Initial Decision Release No. 1407

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-18292

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

In the Matter of

Anton & Chia, LLP,

Gregory A. Wahl, CPA,

Michael Deutchman, CPA,

Georgia Chung, CPA, and

Tommy Shek, CPA

Initial Decision

as to Gregory A. Wahl, CPA,

Michael Deutchman, CPA,

and Georgia Chung, CPA

February 8, 2021

Appearances: Alyssa A. Qualls, Daniel J. Hayes, Ariella O. Guardi, John 

E. Birkenheier, Donald Searles, Jennifer Calabrese, Leslie 

Kazon, and David Van Havermaat for the Division of 

Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission

Lahdan Rahmati, in a limited capacity, for Respondents 

Gregory Wahl and Georgia Chung1

Gregory Wahl and Georgia Chung, pro se

John R. Armstrong and Vanoli V. Chander, Horwitz & 

Armstrong, APC, for Respondent Michael Deutchman

Before: Jason S. Patil, Administrative Law Judge

 

1 Rahmati appeared for Respondents Wahl and Chung in the limited 

capacity of conducting their direct examinations at the hearing. Respondents 

otherwise represented themselves at the hearing and in the post-hearing 

phase. Additional attorneys appeared for Respondents in prior phases of the 

proceeding.
2

Introduction

This case involves multiple violations of the federal securities laws and 

improper professional conduct by accountants associated with Anton & Chia, 

LLP, an audit firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight 

Board (PCAOB). The misconduct relates to audit or interim review 

engagements for three companies: Accelera Innovations, Inc., Premier Holding 

Corporation, and CannaVEST Corp. 

Respondent Gregory A. Wahl, CPA, was majority owner and managing 

partner of Anton & Chia, and served as the engagement partner for Accelera’s 

2013 and 2014 year-end audits and five interim reviews from the first quarter 

of 2014 through the third quarter of 2015 (with the exception of the third 

quarter 2014 review, in which he was not involved), Premier’s 2013 year-end

audit, and CannaVEST’s 2013 interim reviews. Respondent Michael 

Deutchman, CPA, was an audit partner at Anton & Chia and served as the

engagement partner during the interim review of Accelera for the third quarter 

of 2014 and engagement quality reviewer for Accelera’s 2014 year-end audit 

and the interim reviews for 2015.2 Respondent Georgia Chung, CPA, co-owned 

Anton & Chia with Wahl and served as the engagement quality reviewer for 

CannaVEST’s first quarter of 2013 interim review.

Accelera vastly inflated its financial position and results by treating 

another company’s revenues, assets, and liabilities as its own. Premier inflated 

and provided an unsupported valuation of an otherwise worthless promissory 

note and further improperly allocated the entire purported value of an acquired 

company to goodwill. CannaVEST greatly overstated its assets due to its 

improper valuation of an acquired company. In performing the audits or 

interim reviews of these companies, Respondents egregiously deviated from 

multiple PCAOB standards3 and ignored numerous red flags indicating the 

 

2 My findings regarding the timeframe of Wahl and Deutchman’s 

involvement in the Accelera interim reviews and their respective position titles 

differ somewhat from the allegations in the order instituting proceedings 

(OIP). See OIP at 5, 16. The discrepancy has no bearing on their degree of 

culpability or the sanctions imposed.

3 In this initial decision, in line with Securities and Exchange Commission 

interpretive guidance, I use the term “PCAOB standards,” not the older term 

“GAAS” (generally accepted auditing standards), to mean the auditing 

standards required by the Commission’s rules when dealing with public 

company financial statements. Commission Guidance Regarding the Public 

Company Accounting Oversight Board’s Auditing and Related Professional 

Practice Standard No. 1, 69 Fed. Reg. 29,064, 29,065 (May 20, 2004)
3

companies’ financial statements and public filings contained material 

misstatements. Moreover, Wahl and Deutchman were reckless in not knowing

that the statements in Anton & Chia’s reports for Accelera and Premier were 

false and misleading. In its audit reports, the firm egregiously misrepresented

that it had conducted its work in accordance with PCAOB standards and that 

the companies’ financial statements fairly presented their financial positions 

according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

In connection with work related to Accelera, Deutchman aided and 

abetted Anton & Chia’s violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(b)’s antifraud provisions; Wahl and Deutchman 

aided and abetted and were a cause of Accelera’s violation of Exchange Act 

Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13’s requirement that an issuer file 

accurate reports; Wahl and Deutchman aided and abetted and were a cause of 

Anton & Chia’s violation of Rule 2-02(b) of Regulation S-X due to the 

misrepresentations in the firm’s reports; and Wahl and Deutchman willfully 

violated or willfully aided and abetted violations of the federal securities laws 

or rules within the meaning of Exchange Act Section 4C(a)(3) and Rule 

102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, and engaged in improper

professional conduct within the meaning of Section 4C(a)(2) and Rule 

102(e)(1)(ii).

In connection with his work related to Premier, Wahl violated Exchange 

Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b), aided and abetted Anton & Chia’s 

violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b), aided and abetted and was a 

cause of Premier’s violation of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rule 13a-1, 

aided and abetted and was a cause of Anton & Chia’s violation of Rule 2-02(b) 

of Regulation S-X, willfully violated or willfully aided and abetted violations of 

the federal securities laws or rules within the meaning of Section 4C(a)(3) and 

Rule 102(e)(1)(iii), and engaged in improper professional conduct within the 

meaning of Section 4C(a)(2) and Rule 102(e)(1)(ii).

In connection with their work related to CannaVEST, Wahl and Chung 

engaged in improper professional conduct within the meaning of Section 

4C(a)(2) and Rule 102(e)(1)(ii).

The following sanctions are warranted in the public interest: cease-anddesist orders against Wahl and Deutchman; $160,000 in civil penalties against 

Wahl and $40,000 against Deutchman; Wahl and Deutchman are permanently 

 

(“[R]eferences in Commission rules and staff guidance and in the federal 

securities laws to GAAS or to specific standards under GAAS, as they relate to 

issuers, should be understood to mean the standards of the PCAOB plus any 

applicable rules of the Commission.”).
4

denied the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission as 

accountants, and Chung is denied the privilege of appearing or practi cing 

before the Commission as an accountant with the right to reapply after one 

year.

Procedural History

On December 4, 2017, the Commission issued an OIP against Wahl, 

Deutchman, and Chung under Exchange Act Sections 4C and 21C and Rule of 

Practice 102(e).

4 The Commission also instituted proceedings against Anton & 

Chia and Tommy Shek, CPA, but later settled as to those parties.5 Anton & 

Chia, LLP, Exchange Act Release No. 87033, 2019 WL 4572716 (Sept. 20, 

2019) (Anton & Chia); Anton & Chia, Exchange Act Release No. 83622, 2018 

WL 3388553 (July 12, 2018) (Shek). 

On January 5, 2018, Respondents answered by generally denying the 

allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. See Wahl Answer; Deutchman 

Answer.6 The affirmative defenses contain assertions against the elements of 

 

4 The proceeding was instituted under Section 21C as to Wahl and 

Deutchman, but not Chung.

5 Allegations in the OIP about the failure to maintain an adequate system 

of quality controls pertained only to Anton & Chia, and thus I do not address 

them in this decision. For the same reason, I do not address the 2015 year-end 

audit of Accelera.

6 Citations to the answer filed by Anton & Chia, Wahl, and Chung are noted 

as “Wahl Answer at __”; citations to Wahl and Chung’s post-hearing brief, 

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and response to the Division 

of Enforcement’s proposed findings of fact, are noted as “Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 

__,” “Wahl PFOF at __,” and “Wahl Resp. to Div. PFOF at __,” respectively. 

When referring to arguments made in Wahl and Chung’s post-hearing briefing, 

I state “Wahl and Chung argue” only when the argument is relevant to both of 

them; otherwise I merely state “Wahl argues.” Citations to Respondent 

Deutchman’s answer and his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law 

are noted as “Deutchman Answer at __” and “Deutchman Post-hr’g Br. at __,” 

respectively. Citations to the Division’s post-hearing brief, proposed findings 

of fact, response to Wahl’s PFOF, response to Deutchman’s PFOF, and posthearing reply brief, are noted as “Div. Post-hr’g Br. at __,” “Div. PFOF at __,” 

“Div. Resp. to Wahl PFOF at __,” “Div. Resp. to Deutchman PFOF at __,” and 

“Div. Post-hr’g Reply Br. at __,” respectively. Citations to the hearing 

transcript are noted as “Tr. __.” When exhibits lack both consistent internal 

pagination and Bates style numbering, I cite to the page of the PDF and follow 

the PDF page number with “(PDF).” 
5

the allegations and also raise constitutional issues, reliance on professionals, 

and various other defenses that were not supported by further briefing, such 

as the doctrines of laches and estoppel. See Wahl Answer at 27–30; Deutchman 

Answer at 22–24. All three Respondents were initially represented by counsel, 

but Wahl and Chung’s attorneys withdrew; Wahl and Chung now defend 

themselves.

This proceeding was initially assigned to another administrative law 

judge, but after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 

(2018), it was reassigned to a different judge, and then was reassigned to me 

prior to the hearing. See Pending Admin. Proc., Admin Proc. Rulings Release 

No. 5955, 2018 SEC LEXIS 2264, at *1–3 (ALJ Sept. 12, 2018) (reassignment 

post-Lucia); Anton & Chia, Admin Proc. Rulings Release No. 6690, 2019 SEC 

LEXIS 3410, at *1 (ALJ Sept. 27, 2019) (assigning proceedings to me). 

