InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 16
Posts 1779
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 12/30/2010

Re: dipstick55 post# 29085

Thursday, 04/07/2011 12:49:35 PM

Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:49:35 PM

Post# of 34471
Would be nice to remove ambiguity so this could be interpreted as a confirmed positive development.

Maybe the lawyer was writing himself a note that said "PR not doing their job" (meaning that the company is following instructions to avoid further exposure that comes with new PR).

Maybe the lawyer was saying that a PR needs to go out that CCME management is not doing its job.

Or maybe the lawyer was saying that PR is not doing the job of management since the company is premised on PR, not actual operations.

Or maybe the lawyer was saying that PR does not do the job of the lawyers.

Or maybe the lawyer was saying that despite the recently released "PR", the intended affect of quelling concerned shareholders was not achieved.

Or maybe the lawyer was saying he's going to ensure that CCME PR starts doing what shareholders reasonably expect from a company that claims to have over 170MM in the bank. BTW, did you see the article today about faked bank statements being a normal practice in China. Down right scary. Also explains why former CFO Jacky Lam could claim himself "innocent" (whatever that means)-- 9/10 CFO's in China have no access to the bank records.

You would think, BTW, that if six months go by before a conclusion of the halt that in this time CCME would sign up more buses too.

-Andrew

All he said was quote " PR not doing their job"

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.