I’ve been a CPA for 40 years. Just because you have uncertainty about your financial position (in this case stock equity) doesn’t mean you have to go dark and stop presenting financial statements. You just need to have full disclosure about the area of doubt within the statements. The accountant/auditor then can express an opinion that basically says other than this area of concern, here’s what’s happened and where we are.
It seems to me that to be reporting and disclosing we have a problem, is better than the stop sign.
yes - I was just coming back to post that. It will also be hard to find a reputable accountant to take the engagement with the stock issue hanging over the company.
Newleaf, we’re talking about a COMPILATION here, right? All we’re doing is reporting what MANAGEMENT has given us as CPA’s right? Couldn’t we report what we KNOW at this point, and DISCLOSE whatever we’re not sure of in the disclosures to the financials? I’m more of a tax guy, but it seems like motivated people could get this done.
I agree, 100% ,except what is there to report other than cleaning up both the balance sheet and the income statement. We have no revenue and our ongoing expenses should be minimal with the exception of legal costs. JMO
I think the financial statements would be relatively useless (as they have been in the past). It’s just compliance to get rig of the dreaded stop sign and keep momentum moving the right direction. If we have some good news and half the people who would otherwise buy can’t, then the effect will be that the news is half as good.
That’s correct - we should get the compilation done with the information we have and move on. If restatement is required or needed thereafter, then we can do that too. We don’t need to shoot ourselves in the foot in the meantime …
Kind of wish I hadn’t started this discussion. Getting the financial reports is only half the battle. You also need an attorney to sign off too, and given the status of our litigation I can’t see one doing that.
Keep in mind that keeping current is a recurring expense. Beyond whatever it costs the attorneys and accountants to get the books and filings in order, a company is required to subscribe to the OTC Disclosure & News Service which costs $5,000 per year along with an initial application fee of $1,000 (not sure if the latter applies for a relisting).
I don’t think MDMN is going to pay any unnecessary expenses (yes, like it or not, resuming pink sheet current status is currently an unnecessary expense) that require share dilution until it has clawed back as many shares as possible, particularly the convertible preferreds which also carry a 10% interest per annum, and/or have a reliable cash flow from mining revenues.
I don’t know about other shareholders, but I’m not putting any timeline on MDMN digging out of this hole until we have more visibility on the share structure and the revenue stream coming out of ADL. Not to mention the lawsuit(s).
Upgrading to pink sheet current should be one of the lowest priorities for this company currently.
Forget the OTC. Reconciling the financials - and the correct share issuance - would be necessary before anyone would consider a TO or significant investment in MDMN
True, but those of us that are willing to invest more dollars into MDMN are now neutered until they fix it. I find that a significant problem, both for me and for MDMN. Hard to invest in a company that your own brokerage house will not allow. I have significant monies I wanted to invest at these prices and now I cannot.
Open an account with E*trade or TD Ameritrade they will allow to to buy MDMN. Most brokerage firms will allow to buy MDMN if you sign a waiver agreement with them not holding them responsible for your trades, FYI