Watchers,
Thanks for the feedback. I certainly believe the best "defense" the Company could make is to get the audits done sooner than the late July/early August timeframe. It also seems reasonable to me--albeit not having any direct experience in these matters--that if management was told by Madsen early on about a July/August timeframe, but management knew for a fact that the bulk of the work would have to be done by the Hong Kong affiliates, then it wouldn't seem out of place to assume if the affliates got done quickly then it could substantially alter the original projection dates. Perhaps they were foolish and naive to believe that. But I think most people would be inclined to think that if they satisfied all the requirements for inspector X, then surely inspector Y won't make me wait two or three more additional months just to sign off on the correctness of inspector X's work.
What I'd heard on the radio, by the way, was indeed specifically about the isolated performance of the months of May, namely, that one had to go back 40 years to find one May month worse than the one that has just elapsed.
Again, thanks for the feedback.
Steve
