So painful! Let me try to help.
"...potential undisclosed related party transactions and governance lapses, which we are unable to evaluate at this time"
This means that de la Garza did not satisfy the auditor's request for substantiation to their request. This means that de la Garza chose NOT to or COULD NOT provide any evidence to the auditors. This means that the Board of Directors MAY NOT BE fulfilling its fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, and the audit firm has publicly attested to that fact. This means that if CLOK shareholders sued de la Garza and the Board of Directors of CLOK, that the audit firm could provide valuable support to a lawsuit against de la Garza et al.
Of course, this also means that the audit firm will communicate its findings to the PCAOB, and the PCAOB will evaluate the audit firms findings and act accordingly "in order to protect investors and the public interest by promoting informative, accurate, and independent audit reports".
Of course, don't take my word for it. Do your own due diligence and ignore everything, if you wish. I'm just an altruist.
Message in reply to 'clok-em-dead':
I did read the letter. I also posted a link to that letter. Full disclosure here.
Let me fill in the blanks......
"We also note the receipt of communications alleging potential undisclosed related party transactions and governance lapses, which we are unable to evaluate at this time"
Could this be what the FBI is investigating? The band of thieves calling anyone and everyone?
Interesting times indeed.
Funny how some come and go.
Hit and run.
