Well, I think the bigger deal is the ORIGINAL work papers. Obviously a new firm could do an audit if THE ORIGINAL papers were returned, albeit at a higher expense.
I think the main question with papers is why did they not respond to Tauriga's requests given that they have a fiduciary responsibility. After all, it was the malpractice committed by the firm Cowan Gutenski that caused the SEC to reject the auditors independence and the OTCBB to delist TAUG.
I know if I committed malpractice and caused Tauriga to be delisted I would try to do whatever I could to mitigate the damages caused, not throw gasoline on it.
It will be interesting to see if the insurance company throws Cowan under the bus or vice versa if the jury awards a much bigger award than the policy limits. All the shareholders at the firm could be at risk.
Why in the world would the firm Cowan not notify Tauriga that they were under investigation for independence. Not rotating off as a lead auditor after 5 years would be page 1 in an auditing for dummies book.
But not telling a client there could be a problem while continuing to bill them hundreds of thousands of buckaroos. That could be some serious punitive damages.
Interesting how the original attorney for C&G did not sign the filing. Maybe there is something to the conspiracy of multiple actors deciding to not return Tauriga's work papers.
To me, the big question is, Why were the papers returned in MARCH after mediation. That my friends. is the million dollar question.
And lets not forget C&G was censured for two companies. That is public. What is not public yet, and most likely will have to be subpoena, is the full investigation on C&G by the PCAOB. Because I bet there is much more relating to Cowans practices.
And one thing that most people fail to realize, Tauriga even as a shell, has a serious tax advantage because of 20 mm in loss carryovers
