Slap!
CSGI seems to be playing verbal gymnastics with their SEC filings!
Tech's very loud protest of the word "investigation" for two days got me thinking about the wording CSGI has used in describing this matter.
State's Evidence, Item A.
In early SEC filings, CSGI used the phrase "routine review" in it's description. Now, in a recent filing, CSGI has taken out the word "routine". What would cause them to not use the softer language of "routine"? Obviously, they were instructed by either the NASD or their own lawyers to remove the word, since it was inaccurate, and could subject CSGI to investor lawsuits.
Conclusion: CSGI's use of inappropriet language in thier SEC filing shows a willingness to downplay the entire matter.
State's Evidence, Item B.
In my telephone conversation with the NASD January 5th, I began by using the word "review", thinking that was the correct terminology. However, the NASD officer I spoke with continuously and constantly used the word "investigation". I kept using the word "review" to see if he would use it, but he never did. This conversation shows that the NASD themselves consider this matter an "investigation", and not a "review". What's the difference? Perception. As Tech knew, investors take the word "investigation" more seriously than they do "review". Therefore his intense protests over my use of the word.
Conclusion: CSGI's second attempt to use language to downplay the continuing NASD investigation into stock trading practices by CSGI. |
