Since the SEC raised questions about the " accuracy " of Laidlaw's Financials an auditor would need to audit as far back as necessary to obtain a verifiable baseline of Financials accuracy. That typically means about 3 years of Financials to satisfy an Auditor that a baseline and subsequent entries are vetted.
Auditors vet every infinitessimal detail....every penny....every transaction.
If Laidlaw did submit inaccurate Financials as the SEC alleges then an audit will expose those inaccuracies.
Because the CEO is purported to be well versed in SEC Rules and Regulations the CEO will be held to a higher degree of accountability if the allegedly inaccurate Financials were purposely inaccurate in contrast to incompetently inaccurate.
So then, does Laidlaw and its principals fare better by not auditing the Financials and leaving the SEC's allegations as allegations, or submitting several audited yearly Financials and thereby risking the company and its principals to SEC sanctions?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
