I thought Eisner chose to stop auditing UDF IV and stated it was not due to disagreements and they were under a Bass compaign to stop auditing the fund, so that the fund could not present audited financials on time? since Eisner was the accounting firm for a long time, how did they not found out the loans were impaired before? one would have to ignore some facts in order to buy into Bass's argument. am I wrong?
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.