Tampa, there is evidence. Quite a bit of it.
Example, Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 will require an auidtor to make an assessment of the company's internal control. There is sufficent evidence based on the COSO Framework to concluded that Grifco poses a high degree of risk because of their sever lack of institutional control. Grifco lends itself to an environment where fradulent activity can occur rather easily. At least in the eyse of the Auditor, SEC, or any professional making a risk assessment of Grifco this is quite obvious.
One evidence would be the fact that Jim Dial is the Board of Director, CEO, president which means the company lacks institutional oversight. Simply, if Jim Dial wants to engage in fradulaent activity (he already has IMO), it would make it very easy for him to do so due to a lack of oversight.
There are many evidences that will show the pervasiveness of Grifco's lack of institutional control. Any competent Auditor will come to the same conclusion and would give Grifco an Adverse opinion. They wouldn't even have to dig deep. In fact, some reputable public auditing firms will probably even turned down the engagement to Audit Grifco. This IMO Grifco had to hire a small no-name company out of New York. Firms with a reputation won't touch Grifco IMO.
Also from a common sense standpoint, if there is somethimg positive about the company wouldn't think they would eagerly release the information? Isn't that what a reasonable person would do? Can you give any other reason why Grifco
won't release the financials?
won't follow up on their 3/2005 revenue forecast?
Suppress the results of an audit when they said pre-audit they will release the information?
Work so hard at guarding the share count?
Won't file a 14A?
Pursue a new high risk venture from scratch when everything is going so well?
Keep the investors in the dark about anything concrete?
Come on, how many more evidence do you need?
