The simple realities are:
- The accounting firm of L L Bradford confirmed that there is no evidence to substantiate that any funding activity or investment activity happened prior to January 2012.
- The President of Bergamo Acquisition Corp attested that the statements and the attached notes prepared by the accounting firm for the partial period of 2012 are truthful and free from material defect and omission.
- The combination of what the Bergamo retained accountant provided and what Bergamo's management attested to clearly states that everything prior to January 2012 could not be substantiated and therefore is false.
- What the Company and its management effectively stated prior to January 2012 is either a fraud, a misrepresentation or wishful thinking is up to current and potential investors to determine.
- Likewise, it will be up to any civil, criminal or regulatory bodies to investigate and if need be prosecute. Whether such bodies are investigating we will never know nor with the company know until it is shut down.
- As for the part period of 2012, the booked profits if real do not represent investible cash so it begs the question ethically, financially and legally on how BGMO could enter into a transaction where our company had no financial capacity to complete by the dates contracted as it was all restricted. This goes to the heart of the matter of ethics and our firm's reputation.
- The company has not issued financial statements and notes for the balance of the fiscal year nor for part of the current year which goes to the question of the company is trying to raise its reporting tier level then why is it not reporting? It seems to be a simple task to do.
- There is some question as to good corporate governance (I had to read up on this). What about an annual meeting? A management discussion and analysis report? Proxy materials and a convening circular would be helpful? I won't even continue the dream of an audit.
A smart investor would be better to pay $ 1.00 per share with concrete information from third parties than to pay a penny for the data (?) we currently have. Why, you might ask? Based on the past history which is a good indicator of future actions, buying at a penny will seem very expensive to where it may end up. With hard facts, a buck a share will appear cheap relative to where it could head if any of this can be proven to be real.
Compilations as opposed to audits is not real. Redacted documents and questionable offshore entities makes it difficult to make an informed decision as to the authenticity. The failure to inform the shareholders on a regular and consistent basis is a flag.
