RE:RE:RE:FGD newsNeedCash4Parts wrote: I disagree. My interpretation is there was a flaw/technicality/legality that has caused FGD not to be able to collect on third-party accounts receivable due. While FGD is negotiating with the third-parties there is a possibility of a large loss in receivables that won't just be revenue figures.
Well, let's keep out speculation and stay with the facts. In the news release of 17 Apr 2018, FGD wrote:
"...
the Company has discovered that a material number of software license agreements (the "Agreements") entered into between the Company and various arm's length third parties may have revenue recognition issues and, as a result, a material amount of revenue may not be recognizable on the Company's Financial Statements."
So we have the following facts:
- It's about "software licenses" (not any revenue, like transaction-based revenue, etc.)
- It is for contracts with "arm's length third parties" (not just any business customer)
- It's about the question, whether "revenue" might be "recognizable on the Company's Financial Statements" (they don't say that revenue might not be realized or payments would not occur, although in theory this might be possible and they may have just used a nice phrase to hide this, but this is pure speculation at this time, not a fact)
I'm not an accountant or any kind of professional in that field, but based on my understanding of what an "arm's length third party" in this case can be and what not, my understanding would be that this cannot be about any contracts with e.g. Lianlian or Tencent but this is about contractual issues within the FGD structure, e.g. between FGD and First Global Money. If I'm wrong then please correct me, I'd be the first one to thank you to correct a misunderstanding on my side. But if you do so, please back up any interpretation with sources and facts, as I try to do.
NeedCash4Parts wrote:
FGD has a few more than just two licensees so it's a little hard to guess which two you think it is. The word "both" in the sentence refers to the Licensees involved and the new auditor, it's written in corporate lawyerese so I can see how you thought it's referring solely to two licensees.
I see, and I think you are right here, indeed. I related the word "both" to "licensees" but it's most likely related to the two parties "licensees" and "auditor". So it could be any or all licensees (that qualify as "arm's length third party"). My mistake, sorry.