Company claims it stiffed its vendor(?), who is now in the position of having stiffed its client(?). The covenant breach is probably significant if in fact the Company was led to provide even more financials for filings--which vendor, (accountant), then refused to do, in a breach of good faith. It could be said that accountant is protecting itself against a bankruptcy filing, for example. It may be said in active employment of nefarious company competition in advancing the perception, now public. There is likely some breach of ethics and professional covenant involved.
The numbers involved are likely USD, and so accountant maybe only be allowed to go so far as to see direct payment evidence--a revenue stream--in support of numbers it has in its possession. It is probably not clear that the accountant has ownership rights to the information the client provided. The accountant is telling the investors that something is wrong, if CEO report is correct.
For now, stiffed accountant has information on which the public has to rely. Accountant now most likely is required to provide the disclosure, and possibly is subject to professional censure.