The evidentiary portion of the hearing took place in Los Angeles, 

California, over the course of 25 days: October 15–18, November 4–8 and 18–

22, and December 2–6 and 16–18, 2019, and January 6–8, 2020. Closing 

arguments were conducted through videoconference on January 15, 2020. 

After the hearing, I admitted multiple exhibits into evidence and 

rescinded the inclusion of one exhibit. See Anton & Chia, Admin Proc. Rulings 

Release No. 6726, 2020 SEC LEXIS 2622, at *1 (ALJ Jan. 28, 2020) (admitting 

Ex. 772); Anton & Chia, Admin Proc. Rulings Release No. 6727, 2020 SEC 

LEXIS 3143, at *1 (ALJ Jan. 29, 2020) (admitting Exs. 432 and 1119); Anton 

& Chia, Admin Proc. Rulings Release No. 6741, 2020 SEC LEXIS 658, at *1

(ALJ Mar. 9, 2020) (admitting Ex. 839.8); Anton & Chia, Admin Proc. Rulings 

Release No. 6766, 2020 SEC LEXIS 3435, at *2–3 (ALJ June 10, 2020) 

(admitting Exs. 13, 14, 15, 1203, 1281, 1283, and 1284; rescinding admission 

of Ex. 44.1); Anton & Chia, Admin Proc. Rulings Release No. 6801, 2020 SEC 

LEXIS 5066 (ALJ Dec. 3, 2020) (admitting Ex. 1285). Post-hearing briefing 

closed on August 10, 2020, and the matter is now ripe for decision. All 

arguments inconsistent with this decision have been considered and rejected.

Preliminary Issues

Before my findings of fact and legal conclusions on the merits, I address 

two preliminary issues: Respondents’ constitutional arguments, and the 

weight that I give to expert evidence, which includes the resolution of pending 

motions in limine.

1. Respondents’ constitutional arguments are moot or unsuccessful.

Wahl, Chung, and Deutchman raise several constitutional arguments: 

(1) the proceeding violates the Appointments Clause, Wahl Answer at 28; 
6

Deutchman Answer at 22–23; (2) disgorgement is unlawful on unspecified 

constitutional grounds, Wahl Answer at 30; Deutchman Answer at 24; Wahl 

Post-hr’g Br. at 75; see Wahl PFOF at 768–69 (PDF); (3) having an 

administrative law judge preside over this proceeding violates Respondents’ 

right to due process, Wahl Answer at 28; Deutchman Answer at 22–23; and 

(4) the proceeding violates Respondents’ right to jury trial, Wahl Answer at 30; 

Deutchman Answer at 24; see Wahl PFOF at 184 (PDF). 

Further, Wahl and Chung assert that (5) the issuance of a press release 

regarding the OIP and the filing of proof of claim in Wahl’s bankruptcy 

proceeding deprived them of due process of law, Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 76; Wahl 

PFOF at 54–58, 631–33, 639–41, 643–45, 673–75, 680–85, 705, 749 (PDF); and 

(6) the press release and claim constituted an unconstitutional taking of their 

property, Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 76–77; Wahl PFOF at 680–88, 765, 797, 805 

(PDF). Finally, although not a constitutional claim, Wahl and Chung assert 

that this proceeding is time-barred. Wahl Post-hr’g. Br. at 71–72.

The first argument is mooted by the reassignment of this proceeding to a 

different, properly appointed administrative law judge for a new hearing 

following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia. Pending Admin. Proc., 

Exchange Act Release No. 83907, 2018 WL 4003609, at *1 (Aug. 22, 2018); 

Anton & Chia, 2019 SEC LEXIS 3410; Pending Admin. Proc., 2018 SEC LEXIS 

2264, at *2–3; see Pending Admin. Proc., Exchange Act Release No. 82178, 

2017 WL 5969234, at *1 (Nov. 30, 2017) (ratifying the appointment). The 

second is mooted by the Division’s decision to abandon its request for 

disgorgement. Div. Post-hr’g Reply Br. at 1. The remaining constitutional 

arguments are unsuccessful for the reasons discussed below.

1.1. A proceeding before an administrative law judge does not deprive 

Wahl, Chung, and Deutchman of due process.

Wahl, Chung, and Deutchman argue, without elaboration, that having a 

Commission administrative law judge adjudicate this proceeding violates the 

Due Process Clause. Wahl Answer at 28; Deutchman Answer at 22–23. 

However, courts have long rejected the argument that adjudication before an 

agency deprives a respondent of due process. See Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. 

SEC, 837 F.2d 1099, 1104–08 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The Commission has the 

authority to preside over administrative proceedings involving alleged 

securities law violations and may delegate that authority to an administrative 

law judge as it has done here. 15 U.S.C. § 78d-1(a); 17 C.F.R. § 201.110; see

OIP at 42. Respondents have been given the opportunity to be heard, put on 

evidence, and make arguments. See Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 

(1976). They have been provided the required process.
7

1.2. Wahl, Chung, and Deutchman are not entitled to a jury trial in this 

administrative proceeding.

Wahl, Chung, and Deutchman assert as affirmative defenses that 

“[d]etermination of this proceeding by an ALJ violates [their] right to a jury 

trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.” Wahl Answer at 30; Deutchman 

Answer at 24. But it is well established that “the Seventh Amendment is not 

applicable to administrative proceedings.” Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 

418 n.4 (1987); see John Thomas Capital Mgmt. Grp., Securities Act Release 

No. 10834, 2020 WL 5291417, at *27 (Sept. 4, 2020) (“[The Commission] ha[s] 

repeatedly rejected claims that [its] administrative proceedings violate the 

Seventh Amendment.”). Respondents in administrative proceedings are not 

entitled to a jury trial. See Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health 

Review Comm’n, 430 U.S. 442, 450, 460–61 (1977); Kabani & Co., Exchange 

Act Release No. 80201, 2017 WL 947229, at *20 (Mar. 10, 2017), pet. denied, 

733 F. App’x 918 (9th Cir. 2018). 

1.3. The press release and bankruptcy claim did not deny Wahl and Chung 

due process.

Wahl and Chung argue that they were denied due process by a press 

release announcing the issuance of the OIP against them and by the 

Commission’s filing of a proof of claim in Wahl’s personal bankruptcy 

proceeding. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 76. They imply that this proceeding must be 

dismissed because these two statements defamed them “without ANY actual 

evidence,” resulting in their “financial ruin” by “steal[ing] away their 

livelihoods,” and inflicted emotional distress. Id.; Wahl PFOF at 680–85 (PDF).

But both actions were lawful. Neither deprived them of due process in this 

proceeding; rather, this proceeding provided them the process to which they 

were entitled. See Jonathan Feins, Exchange Act Release No. 41943, 1999 WL 

770236, at *7 (Sept. 29, 1999) (“Administrative due process is satisfied where 

the party against whom the proceeding is brought understands the issues and 

is afforded a full opportunity to meet the charges during the course of the 

proceeding.”).

The press release issued by the Commission on December 4, 2017, states 

that the OIP was filed, summarizes its allegations, and quotes statements of 

opinion by the two co-directors of the Division. Ex. 1285. The Exchange Act 

authorizes the Commission to make this type of release, “in its discretion, to 

publish information concerning any ... violations” of the securities laws. 15 

U.S.C. § 78u(a)(1); see SEC v. Rivlin, No. 99-1455, 1999 WL 1455758, at *3 

(D.D.C. Dec. 20, 1999). Moreover, Commission proceedings—like the majority 

of government adjudications in the United States—are presumptively public, 

so even without a press release some reputational harm may be unavoidable. 
8

17 C.F.R. §§ 201.301, .322(b); cf. Disciplinary Proceedings Involving 

Professionals Appearing or Practicing Before the Commission, 53 Fed. Reg.

26,427, 26,429 (July 13, 1988) (“recogniz[ing] that any public proceeding may 

involve reputational damage to the respondent,” but concluding that 

proceedings under the predecessor to 17 C.F.R. § 201.102(e) should be public 

like other administrative proceedings). A press release that does little more 

than repeat the allegations in an already public OIP is well within the 

discretion granted by the Exchange Act to publish information about securities 

law violations.

Similarly, the proof of the Commission’s contingent, unliquidated claim 

that was filed in Wahl’s bankruptcy proceeding on December 20, 2018, stated 

only that this proceeding had been brought and that it might result in a 

judgment payable to the Commission in an unspecified amount. Proof of Claim, 

In re Gregory Anton Wahl, No. 8:18-bk-12449 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2018), 

Claim 16-1. The amended proof of claim filed on May 20, 2019, merely valued 

the claim at $456,000 based on the Division’s claims for disgorgement (which 

the Division was then seeking), civil penalties, and prejudgment interest. 

Ex. 1283 at 2. The proofs of claim did not decide the issues in this proceeding 

or imply that they had already been decided. Rather, both the claim and 

amended claim fall within the bankruptcy code’s broad definition of “claim,” 

which includes “unliquidated” and “contingent” rights to payment. 11 U.S.C. 

