"The Lip said the well will run dry by March 31st."
Not exactly. He said something that wasn't nearly as clear as that: "To continue as a going concern, we must secure additional funding to support our current operating plan in the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019."
The "going concern" concept hasn't even been totally sorted out by the creators of the phrase. "A going concern is a business that functions without the threat of liquidation for the foreseeable future, which is usually regarded as at least the next 12 months." If an auditor feels that there is a question about that they must say so in their annual opinion. If they believe that a Company is not a going concern they actually have to require that management-prepared financial statements be prepared in a way that reflects that belief. For example, if an asset is being depreciated over its useful life of 5 years, it might be written down to what it's actually market value is as if it had to be sold, which is typically very different. It's pretty unusual.
Since the CEO is a CPA, albeit not registered ("If a registration has lapsed without explanation, the record is marked NOT REGISTERED."), he is likely to be using the term technically versus in some general way. We know that at last report the MFO was still in a position to exercise some warrants to buy Preferred, so there's an agreement in place to provide "funding to support our current operating plan"....it's just not enough, according to the Company's projections, to cover the period from 4/1/19 to 3/31/20. AND the funding is at the option of the MFO. So his statement was technically correct. In the next 10-Q, if a new funding Agreement isn't in place at the date of issuance, I expect that the new Auditor would "recommend" that the Company include a more specific "going concern" statement in that 10-Q.
It's a little more complicated than "the well will run dry by March 31st" and I doubt that that's what he was implying. It was somewhere between a boilerplate statement and a CYA statement with new emphasis.
FWIW, the auditor change wasn't fully explained (kind of like Tobin's departure), but was reportedly done for economic reasons. However this type of issue, especially in an annual situation that calls for a formal opinion, can be difficult for both managers and auditors (and Audit Committee Chairmen) and may have played a part in that decision.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
