where is the lolly, page-2

Nockname, you absolutely hit the nail on the head. It is just not possible for close to ZERO sales receipt for the $1.4M SA contract which was supposedly non-conditional and not financed by CMQ UNLESS CMQ's normal commercial terms is giving the goodies away or to collect money as and when the distributor feels like paying!the total SALES RECEIPTS for the year is $208,000, I presumed you wrongly typed 9 intead of 0.This requires greatest skill on earth trying to reconcile CMQ’s achieving $4M revenue from all sources compared to the Appendix 4C accounts and from previous public statements on CMQ.

REVENUE as defined in the ordinary English Language is income, proceeds, returns or takings.

The ONLY positive numbers on the Appendix 4C (figures in thousands and Total for FY in brackets) are:
Sales Receipts 58 (208)
Interest & items of similar nature: 385 (2793)
Sale of physical non-current assets 0 (22)

Thus all the CREDITS from all POSSIBLE SOURCES in Appendix 4C for the financial year amounts to 208+2,793+22 = $3.02M FAR SHORT $4M revenue for which most people will understand REVENUE as understood in the ordinary English Language to mean.

Perhaps CMQ should kindly explain the following:
1) How the covenant requiring a minimum of $4M REVENUE from all sources could be satisfied by Appendix 4C accounts showing a total of CREDIT of $3M could have satisfied the $4M revenue covenant.
2) Is this the reason why it took CMQ a week from 30 June 06 to announce it satisfied the revenue covenant? What concessions (if any) were given to Stark to accept this interpretation of revenue?
3) IF the explanation to 1) above is some definition for REVENUE other than the ordinary English Language. how does one reconcile the public statement that the $1.4M sale to South Africa was unconditional, under normal commercial terms and NOT financed by CMQ for which the goods were DELIVERED in 2005 and NOT reflected in the sales receipts for the financial year ending 30 June 2006?

Cheers