And, incidentally, this is exactly what happened: the June 30 10-Q is filed on August 22, without CleanSpark Holdings' numbers included. Cleanspark magically changes the closing date which has already passed to one day later – thus negating the obligation to include CleanSpark Holdings’ consolidated financial information in the June 30 10-Q. Is that what Cleanspark did? Absolutely not.
inform the SEC and the market when the interim information was expected to be filed (along with the audited historical statements), and. inform investors why the interim numbers were delayed – in this case, awaiting completion of the audit of the two prior fiscal years,. 
admit that the interim numbers could not be produced on a timely basis,. So in response to this dilemma, the right thing to do would be to: My guess is that the auditors informed Schultz and Bradford – shortly before the Augextended due date for the June 30,2016 10-Q – that CleanSpark Holdings’ historical numbers under audit were still “moving around.” Bradford, in turn, knew that this meant Cleanspark could not produce consolidated interim financial statements at Jfor Cleanspark and CleanSpark Holdings, LLC. As any auditor will tell you, a company can’t produce accurate interim information (say, for an interim period ending June 30) if its prior year-end numbers are not yet final. The auditors’ report on the CleanSpark Holdings historical financial statements was not issued until September 16, 2016. Regulation S-X required Cleanspark to file two years’ audited historical financial statements for CleanSpark Holdings, LLC, as well as reviewed interim information as of June 30, 2016. 
Because the acquisition closed on June 30, Cleanspark was obligated to file consolidated financial statements for the nine months ended Jthat included the consolidated interim period financial position information, operating results, and cash flows for Cleanspark and CleanSpark Holdings, LLC. On August 22, when Cleanspark filed the 8-K “retroactively” changing the closing date that had already passed, Cleanspark also filed its 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016.
So why would Cleanspark go back on August 19 and retroactively try to change a closing date that had already passed?. ” In other words, the closing is historical and had already happened by the time Cleanspark filed the 8-K on July 7. 
Notice that the 8-K filed on July 7 says the closing “ occurred. “The closing of the transactions contemplated by the Purchase Agreement occurred on J(the ‘Closing Date’).” The reason is that in the 8-K filed by Cleanspark on July 7, 2016, in Item 1.01, the first paragraph under Asset Purchase stated: This is what I would refer to as very sharp practice, to put it mildly. The amendment states that the closing “… shall take place on July 1, 2016…” You can only find that by looking at the amendment to the purchase agreement, available here. Notice that the 8-K does not actually tell you what the new closing date is or was. 
“On August 19, 2016, the parties to the Purchase Agreement entered into a second amendment (the “Second Amendment”) that revised the Closing Date.” I say “first” because Cleanspark filed an 8-K on August 22, 2016, available here, in which it stated: On June 30, 2016, Cleanspark first closed the acquisition of CleanSpark Holdings, LLC, per the 8-K available here. Questionable Action: Let’s Rewrite History if We Need to… I explain why it is unlikely that these shares will be "hitting the market" soon, but investors should know that this overhang of approximately 6,000,000 shares is a wild card in any investment decision. Factoring in the volume limitations of Rule 144, these shares are salable in an amount of up to 330,634 shares every three months, but may be subject to additional undisclosed restrictions on sale. This article also discusses a market "red flag," a large restricted stock position held by CleanSpark Holdings that is now eligible for sale under Rule 144. ( NASDAQ: CLSK) examines some questionable actions and communications by this highly overvalued company that should be red flags for investors.
0 kommentar(er)
