Replies to post #10620 on Electronic Game Card, Inc (fka EGMIQ)

[wmthecommoner]

The tax loss carryforward was an issue brought up with the 2009 3rd qtr results and the statements were restated quickly. Not a problem, but perhaps difficult to determine on an interim basis, as I would suppose that the tax losses would only be useable against income in the country to which the loss occurred. That is a guess as remember this is an international company with offices in more than one country. So perhaps losses in UK can not be used to offset losses in USA. Anyway, the NOLs are difficult to determine until the tax returns are actually filed, so interim allocations are estimates.

[wmthecommoner]

Regarding narrowing it down for 06, 07, 08 and I assume having a correct balance for 09 NOW that puzzles me as to why they would go back that far. The only thing I can think of I posted before, when they said, an account represented to be EGMIs. I said in prior post, maybe the account was an old account and the auditor has issues with whether or not the confirmed account legally was tied to EGMI.

Anyway, was just on Ian's site looking at comments and I saw a comment from GURUPUP which is pretty much along the same lines. Hoping he will not mind me cross posting it here, his comment was as follows:

This is what I think I know, or believe at this moment to be true. There is a account which holds funds of EGMI’s in Europe, and that bank was acquired. When the auditor went to confirm the funds he did not find the account, because the bank had changed names. Don’t know how smart this auditor is, but supposedly all of the correct info will be given to the auditor on Monday-Tuesday and I hope he then reinstates his confirmation of funds, and in turn EGMI gives all of this stuff to the SEC and business goes on. In that time frame, I look for management to be changed, I hope the CEO get his ass kicked along with another director, as they do not care about their shareholders and deserves to be fired. Their actions have been criminal in my opinion, that is in the way they treat shareholders.

The chap in London that is responsible for ALL of the business takes over, and brings in new directors, a shareholder representative, a new CFO, adds new business and business goes on in the way we originally thought for the most part.

One of the things that no one has been taking into consideration is the fact that Lord Steinberg, deceased, was buying stock for the last year and a half, and was the largest shareholder, and had access to the books and bank accounts, why would he buy the stock continually if he was not satisfied about the financial info?

What has happened here has never happened to my knowledge in 46 years, and is all the blame of two chaps in the company and one other director.