"Your understanding of some the options available to R&H is perfectly correct. "
That's encouraging. Unfortunately I don't understand pretty much everything else in your post.
I asked: "Given that you believe that Pizza Frank has already resigned from something without a filing, would you be as willing to accept that R&H may have done the same? "
Please covert whatever piece of your post was responsive to that into a direct answer.
You say "And this I can tell you with 100% certainty, (1) NONE of the audits are finished"......which means 2 things: 1)You are privy to information that the rest of are not and 2) you should be able to provide a direct answer to the previous question. These are the things I REALLY care about.
I guess the following questions were supposed to be rhetorical (asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information), but they went well over my head and hence had neither an effect nor did they make a statement that I could follow. So, if YOU really care about them, please put them in statement form so a dummy like me can understand them:
"Based on "what did they know and when did they know it", what are R&H's options under AU 316??? I should really say, what are their outside counsel's options??? Knowing full well outside parties relied on previously issued "clean opinions". How does R&H cover their azz?? "
If at any point you feel that you are wasting your time in this effort, feel free to stop.
AI