§ 101(5)(a); accord In re Castellino Villas, A.K.F. LLC, 836 F.3d 1028, 1033–34 

(9th Cir. 2016) (observing that a claim—such as one for attorneys’ fees not yet 

earned—can arise when it can fairly or reasonably be contemplated even if the 

cause of action had not accrued under nonbankruptcy law). The Commission 

was not just entitled, but was required to file a proof of claim for potential 

recovery in pending pre-bankruptcy-petition litigation if it wished to preserve 

its right to recovery. Bendall v. Lancer Mgmt. Grp., 523 F. App’x 554, 558 (11th 

Cir. 2013); see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3003(c)(2) (requiring any creditor “whose claim 

or interest is not scheduled or scheduled as disputed, contingent, or 

unliquidated” to file a proof of claim). Moreover, like the press release, the 

proofs of claim did not make this already public proceeding any more public 

than it already was.

Thus, neither of these routine actions by the Commission deprived Wahl 

and Chung of due process of law in this proceeding. And although the release 

and the proof of claim may have caused them “reputational and professional 

harm,” their arguments “do not give rise to due process relief unless they 

prejudiced the hearing process,” which they did not do. Kevin Hall, CPA, 

Exchange Act Release No. 61162, 2009 WL 4809215, at *23 (Dec. 14, 2009); 

accord United States v. Black, 733 F.3d 294, 302 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that 

to completely invalidate a criminal prosecution based on investigative conduct, 
9

the government’s actions must have “‘violate[d] fundamental fairness’ and 

[been] ‘so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense 

of justice’” (quoting United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir. 

2011))); United States v. Smith, No. CR-13-14, 2014 WL 1744253, at *2–3 (E.D. 

Wash. Apr. 30, 2014) (rejecting defense based on allegedly defamatory press 

release calling defendants “snake oil salesmen”). This is because “[t]he 

fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a 

meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Matthews, 424 U.S. at 333 

(quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)); cf. Bd. of Regents of 

State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972) (holding that the remedy for 

unconstitutional defamation is “an opportunity to refute the charge”). The OIP 

in this proceeding began the process before a neutral adjudicator. See Rivlin, 

1999 WL 1455758, at *3; see also Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. 

Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 618 (1993); cf. Hall, 2009 WL 

4809215, at *23 & n.111 (citing Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 443 (1960)). 

I have served as that neutral adjudicator in this proceeding, and whatever 

reputational harm may have been caused by the press release and proof of 

claim does not undermine my neutrality. See FTC v. Cinderella Career & 

Finishing Schs., Inc., 404 F.2d 1308, 1312–15 (D.C. Cir. 1968); Bowman v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Agric., 363 F.2d 81, 86 (5th Cir. 1966). 

Finally, insofar as Wahl and Chung are attempting to assert an 

affirmative claim for damages based on unconstitutional defamation or some 

other theory, I must deny this claim. The Rules of Practice do not permit 

respondents to assert counterclaims for damages against the Commission. See 

17 C.F.R. § 201.220(c) (detailing the permitted contents of an answer to the 

OIP). 

1.4. The press release and bankruptcy claim did not take Wahl and Chung’s 

property without compensation.

Along with their due process arguments, Wahl and Chung contend that 

the Commission “unconstitutionally took Respondents property without 

compensation” by issuing the OIP and accompanying press release and filing 

the proof of claim. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 76; see Wahl PFOF at 683 (PDF). 

Under the theory that Respondents’ professional licenses were rendered 

“worthless”—as opposed to being actually revoked or taken by the 

Commission—they characterize the press release and proof of claim as a 

“regulatory taking of property.” Tr. 6190; Wahl PFOF at 684 (PDF). But 

“diminution of property values caused by government action is not a regulatory 

taking.” Eagletech Commc’ns, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 54095, 2006 WL 

1835958, at *3 & n.12 (July 5, 2006); see Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New 

York, 438 U.S. 104, 131 (1978). And, as noted above, insofar as Wahl and 

Chung seek money from the Commission in this proceeding, the Rules of 
10

Practice do not permit respondents to assert counterclaims for damages. See 

17 C.F.R. § 201.220(c); Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 76–77.

1.5. The proceeding is not time-barred.

Wahl and Chung assert that the statute of limitations on the charges 

against them has expired because,under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(1), the proceeding 

cannot be brought more than “2 years after the discovery of the facts 

constituting the violation.” Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 71–72. But this is incorrect. 

Section 1658 applies to “a private right of action,” 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b), not a 

Commission proceeding, which under Section 2462 has a five year statute of 

limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2462; see Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. 442, 444–45 (2013) 

(holding that Section 2462 applies to Commission proceedings seeking civil 

penalties). The proceeding commenced in December 2017, less than five years 

after the audit engagements at issue.

2. Weight given to expert testimony

Two experts testified at the hearing: Harris Devor for the Division and 

John M. Misuraca for Wahl and Chung. William W. Holder prepared an expert 

report for Wahl and Chung during the Commission’s investigation but he was 

not engaged and did not prepare a report or testify in this proceeding.

2.1. The Division’s accounting and auditing expert Harris Devor

The Division offered Harris Devor as an expert in accounting and 

auditing. Tr. 1120. Respondents conducted a voir dire of Devor regarding his 

qualifications, especially as it concerned audits of public companies and 

microcap public companies. Based on Devor’s education, experience, and 

credentials, I found him qualified to opine about those topics in this proceeding. 

Tr. 1140–41. As I explained at the hearing, I would consider arguments from 

Respondents in determining what weight to give Devor’s opinions. Wahl and 

Chung have argued that I should generally not give weight to Devor’s opinions 

because (1) there is no legal standard for expert testimony in Commission 

administrative proceedings, (2) Devor lacks the experience and credentials to 

opine about public company audits or PCAOB standards, (3) Devor is biased in 

favor of the Commission, and (4) his expert testimony has been excluded four 

times in federal court.

2.1.1. Standard for expert testimony in Commission proceedings

Wahl and Chung assert that “there is no legal standard for an expert” in 

Commission administrative proceedings, which allows supposed experts to act 

in a “lawless and reckless” manner. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 43. This is untrue. 

Although the standard for admitting expert testimony in Commission 
11

administrative proceedings differs from the standard in federal court, like all 

other admissible evidence in Commission proceedings, an expert’s testimony 

must be relevant and cannot be immaterial, unduly repetitious, or unreliable. 

17 C.F.R. § 201.320(a). In addition, an expert witness must prepare a written 

report and submit a statement of qualifications and other initial disclosures. 

17 C.F.R. § 201.222(b).

Expert testimony in federal court is subject to the Daubert standard, 

codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, under which the district court 

performs a “gatekeeping” role to ensure that only reliable expert evidence 

reaches the jury. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999); see 

Fed. R. Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 

(1993). The Daubert standard does not apply in administrative proceedings, 

however. Ralph Calabro, Securities Act Release No. 9798, 2015 WL 3439152, 

at *11 (May 29, 2015). This is because the “gatekeeping” role is unnecessary in 

a nonjury proceeding such as this one. See City of Anaheim, Exchange Act 

Release No. 42140, 1999 WL 1034489, at *2 (Nov. 16, 1999) (“Administrative 

agencies such as the Commission are more expert fact-finders, less prone to 

undue prejudice, and better able to weigh complex and potentially misleading 

evidence than are juries.”). The Commission has thus seen “no reason why a 

law judge, if he deems it appropriate, cannot hear expert testimony (and crossexamination) and then determine what weight to give that testimony.” 

Calabro, 2015 WL 3439152, at *11 n.66.

This is why I allowed Devor, as well as Wahl and Chung’s expert 

Misuraca, to testify at the hearing while reserving ruling on the weight to give 

their testimony. In weighing this expert testimony, I will consider the “spirit 

of Daubert.” Niam v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2004) (“‘Junk science’ 

has no more place in administrative proceedings than in judicial ones.”); 

Calabro, 2015 WL 3439152, at *11 n.67 (citing Niam). I will not give any 

weight to unreliable or misleading expert testimony, just as I will give no 

weight to unreliable or misleading factual testimony. Wahl and Chung’s 

argument that there is no standard for expert testimony is incorrect, and I do 

not give diminished weight to any expert on that basis. 

2.1.2. Experience and credentials

Wahl and Chung argue that Devor lacks the expertise to opine about 

public company accounting and PCAOB auditing standards. Wahl Post-hr’g 

Br. at 42–45. Wahl and Chung point out, and Devor candidly acknowledges, 

that he has not personally audited a public company since 1990, has not 

conducted an audit subject to PCAOB standards, and has no experience 

auditing microcap companies or companies in the cannabis industry. Wahl 

PFOF at 102, 126–27 (PDF). 
12

Performing public company audits is one way to gain auditing expertise, 

but it is not the only method. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 702 (expert may be qualified 

based on “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education”); United States 

v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[E]xperts may be qualified in 

various ways.”). Since he stopped auditing public companies, Devor has 

maintained his knowledge of public company auditing issues and has testified 

extensively as an expert witness about public company accounting. Tr. 1112, 

1114–17. He has testified as an expert in high-profile accounting cases such as 

the WorldCom securities litigation, litigation related to the collapse of Lehman 

Brothers, and the Petrobras securities litigation. Tr. 1116, 1118. Devor’s 

testimony on both direct and cross-examination showed his competence and 

understanding of the subject matter.

