NQ's last 6-F filing clearly indicates no disagreement with PwC on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure.  As a Foreign Private Issuer (FPI)NQ is required to File the 20-F and has chosen to file 6-F quarterly.  Instruction on 20-F are quite clear: "FPI’s certifying accountant, including a letter, which must be filed as an exhibit, from the former accountant stating whether it agrees with the statements furnished by the FPI and, if not, stating the respects in which it does not agree". (Source 20-F).  

To my knowledge, NQ has not amended or provided an exhibit of a letter from PwC.  Additionally, the instructions for the 6-F indicate:  Reports on Form 6-K generally take the place of Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q (which include financial reports) and Current reports on Form 8-K (which include disclosure on material events) that U.S. domestic issuers are required to file.  (Source 6-K)  The 6-K is not specific in the reporting the dismissal of an auditor except to state that changes in the registrant’s certifying accountants are required.  Only the 8-K is specific:

Notice to the Auditor and the Auditor's Response

8-K Item 4.01 specifically references S-K Item 304(a)(3), which requires the company to:

• Provide to the auditor a copy of the disclosure no later than the date that the registrant files the 8-K;

• Request the auditor's written response in a letter from the auditor addressed to the SEC and indicating whether the auditor agrees with the company's disclosure and, if not, how not; and

• File the auditor's letter as an exhibit to the 8-K, either with the initial filing or as an amendment to the initial filing no later than 10 business days thereafter (but, in any event, within two business days of receipt).

Should we expect a 6-K filing next week from NQ with this letter, amendment, exhibit?  The 10 day requirement for NQ attachment is up Aug 1.  It seems to me that if shorts see a letter for PwC stating no disagreement the stock will continue rising.

Comments and thoughts or am I getting to detailed in my anticipation of the 20-F filing!

Just got this email from NQ last night.  I had hoped to see a letter from PwC.

Matt Mathison said:  "That only relates to 8k/10k filers and not 6k/FPIs like us.

We are not expecting any other filing related to the matter of pwc."

'donlongava' pid='47770' datel Wrote:

Just got this email from NQ last night.  I had hoped to see a letter from PwC.

Matt Mathison said:  "That only relates to 8k/10k filers and not 6k/FPIs like us.

We are not expecting any other filing related to the matter of pwc."

Interesting, thanks for the update. So I guess PWC does not have any disagreements and previous 20-Fs should stay as is? Did you ask Matt if Marcum is going to be using the work done by PWC on the 2013 20-F so far?

The NQ Yahoo Message Board has been highjacked by endless drivel. Nice to see someone is still discussing relevant issues. PWC is required to communicate with Marcum on management integrity, disagreements with management, fraud or illegal acts by NQ, weaknesses in I.C. and the reason for the change in auditors. This will be done in private without filing, and presumably has already occurred. PWC is required to respond promptly and fully to the successor auditors inquiries unless unusual circumstances exist such as litigation or disciplinary proceedings impacting PWC. So unless PWC is raising one of these exemptions, it is unlikely PWC reported anything seriously adverse to Marcum as listed above. Clearly if they had reported fraud or other serious issues, Marcum would not have accepted the engagement or resigned shortly after accepting the engagement. Silence on the PWC front is good news for NQ and consistent with what NQ has stated about their relationship with PWC.

'GDX100' pid='47801' datel Wrote:

The NQ Yahoo Message Board has been highjacked by endless drivel. Nice to see someone is still discussing relevant issues. PWC is required to communicate with Marcum on management integrity, disagreements with management, fraud or illegal acts by NQ, weaknesses in I.C. and the reason for the change in auditors. This will be done in private without filing, and presumably has already occurred. PWC is required to respond promptly and fully to the successor auditors inquiries unless unusual circumstances exist such as litigation or disciplinary proceedings impacting PWC. So unless PWC is raising one of these exemptions, it is unlikely PWC reported anything seriously adverse to Marcum as listed above. Clearly if they had reported fraud or other serious issues, Marcum would not have accepted the engagement or resigned shortly after accepting the engagement. Silence on the PWC front is good news for NQ and consistent with what NQ has stated about their relationship with PWC.

Hey gdx, nice to see you here. Probably that is one of the reasons why stock has had such a good run lately.