NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES INC NTWK (last ticker on record)
CIK 1039280Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- SEC/DOJ scrutiny
- Restatement
- 95% wipeout
These figures describe clients, not conduct. A lawyer or firm can serve many companies that later had trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with their work, and nothing here says any lawyer or firm did anything wrong.
- Red flags
- 3
- Newest began Apr 2020
- Largest fall in its shares
- 95%
- Oct 2007 to Sep 2023
- Law firms
- 6
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 2
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Shares down 95% from their high
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K/A (opens in a new tab)
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions cooperating with the SECForm 10-Q (opens in a new tab)
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K/A (opens in a new tab)
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
An SEC release can name a company’s officer, or its stock as what a scheme sold or moved, so the company may be the victim. Each link goes to what to read.
Law firms
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Oswald & YapFirst linked Oct 2011 · Named in SEC correspondence · 25 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.48× · Went dark 1.66× · 95% wipeout 1.15×
- Preston Gates & EllisFirst linked Jun 2001 · Named in a filing · 159 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.36× · Went dark 1.62× · 95% wipeout 1.44×
- Riordan & McKinzieFirst linked Nov 2000 · Named in a filing · 39 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.74× · Went dark 1.13× · 95% wipeout 1.22×
- Horwitz & BeamFirst linked Jun 1997 · Named in a filing · 13 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.24× · Went dark 0.97× · 95% wipeout 0.47×
- Herbert SmithFirst linked Oct 2003 · Text search only · 90 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.01× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.65×
- Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLPFirst linked Mar 2001 · Text search only · 34 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.40× · Went dark 2.62× · 95% wipeout 1.40×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oswald & Yap | Oct 2011 | Named in SEC correspondence | 25 | 1.48 | 1.66 | 1.15 |
| Preston Gates & Ellis | Jun 2001 | Named in a filing | 159 | 1.36 | 1.62 | 1.44 |
| Riordan & McKinzie | Nov 2000 | Named in a filing | 39 | 1.74 | 1.13 | 1.22 |
| Horwitz & Beam | Jun 1997 | Named in a filing | 13 | 1.24 | 0.97 | 0.47 |
| Herbert Smith | Oct 2003 | Text search only | 90 | 1.01 | 0.00 | 0.65 |
| Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP | Mar 2001 | Text search only | 34 | 1.40 | 2.62 | 1.40 |
Lawyers
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Lynne BolducFirst linked Nov 2011 · Named in SEC correspondence · 22 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.07× · Went dark 0.97× · 95% wipeout 1.15×
- Lawrence W. HorwitzHorwitz & BeamFirst linked Jun 1997 · Named in a filing · 21 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.25× · Went dark 1.20× · 95% wipeout 1.67×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lynne Bolduc | Nov 2011 | Named in SEC correspondence | 22 | 2.07 | 0.97 | 1.15 |
| Lawrence W. HorwitzHorwitz & Beam | Jun 1997 | Named in a filing | 21 | 1.25 | 1.20 | 1.67 |