Devor’s body of training and experience is also sufficient for him to qualify 

as an expert in accounting and auditing. Devor is a certified public accountant 

and has forty-six years of experience in administering and supervising audits. 

Ex. 88, Resume at 1. Although his recent experience is with private companies, 

to the degree there are differences in accounting issues and standards between 

private and public companies, no pertinent differences were identified that 

would disqualify Devor testifying. Tr. 1112–13, 1118–20; see Crowdfunding, 80 

Fed. Reg. 71,388, 71,414 (Nov. 16, 2015) (“As the standards for non-public 

business entities are new, there are currently very few distinctions between 

U.S. GAAP for public and non-public business entities.”). 

2.1.3. Bias

Wahl and Chung argue that because the Commission is Devor’s largest 

client for his services as an expert witness, Devor is biased. Wahl PFOF at 

121–22 (PDF). This argument is unpersuasive. The potential for bias exists for 

any expert retained and compensated by a party. The remedy is for the expert’s 

opinions to be tested by cross-examination and weighed by the trier of fact. 

Calabro, 2015 WL 3439152, at *38 & n.179. I did not see any evidence of 

improper bias during Devor’s testimony. Devor has testified as an expert on 

behalf of many clients, including for defendants against the Commission. See, 

e.g., SEC v. Guenthner, 395 F. Supp. 2d 835, 843–44 (D. Neb. 2005). His expert 

services are only one aspect of his business. See Tr. 1114 (“I can go years 

without testifying.”). Even if the Commission is his largest client with respect 

to expert engagements, it does not appear to be such a large portion of his work 

as to presume bias that would require discounting his testimony in this 

proceeding.
13

2.1.4. Exclusion of Devor’s testimony in other proceedings

Wahl and Chung point to several instances in which Devor’s testimony 

was allegedly excluded in federal district court. Although it is permissible to 

impeach an expert based on the exclusion of testimony in other proceedings, 

the cases cited by Wahl and Chung are not persuasive. Wahl and Chung assert 

that “Devor’s testimony was dismissed four times in Federal Court.” Wahl 

Post-hr’g Br. at 42. They do not list these four cases. Of the cases that they cite 

in their filings, I have identified five in which Devor served as an expert 

witness. See id. at 42–43, 45; Wahl PFOF at 734–47 (PDF). None of these five 

cases support their contention. 

In citing Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household International, Inc., 

No. 02-cv-5893 (N.D. Ill.), for example, Wahl and Chung quote a party’s brief—

not the court—criticizing Devor. See Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 42 (quoting Defs.’ 

Reply Daubert Mot. at 5, Jaffe Pension Plan (Feb. 13, 2009), ECF No. 1456, 

2009 WL 464036). The court in that case limited Devor’s testimony in one area 

but otherwise found his opinions to be “permissible expert testimony.” Minute 

Order at 2, Jaffe Pension Plan (Mar. 23, 2009), ECF No. 1528.

The district court in Acceptance Insurance Cos., Inc. Securities Litigation, 

352 F. Supp. 2d 940, 948 (D. Neb. 2004), excluded an affidavit by Devor from 

the summary judgment record, finding that it failed to “describe the analytical 

processes he went through to reach his opinions.” The court noted, however, 

that it resolved the summary judgment motions before the close of expert 

discovery and disclosure, which may have provided additional foundation for 

expert opinions. Id. at 947–48. And unlike the affidavit in Acceptance 

Insurance, I find Devor’s lengthy expert report to be supported satisfactorily in 

this case.

Devor’s proposed testimony was also excluded in L&M Beverage Co. v. 

Guinness Import Co., No. 94-cv-4492, 1996 WL 368327 (E.D. Pa. June 24, 

1996). In that case, Devor offered an opinion about the plaintiff’s lost profits, 

but the district court determined that the proper measure of damages was the 

diminution in value of distribution rights, not lost profits. Devor’s lost profits 

opinion was excluded as not relevant. Id. at *3–4. Here, Devor’s opinions are 

relevant to the allegations. 

The fourth case in which Wahl and Chung allege Devor’s testimony was 

excluded from is SEC v. Cole, No. 12-cv-8167 (S.D.N.Y.). Wahl and Chung 

assert that Deutchman, who was an expert for defendant Timothy Quintanilla, 

“beat” Devor in that case and that the district judge “saw through” Devor’s 

testimony. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 43. But the court did not exclude Devor. 

Quintanilla objected to Devor’s expert report as hearsay, irrelevant, improper 
14

opinion testimony, and lacking foundation. Def.’s Objections to Decl. Supp’g 

Summ. J. at 22, Cole (June 5, 2014), ECF No. 130. The court rejected 

Quintanilla’s objections to Devor’s report and other evidence as “unsupported 

boilerplate assertions presented in a clumsy attempt to strike the entirety of 

the SEC’s evidence.” Cole, 2015 WL 5737275, at *4 (Sept. 19, 2015). In denying 

the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, the court did not reference 

Devor’s opinions positively or negatively. See generally id. at *4–10. The case 

was ultimately resolved by a settlement.

Finally, Devor served as a defense expert witness in SEC v. Guenthner. 

Devor’s testimony was not excluded by the court. Instead, the court heard the 

testimony of Devor during a bench trial and included Devor’s expert opinions 

in its findings of facts. 395 F. Supp. 2d at 837, 843–44. Although the court 

granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on other 

grounds, it noted that, in the alternative, “it would find in favor of defendants 

based on all the evidence adduced in this case,” including Devor’s testimony. 

Id. at 848 & n.8.

The cases cited by Wahl and Chung about Devor’s work in other 

proceedings do not convince me to give diminished weight to Devor’s testimony 

here.

2.1.5. Devor’s opinions are generally helpful but those about specific

violations will not be considered.

Devor’s testimony helped provide a general understanding of some of the 

accounting and auditing issues in this case. His testimony also provided a 

vehicle for many of the relevant documents the Division introduced in its casein-chief. I have considered his opinions for this general background 

information.

I have not relied, however, on Devor’s opinions about specific violations of 

GAAP or PCAOB standards. Whether a specific accounting or auditing 

standard is violated is often a mixed question of fact and law. See Russell 

Ponce, Exchange Act Release No. 43235, 2000 WL 1232986, at *8 n.33 (noting 

that whether an activity is manufacturing or research and development under 

GAAP “is a mixed question of law and fact”), pet. denied, 345 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 

2003); cf. In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1421 (3d Cir. 

1997) (“[I]t is a factual question whether BCF’s accounting practices were 

consistent with GAAP.”); SEC v. Caserta, 75 F. Supp. 2d 79, 91 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) 

(“Whether GAAP has been violated is a fact-specific issue.”). Although it may 

be appropriate to rely on expert testimony for thorny fact-bound issues related 

to GAAP or PCAOB standards, I have not done so here. Instead, I have 

considered the documentary evidence and testimony of percipient witnesses. 
15

And I have not relied on Devor’s testimony to resolve legal questions. See 

optionsXpress, Inc., Securities Act Release No. 10125, 2016 WL 4413227, at 

*27 (Aug. 18, 2016) (“[W]e do not defer to expert testimony about the meaning 

of the law.”); Robert D. Potts, CPA, Exchange Act Release No. 39126, 1997 WL 

690519, at *10 n.56 (Sept. 24, 1997) (“The testimony of expert witnesses on 

questions of law may be precluded, because adjudicators—courts and 

administrative law judges—are themselves qualified to determine and 

interpret the law.”), pet. denied, 151 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 1998).7

2.2. Wahl and Chung’s valuation expert John M. Misuraca

John M. Misuraca is a certified public accountant who specializes in 

forensic accounting and business valuation. Ex. 1036 at 2; Tr. 3391–92. 

Misuraca prepared two expert reports. One dealt with CannaVEST’s purchase 

of PhytoSphere Systems, LLC, and the valuation and subsequent impairment 

of goodwill from that purchase. Ex. 1036. The second report discussed the 

valuation of a promissory note held by Premier. Ex. 1122. At the hearing, I 

admitted the Premier report, and noted that the CannaVEST report would 

come into the record in some fashion, but I deferred ruling on its admissibility. 

Tr. 3398–99, 3437–38, 3631–32. I turn to that question now, and I also consider 

the evidentiary weight to give to either report.

2.2.1. CannaVEST report

This report relied on information Misuraca received from Wahl that 

purported to be financial projections prepared for CannaVEST management, 

but Wahl misled Misuraca about the origins of those projections. For this 

reason, although I admit the report (Exhibit 1036) as an exhibit, its admission 

is to provide context only, and I give Misuraca’s opinions in it no weight. In 

addition, and more troubling, Wahl submitted a perjurious declaration in 

support of his opposition to the Division’s motion to exclude Misuraca’s 

testimony and lied about the projections under oath at the hearing.

Misuraca advanced three opinions in the CannaVEST expert report: (1) 

the internal rate of return for CannaVEST at the time of the purchase was 

20.48%, (2) this rate of return was reasonable, and (3) there was no impairment 

of goodwill as of the purchase date of Phytosphere. Ex. 1036 at 6. These 

opinions were based on “the forecast provided by Greg Wahl from an email he 

sent to Tommy Shek and Richard Koch on November 8, 2013.” Id. at 5; see 

 

7 Wahl and Chung also raise various arguments about the reliability of

Devor’s opinions regarding specific violations. Because I have not relied on 

Devor’s opinions about specific violations, I do not address those arguments 

here.
16

Tr. 3476–77. Misuraca accepted this forecast as true and did not independently 

verify or test the figures. Ex. 1036 at 6. 

