I have spent considerable time reviewing the accounting change filing, previous filings, and several accounting firm change sources.
I think FAB has a decent shot to retain its NYSE listing, based on what I read.
I have a question for Joe but any one can reply. Do you think FAB actually replied with a compliance plan? I'm wondering, based on this recent announcement of the accounting firm change, etc. Either it was a weak, vague plan or no plan was submitted, given the accounting firm switch. That's my guess.
Lbcb was wrong altogether about FAB going dark, though he likes to change the meaning of that word to suit its purposes, it seems. FAB seems committed to trying to stay on the NYSE, but it may not be doing a great job at it, though maybe not terrible either. It's hard to say.
FAB's best chance seems to be to impress around the middle of June and get an extension on the filing. Important is the FAB auditor was dismissed, and did not resign. Clearly things are not going great, but if FAB got its act together, and pushed for good results, perhaps there's a shot.
"I have a question for Joe but any one can reply. Do you think FAB actually replied with a compliance plan? I'm wondering, based on this recent announcement of the accounting firm change, etc. Either it was a weak, vague plan or no plan was submitted, given the accounting firm switch. That's my guess."
It's clear FAB responded and was shot down because they lacked a letter of opinion from their auditor that a 10K would be forthcoming.
It's also clear, as FAB stated it directly in their last SEC filing, that they intend to file their 10K as soon as the new auditor can complete it (usually 90 days)....which also means they have NOT gone dark and have no intention of doing so (late is not dark).
The sole reason behind the auditor change was to try to stay listed on the NYSE. Their current auditor stated he had no issues with their accounting, but they wanted to wait until the forensic audit was complete BEFORE starting their process (refusing to offer an opinion letter). Normally that would have been fine, only when it finally got filed FAB would be trading on the OTC rather than the NYSE. My guess is FAB got took direction on this from Loeb and made the switch. My guess also is they'll walk into that oral hearing with an opinion letter and the NYSE will give them the 6 month extension that the rules allow for.
Now whether it plays out like this you never really know. But without the switch FAB had zero chance of staying listed and now they have a solid chance. Hopefully the Loeb report will come out before the hearing date, that report, if it's clean, will surely get them an extension with the NYSE.
= Do you think FAB actually replied with a compliance plan?
Of course they did. It is most likely just what I said... they gave a general intent to comply and the NYSE pressed them for something specific which they could not do while not cooperating with their auditor.
=Lbcb was wrong altogether about FAB going dark, though he likes to change the meaning of that word to suit its purposes
I haven't "changed" any meaning as you continue to deceive. I couldn't have been more clear on this:
truthwantsout: You also said FAB was going dark several weeks ago. So prediction is not a strength of yours.
lbcb321: LOL... I NAILED IT. There are many definitions of "going dark" and I even stated clearly I was using the definition used by the masses... "going dark" meant failing to make a required SEC filing. I have been consistent in this message. You have tried to twist this in the past and I replied:
truthwantsout: you are calling lack of clarity going dark.
lbcb321: No... I am calling failure to make a REQUIRED filing going dark. Pretty straightforward. It sure ain't being transparent. Twist away and work on the definition, but I have over the course of time made it clear that my interpretation of "going dark" is the perception of the masses it occurs when a public company fails to make a timely required quarterly report in direct violation of their duties to their SEC registration.
=Important is the FAB auditor was dismissed, and did not resign.
LOL! FAB quit cooperating with them and did not provide requested information and did not allow them to verify bank balances. It is obvious FAB was told "comply with our requests or we will be forced to resign" and they took the route of firing them before they resigned. Just how the game is played. Read the truth for yourself.
" I was using the definition used by the masses... "going dark" meant failing to make a required SEC filing."
You're an idiot. If that was the definition every time a company was late they'd be classified as going dark. Companies are late all the time, for various reasons, which is why the major exchanges give them automatic extensions just by asking.
"DARK" is a term reserved for companies that have no intention of ever filing an SEC doc again.
FAB just filed an SEC doc that clearly stated they intend to file their 10K....albeit late.
It's been over 5 months since FAB was halted and still no sign of anyone resigning or of FAB going dark. I don't know of any Chinese frauds that played out this way.
Should be around a month and we'll finally get some clarity as to how this will play out. First up should be the Loeb report, followed quickly by the NYSE's ruling on FAB's oral hearing. If those play out as expected FAB should start trading again, even before their 10K is filed (around 90 days)..
I don't disagree much with what you replied. However, the small differences do count significantly.
By the way, I don't call it going dark when a company navigates what it thinks is the best regulatory path and is making some filings and not others, I call making no filing going dark. I think this term "going dark" is not the best term to use anyway, as it's inherently unclear.
Let's see how this plays out. While you profess to have a good theory on what transpired between FAB and Friedman, that is only speculation.
If you get a chance, write a brief blurb on what you think a company like FAB needs to do to win an appeal before the Qualifications folks of the NYSE. Not the chances, etc. but what kind of response is needed...