Loading up the truck, page-3085

"Embattled listed law firm Slater & Gordon has filed its UK accounts which, unlike its Australian filings, include a note the company is rated as a going concern only until the end of March 2017".........

........this statement is untrue. Nowhere is the word: "only" used in the accounts. It would be more to use the term: "at least". Elsewhere (in the members' report) reference is made to the going concern basis being appropriate "for the foreseeable future".

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...d2afgbCEXc6QQqPUfAiqsDUILP7aOPBeTrhUgxczXuAU=

To repeat yet again, the "technical" position is that the directors (and the auditors) must be satisfied that the company will remain a going concern for a period of at least 12 months following the date on which the accounts are signed, which is usually the date the auditors sign their audit report. If they are not, they must state this and explain why. So far as the auditors are concerned, this is typically done in an: "emphasis of matter" in the audit report (whether or not the directors share the same view - theirs is expressed in the accounts). An emphasis of matter does not usually result in an audit qualification, but it can do in certain circumstances.

As I have pointed out before, there is considerable doubt in my mind as to the group's ability to remain a going concern, were the current bankers to issue notice of repayment of debt in 12 months' time. Ernst & Young will have had similar concerns and these have evidently been resolved, otherwise going concern would have been raised in their report. It wasn't. This suggests to me E&Y is not expecting SGH to be called upon to repay the debt. I am not E&Y but it would surprise me if they had decided to 'take any chances', given the recent widespread focus on SGH's problems. This subject has been done to death, yet still people with no ownership in the company continue to put forward their amateur interpretations of a situation that is reasonably clear to me and would be to anyone looking at the situation logically and fairly.

Now we have journalists intentionally turning what I see as a clear positive into a negative, by using words that aren't there, making it appear as if SGH is clinging onto its life by its very fingernails. This is a sad indictment of modern journalism, which is always after a sensational story, rather than just publishing the facts and letting the reader decide for himself from them.

Ref Moana the now departed co sec & legal counsel, I clarified the situation fully after initially being taken in by the said lady leaving her last appointment showing as the one I erroneously reported. I have not changed my view that she was probably advised she might be better off finding a job that better suited her experience as a human rights lawyer, when what was required by SGH was a street fighter. The decision to buy in the wide range of skills it became clear (after her appointment) would now be needed is an entirely sound one. Nothing negative can be read into her departure.

Alternatively, she might have just 'run away'. Either way the company is better off without her imo.