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.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Rutter Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brian who wrote (107)4/28/2006 12:51:53 AM
From: Brian  Respond to of 178
 
And of course there is the going concern clause in the financial statements which state that "the financial statements have been prepared on the basis of accounting principles applicable to a going concern, which assume that the Company will continue in operation for the foreseeable future and will be able to realize its assets and liabilities in the normal course of operations. However, several adverse conditions exist which raise doubt on the validity of this assumption. The Company has incurred significant operating losses in recent years and has an accumulated deficit, significant short and long-term debt and is in violation of certain of its borrowing covenants on its operating line. No waiver has been provided to date for the covenant breaches, however negotiations with the lender to establish revised borrowing covenants are in progress"

Let's hope the negotiations go well.



To: Brian who wrote (107)4/29/2006 1:05:29 AM
From: Brian  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 178
 
The binding arbitration hearing is scheduled to begin on May 5, 2006. Anyone have any idea how long the case might take, or am I just posting to myself?



To: Brian who wrote (107)4/30/2006 9:54:25 AM
From: Brian  Respond to of 178
 
One more question on the binding arbitration hearing to begin on May 4, 2006. The customer's claim that a subsidiary of Rutter (REA), owes them US $9,400,000 . Could that be to reduce the accounts receivable of RUT by that amount? If so how dows that work since Rut wrote off $7.7 million from the accounts receivable when the contract went into question?