No actually he didnt, comparing to a simple "name
Post# of 43066
Posted On: 07/29/2014 6:47:31 PM
No actually he didnt, comparing to a simple "name change" is in fact incorrect as it was in fact a new firm. It makes no difference as to the merger as the outcome resulted in a new firm. Because it was a new firm it required voting and an appointment.
Now a new firm because well the old firm wont let them scheme and give them a good review or audit. Amazing how they left out certain parts of of the 2012 audit and it required the SEC to have to send correspondence to have them place such "negative" aspects into their annual filing in an amendment. let me guess just a mistake? Seems to be a lot of filing mistakes, enough amendments and correspondence to show that it is a regular occurrence. Not much has changed since the good ole media credit days... lol
Now a new firm because well the old firm wont let them scheme and give them a good review or audit. Amazing how they left out certain parts of of the 2012 audit and it required the SEC to have to send correspondence to have them place such "negative" aspects into their annual filing in an amendment. let me guess just a mistake? Seems to be a lot of filing mistakes, enough amendments and correspondence to show that it is a regular occurrence. Not much has changed since the good ole media credit days... lol
(0)
(0)