InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 2
Posts 550
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/27/2016

Re: None

Monday, 10/17/2016 8:10:01 AM

Monday, October 17, 2016 8:10:01 AM

Post# of 54032
Cowan Gutenski was not owed money for 2014. If you read the deposition you will see that Meyler even stated an auditor cannot be owed a substantial amount or they would lose their independence.

If the company owed any money to Cowan Gutenski it would have been for work done on the 2015 audit.

But Meyler stated they did not do any substantial work in the 2015 10q's and year end. Cowan Gutenski should not have done any work on the 2015 once they were notified in September of 2014. The exhibits are very clear that Meyler violated the 5 year rule.

Even if Cowan Gutenski were owed money for 2014, which is doubtful, the rules are clear. Meylers excuse about TAUG having to sign a form is complete B.S. If Cowan Gutenski was owed money why didn't they send TAUG a bill and this software generated form? They did not even respond to TAUG's requests.

The rules are clear as to what Cowan Gutenski's responsibility was when they were notified of a lack of independence. They choose to willfully ignore the rule. The rule is also clear when work papers, which included TAUG's original documents and again Cowan Gutenski willfully violated the rule. Meyler also all but admitted partners of the firm were in the know and went along with this strategy. And the big one was that the lawyers, assumed from insurance company, were then advising Cowan Gutenski to not return the work papers.

https://www.hsn.com/products/videos/1831395

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.