Interesting Observations
As I recall, there is a requirement in the Statement on Auditing Standards to communicate with the predecessor auditor which, includes reviewing their work papers to review such items as legal confirms, minute rep letter, general rep letter, passed audit adjustments and the scope of the work which was done.
If this standard is still required, and the previous auditor was in Florida and the new one is in California, I wonder how they are communicating to perform this function? If this is still a requirement, is the new auditor aware of the history of Mr. Samblis? Has the new auditor spoken to counsel about pending litigation? Sometimes the new auditor may do a judgment search, if so, are there any judgments against the Company that are not reflected in the financial statements?
I certainly would be especially careful not being concerned about potential shareholder suits as, Hartley Moore is not giving an opinion but, the potential exposure if this audit was reviewed by the PCAOB or any other regulatory body. Indeed, my comments in the past were just from the public filings and no staff...what would someone with a staff and endless budget come up with.
Well, today is a good day for PNCH it is unchanged.
I wish I knew more but I don't - but I do believe it will be an interesting Q whenever it is filed. Always remember, meadow2009 does not recommend you buy or sell any stock, always wash your hands to avoid spreading any type of virus and always perform your own due diligence.
Cheerio