Unbeknownst to Misuraca, his reliance on these figures was misplaced. 

Wahl altered the email he provided Misuraca—it was not the original email he 

sent to Shek and Koch. The actual CannaVEST financial projections were 

attached to the original email. Wahl did not forward the attachment to 

Misuraca; instead, he typed different figures into the email he forwarded to 

Misuraca. The numbers Wahl typed in looked like they were part of the original 

email, and Misuraca accepted them as genuine. Compare Ex. 824 (original 

email), with Ex. 823 (email forwarded to Misuraca adds,“Below is what we had 

for original projections, etc.” and Wahl’s typed projections).

Wahl provided shifting and incredible explanations for his alteration of 

the email. When the Division moved to exclude Misuraca’s testimony and 

pointed out the discrepancies, Wahl’s opposition called the Division’s allegation 

“a preposterous theory” that is “half baked and factually erroneous.” Opp’n to 

Mot. to Exclude Misuraca at 3 (Oct. 1, 2019). Wahl declared, in support of the 

opposition and under penalty of perjury, that he had simply “pasted” into the 

body of the email the actual projections that were attached to the original 

email. Id. at 7. Those projections, he claimed, were from page 36 of projections 

prepared by a valuation firm, Vantage Point Advisors, Inc., and were what he 

had considered during the CannaVEST review engagement. Id.

Wahl’s declaration is untrue. The Vantage Point projections attached to 

the original email differ from the figures Wahl sent to Misuraca. Compare 

Ex. 824, ASC 718 IRC 409A Report at 36, with Ex. 823, and Ex. 1036 at 11.8

The figures for the five categories Wahl provided Misuraca—revenue, cost of 

goods sold, gross profit, operating expenses, and pre-tax net profit—are 

significantly different from the numbers in the Vantage Point report. For four 

of the five years of figures that Wahl provided, he reduced total revenue 

between 55% and 33% and decreased gross revenue between 48% and 13%. 

Compare Ex. 824, ASC 718 IRC 409A Report at 36, with Ex. 823. He increased 

operating expenses for three of the five years of data and decreased it in the 

other two years. Compare Ex. 824, ASC 718 IRC 409A Report at 36, with

Ex. 823. Wahl even sent Misuraca quarterly data for 2013 that was not 

included at all in the Vantage Point report. See Tr. 5503–05. Compare Ex. 824, 

ASC 718 IRC 409A Report at 36, with Ex. 823. Thus, in addition to altering 

actual data by wide margins, Wahl also fabricated data for periods for which 

no data was ever reported previously. 

 

8 A chart comparing the projections in the original attachment to the figures 

Wahl emailed Misuraca is in the appendix to this initial decision.
17

When the Division questioned Wahl about the email at the hearing, Wahl 

at first maintained his story that he had “copied and pasted” the valuation 

report into the email. Tr. 5498. He claimed he meant to paste the financial 

projections at the top of the email and that it was a mistake that they ended 

up at the bottom, where they looked like part of the original email. Tr. 5501–

02. When the Division informed Wahl that the revenue figure for the second 

quarter of 2013 he sent Misuraca did not match actual revenue, Wahl testified 

that he “could have done a typo.” Tr. 5505. When the Division pressed him on 

why other numbers did not match, Wahl said he was in a hurry and 

“ballparked” the numbers. Tr. 5506. Wahl then contradicted his sworn 

declaration and his testimony from just minutes earlier and denied that he had 

copied and pasted the numbers—he now testified that he had to type the 

numbers in because the original was a PDF. Tr. 5507. When asked whether 

the figures in the Vantage Point report were the same as what he typed, Wahl 

first said, “I believe it’s pretty close to what I typed in.” Tr. 5507. Then he 

almost immediately backtracked and said the figures he provided Misuraca 

were lower than those in the Vantage Point report. Tr. 5507. Not slightly lower 

but lower by half, he claimed. Tr. 5508–09. Wahl did this, he averred, because 

he wanted Misuraca’s analysis to be “conservative” and not overstate the value 

of CannaVEST’s goodwill. Tr. 5508–09. He testified that he did not lie but had 

forgotten that he had reduced the figures. Tr. 5515. In his post-hearing filings, 

Wahl claimed that he did not intentionally “doctor” the email he sent to 

Misuraca but “made a harmless error in copying and pasting the numbers from 

the valuation and reduced them by approximately 50% which would reduce the 

discount rate by 50%.” Wahl Resp. to Div. PFOF at 239–40 (PDF). 

Wahl’s conduct and testimony was neither harmless nor merely an error. 

As Wahl’s explanations disintegrated under cross-examination, he changed his 

story again and again, often in contradictory ways. First he said that he copied 

and pasted the numbers, then that he made a typo, then that he was in a hurry 

and only estimated the numbers, then that he intentionally reduced the 

numbers by about half to be conservative. His claim that he had simply 

forgotten that he altered the projections is not credible. The only reasonable 

conclusion from his dissembling testimony is that Wahl intentionally misled 

Misuraca and repeatedly lied about it under oath.

As a result, I cannot give Misuraca’s CannaVEST opinions any weight. 

Misuraca was under the false impression that he was reviewing financial 

projections prepared for CannaVEST management. Ex. 1036 at 5. Wahl never 

told him that he reduced those figures by half. Tr. 5511 (“I could have trued it 

up with him, but I didn’t have time.”), 5512 (“I should have sent the Excel 

spreadsheet to him and had a discussion with him, but I didn’t have time.”). 

Wahl claimed that he was not misleading Misuraca because if he wanted to 
18

mislead Misuraca, he would have increased the projections to make 

CannaVEST’s goodwill look stronger rather than reduce the projections to be 

conservative. Tr. 5512, 5516. While decreasing the projections could make

CannaVEST’s goodwill appear smaller, evaluating CannaVEST’s goodwill was 

not the only topic Misuraca addressed. He also calculated CannaVEST’s 

internal rate of return and opined on its reasonableness. Ex. 1036 at 4, 6. Wahl 

himself testified that he believed CannaVEST’s projections were “a little 

overstated.” Tr. 5510. Moreover, Wahl altered the figures he provided 

Misuraca by varying amounts, not by a simple division in half. Misuraca thus 

analyzed figures that had no relationship to CannaVEST management’s 

projections. Misuraca’s resulting opinions are not tied to the facts and are 

entitled to no evidentiary weight. See Ira Weiss, Securities Act Release 

No. 8641, 2005 WL 3273381, at *6 n.21 (Dec. 2, 2005) (giving “such weight to 

the expert testimony as [the Commission] consider[s] is indicated by the 

relevant facts in the record”), pet. denied, 468 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

That leaves Wahl’s false statements under oath. Perjury is troubling in 

any context, and giving false testimony in Commission proceedings can in itself 

constitute improper professional conduct. Exchange Act Section 4C and Rule 

of Practice 102(e) allow the Commission to bar from practicing before it those 

who are “lacking in character or integrity.” 15 U.S.C. § 78d–3(a)(2); 17 C.F.R. 

§ 201.102(e)(1)(ii); see William A. Dougherty, Public Utility Holding Company 

Act of 1935 Release No. 13567, 1957 WL 52386, at *3 (Oct. 18, 1957) (finding 

that an attorney’s false testimony in a Commission investigation was improper 

professional conduct and barring the attorney from practicing before the 

Commission).9 But the OIP in this case did not reference the “character or 

integrity” part of Section 4C or Rule 102(e) as a basis for this proceeding. OIP 

at 1 nn.1–2; id. at 3–4, 20–21, 31, 40–42. Because Wahl’s false testimony does 

not come within the scope of the OIP, I do not rely on it to find any violations.10

See OIP at 40–42 (charging violations based on “the conduct described” in the 

OIP, and directing for a determination as to whether the “allegations set forth 

 

9 In Dougherty, the Commission considered whether the attorney 

committed improper professional conduct under former Rule 2(e) of the Rules 

of Practice. Rule 102(e) is the successor to Rule 2(e), and the text of Rule 2(e)(2) 

is identical to Rule 102(e)(1)(ii). See Steven C. Wolfe, Sr., CPA, Exchange Act 

Release No. 39589, 1998 WL 28039, at *1 n.1 (Jan. 28, 1998) (“While we revised 

comprehensively our Rules of Practice in 1995, we made no substantive 

changes to Rule 2(e), other than to renumber it as Rule 102(e).”). Compare 17 

C.F.R. § 201.2(e)(2) (1949), with 17 C.F.R. § 201.102(e)(1)(ii). 

10 This decision has no bearing on whether the Commission or another 

authority takes subsequent action based on Wahl’s perjury.
19

in Section II [of the OIP] are true” and whether sanctions should be imposed); 

see also Russell W. Stein, Exchange Act Release No. 47504, 2003 WL 1125746, 

at *8 n.34 (Mar. 14, 2003), recons. granted on other grounds, Exchange Act 

Release No. 50168, 2004 WL 1778889 (Aug. 9, 2004). Nevertheless, I consider 

Wahl’s misconduct in the context of whether a sanction is in the public interest. 

See infra Sanctions §§ 2, 2.11.

