InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

learningcurve2020

01/28/17 9:52 AM

#98747 RE: biosectinvestor #98702

You're joking write?

"Phase Five's report came out in 2015. It "found" nothing that had not already been highlighted by the company and that was not being remedied. "


Exactly what did the company do to remedy the situation? Hire a CFO? Spell it out for us.
Thanks.
icon url

AVII77

01/28/17 11:37 AM

#98764 RE: biosectinvestor #98702

Here's the 10Q and 10K/A (4/29/16) from approximately that period. .... Maybe I was just looking too quickly.



Yes. "Looking too quickly" can lead to erroneous conclusions and cause you to miss important details.

While you offered the 10K/A, you did not offer the 10K.

The 10K/A ("A" is for Amendment) says:...this Amendment should be read in conjunction with the Original Filing and our other filings with the SEC.

In the 10K, you will see the acknowledgement of the "internal control deficiencies" noted by the newspaper article.

But you are absolutely correct, this is not the first time the deficiencies were noted. However, the lack of noting them in the Amendment does not mean they have been resolved (because they are included in the 10K).

The Newspaper article was prompted by the recently (at the time) filed 10K (not the 10K/A). They failed to recognize or acknowledge that this wasn't the first time the company disclosed their (continuing) deficiencies that are noted (repeatedly, year after year) by their accountants.

What in the article made you believe they were referring to a new disclosure. I just re-read it and it seems they just note the disclosure saying nothing about it being new.

"A biotech company backed by star investor Neil Woodford has admitted it is incapable of policing internal fraud or related-party transactions.

Its annual report also said plans to improve its financial controls were “uncertain”. "



Yep, that's what the recent annual report (10K, not the 10K/A) said.