Actually it's a 10-Q/A, amending the relatively recently filed 10-Q for the most recent quarter (which ended 30 June 99).
I read both of them side by side (too much time on my hands?); there were some minor changes in the 10-Q/A, basically about another $300K in non-cash expenses. It's worse for PNDA, but not materially so (if you consider where they are now!)
Not that it's relevant to anything, but I wonder if this 10-Q/A was filed because the SEC read and commented upon their original 10-Q filing, or if it was a case of PNDA or their accountants having second thoughts perhaps on various matters of interpretations etc.? In addition to myself, is the SEC the only one in the whole world who reads PNDA filings any more?
The stock crashed today on "huge" volume, 14,900 shares, dropping to 5 cents. That represents almost one thousand dollars of trading volume(!!). I wonder what the technicians would say about the chart....
I would appreciate if PNDA could do a reverse split before things get too quiet. At these price ranges my broker requires margin of 25 cents plus the value of the stock. If they could do, say, a 1-for-5 or 1-for-20, it would be much more economical to carry the shares for the long, deep sleep. Just an idea, guys... ;-)
Just how much longer can they drag things on? They had $106K in cash at 30 June 99, and $1400K of Accounts Payable. Surely they must have bill collectors breathing down their necks by now, even if they are promising to "sell the Company Real Soon Now". And at a certain point I presume their landlord will simply change the locks on them.
Ooops, I just checked the 10-Q/A. Here's something to read between the lines of:
In addition, Panda s working capital is insufficient to operate Panda. Panda is currently in default under different leases due to breaches of insolvency covenants. In the event that the proposed sale of Panda's assets to SBI is not consummated and Panda cannot obtain additional financing, Panda may be forced to cease operations.
and
On July 18, 1999, a complaint was filed against the Company in Palm Beach County, Florida by Liberty Property Limited Partnership ("Liberty"). The complaint alleges breach of contract by the Company for non monetary default of its lease agreement for the premises at 951 Broken Sound Parkway, Boca Raton, Florida. Liberty seeks acceleration of future rent payments in the amount of approximately $809,000. The Company has filed an answer to the complaint and the outcome is both immeasurable and undeterminable. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in defending this litigation and the outcome to this litigation could have a material adverse effect if the Company is unsuccessful.
Dee-bar, perhaps you could direct your wonderful research skills toward "SBI" -- just who are they, and why in the heck would anyone be interested in helping out Panda?
- Daniel |
