I'm not sure I fully understand your comment. My understanding of this is that even after the revised accounts the auditor was still unwilling to put his name o

I'm not sure I fully understand your comment. My understanding of this is that even after the revised accounts the auditor was still unwilling to put his name on the line. The implication in my eyes is that the books are still in pretty bad shape and could be worse. Is there some reading of this that I'm not getting?