why the fall?, page-38

Systematic28, they are reporting on the financial statements as at 31st December. Those are the latest figures available. So the first two sentences are written in the past tense.

The Going Concern aspect though is at the date of the report. A company could have been a going concern at the end of its half year - but not be by the time of the report. Thus comments like "the company is not yet generating enough cash flows to sustain its operations." IS not, that is, now, rather than WAS not.

And: "for a period beyond 12 months from the date of this report" The report is dated 28th February 2013. It is not dated 31st December 2012, that simply the title of the report.

Note also note 13, no subsequent events - if the plant was commissioned/profitable, it would be noted here.

Generally speaking, if a company has negative current liabilities (a warning sign of insolvency under the definition of "unable to pay its debts as and when they fall due") the Corporations Act will require an explanation from the directors as to how they will manage the next 12 months. Hence the lengthy para from the directors. This is very important from any directors point of view, for if it can be shown that the company was trading whilst insolvent, and the directors knew, or should have known it, then they become personally liable for debts incurred after the insolvency date.