It is not unusual for directors to put a gloss on things. The...

It is not unusual for directors to put a gloss on things. The auditors report can be considered far more objective. The auditors believe the company cannot continue as a going concern based on the evidence provided to them by the company. Going concern meaning being able to meet their expenses as and when they fall due. A main worry being an inability to fund the current litigation from their current resources. The company is presently seeking ways to fund this.

The auditors are not going to change their opinion after having a fireside chat with the directors. When they say evidence has not been provided to show the company is able to continue trading it is not because evidence exists and hasn't yet been provided. It is because there is no evidence.

The company needs additional equity to be able to continue. If it does not source this it cannot defend its case and likely will go into receivership early next year.

I cannot see how the auditors can change their view until the company secures addditional funding. Until they do the suspension will continue.

(former holder from the crazy days)