The lawsuit is very strong. Very strong on many levels.
That doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy to win a huge award, because Tauriga faces two well funded defendants each with a very prestigious law firm. And smart/cunning lawyers
But ultimately the affirmative defenses will fail because Cowan made conscious decisions that led to all of these otherwise preventable collateral damages. Cowan chose to conceal the malpractice for 11 months from Tauriga (August 2014 - July 2015). While Cowan also chose to continually bill Tauriga including $25,000 on July 13, 2015 (10 days before he pcaob censure) to reissue an independent opinion for FY 2014 audit.
Think about that for a minute. The intent is very clear and not honorable. These firm's sole purpose is to protect the integrity of financial markets. They thought they could get away with this and chose to continue to collect fees. Sometimes being Honest isn't easy but being deceitful and unethical exacerbates what would have otherwise been a moderate issue.
Something else. The two notes entered into by TAUG on June 2, 2015 (union) and July 14, 2015 (group 10) both carried enormous default provisions triggered by delinquency of SEC filings and made even worse by failure to quickly cure such deficiencies. Cowan chose not to inform Tauriga for 11 months about this malpractice and Tauriga only found out by being blindsided by the PCAOB censure on July 23, 2015. Tauriga never would have entered into Notes carrying these types of delinquency triggered default penalties had Cowan come forward and told the truth about the independence beach error. This is an example of why the damages grew. Cowan chose not to be honest. Period. And then played games inexplicably after the July 31, 2015 delisting when Meyler should have personally driven the work papers to Seth on August 1, 2015. These facts are crushing to the defendant. And IMO the insurance company has lots of explaining to do as well. To say the
Least
And LoneRanger -- I can assure you that Cowan provided a document to the TAUG board during June of 2014. Guaranteeing in writing that they were independent (even specifying Rule 3520) with respect to FY 2014 audit. That letter naturally will IMO dispel any doubt as to your contention that Tauriga 's Board should have known that Meyler was violaitng the cooling off period regulation. The blame should not be directed at TAUGs Board she the auditor provides explicit written assurances about independence being upheld properly
Diannedawn recently stated that Tauriga deserves to get fees refunded. If Cowan were honest early on (during late 2014) then diannedawn's argument would have merit. But all of the above changes that markedly and IMO there is a major shot at punitive damages being awarded to TAUG.
My point to all --- nobody can predict what Tauriga ultimately collects. But the case itself is very very very solid IMO
