Shash, the information became known in September, and because the company identified it as material, it is mentioned in the prospectus. The details of this are not known and probably remain under review to determine if this is an issue of compliance, negligence or fraud. As it is already 8 years old, it is more likely to be a compliance issue (such as a missing or incomplete form/filing) identified via audit, as a fraud or negligence issue are more likely to be reported at the time of such an incident and acted upon promptly with evidence such as work product, or lack thereof. Further, as no charges have been filed, it may well be that both parties are in the process of searching for further information to help clarify what, if anything substantive, may have transpired.
Seems like too many are too willing to assume the worst and/or infer wrong doing when none is stated at this time. If you research the prospectus of many companies, you will find that lawsuits and potential liabilities, however serious or frivolous they may be, are included among the liability/ risks until an outcome is achieved. So is likely the case with this grant.
Just my opinion, though.
