InvestorsHub Logo

Rawnoc

07/31/11 4:17 PM

#125386 RE: Scandle34 #125383

Exactly.

loanranger

07/31/11 4:19 PM

#125387 RE: Scandle34 #125383

"but an independent auditor signed off on it"

I believe that explanation may have gone the way of the dodo in 2002:
http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/SOact/sec302.html

Let me know if you find out differently.

Rawnoc

07/31/11 4:30 PM

#125391 RE: Scandle34 #125383

You are 100% correct. Just because mistakes are tier 1 violations doesn't amount to fraud since an independent auditor signed off on them you'd have to prove the auditor acted in fraud too. Good luck with that lol

http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/SOact/sec302.html <~~~~~ says nothing about fraud

Rawnoc

07/31/11 6:06 PM

#125413 RE: Scandle34 #125383

The independent auditor signing off makes the allegation of fraud, which only exists on messages boards, very tough to proof and no SOX changes that. It would have to be proven that the auditor did fraud as well with non cash accounting method mistakes on media credits?

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good luck with that lol lol lol lol lol