Solei Systems Inc. (fka SOLI)

[daiello]

Some here claim it's a bait and switch scam but I think through the filings and the SEC rules we can conclude that nothing nefarious is actually going on and it can be indeed lack of accounting knowledge, an overwhelming amount of requests or some other obstacles we aren't privy to right now.

Follow me down the SEC rabbit hole...

The 8K posted on 1/13 relates to the resignation of the old accounting firm. If you look under 4.01(a)(i) through 4.01(a)(iv) there were no red flags that they needed to report.

4.01(a)(v) is the important one; it says: None of the events listed in Item 304(a)(1)(v) (A) through (D) have occurred or exist.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=64fcdf52ce097aee2ff0f753f99dbc6f&mc=true&node=se17.3.229_1304&rgn=div8

When reading through A through D below (link also above) keep in mind that none of these have occurred or existed. It would seem the accountants would have a duty to report any such "bait and switch" scam at this time based on the following disclosure:

(A) The accountant's having advised the registrant that the internal controls necessary for the registrant to develop reliable financial statements do not exist; HAS NOT OCCURRED OR EXISTED

(B) The accountant's having advised the registrant that information has come to the accountant's attention that has led it to no longer be able to rely on management's representations, or that has made it unwilling to be associated with the financial statements prepared by management; HAS NOT OCCURRED OR EXISTED

(C)(1) The accountant's having advised the registrant of the need to expand significantly the scope of its audit, or that information has come to the accountant's attention during the time period covered by Item 304(a)(1)(iv), that if further investigated may: HAS NOT OCCURRED OR EXISTED (you can go to the link to read further but that's the main point)

(D)(1) The accountant's having advised the registrant that information has come to the accountant's attention that it has concluded materially impacts the fairness or reliability of either (i) a previously issued audit report or the underlying financial statements, or (ii) the financial statements issued or to be issued covering the fiscal period(s) subsequent to the date of the most recent financial statements covered by an audit report (including information that, unless resolved to the accountant's satisfaction, would prevent it from rendering an unqualified audit report on those financial statements), HAS NOT OCCURRED OR EXISTED (you can go to the link to read further but that's the main point)

Additionally, in a letter from Farber Hass Hurley they agreed with the statements made in that 8K, so they had multiple chances to speak up and say something is fishy here and did not. Are they also involved in the scam, or is nothing shady actually going on?