventory advance?
Feb 2009 10Q "Inventory Advanace" on BS and the related "handshake agreement" disclosure.
Dicon was a subsidiary of H.H. Brown which, in turn, is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.
Buffert sold Dicon in 2007. New management.
As you know, auditors have a huge amount of discretion when it comes to matters like inventory valuations (and related allowance accounts), accounts receivable (and related allowance accounts), whether stock option grants are expensed or not (per SFAS 123 - SPNG doesn't expense the stock option grants given to Moskowitz and Metter), the estimate of off-balance sheet liabilities (such as contingencies for lawsuits, which are huge in SPNG's case).
Yes auditors deal with estimates all the time. Thats the main reason for audits, judging the reasonableness and accurcy of management's estimates at a particular "cut-off date" (generally year-end).
The expensing for of the stock compensation package should be done over a 3 year period for GAAP. The 10q lacks this disclosure (I think). For personal taxes (M&M) it would be "constructive reciept". Again, I see NO stock options HH, therefore your point is invalid IMO.
The Burlington Northern acquisition has a $70 billion price tag. So yeah, it's material. The only reason I mentioned it, however, was just to draw attention to the fact that despite the complexity of the accounting issues involved, that $70 billion acquisition will be incorporated into Berkshire Hatahway's financial statements like clockwork, as you'd expect from someone like Buffett.
$70 billion is a lot of money, but its not the key issue regarding materiality. The key issue is the effect on BH financial statements taken as a whole. So $100 could be material to somebody's BS, but $70 billion could be completely IMMATERIAL to another BS. Its all relative.
By comparison, absolutely. But we are not coparing Dicon's BS to Berk Hat. BS. We are comparing it to the SPNG Balance Sheet.
Its been awhile since I read the 2008K and Feb 10q, so cut me some slack here. I may have missed a disclosure or two. But I don't think so.
Again, you have no clue. Most restatements are due to subsequent events occuring after the issuance of the Annual Report/10k. Examples would be; liability accruals for ongoing litigation matters that were settled for different amounts, customers filing for bankruptcy; employee fraud; a death of a key employee; reserve accurals by banks and insurance companies etc etc. Estimates are widely used in the preparation of financial statements. Sometimes these estimates are wrong, and financial statements need to be restated. Very common situation and is not cause for resignation by the new/current CPA. Chit happens sometimes, and the CPA deals with it via restatements/prior period adjustments.
Not fraud by senior management, unless of course, senior management is replaced.
Once an auditor discovers senior management fraud, with no Audit Committee in place, he's resigning (and he has ONE day to report the fraud to the SEC).
Its a simple matter of the auditor not being able to trust senior management about anything. Mosky is the CFO, bookkeeper and chief bottlewasher.
And R&H has NOT resigned. Now you could make a case for the SOX whistleblowing regs and the related protection, but that would be unusual.
When you state that the Feb. 2009 Balance Sheet is accurate, as you have, you imply, by definition, that the May 31, 2008 Balance Sheet and the Income and Cash Flow Statements for the 9 months ending Feb. 2009 are also accurate. There is no way around this.
You have no clue, NONE.
The $11 million figure is a Net Profit figure as formally stated by SPNG in this SEC filing and not a pre-tax figure as you are falsely claiming:
I disagree. The "year-over-year" increase in Retained Earnings will NOT be $11.0 million
Furthermore, after believing that the Feb. 2009 Balance Sheet (and therefore 9 month Income and Cash Flow Statements) is accurate, are you now claiming that Moskowitz somehow "cooked the books" to arrive at the $11 million net profit for the year ending May 31, 2009? In addition, the Dicon acquisition closed on July 9, 2009, so its financials are not included in the Income Statement figure for the year ending May 31, 2009.
Your premise is wrong, therefore your statement is completely false. See my SFAS 165 post.
Again, what you are claiming here is that SPNG had a Net Loss for the 9 months ending Feb. 2010 of $6.1 million, as I stated in my previous posted message
An educated guess, based on the facts and circumstances. And these "facts and circumstances" are very real. LOLOL but I view this as being very positive, concerning the current "chit-storm". If SPNG could end up with the same Retained Earnings on Mar 1st, 2010, as Feb 2009, it would be wonderful news to SPNG shareholders.
I didn't see any "stock option grants" disclosed in 10k.
What I did see was a 3 year salary compensation package (I think 6 or 8 million shares for July 2008 to 2011). But no stock options.
I disagree on the law firm deal. But its been a while since I reviewed that 10k/10q.
Dude its all about Dicon and the "inventory advance" account. The #1 auditing issue, and its not even close.
SFAS 165 "Subseqent Events
Nonrecognized Subsequent Events
13. Some nonrecognized subsequent events may be of such a nature that they
must be disclosed to keep the financial statements from being misleading. For such
events, an entity shall disclose the following:
a. The nature of the event
b. An estimate of its financial effect, or a statement that such an estimate
cannot be made.
