Chad's rebuttal to Joe's complaint (also posted as a stickie). https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110825743
An auditors engagement includes previous fiscal year audit and review of the subsequent quarterly periods for the following year. These engagements for the most part overlap. So despite the lack of an engagement for the new period, SIAF was still under engagement for review.
The CEO did not intentionally mislead anyone. The CEO simply regarded Madsen's affiliate, who was doing the work described in the PR's, as the "auditor". Technically, they are not one in the same, but the CEO didn't know this. If anything it was a honest mistake.
Had there been any issue with this, it would have received comments by the SEC during the Form 10 review. The SEC does review all Company PR's and communications during a registration statement review. Since the SEC deemed SIAF's Form 10 effective, obviously they had no problems with it. And if the SEC did have a problem with it, it evidently was resolved during the comment period. Additionally, SIAF went through a second review period with the SEC on it's more recent Form S-1, which was withdrawn.
Your arguments would hold water if the Company had not completed the tasks it stated. Were they delayed? Sure, but the Company did manage to clear it's Form 10 at a time that all Chinese Companies were under a microscope by the SEC.
In regards to me representing "pump and dumps". My involvement in RVGD led to the SEC sanction of Steve Carnes. We caught his shenanigans, unfortunately it didn't end well for shareholders. Other clients of mine suffered problems due to poor due diligence of their shells.
Every client I ever worked with it was the people who took the companies public that created the problems. At most, the CEO's were guilty of being naive and I did the best I could to clean up the mess. Of the 6 companies I worked with, SIAF was the only one that didn't have a botched reverse merger.
I learned a lot from that period and took that knowledge and became the first CEO/Company to clear both the SEC and FINRA with a cannabis related IPO.
Lastly, SIAF attorney's did not threaten you with a lawsuit. You threatened SIAF with one and the attorney's simply said they would file a counter-suit deeming yours frivolous.
It may be time to put aside old grudges and move on bro. There's a learning curve for many CEO's and some don't always get it right the first time.