Tauriga Sciences Inc (fka TAUG)

[seifer1975]

There are rules, they seem simple enough but sometimes people do not understand them.

I think the puppet and website was brought up today, I don't think it went over well for Cowan. In fact, the Court may have liked it, go figure.

"Exemptions to mediation confidentiality include professional malpractice."

Do I have to explain your misunderstanding of that again? If it's too much, just read the paragraph that follows "I'll try to simplify that".
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124784512&txt2find=mediation

Looks like our favorite consultant understood the exemption rules better than others.

Guess which punishment they selected?
Censure:
A formal, public reprimand for an infraction or violation.

I always wondered what they meant by their assertion that this press released statement was untrue:
"Cowan, Gunteski provided certain work papers to Tauriga’s new auditor only as a result of the mediation"

Now I have to wonder what "the documents that would enable the release of the work papers to Plaintiff’s
successor auditor were provided for signature by Tauriga and its successor auditor" were.
This too may be tied into their concerns about confidentiality and a request for an agreement providing same. I wouldn't be surprised if Cowan wanted an assurance in the form of a confidentiality agreement that the contents of their workpapers, which the new auditors were certainly entitled to see and could be used as evidence, wouldn't be handed to any old Johnny Come Lately to blab all over the internet.
They shouldn't need a special agreement for that, but it's very easy to see how they might have believed that they did.
Just a little guesswork, though.

1. Cowan was forced to transfer the working papers by the mediator who was taking it to the judge.

2. I guess any Johnny come lately can blab things on the internet eh. Now I think you have seen that in two courts.

I agree with you, though. Falsely stating that a Complaint had been filed with a Regulatory Agency isn't something a reasonable person would be expected to do. It can bring unintended legal consequences.

I guess it is safe to say he does not have to worry about unintended legal consequences. I hear the latest letter is from the new acting Director, intersting

"...they have been negotiating to transfer to New Jersey"
There it is again....revisionist loser talk.

TAUG spent time and money....and not just their own....trying to KEEP the case in Florida. I'm not sure that I would go so far as to say that I expect a separate issue to be brought by Cowan or any of its affiliates to try to recover some of that wasted money, but it can't be denied that by bring the case in Florida TAUG wasted the Court's time and Cowan's money....not to mention some of their own.

Of course it doesn't change the facts.

I fully expect that the NJ Court will find that the delay caused by TAUG in bringing the case in the wrong venue acts to deprive them of any recovery that resulted from the delay....like that undocumented $1,000/day fine we keep hearing about.

When did they bring the case? Take the number of days between the date the Complaint was filed in FL and the date that it gets filed in NJ, multiply it by $1,000, and subtract that number from any proposed recovery.
There's probably a fair amount of other stuff like that. Didn't the suggested settlement number grown every time we saw a new TAUG PR? That's been due to TAUG's wrong-headed choice of venue....they shouldn't benefit from it and Cowan shouldn't be penalized further for it.

I'm sure you would agree with the justice of that.

Luckily no time or money was wasted. Looks like the case was transferred and the parties agreed to 6 month extension, which is pretty customary

Please tell me on what page in the depo I should be able to find this:
"William Meyler testified that his attorney told him not to comply with the rules and to withhold TAUG's work papers."Two "no response"s and one "I'll find it later, but if it's not there I know somebody else said (blah blah blah)". Very satisfying.

Actually it was Don Cowan that stated that in the deposition. Looks like another Court may have told Cowan to pound sand on confidentiality. But if you read the transcript and view the exhibits it is clear that once the insurance company was involved the lawyers were telling Cowan to not transfer working papers. If there were any limitations with regard to the working papers Cowan should have documented them in writing and forwarded them to the new auditor. But there were no limitations. it is great to be satisfied but here I think it is quibbling about facts with little import of distinction.

Auditors aren't responsible for the preparation of financial statements...that is the responsibility of management.
Of course a $1,000/day penalty for being out of compliance with the terms of an agreement should have been reported, just as the penalty terms associated with existing agreements were reported. I provided those details in a prior post.
The question is DOES SUCH A TERM EXIST IN ANY AGREEMENT?
I don't believe that it does. And no, I don't have any proof that it doesn't.
You know that that will need to be proven in order to be part of any recovery, right? If it can't be proven it would present some pretty nifty evidence in a complaint brought against the parties that made such an assertion publicly***, should one be brought.

I don't think conjecture like " I don't believe that it does" will matter in court, the fact is it does exist and added a cool half mil to the tab.

If Tauriga didn't become aware of the issue until July 23 then why was Cowan/Meyler replaced on June 15th? Meyler had been associated with Tauriga in some way since the company's first filing in 2001 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1142790/000095012301503651/y50627ex23-02.txt).
What exactly precipitated the June 15th dismissal of Cowan

High prices, the Cherry Bakeart thing a maging...mostly high prices

"but I also think that he has dug himself into a hole that he is kind of stuck in....
(telling this STORY of millions of $$$ coming to TAUG in a "win")
How can he back away from that without totally losing face?"

He can't simply back away, but....
In case he hasn't been paying as much attention as he should I have an idea for him that's a sure winner:
1. Negotiate a settlement and announce that it is for a "healthy sum".
2. Bank the cash and pay off the lawyers in shares...Preferreds that convert at a steep discount would keep everybody happy.
3. Announce the settlement in the press, indicating that as part of the settlement agreement its terms would be kept confidential.
4. Move on as if the whole thing never happened.
5. Resume normal operations :o)

why would he back away from it? this seems to confuse Seth with TAUG's ex Board member