2.2.2. Premier report

Misuraca opined in his Premier report that the valuation of an unsecured 

promissory note that Premier received was reasonable and “in conformity with 

GAAP” and that Wahl’s work as engagement partner on Anton & Chia’s audit 

of Premier for 2013 materially complied with GAAS and GAAP. Ex. 1122 at 6. 

The Division argues that these opinions should not be given any weight 

because Misuraca has never worked as an auditor or audited a public company 

and is not an expert in GAAS or GAAP. Div. Mot. to Exclude Misuraca at 11–

12 (Sept. 16, 2019); see Tr. 3392, 3466–67.

The scope of Misuraca’s review of the Premier audit and his opinions is 

limited. He focused on valuation issues and the method of valuing the note. 

Tr. 3469–70. He has the requisite expertise to opine on valuation issues, and I 

will consider his opinion on the issue of the valuation of the promissory note. 

Misuraca stated in his report that, “[b]ased on [his] review of Greg Wahl’s work 

in this action,” it was his opinion that Wahl’s work materially complied with 

GAAP and GAAS. Ex. 1122 at 6. In his hearing testimony, however, Misuraca 

clarified that his review of Wahl’s work was limited. Tr. 3446–47 (testifying 

that he looked at various Anton & Chia workpapers but did not read them line 

by line). He testified that he was not offering an opinion about whether Premier 

complied with GAAP or Anton & Chia’s audit complied with GAAS. Tr. 3467.

As with Devor’s testimony, I do not rely on Misuraca’s testimony to decide 

whether specific conduct complied with the PCAOB standards or GAAP. See 

optionsXpress, 2016 WL 4413227, at *27; Potts, 1997 WL 690519, at *10 n.56.

2.3. Wahl’s valuation expert William W. Holder

Wahl engaged William W. Holder as an expert during the Commission’s 

investigation before this proceeding began, and Holder prepared an expert 

report. Holder was not retained as an expert for the proceeding, and I 

provisionally granted the Division’s motion to exclude him from testifying as 

an expert witness at the hearing. Anton & Chia, Admin. Proc. Rulings Release 

No. 6694, 2019 SEC LEXIS 3758, at *3 (ALJ Oct. 7, 2019). I reserved ruling on 

the admissibility of Holder’s report because Misuraca may have relied on it in 

forming the opinions in his Premier report. Id. at *4. At the hearing, however, 
20

Misuraca testified that he did not rely on Holder’s report. Tr. 3594, 3627. For 

this reason, Holder’s report, Exhibit 1113, is not admitted.

Findings of Fact and Violations of Accounting Standards

1. Legal standard for factual findings

I base the findings of fact herein on the entire record; the parties’ 

stipulations, see 17 C.F.R. § 201.324; and on facts officially noticed from 

publicly available court filings, see id. § 201.323; Global Network Commc’ns 

Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150, 157 (2d. Cir. 2006). I apply

preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof. See Rita J. McConville, 

Exchange Act Release No. 51950, 2005 WL 1560276, at *14 (June 30, 2005), 

pet. denied, 465 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 2006).

2. Respondents

Anton & Chia, LLP, was a PCAOB-registered audit firm with three offices 

in California that was founded in 2009. Ex. 840 ¶ 21 (stipulations). The firm 

filed for bankruptcy in July 2018, and the case was converted to Chapter 7 

liquidation in August 2018. Tr. 4912. Anton & Chia’s audits and interim 

reviews of Accelera Innovations, Inc., Premier Holding Corporation, and 

CannaVEST Corp. are the subject of this proceeding. See id.; OIP at 8–40.

Gregory Wahl is a certified public accountant who was the managing 

partner of Anton & Chia during the relevant period and also owned 90% of the 

firm. Ex. 839.6 at 156 (PDF) (designated portions of Wahl’s deposition). Wahl 

was the engagement partner for Accelera’s 2013 and 2014 year-end audits and 

five 2014 and 2015 interim reviews, Premier’s 2013 year-end audit, and 

CannaVEST’s 2013 interim reviews. Wahl Answer at 5.

Michael Deutchman was a non-equity partner at Anton & Chia and was 

either the engagement partner or engagement quality review partner on 

multiple reviews of Accelera’s financial statements in 2014 and 2015 and the 

2014 audit. Tr. 638–39.

Georgia Chung is a certified public accountant who helped set up Anton & 

Chia in 2009 and served as the engagement quality reviewer for CannaVEST’s 

2013 first quarter interim review. Ex. 840 ¶ 23; Tr. 5143, 5153. She is married 

to Wahl. Tr. 4926.
21

3. Accelera facts and accounting violations

3.1. Introduction and summary

Accelera Innovations, Inc., a Delaware corporation doing business in 

Frankfort, Illinois, was incorporated in April 2008 as a shell company in the 

business of acquiring and managing other companies, primarily in the 

healthcare and information technology service industries. Ex. 840 ¶¶ 24, 35; 

Tr. 54.

On November 11, 2013, Accelera signed a stock purchase agreement with 

Behavioral Health Care Associates, Ltd., a health care provider in 

Schaumberg, Illinois, specializing in psychiatry and substance abuse 

treatment. Tr. 193–94; Ex. 184; Ex. 840 ¶ 25. The agreement provided for 

Accelera to acquire Behavioral’s stock once it paid $1 million as consideration 

90 days after closing, with the rest of the $4.55 million purchase price to be 

paid in installments over time. Ex. 184 §§ 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.1.1.

Despite never making any of the payments due under the agreement, 

Accelera consolidated Behavioral’s revenues, assets, and liabilities with those 

of its own in its Commission filings from 2013 through 2015. Consolidation did 

not comply with GAAP, which requires the acquirer to have obtained control 

of the acquired company and for consideration to change hands. By 

consolidating Behavioral’s finances with its own, Accelera’s revenues were 

overstated by 90% in 2013 and 2014.

Relevant here are the six interim reviews and two year-end audits for 

Accelera from year-end 2013 through the third quarter of 2015 that Anton & 

Chia performed. See Ex. 840 ¶ 18. In 2013 and 2014, Anton & Chia issued an 

unqualified audit opinion for Accelera’s financial statements. Wahl was the 

engagement partner on both year-end audits and all but one of the other 

engagements. Ex. 1.1 at 3; Ex. 1.4 at 3; Ex. 1.6 at 3; Ex. 136 at 5; Ex. 152 at 3; 

Ex. 166 at 3; Ex. 171 at 5; Ex. 178 at 3. Deutchman was the engagement 

quality reviewer (EQR) for the 2014 audit and the three quarterly reviews in 

2015, and was engagement partner for the third quarter interim review in 

2014. Ex. 1.4 at 3; Ex. 1.6 at 3; Ex. 152 at 3; Ex. 171 at 5; Ex. 178 at 3.

Wahl and Deutchman did not comply with the PCAOB’s auditing 

standards in their respective roles during the audits and quarterly reviews of 

Accelera.As detailed below, both failed to note several red flags indicating that 

consolidation was inappropriate. Both failed to exercise due professional care 

and professional skepticism, failed to gather appropriate audit evidence, and 

did not adequately question the representations of Accelera’s management in 

the year-end audits and the interim reviews. Both insufficiently documented 

issues concerning the Behavioral acquisition. Wahl failed to properly supervise 
22

one of the staff accountants during the 2013 audit, and Deutchman failed to 

act appropriately in carrying out the engagement quality review during the 

2014 audit.

3.2. Accelera’s consolidation of Behavioral

3.2.1. Accelera signed agreements to acquire Behavioral upon initial 

payment of $1 million.

Accelera’s common stock was quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC 

Markets Group, Inc., under the ticker symbol ACNV, starting in January 2014. 

Ex. 840 ¶ 24. John Wallin was the company’s CEO, and Cynthia Boerum was 

its chief strategic officer. Tr. 55, 378. From September 2014 through March 

2015, Daniel Freeman was Accelera’s CFO. Tr. 54–55. Dr. Blaise Wolfrum was 

the president and CEO of Behavioral. Tr. 194.

The stock purchase agreement signed November 11, 2013, provided that 

Behavioral will “become a wholly owned subsidiary of [Accelera] upon receipt 

of [the] purchase price set forth in Section 1.1.1.1” of the agreement. Ex. 184 

at 1 (recitals). Section 1.1.1.1 in turn states that ninety days after closing 

(which, as defined in Section 2.1, was the date the agreement was signed), 

Accelera was to pay Wolfrum $1 million, and would pay the full purchase price 

of $4.55 million over time. Id. § 1.1.1.1; see also id. §§ 1.1.1.2–.3, 2.1. The 

operative paragraphs of the agreement reiterated the language from the 

recitals that Behavioral’s stock would transfer only upon its receipt of the

initial $1 million payment. Id. § 1.1. Both Wolfrum and Boerum understood 

these clauses to indicate that Behavioral would not be owned by Accelera until 

the $1 million payment was made. Tr. 199, 382. Accelera never made any 

payments to Wolfrum under the agreement, and thus never acquired its stock. 

Tr. 62–63, 202–03, 212, 382–83.

Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of the agreement required deliveries of certain 

documents by Accelera, Wolfrum, and Behavioral at closing. These documents’ 

terms are consistent with the stock purchase agreement in that they indicate 

that Behavioral’s stock would not transfer until payment of $1 million 90 days 

later. The bill of sale stated that Wolfrum will convey Behavioral’s stock to 

Accelera once the $1 million payment is paid. Ex. 194. A stock powers 

certificate said the same. Ex. 189. Accelera signed a promissory note for $3.55 

million, effective once the $1 million was paid, to cover the rest of the $4.55 

million purchase price the parties had agreed upon. Ex. 186 at 1. According to 

a stock pledge and escrow agreement (also effective upon payment of the $1 

million), Behavioral’s shares would be placed in escrow and held as security 

until the entire purchase price was paid. Ex. 188 at 142959–60. A security 

agreement added that Wolfrum would retain a security interest in Behavioral’s 
23

assets until Accelera paid Wolfrum the full purchase price. Ex. 1207 §§ 1, 2, 

7(d), Ex. A. An operating agreement provided for the creation of an entity 

called Accelera Healthcare Management Service Organization LLC, and a 

shareholder action agreement said that Wolfrum would become the manager 

of the new management service organization and the president of Behavioral, 

which was to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Accelera. Ex. 185; Ex. 191 

at 143275. But the shareholder agreement stated that Wolfrum would remain 

CEO of Behavioral until Accelera made the $1 million payment. Ex. 191 at 

143275. And no assets were ever moved to the management service 

organization. Tr. 70–71, 214–16. Finally, the parties signed an employment 

agreement providing that Wolfrum would become president of Accelera’s 

Behavioral unit, would report to Wallin, and would receive $300,000 in annual 

salary. Ex. 190 at 1. Although the employment agreement said nothing about 

when it would become effective, Wolfrum understood that like the other 

agreements, its effectiveness was dependent on Accelera’s payment of the 

initial $1 million. Tr. 218. Further, it was a “condition of employment” that 

Wolfrum sign a confidentiality agreement, and that agreement was only 

effective upon the payment of the initial $1 million. Ex. 190 at 2, 18. In any 

event, Wolfrum never reported to Wallin or collected a salary from Accelera. 

Tr. 216–17, 388.

In addition to all these agreements which never took effect, Accelera never 

made any management decisions for Behavioral or entered into contracts on 

its behalf; never paid its expenses or controlled its bank accounts; never 

supervised Wolfrum or decided his salary; never directed or made employment 

decisions about Behavioral’s employees; never directed Behavioral’s day-to-day 

operations; and never received any of Behavioral’s revenues. Tr. 73–74, 77–78, 

245–46, 387.

Recognizing that Accelera had not made its initial $1 million payment, 

Wolfrum and Accelera entered into four amendments to the stock purchase 

agreement between February 2014 and May 2015. Exs. 197, 201, 205, 257. 

Each amendment substituted a new Section 1.1.1.1 of the stock purchase 

agreement for the old one. The new Section 1.1.1.1’s provided more time for 

Accelera to pay the $1 million. Ex. 197 at 1; Ex. 201 at 1; Ex. 205 at 2; Ex. 257

at 2. Each amendment also provided Wolfrum with shares of Accelera as 

consideration for the extension of time. Ex. 197 at 1–2; Ex. 201 at 2; Ex. 205 at 

2–3; Ex. 257 at 2–3. But none of the amendments altered the fundamental 

nature of the transaction, namely, that Behavioral’s stock would only transfer 

to Accelera upon Accelera’s payment of the initial $1 million.
24

3.2.2. Accelera consolidated Behavioral’s financials with its own 

despite never making the initial $1 million payment to acquire 

Behavioral.

Despite never making the initial $1 million payment to acquire 

Behavioral, Accelera consolidated Behavioral’s revenues, assets, and liabilities 

with those of its own in its publicly filed financial statements from its 2013 10-

K through its 2015 10-K. E.g., Ex. 105 at F-3–4 (Accelera 2013 Form 10-K); 

Ex. 114 at F-3–4 (Accelera 2014 Form 10-K) (consolidating Behavioral but 

writing off the goodwill); Ex. 132 at F-21 (Accelera 2015 Form 10-K) 

(consolidating Behavioral but counting it as a discontinued operation from 

January 1, 2016, and onward because of the termination of the stock purchase 

agreement); Ex. 135 at 7 (Accelera 2016 Form 10-K) (explaining that “[t]he 

2015 financial statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K have been 

restated to remove [Behavioral] from our consolidated financial statements”). 

Freeman testified that Accelera decided to consolidate Behavioral’s 

financials with its own because it had no other operations and would otherwise 

have been considered a shell company. Tr. 81. Indeed, in its Form 10-Q directly 

preceding the stock purchase agreement with Behavioral, Accelera reported no 

revenues and only $50 of assets. Ex. 840 ¶ 35. Once Accelera consolidated 

Behavioral, Behavioral comprised 90% of its revenue in 2013 and 2014. Ex. 105 

at F-4; Ex. 175 (2014 consolidated trial balance worksheet); Tr. 2321–23 (Shek 

explaining how the trial balance supports his earlier statement that 90% of 

Accelera’s 2014 revenue came from Behavioral).

3.2.3. Accelera’s agreement to purchase Behavioral was terminated, 

and a new auditor restated Accelera’s 2015 Form 10-K.

In mid-October 2015, Wolfrum emailed Accelera, reiterating his belief that 

Accelera did not own Behavioral until he was paid for the shares. Ex. 307 at 

1340–41. On March 31, 2016, Wolfrum and Accelera terminated the stock 

purchase agreement, effective as of January 1, 2016. Ex. 133, Ex. 10.1 at 1, 6 

(termination agreement); Ex. 840 ¶ 37. An earlier draft of the termination 

agreement included a paragraph that would have required Accelera to file a 

Form 8-K disclosing that it “should not have recognized on its books and 

records the revenue and expenses of” Behavioral. Ex. 264 § 4. But Accelera did 

not agree to put that paragraph in the final version of the termination 

agreement. Tr. 288–89.

In November 2016, Accelera terminated its relationship with Anton & 

Chia and engaged AJ Robbins CPA, LLC, as its auditor instead. Ex. 134 at 2. 

Accelera specifically wanted an auditor who would restate the reports where 

Behavioral had been consolidated. Tr. 409–10. Robbins told Boerum that 
25

Accelera should not have been recognizing revenue based on the stock 

purchase agreement. Tr. 409–10. In its 2016 Form 10-K, Accelera restated its 

2015 financial statements because it “determined that the financial statements 

of [Behavioral] should have never been consolidated with those of the Company 

since the Company was never able to take control of [Behavioral] due to nonpayment of the purchase price.” Ex. 135 at F-19.

3.3. Accelera’s consolidation of Behavioral’s financials with its own did not 

comply with GAAP.

Accelera’s consolidation of Behavioral did not comply with GAAP. The 

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) establishes the financial 

accounting and reporting standards for public and private companies that 

follow GAAP. FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 805 covers 

business combinations, or, in other words, a “transaction or other event in 

which an acquirer obtains control” of a business. ASC 805-10-20. Control is the 

“direct or indirect ability to determine the direction of management and 

policies through ownership, contract, or otherwise.” Id. A business combination 

must be accounted for using the acquisition method, which requires, as its 

second step, “[d]etermining the acquisition date.” ASC 805-10-05-4. The 

acquisition date is “the date on which [the acquirer] obtains control of the 

acquiree” and “generally is the date on which the acquirer legally transfers the 

consideration, acquires the assets, and assumes the liabilities of the acquiree—

the closing date. However, the acquirer might obtain control on a date that is 

either earlier or later than the closing date.” ASC 805-10-25-6–7. Further, ASC 

810 discusses when financial statements should be consolidated. See ASC 810-

10-05. It provides that “[f]or legal entities other than limited partnerships, 

consolidation is appropriate if a reporting entity has a controlling financial 

interest in another entity” and that “[t]he usual condition for a controlling 

financial interest is ownership of a majority voting interest.” ASC 810-10-25-

1; see ASC 805-10-20 (defining “control” as having the same meaning as 

“controlling financial interest” in ASC 810).11

 

11 ASC 810 also discusses the variable interest entity (VIE) model for 

consolidation, according to which “a controlling financial interest may be 

achieved other than by ownership of shares or voting interests” when the 

acquiring company has both the “power to direct the activities that most 

significantly impact the VIE’s economic performance” and “[t]he obligation to 

absorb losses of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the 

right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to 

the VIE.” ASC 810-10-05 (General Note on Consolidation). But there is no 

indication that VIE accounting would have been appropriate here. The 
26

Accelera entered into an agreement to purchase Behavioral’s shares. But 

because it never paid for the shares, it never obtained them. Ex. 184 §§ 1.1, 

1.1.1.1. Accelera thus did not have a “controlling financial interest” in 

Behavioral that would make consolidation appropriate under ASC 810-10-25-

1. Further, the acquisition date as defined in ASC 805-10-05-4 never came to 

pass. Although the closing date of the stock purchase agreement was the day 

it was signed on November 11, 2013, consideration—which was the initial $1 

million payment—never transferred. As ASC 805 recognizes, sometimes 

control passes only after the closing date. ASC 805-10-25-7. Finally, Accelera 

never controlled Behavioral by other means either. As Boerum, Freeman, and 

Wolfrum testified, Accelera had no ability to “determine the direction” of 

Behavioral’s “management and policies.” ASC 805-10-20. Accelera was not 

following GAAP when it consolidated Behavioral’s financial statements with 

its own.

3.4. Wahl and Deutchman’s arguments that consolidation was appropriate 

are unpersuasive.