14. An entity also shall consider supplementing the historical financial statements with
pro forma financial data. Occasionally, a nonrecognized subsequent event may be so
significant that disclosure can best be made by means of pro forma financial data. Such
data shall give effect to the event as if it had occurred on the balance sheet date. In some
situations, an entity also shall consider presenting pro forma statements, usually a
balance sheet only, in columnar form on the face of the historical statements
The BH Vs Burl North is a poor example, because this GAAP is based on "Does it happen an material effect on the FS, taken as a whole". Burl Northern may not have a material effect on Berk Hath. It's all relative. FASB 141 "Business Combinations" is another GAAP source on "Subsequent events".
Agree on the effect on R&H, concerning D&T, BUT disagree 100% on the "cut them any slack". In the post-SOX era, its a whole new ballgame in CPA/client relationships.
The intercompany "inventory advance" between Dicon and SPNG is an auditing nightmare. You should know this, if you have any auditing experience.
CfromG, the one thing their auditors are required to do... is report any fraud they find to the SEC, which they did.
When did they report fraud to the SEC "OldTymer"????
LOLOLOL Senior Management Fraud Reg!!!!!!!!!
Where do they go to report the fraud?????? The SPNG Audit Committee????
You simply do not know the process when fraud is uncovered. Research the SOX reglutions concerning Audit Committees. SPNG has no independent Audit Committee. You don't have a clue.
Past my 15 posts
OT When did they report the fraud to the SEC??????
So you are saying "False and misleading" = MANAGEMENT FRAUD
Nice pick-up Karm. A wonderful question. I just have a feeling the transfer of funds is somehow working its way back to SPNG bank accounts. If you review the early days of SPNG it might give you a clue of what I'm thinking. The pattern of Stock purchases might make sense if you look at it from a different angle.
Just a feeling based on, why would the limited partners pay the Daily High PPS, when they could just as easy gotten lower PPS if they played the game on a daily basis? They could just as easily driven the price down too (by selling a little bit and filing)and bought back at lower prices. Why the inconsistent buying pattern at a high PPS?
And I'll leave it at that.
Again you need to read slowly Reginoo. Never said "have TO resign". This phase would indicate that R&H would be FORCED to resign. No one is forcing them to do anything.
Their resignation is strictly by their own free will. If they found fraud they "WOULD HAVE resigned by now."
They have no duty whatsoever to restate or be involved with Fraudulent FS reported on by another CPA. What you HAVE TO think about is the following question facing a CPA in this situation. "well if there's fraud in the revenue accounting cycle (fake customers), could there also be fraud in the payment cycle, production cycle, inventory valuation and whatever?????? Absolutely YES, therefore he can't rely on anything the client gives him.
And on a side note, whose going to pay him?????? The client who committed the fraud???? LOLOL Yeah Mosky will pay him to undercover the complete and total fraud that will send him to jail. These guys do want to get paid and avoid lawsuits. Your line of thinking presents a "NO WIN" situation for the CPA.
BTW auditors don't submitt FS to anyone. Management does.
Incorrect. The accuracy of the income statement is based on the accuracy of the Beginning and Ending balance sheets. So one would have to verify the beginning Balance sheet also. (BTW thats why R&H started the 2008 Balance Sheet audit in July, not Sept 15th)
The $11 million is a huge mis-direction by Mosky IMO. First it's "pre-tax", 2nd it gives the impression the Retained Earnings will increase by this amount and 3rd, it doesn't take into account a material subsequent event, the Dicon Balance Sheet purchase and the related inventory problems and 4th, liability accurals associated with the various lawsuits. LOL but I'm sure Mosky manual "one-write" accounting system backs this $11M.
Thats why I mentioned the one year period of Mar 1st 2009 to Feb 28th 2010. This period will result in $0 net income, thus the Feb 2010 RE will be, as you state, $2.5 million. By looking at SPNG this way, the reader of the FS can eliminate the various accounting "cut-off" problems. For example, for what period do you expense the legal fees associated with the SEC investigation.
The reasons for the $0 are as follows: 1. the Dicon write down, 2. the costs associated with the lawsuits, 3. increase in payroll, 4. G&A costs 5. income taxes and whatever (BTW the income tax situation facing SPNG is interesting, to say the least). The SPNG of today is much different than the SPNG 12 months ago. Oh yeah., the cost of the SEC investigation.
I hope not as silly as you. Never said "has to resign".
First and foremost their duty is to their families and to the firm itself. They have no duty to restate ANOTHER CPA's work product. NONE
If they have issued an opinion on a prior audit, then you have a point. "Nasilli vs US" covers this issue very well.
R&H could, in fact, filed for protection under the Whistleblowing section of SOX, but I doubt it. A CPA firm can resign anytime they want and the SEC has a procedure for this action.
Yes I do read that stuff.
One of the problems is, as you progress in your analysis of SPNG certain windows close. For example, the 10k by itself is meaningless (except for the OS and a few other things), unless the 1st and 2nd 10Qs are filed at the same time. That window has closed. Now its the 10k plus the 1st, 2nd AND 3rd Qtr 10Qs. So the 4/30 date may be it. But I don't really know.
