Yes, and I that's exactly what I was saying. I rea

Yes, and I that's exactly what I was saying. I really never said they received the letter. What I was saying was that the information for the year ending June 2016 is an old set of facts and figures that the SEC has already seen, so insisting the audited report be finished and submitted is just additional reassurance that the information reviewed is "officially" sufficient (still) which is why I called it a technicality. This is very different from the delay to the 2 year audited report, which was for obvious reasons a longer and more exhaustive process, and an urgent move with Mr. Roy Cornholer meant that a bunch of paper work had to be done over and resubmitted as a result. Looking back on that it was a smart move that benefitted shareholders more than a quicker 2 yr. audited report. This time it's just technical compliance and should go smoothly.