If so, please explain why the original auditor's personal notes had to be handed over to TAUG, before a new independent audit could be initiated.
You're right Doctor my Doctor. It is usually a courtesy for one auditor to help another, but not a rule or a law. This is just more TAUG paid consultant's nonsense. Suing a lawyer for keeping his client's work confidential if he could is a joke. The bigger joke is that class action suits require "pristine" shareholders.
A "pristine" shareholder is a shareholder that bought shares during the class period and woke up one morning after this purchase and realized that he/she had been defrauded by the former auditors. A joke. Just a joke. Plus, the TAUG paid consultant and the TAUG supporters don't qualify. The paid consultant is part of the disqualified class of shareholder by virtue of his paid status, and by virtue that the paid consultant calls many of the shots for TAUG. He cannot sue, but he can be sued as an insider by shareholders.
As for the TAUG supporters, one message board post, one puppet web page, one letter to a Federal judge, one comment by others about what TAUG's paid consultant did or said, and the TAUG supporters are also disqualified as "pristine" shareholders.
The correct thing to have been done was TAUG making a Motion to have these documents turned over to the new auditors. That happened, end of story.
