Replies to post #35994 on Tauriga Sciences Inc (fka TAUG)

[plutoniumimplosion]

My point to all --- nobody can predict what Tauriga ultimately collects. But the case itself is very very very solid

The case is not rock solid, its same old, same old. TAUG has to prove its damages. Share price decrease is not a legitimate damage demand and that has been proven over and over, and just to get it straight, time and again. Also, because TAUG has no business, no sources of revenue, no profit, they cannot claim a business tort. What business damages occurred. The only real damages they can count on are in the areas of fees paid to Cowan and 3rd parties to produce financial statements that were, in the end, of no use. That is a straight calculation -- show the check register.

Likewise trying to demonize Meyler, a 73 year old man, in an effort to prove punitive damages, is not going anywhere. He didn't deliberately go out of his way to damage TAUG. In fact, Meyler can argue that as TAUG's former auditor there was more than ample evidence that TAUG is guilty of damaging themselves what with poor management and BOD decisions. Meyler will also be able to show all of the mini-disputes that have arisen between auditor and client over the years, and frankly none of them will be flattering to TAUG or Sethie.

Finally, Sethie himself will have his character impugned. His past associations and the substance issues will play big roles, as will that deplorable web site and the Johnny letter to the judge (which will be rightly viewed as interference in a Federal court case).

No, the TAUG case is not a sure thing. It isn't strong. This is an insurance matter. If the case were that strong, it would be handled by an contingency case expert. TAUG, on the other hand, is paying out of pocket and has hired the Junior Varsity.

It should be settled. It can be settled, but Sethie is in a box. Too bad, so sad.

All IMO

[loanranger]

"I can assure you that Cowan provided a document to the TAUG board during June of 2014. Guaranteeing in writing that they were independent (even specifying Rule 3520) with respect to FY 2014 audit. That letter naturally will IMO dispel any doubt as to your contention that Tauriga 's Board should have known that Meyler was violaitng the cooling off period regulation. The blame should not be directed at TAUG's Board she the auditor provides explicit written assurances about independence being upheld properly"

So they provided a so-called independence letter sometime during the month before the 2014 10-K was filed and another one two weeks AFTER it was filed? That seems odd. Why did TAUG's lawyers decide not to include the first letter, which would apply to the 2014 audit...the foundation of the suit...in the Meyler deposition Exhibits?

A company's Board has the right to rely on the representations in an auditor's independence letter and the right to sue that auditor if the letter includes misrepresentations. A company's Board should expect the defense to raise and the Court to consider whether that company's Board should have known and in fact did know that the letter included false representations when considering damages. That fact should be expected to mitigate damages. People need to know that there is a difference between a defense based on mitigation and mitigating considerations in a settlement. No letter relieves a Board of Directors of its duties, one of which is to know and understand the concept of auditor independence.
"The blame should not be directed at TAUGs Board", and no one said that all of the blame was theirs, but some of the blame was and I expect that to be considered by the Court.
Wait and see. TAUG investors don't mind waiting, right?