|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > January 2007 > Re: WAIVER AND RESTATEMENT OF DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RES
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: WAIVER AND RESTATEMENT OF DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RES
|
|
| Ambassador 2007-01-30, 8:26 pm |
| On Jan 26, 5:13 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> Sorry. The correct address to go to is:
>
> http://download.yousendit.com/212FBD2745816D82
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam,
Why can't you get the USCF to post this document on the web site? It
took be about 30 minutes to download.
The 2006 USCF financial statement (ending May 30, 2006) possibly needs
to be restated. I have found a smoking gun, but I am not sure what this
really means. The restatement could have minor impact, or major impact.
The auditor will probably will seek the opinion of other auditors, and
I don't have the experience to tell you much more than the last
financial statements failed to mention critical covenant restrictions.
To sell the building, the buyer would need to approval of the city of
Crossville, who can for ANY REASON decide it isn't in their best
interests? Now if the lot was gift, than ties one thing. If the UCSF
paid for the lot, I want to understand the conditions of the sale.
How much and from who did the USCF by the Lot? Was the lot a gift, or
did the USCF buy the lot?
Net Net, You found the evidence of inappropriate financial
characterizations. At a minimum, the restrictive covenant, Section VII,
is a possible TITILE DEFECT and needs to be mentioned in every
financial statement as long as the USCF owns the property.
The auditor could conclude that there only needs mention of Article VII
of the zoning restrictions as a possible defect to the title, and leave
it at that. The failure to disclose the full facts is a problem with
this culture of secrecy. Had this been handled honestly, I don't think
that this would have blown up into a scandal.
However, the 2006 FINANCIAL STATMENTS FAIL TO ACCUARATELY CHARACTERIZE
THE CONDITION OF THE COMPANY, due to the OMISSION of key information.
Let me think about it more and I will write up a formal protest letter.
If the USCF were a public company, I do think that Joel Channing would
face a real ethics problem in failing to disclose the deed
restrictions, becasue the broad nature of the restriction really does
effect market value.
Marcus Roberts
|
| |
|
|