Hi Theck... 2006 rev's according to the last recorded 10QSB were nearly 52 million, and 2007 rev's 16 million. That is 70 million right there. From the 10-k, and I remember Wieland explaining this to me sometime in 2008 "The current decrease in revenue compared to the same period of 2006 is almost fully attributed to decreased sales of silicon and derivate products to industry partners in South East Asia. A large part of the revenue for the same period of 2006 consisted of supply of goods intended for supply in 2007, which revenue has not been replaced significantly."
My question is why has nothing been pr'd regarding financials even if they dont have access to certain materials from the prior management (PK) over the last 3 years, and why would it be detrimental to the B.V.to do so? Surely their shareholders would like to know something about the bottom line 3 years later. NET PROFITS ending 3rd quarter 2007 were $388,547. Notes payable to Peter Klamka at 30 September 2007 totaled $620,985, some interest bearing and some not.
I think the answer lies here:
"Note 16 – Subsequent Event
The Company has recently gone through significant changes in its management and Board of Directors. The current management and Board are in process of reviewing past actions and transactions under the Company’s former leadership, in order to become fully acquainted with the Company’s history.
The Company entered into an agreement with Peter Klamka, pursuant to which Mr. Klamka agreed to transfer notes in the principal amounts of $175,000, $50,000, $50,000, $66,985 and $29,000 to the Dutch Entity in exchange for certain cash payments which include payments of $250,000 to be made by us prior to December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2009. The notes are being held in escrow pending fulfillment of the payment obligations in the agreement. In addition, we agreed to issue an aggregate of 3,500,000 shares of common stock in exchange for a note that was previously transferred from Mr. Klamka to the Company."
Regarding the B.V., I wonder if they were profitable enough to even pay the debt... and if they were, by filing their 10Q, it would force their hand. Or as a double edged sword, regaining a listing would allow PK to dump those additional shares. If there has been no profit, Wieland would lose his support. So I wonder which of the scenarios it is.
Thoughts? I have always said I liked Wieland, and this is not a bash... just trying to decipher the last available filing and apply it to the events of the last 3 years and 3 months of silence.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
