United Development Funding IV fka UDFI

[56Chevy]

This is an excerpt from page 22 of Dale Kitchens Affidavit:

Detailed Review of Statements that UDF's Auditor Was Complicit in the Scheme

32. On November 24, 2015, UDF IV filed an 8-K stating that its public accounting firm, Whitley Penn, would not stand for reappointment following the expiration of the current audit engagement period, but that there were no disagreements
between UDF IV and the accountants and no reportable events found by Whitley Penn. Whitley Penn submitted a letter to the SEC concurring with UDF's 8-K filing, which confirmed that Whitley Penn's opinions on the 2013 and 2014 UDF financials ''did not contain an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor were they qualified or modified as to uncertainty, scope or accounting principles" and that for 2015 ''there were no disagreements between (UDF] and Whitley Penn on any matters of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedure." (UDF IV 8-K & Ex. 16.1 thereto, Annex 8.)

You laid out the 4 types of Audit reports in your prior post EI...of which you identified the unqualified report as being the most desired in UDF's case against Bass/Hayman. Kitchens quotes what Whitley Penn passed on to the SEC.

Question- Although Whitley Penn did not specifically use the term "Unqualified" in their statement to the SEC they chose to use the term "nor where they Qualified". By doing so they essentially eliminated "Qualified" from the list of possible opinions. Logic would say the only other choice would be that UDF's financial reports were Unqualified. The other two remaining types of opinions wouldnt make any sense..which only leaves unqualified as the shoe that fits. ??

How do you read that?