I disagree.  The PR was definitely poorly written

I disagree.  The PR was definitely poorly written, but the technical explanation is not important for several reasons:  1.  Matt is not the IT person who would likely be able to access the problem and determine the extent and cause, thus a person who has the knowledge to explain the problem.  2.  Companies rarely disclose details of the technical/security breaches since that will likely present valuable information to hackers/criminals to conduct further security breaches by knowing where the weaknesses are within the system.

I believe you mentioned in the previous post about companies needing good infrastructure in place, but you failed to mention that the PR did state the company will work to eliminate further issues in the companies future operations.

Let me highlight a few recent well known companies who had security breaches/problems with their infrastructure:

1.  Knight Capital, failed to properly load new software (2012).

2.  Sony, security breach of customer information (2011).

3.  Amazon, recent concerns over the viability of the cloud web service after outage (2012).

4.  Bank of America, hackers block the boa website for users (2012).

I could add many, many more to this list.  My point is that these are large companies who should have the best infrastructure in place to prevent these incidents, however, issues arise even with the most sophisticated systems.  After this happens, it is normal for investors to show concern, but the company fixes the issues and operations proceed as normal with better security measures in place.  For Baron Capital, I would expect Matt to remedy the issues with IT when that person is available and Baron should continue having a better system in place.

The audit is not important to the business operations, it is more a benefit to investors/shareholders (i.e. a delay in the audit has zero effect on the operations).  Obviously, if the infected system was being used for the future TA/brokerage operations we would have a bigger issue on our hands, but that is not the case.  Matt should follow up with shareholders when the current system issues are fixed to make investors/shareholders aware that the company has in fact eliminated the problems and has put measures in place to prevent the issues.

If you have any further concerns regarding today's PR I am here to help answer the concerns.  I believe the negative conjecturists will continue to encourage investors to sell, but I am willing to share my thoughts when appropriate.