I posted the same question direct to Winston Coope

I posted the same question direct to Winston Cooper on scam hub. Here is his public reply to me also recorded on the SRGE board:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jimmy40, thank you for your posts. Obviously, BGL did not want a reserve for the impairment for Cinco Minas "asset" at 11/30/12. Looking at this from the outside, but with a lot of experience in  auditing , I believe the Auditors and Company reached an agreement to not record the reserve at 11/30/12, but, instead issue the following footnote:
Note 9: (last sentence)-"Should the ruling be in favour of the defendant,  the Company would be required to recognize an impairment charge on the property for $9,924,305". MSJ is the defendant.

With this disclosure, the Auditors have done two things: 1. They have covered their rear ends (in case there is an impairment) and 2. They have kept their client BGL happy by not recording a reserve for an impairment on the books.

If I had been auditing BGL, I would have insisted that they recognize an impaired "asset" at 11/30/12. But, sadly, some Auditors just want to keep their clients happy.