SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Just For Feet (FEET)
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Walter High who wrote (250)7/2/1997 12:18:00 PM
From: Scott Finchler   of 750
 
Walter,

Does that mean you want a part of the suit? Do you feel you were misled into buying more?

I think the suit is without merit because the accounting method was public knowledge. I don't remember if the details were spelled out in the annual report, but we all knew about it so it must have been published somewhere. The fact that the revenue was restated and affected prior quarters isn't misleading, in my mind. Amortizing the new store expenses wasn't - and isn't - illegal, just uncommon. If it was, there'd be basis for a suit.

Of course we're all assuming this is what the suit is about. It could be something totally different and this is all moot.

-Scott
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News