China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (fka CCME)

[UpstateChris]

Again, your statement was:

As I said, what we know now is that CME is stating as a fact that Piper was brought in to ensure a forensic audit and ensure that other Deloitte recommendations are enacted.

What you just posted,

On March 11, 2011, Deloitte resigned. Compl. ¶ 54. As disclosed in the Company’s Form 8K filed on March 17, 2011 (Manwaring Decl., Ex. E), the Company believed that it was working to address the issues raised by Deloitte at the time of its resignation. On May 2, 2011, the Audit Committee of CCME’s Board of Directors retained the law firm of DLA Piper to assist Case 1:11-cv-00233-SLR Document 19 in its investigation of concerns raised by Deloitte at the time of its resignation. See 5/2/11 Form 8K (Manwaring Decl., Ex. F).

DOES NOT, in any place, say that Piper was brought in to perform a forensic audit. In fact, it does not even state that they are performing ANY TYPE of audit.

All it says is that the AUDIT COMMITTEE (an independent committee, NOT the company itself) had RETAINED DLA Piper TO ASSIST the case in the investigation of concerns raised by Deloitte.

1) The audit committee is NOT the company.

2) Retaining a law firm does not mean that they have started - or in fact that they will ever start, only that money has been paid to ensure their availability.

3) On March 17 they claimed that Piper was retained on May 2, a couple weeks earlier, but does not specify why. They could have come in for a week, discussed their concerns and left. No where here does it even suggest otherwise.

4) It claims that they were there to assist in the investigation of concerns raised by DTT. (A) We do not have a comprehensive list of those concerns, only some generalized statements, (B) What exactly does assisting to investigate concerns mean? It is not exactly a legal term with a cut and dry definition - but it certainly does not mean audit, forensic or otherwise, or that would have been stated.

Yes, we do have individuals that have stated that they have verified certain things. You are absolutely welcome to accept their word for it. But again, the COMPANY has never made the statements you claim they have made.