Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : American International Industries Inc. OTC BB Symbol EDII -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim K. who wrote (1333)	7/20/1998 5:24:00 PM
From: ColleenB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4814

That's right Jim.....if Danny Dror was running a sham of a company he wouldn't have hired the services of BDO Seidman nor would BDO Seidman have even considered taking them on as a client. The fact that EDII paid money to have BDO Seidman report the company financials says a lot....and with the help of these financials EDII has been able to acquire many companies, adding to their assets. Last officially reported at $110 Million dollars...and has grown since then. We do not know what their net worth is, all we know is that it is greater than $110 Million dollars at this point....and you can be sure of one thing, in order for EDII to acquire these companies for the deals that they have...remember the deal with the real estate company...$2.40 book value...there's a lot more to EDII than the little bit of information we have been able to uncover....this I feel confident about and I'm holding onto all my shares.

To: Jim K. who wrote (1333)	7/20/1998 5:29:00 PM
From: jmt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4814

Another Classic Ken M post. Hits all the high points of BDO Siedman. Unfortunately, BDO is not the investment here. And until details of their Audit are released, what's your point? They are getting paid to perform a service. The reason I will wait for 8 cents is that this stock continues to trend down on heavy selling. But even then I will not move in until the company (or BDO Siedman) begins releasing accounting details. And I will suggest they will be awful. jmt

To: Jim K. who wrote (1333)	7/20/1998 5:53:00 PM
From: ColleenB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4814

Jim, If you don't mind I'm going to pull some points out of this post of yours and highlight some of the qualities and advantages of a company like EDII using BDO Seidman. They really appear to be a full service company...and not just some mom and pop organization..I'll pull some of the more pertinent information out and repost it later...I want to make sure that people who are not familiar with their services can really get a feel for why Danny Dror paid the long dollar for their services rather than going with a nonrecognized company..

To: Jim K. who wrote (1333)	7/20/1998 6:57:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4814

Well it's easy to say all these things, yet there is a big problem with those neg. accusations, BDO Seidman. BDO Seidman is one of the oldest most respected accounting and consulting firms in the country, and they did not get that way by representing bogus, or fraudulent companys. Let's refresh your memory. So many people seem to have problems with this. Before he took over EDII, Daniel Dror was Chairman and CEO of MicroTel (MCTL). MCTL's auditors were Deloitte and Touche, an eminently respectable firm. They resigned over a dispute about--it would seem--the business practices of the Microtel board. And so Dror hired BDO Seidman, and turned to them once again when he needed auditors for EDII: ... PROPOSAL NO. 4 RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF ACCOUNTANTS FOR THE COMPANY The independent certified public accountants for the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1994 were Deloitte & Touche resigned as the Company's public accountant on December 22, 1994. Deloitte & Touche's formal resignation memorializes the Company's and Deloitte & Touche's discussions that they mutually agreed that their auditor-client relationship would cease. Contemporaneously, the Board of Directors took steps to engage BDO Seidman to act as the Company's principal accountant. The reports of Deloitte on the financial statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 contained an emphasis paragraph that the financial statements and financial statement schedules were prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. The 1993 auditor's report stated that the Company's recurring losses from operations and its noncompliance with debt covenants raised substantial doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern. The 1994 report stated that the Company's declining revenues and recurring losses from operations raised substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The 1994 report also included an emphasis paragraph describing certain amendments to the Common Stock Purchase Agreement between the Company, and Daniel Dror & Co. ("DDC"), and designees. These amendments resulted from certain transaction (i) between the Company and DDC and designees, and (ii) initiated by Daniel Dror as Chairman of the Company's investment committee, which were rescinded, amended or voided at various dates during the subsequent interim period to the fiscal June 30, 1994 year end. The decision to change accountants was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company, including the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. 13 During the Company's two most recent fiscal years and subsequent interim periods preceding the cessation of the relationship between the Company and Deloitte there were no disagreements with Deloitte on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure. However, Deloitte believes that there is reportable event under Regulation S-K Item 304(a)(1)(v) which requires disclosure. On November 18, 1994 Deloitte advised the Company that it believed that significant transactions executed by individual Board members or executive officers prior to the Board of Directors deliberation and approval or without safeguards such as shared responsibilities, results in a material weakness in the Company's internal control structure and potentially exposes the Company to material loss of assets or assumption of liability. Deloitte advised that the Company should institute procedures to insure that the Board of Directors approved significant transactions before they are consummated or there is a prior approved guideline addressing the transaction. In its November 18, 1994 letter, Deloitte added that such control procedures will enhance effective corporate governance and insure that the Company's assets and resources are adequately safeguarded. The Company does not believe that Deloitte's November 18, 1994 advice to the Company was an event described in Item 304(a)(1)(v)(A) or (B) in that, in management's opinion, Deloitte's November 18, 1994 letter does not address the existence of those events, i.e., Deloitte has never advised the Company that the internal controls necessary to develop reliable financial statements do not exist or that information has come to Deloitte's attention that has made it unwilling to be associated with the financial statements prepared by management.. How soon we forget. Or perhaps we don't really bother to read this silly SEC stuff...