I am trying to be respectful in responding to that
But you are 100% wrong
OK -- you state that "TAUGS should recoup any $$$ they PAID for that faulty audit"
Which was FULLY paid for, that is a fact
Your cotention may have been accurate had Cowan disclosed to Tauriga early on about the malpractice (for example in mid-late 2014 after they knew they were under investigation by PCAOB for this Tauriga related issue)
Had Cowan been honest about their error early on, that would have mitigated everything, and perhaps return on fees paid would have been sufficient
Instead Cowan chose to conceal this malpractice and Info about the ongoing PCAOB investigation (made clear in Meyler's Depo). As a result Tauriga didn't learn about it till the July 23, 2015 censure. By then way too late avoid delisting and collateral damages.
Like liquidated damages, like loss of liquidity, like loss of opportunity, like he triggering of delinquency default provisions is NOTES. Perhaps Tauriga wouldn't have entered into NOTES is June and mid July 2015 if they knew that PCAOB Censure was days away
Your argument fails to take into account the conscious decisions made by Cowan after they were informed by PCAOB that they had violated the "cooling off" regulation or Rule 3520
You are not taking that into account at all. And the court / jury certainly will. IMO
