No, if you choose to be a publicly traded company, you have a responsibility to file with the SEC. There is no grey area here. Period.
You were not part of the legal process so you don't know the legal details. But, we did what we set out to do.
No Mr. Dutch, there are no other options. You are a legitimate company trading in the US and filing current financials with the SEC or you are a doing something illegal or, the other option is you are doing something illegal. But if you are not filing with the SEC then you are doing one of the two.
LBCB may have issues with what I have done with SCEi, but at least I put up a fight and won.
Is the only option. Period. Going dark during the lawsuit was never a moral option. Joel did the right thing. There is no counter argument to that. It's that simple.
I have as you know been off the message boards for quite some time. If you want to communicate with me you know how.
My guess: 2011 audit and commentary was completed as well as 2010. However, once they determined they had to re audit 2009 they put those two years on hold. But upon completion of the 2009 audit and no change in numbers resulted, they then released 2011 with 2009 and 2010 only needing minor modification in the commentary associated. In the end, my guess is 2009-2010 audits will be released prior to Chinese New Year. 2012 will be released within 2 weeks after Chinese New Year.
That is my guess.
It would only make sense now that they put out one 10K and made statements about the other filings that still need to be made. Wonder how the stock price would react to such an article. My bet is we will see one in the next week.
We are all hypothesizing that after the 2009 re audit is complete that they might put out financials for 09,10,11 and 12. We will see what they do.
T and Phoenix,
On bobdunn's last post I have to agree in many ways. However, I think Chairman Gao also saw that and is correcting the situation. I have been vocally against the idea of going dark during a POS class action lawsuit that was brought on by short sellers such as John Carnes. My hope is Mr. M convinced chairman Gao that the honorable thing would be to fight the lawsuit but to stay current with the SEC. We will know in a few weeks.
You know someone is a true paid basher when they respond to spam. Your funny. The same post was on many stocks.
If there are red flags, then further field work will be required and even possibly a full re audit of the receivables. If all the documentation is solid, then very little field work would be required. We also discussed issues surround cash verification and that process; revenue verification and the process that entailed. I just used receivables for this example.
In Summary, if the prior audit documentation is very good, the audit could go quite fast, say, within 4 weeks or even less. If there are red flags, the process could take longer. If there are enough red flags, it could trigger a full field audit taking up to and over 3 months.
Hope this is of value.
I spoke to a well qualified accountant this weekend to discuss the situation with the 2009 audit. He confirmed a number of things as well as expressed some points of view worth posting. My background is finance and have gone through many business audits. In our discussion, I explained in detail the situation with Sherb, Kmpg, and RBSM. I explained how the 2010 and proceeding year audits were put on hold because of the decision by the SEC on Nov. 7 to disqualify Sherb's prior audits and that KMPG had withdrawn their audit opinion of 2010.
The main point of the conversation was what would be the audit process. My direct question was, would this be an audit "of the audit." His response (greatly summarized) went something like this.
The first step would be to audit the audit, as apposed to an actual audit. He used accounts receivables and an example. In an audit, the auditing firm will send out to all entities on the aged receivable ledger as of a specific date, in this case 2009. In that letter, they would request that the company agrees to the amount claimed that company is owed. This takes time as the receiving company of the letter must then verify, sign and return the letter. However, in the case of RBSM doing a re audit of KMPG and SHER's audits of 2009. They basically have to look at the documents. They look at what letters were sent out and what letters came back and look for red flags. Red flags could be some of the following:
1. Too low of a percentage on non responses from companies listed on the aged receivables. This could mean that there were fake receivables.
2. Too many variance responses from companies. Meaning there was too high a number of companies that don't agree with the amount listed on the aged receivables. There are always some cases of disagreements but as a percentage of overall receivables, the number should be nominal.
3. A red flag might also be that too many responses were not on corporate stationary.
T. I am still confident in the long term or even near term prospects. But I and many were not expecting the comment about how we were wrong about the books and records comment in the lawsuit. We will see where the price is in late February.
It is the books and records comment about the law suit that threw me a curve ball. My understanding was they had to put out financials of some sort by the end of the year.
That is a flat out lie. Never did either ABAT or SCEI make a public statement they were going to become current with the SEC.
I don't doubt that. But they are the only dark Chinese RTO that has made a public statement that they are going to become current with the SEC. I'll lick my wounds in the morning and just wait.