I'm sure Mosky had a game plan on Aug 15th, but the SEC really f'icked things up for him. IMO he's not releasing until he can paint a pretty picture. My guess - 09/01/10
My only hope is a new management team, headed by the Dicon guy, is making that call.
IMO Dicon is the "dirty little secret" that Mosky is hiding from the shareholders. It started in late April, intensified in May and ended on July 9th. At a cost of $12-15 Million. All because of the SPNG/Dicon "handshake agreement". Just an opinion.
Under GAAP the Dicon Balance Sheet, as of July 9th, must be included in the consolidated May 31st, 2009 balance sheet of SPNG. It's the number one issue concerning the audit, and is the reason why 4 major accounting firms were interviewed shortly after R&H was retained. Pretty unusual to hire R&H and then start interviewing weeks later. Mosky just wanted a 2nd opinion.
The "smoking gun" in the Dicon purchase was the need for a $250,000 LC. As of Feb 28th, the Spng/Dicon inventory advance was $2.9 million, and based on the revenue/sales projects for the next six months, SPNG could have advanced $10 -20 million more to Dicon by July 9th. Thus why the need for a 250K LC? Because the Dicon parent drained the bank accounts before the purchase and could have been on the verge of bankruptcy. A little strange how fast this deal went down. And the banks reaction (Buffets favorite bank, owner of Wachoiva) was strange too. (Wells Fargo, I think)
In addition, observation of year-end inventory (WIP and FG) was impossible. Thus making for a auditing nightmare for R&H. This scope limitation will be clearly stated in the R&H audit opinion.
I think Taidone (or whatever) is one of limited partners bossing Pike around.
Yeah but Mr Daniel Pike disclaims ownership in SPNG. The limited partners of Pike Capital are the shareholders of SPNG. And no one knows who these limited partners are and what country they're from.
Mr Daniel Pike is taking orders from the limited partners, and as such, receives a fee for his services as the general partner. Nice work, if you can get it.
Fully disclosed by the Pike Capital CFO, Mr Kevin Arps. Footnote #3
Then you know R&H would have addressed this fraudulent customer/AR issue in their auditing procedures. This is public knowledge, and clearly stated in the SEC Sept investigation letter.
Extending AR auditing procedures beyond the normal confirmations and subsequent cash receipts is highly unusual, but sometimes necessary. It's clearly necessary in regard to SPNG, due to the public disclosures and the SEC involvement.
It appears you are questioning the professionalism of R&H. They know exactly what they are doing. You should know this for a fact, having participated in a GAAP audit, based on GAAS.
You need to be more careful Blue. Just read my posts slowly.
I'm looking for $.06, the filings and a new management team. Looking for all 3, but maybe 2 out of 3 is a consideration.
Risk/Reward is an individual matter. Everyone is different.
HH, you ever conducted, or been involved with, a GAAP audit, based on GAAS (generally accepted auditing standards)?????
R&H are waiting for the lawyers to sign-off on the 10K. First the lawyers sign-off, then the CPAs. SOP for every audit.
Thanks, but I think the buying by the limited partners of Pike are indication of serious SPNG "cash flow" problems.
But it will play out soon enough. GL
CYRXorbust
The Wells is about two things. The SPNG Balance Sheet and the actions of M&M. Some of their actions effected the SPNG Balance Sheet, but not all. I believe most of their actions effected their own personal finances. For the shareholder, the only thing that matters is the SPNG Balance Sheet. R&H has all the details concerning these SEC violations. They are prohibited from helping mamagement with these issues, but can resign at anytime. As of today, they have not resigned. This is the "good sign".
The SEC investigators have all of R&H workpapers and at least one deposition. IMO the Feb 2009 AR and Revenues are good numbers, if not, R&H would have resigned by now. Their extended auditing procedures would have discovered this fraudulent accounting and this SEC investigation just confirms their auditing work.
IMO the SEC violations concerning GAAP violations center around three major issues: 1) The relationship of RME and SPNG, 2) No Audit Committee, and 3)unrecorded liabilities related to the "unpaid employees" and other costs incurred outside the SPNG consolidated entities. In other words, M&M are playing games between the various business operations they control.
JMO but thats why D&T wasn't going to start until May 2010. They told Mosky to clean up the intercompany BS, get a real Audit Committee, hire an accounting professional and then they would conduct an audit. I believe Rielly is looking at this issue and it might be "Job #1" for him.
Just an opinion of a shareholder.
From Feb 2009 to Feb 2010, a one year period, I believe the bottom line is $0.
Duly noted. No retraction.
If you mean "was I sitting at the table" or "listening on the telphone" when the lead investigator said "We're done Mosky. We have everything we need. Is there any final thoughts, comments or issues you wish to raise at this point, because we are packing up and going home"? If Mosky had nothing more to add, the investigator would have stated "Then it's the Wells".
And a confirmation letter would have been sent ASAP.
I wasn't there. Sorry