Cant post this on the STOCKHOUSE board for some reason its overloaded!!!!
Nobody seems to have caught this HUGE punctuation error that is now the substance of great doubt about the IC interim report. It was printed in the reuters article this morning:
LIMITED ACCESS
Sino-Forest said the committee was "verifying information regarding certain of the company's relationships with its suppliers and authorized intermediaries, and addressing other issues". Muddy Waters had accused the owner of tree plantations in China of fraudulently exaggerating its assets.
Deep in the 43-page report -- which cost the company $35 million -- the committee noted it couldn't verify that Sino-Forest actually owned all its forests, and was barred from seeing databases and discouraged from visiting some of the forestry bureaus that hold registration documents.
The highlighted statement sounds like they are referring to the IC INTERIM report and that "the comittee noted it couldnt verify that sino-forest actually owned"....etc.
BUT, if you place as comma after the word "noted" the statement reads diferently and, I believe, as the Ind. Committee if not the author, intended.
The committees Interim Report, released today, was 111 pages long.
The paragraph in the Reuters article contains a critical punctuation flaw ( the lack of a comma) that is making people think that they were referring to the interim report when in fact the author was referring to THE ORIGINAL 43 Page Muddy Waters "Report" and how MUDDY WATERS, NOT the IC, were restricted from accessing the data. so they CLAIMED......
what do you all think?
PS could someone post this on the STOCKHOUSE forum as I am having a DATA ACCESS ERROR proplem??????
thanks,
G
AI
