InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

newmedman

02/23/13 9:54 AM

#2736 RE: sicofbs #2735

It was only for the 1 year that Hatfield was unlicensed. That was when XCHC was a shell so there was no need to have a big firm around to sign off on nothing. Now that XCHC will probably be seeking damages from Hatfield, it makes no sense for them to carry on as their auditor. Hatfield sent the same letter to all the companies they screwed.

There's no advantage to be gained by having an unlicensed auditor.


5. SWH’s license expired on January 31, 2010 and was not renewed until May
19, 2011. Scott Hatfield knew that SWH’s license had expired.

6. Scott Hatfield successfully renewed SWH’s firm license on May 19, 2011.

7. Between January 31, 2010 and May 19, 2011, while SWH’s public
accounting license was expired, SWH issued 38 audit reports that 21 issuers included in
periodic reports and registration statements filed with the Commission (see Appendix).
Scott Hatfield, as SWH’s sole proprietor, consented to the inclusion of SWH’s audit reports
in these filings. Issuers relied on SWH’s audit reports to, among other things, issue
securities. Scott Hatfield and SWH billed issuers $199,722 in connection with audits
conducted or completed while SWH’s license was expired.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-67793.pdf