h,
"Would the may 09 financials be correct if the previous (re-audited) ones were incorrect, or do these things work on a continuing basis?"
It's kind of a trick question. The only filing requiring re-audit is the 2008 10K, as you know. The SEC didn't want to see those numbers as comparison numbers on the 2009 10K without being reviewed first.
The 2009 10Q's were never audited, so they don't need a review in the SEC's eyes. And the 2008 10Q's were never audited either, so the comparables are no concern.
But you're right in that there must be continuity into the 2009 statements from the 2008 balance sheet.
Here's what I find interesting. In the event that Robison has completed the 2008 re-audit, and from a workload standpoint they sure should have, and they determined that Drakeford's work was acceptable (don't say it!), then there would be absolutely nothing precluding the company from publishing that fact. In fact, it could be argued that an 8-K to that effect would be required under the circumstances.
On the other hand, any changes that Robison deems necessary to the 2008 year end balance sheet would carry forward, having a domino like effect through the 2009 10Q's. And it would be reasonable to expect that those 4 (2008 and 2009x3)restatements might be filed as a group, with the 2009 10K filed subsequently. Of course, it remains to be seen whether we see any filings at all.
AI
