|
|
Post by chucker on Oct 10, 2005 20:16:17 GMT -6
I wouldn't think from cmkx's perspective, filing an 8k would not be necessary since reporting compliance isn't met yet anyway, right?
If so, though, does the Auditor have a requirement to be 8k'd? If not an Auditor requirement, could cmkx maybe do a surprise filing by the 20th, catching up on everything?
thanks
chucker
|
|
|
|
Post by ladydi on Oct 10, 2005 20:21:51 GMT -6
Andy told me once that after all the problems with getting and keeping an auditor and the hassles the auditor themselves endure from being named (from shareholders and others) we would not likely know if and when a new auditor was found. I dont know about the requirement of an 8K at this stage. Di  |
|
|
|
Post by diamondcg on Oct 10, 2005 22:12:44 GMT -6
Maybe IBM is handling the audit  Patience=Profit IMHO cg |
|
|
|
Post by ladydi on Oct 10, 2005 22:48:41 GMT -6
Maybe IBM is handling the audit Patience=Profit IMHO cg Well I found this in an 8-KA. Despite the contention of Beckstead, the firm never made an attempt to meet with management of the Registrant or Robert A. Maheu, acting as the Registrant's audit committee, to address the specific issues raised in either of its letters. Did anyone catch this before? What do you make of it? I noticed it the other day when I was perusing the Filings from the link that Gina posted to watch Level II for free. Di |
|
|
|
Post by hermannmaier0 on Oct 10, 2005 22:55:51 GMT -6
Ladydi
IMO, that is significant. Wow! Good eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladydi on Oct 10, 2005 22:59:56 GMT -6
Ladydi IMO, that is significant. Wow! Good eye. Ya, I meant to put it up before... sorry  Diamonds post reminded me to go and get it. Thanks! Di |
|
|
|
Post by woopwoop on Oct 10, 2005 23:02:20 GMT -6
meaning...Bob's brother is doing the audit   |
|
|
|
Post by longterm on Oct 10, 2005 23:11:12 GMT -6
no no i think he means everyone is in for a surprise . the ball is rolling lets see what gets in its path ..... this is gonna be fun .
|
|