Wahl argues that consolidation was appropriate because the stock 

purchase agreement defined the date it was signed as the “closing” date and 

said it was “effective” as of the closing. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 62. Yet as 

explained above, the fact that the closing date of the transaction was the date 

it was signed does not mean control transferred on that date. See ASC 805-10-

25-7. To the contrary, the agreement made it clear that Behavioral’s stock 

would not transfer until $1 million was paid, and that even then, it would be 

held in escrow until the rest of the purchase price was paid. Ex. 184 §§ 1.1, 

1.1.1.1; Ex. 188 at 142959–60. The same is true regarding other documents 

such as the promissory note documenting Accelera’s liability and the 

shareholder action agreement; the note became effective only once the $1 

million was paid, and the shareholder agreement stated that Wolfrum would 

remain Behavioral’s CEO until the $1 million was paid. Ex. 186 at 1; Ex. 191 

at 143275; see Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 62, 68.

Wahl further argues that Accelera had control because the operating 

agreement, which was effective as of November 2013, called for the creation of 

 

transaction was a straightforward stock purchase in which controlling 

financial interest would be achieved once Accelera paid for Behavioral’s stock. 

Further, as noted, Accelera had no power to direct Behavioral’s activities, 

which would be required for consolidation under the VIE model. To the extent 

that Wahl attempts to claim in his proposed findings that VIE accounting is 

applicable, see Wahl PFOF at 534–38 (PDF), his arguments are unclear. 

Moreover, I will not consider arguments made only in a party’s proposed 

findings of fact.
27

a management service organization with Wolfrum at its head, and the security 

agreement spoke of the purchase of Behavioral’s stock in the past tense, as if 

it had already occurred. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 63; see Ex. 1207 § 2; Ex. 185 at 

1; Tr. 4658–59 (Wahl, speaking about the operating agreement’s creation of the 

new organization, wondered, “if the business intent isn’t to close a transaction, 

why go through all this trouble and why have this clause in the agreement?”). 

But these agreements did not provide Accelera with control of Behavioral. They 

were ancillary documents; neither consummated the stock purchase. No assets 

were ever moved to the management service organization created by the 

operating agreement. Tr. 70–71, 214–15. And the security agreement was 

relevant only once Accelera had paid Wolfrum the initial $1 million; it gave 

him a continued security interest in Behavioral’s assets until he was paid in 

full by Accelera. See Ex. 1207 §§ 1, 2, 7(d), Ex. A.

Similarly, although Wahl argues that the employment agreement between 

Accelera and Wolfrum was effective as of November 2013, Wahl Post-hr’g Br. 

at 63–64, the agreement alone provides no basis for control. Wolfrum was 

never actually employed by Accelera in any meaningful way. Tr. 216–17, 388 

(Wolfrum never reported to Wallin or collected a salary from Accelera).12

Pointing to both the language of the employment agreement and an April 2016 

document from Accelera’s board of directors following the termination 

agreement, Wahl maintains that Wolfrum must have been an employee 

because he received 600,000 shares of Accelera as compensation pursuant to 

the employment agreement. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 63–65, 68; Ex. 190 at 1–2; 

Ex. 1259 at 2 (PDF) (Accelera’s board in 2016 “confirms that the 600,000 

shares were earned as compensation under the November 20, 2013 

Employment Agreement in increments of 200,000”). However, the Division 

disputes that Accelera granted Wolfrum the shares under the terms of the 

employment agreement, noting that Wahl’s assertion is belied by the 

termination agreement itself and that Wolfrum and Boerum testified to a 

different reason for his receipt of the shares. Div. Resp. to Wahl PFOF at 563–

64, 570 (PDF); Ex. 133, Ex. 10.1 at 2 (“The Parties agree that the transfer of 

Shares from the Purchaser to Seller shall not be deemed to be consideration 

 

12 The fact that several of Accelera’s 10-Ks call Wolfrum an “executive 

officer” of Accelera also does not demonstrate that Accelera had control of 

Behavioral. See Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 63, 65; Ex. 105 at 49–50; Ex. 114 at 26–

27; Ex. 132 at 29–30. The 10-Ks stating that Wolfrum was actually employed 

by Accelera were as mistaken as they were in other respects; indeed, the 2014 

10-K is equally mistaken when it refers to Behavioral as a 100% owned 

subsidiary of Accelera, and its statements alone cannot be used to support 

consolidation. Ex. 114 at F-7; see Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 65.
28

under or pursuant to any of the Stock Sale Agreements.”); Tr. 285, 404–05 

(Wolfrum and Boerum testified the shares were compensation for the hassle of 

allowing Behavioral to be audited in early 2016 for the 2015 audit while the 

termination agreement was already being negotiated). Regardless of whether 

the shares granted were compensation contemplated by the original 

agreement, the fact remains that Wolfrum never worked for Accelera in any 

way that could support Accelera’s control of Behavioral for accounting 

purposes.13

Wahl appears to assert that the amendments to the stock purchase 

agreement somehow created a new means of transferring control of Behavioral 

to Accelera. He notes that each amendment deleted the outdated Section 

1.1.1.1 of the agreement—the provision requiring Accelera to pay Wolfrum $1 

million 90 days after closing to obtain Behavioral’s stock. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. 

at 65–67. Wahl argues the amendments instead provided for a different type 

of consideration: “an obligation to pay Wolfrum $4.5MM and ... compensat[e] 

him with shares at each event of default.” Id. at 66 n.75 (emphasis omitted); 

see also Wahl PFOF at 520 (PDF). He explains that since the first two 

amendments became effective in February and March 2014, respectively, 

during the 2013 audit, the amendments overrode the original stock purchase 

agreement for that period. Wahl Post-hrg Br. at 65–67. But the amendments 

merely substituted a different Section 1.1.1.1 with new payment deadlines in 

place of the old one. Ex. 197 at 1; Ex. 201 at 1. The terms of the agreement 

never changed in principle; Accelera would control Behavioral only after it paid 

for its stock. Moreover, the 2013 audit was about Accelera’s 2013 finances; the 

2014 amendments were not retroactive and could not have changed the 

 

13 Insofar as Accelera’s 2016 board resolution purports that the transfer of 

shares was compensation under the employment agreement, that resolution 

cannot alter the terms of the termination agreement, which made clear that: 

the transfer of shares was not consideration under prior agreements including 

the original stock purchase agreement, employment agreement, or any 

subsequent amendments (collectively referred to as the stock sale agreements 

in the termination agreement); Accelera did not make payments required by 

the stock sale agreements; and the termination agreement constituted the 

entire agreement among the parties and superseded any prior understandings, 

agreements, or representations. See Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass’n v. Wroblewski, 

887 N.E.2d 916, 923 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (indicating that under Illinois law, 

contracts are interpreted by first considering the contractual language and 

that extrinsic evidence cannot modify unambiguous terms in a written 

contract); Ex. 133, Ex. 10.1 at 1, 2, 5. Thus, the transfer of shares did not fulfill 

the purchase price requirement and do not show that Accelera employed 

Wolfrum in any meaningful way that established control over Behavioral.
29

accounting for 2013. No better is Wahl’s argument that consolidation was 

appropriate because the first amendment removed the provision allowing 

either party to terminate the agreement before the payment of the purchase 

price, and the second amendment restricted Accelera’s ability to cancel. Wahl 

Post-hr’g Br. at 65, 67; Ex. 197 at 1; Ex. 201 at 2. The lack of an ability to 

terminate does not mean that the agreement was actually consummated.

Wahl asserts that Wolfrum never said that the transaction had not closed, 

and to the contrary, he confirmed the debt Accelera owed him each year upon 

Anton & Chia’s request and he cooperated with the audits. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. 

at 68–69. But these points have little to do with who actually controlled 

Behavioral. That Wolfrum cooperated with the audit does not mean Accelera 

actually controlled his company or even that he believed it did. And the fact 

that Wolfrum confirmed that the full $4.55 million was still owed to him 

indicates that control never passed to Accelera.

Deutchman, for his part, points out that ASC 805 provides many ways of 

obtaining control, even “without transferring consideration,” including “by 

contract alone.” ASC 805-10-25-11; see Deutchman Post-hr’g Br. at 18. He 

asserts that there was “common control” between Behavioral and Accelera 

because the agreements had been signed, Wolfrum was a contractual employee 

of Accelera, he was paid Accelera shares, and the parties wanted to merge. 

Deutchman Post-hr’g Br. at 19. In such a situation, according to Deutchman, 

consolidation was appropriate even though no consideration transferred as 

long as the Accelera’s debt to Behavioral was booked on its balance sheet and 

Accelera did not recognize any goodwill from the transaction. Id. But 

Deutchman’s theory has no basis. The transaction between Accelera and 

Behavioral was a stock purchase agreement, and the agreement was quite 

clear that Behavioral’s shares would not transfer until the stock was paid for. 

This was not a situation where the contract provided for control without 

payment of consideration.

Next, Deutchman argues that consolidation was permitted by Commission 

regulations. Rule 3-05 of Regulation S-X concerns “[f]inancial statements of 

businesses acquired or to be acquired,” and states that “[f]inancial statements 

prepared and audited in accordance with this regulation should be furnished” 

if a “business combination has occurred or is probable,” or “[c]onsummation of 

a combination between entities under common control is probable.” 17 C.F.R. 

§ 210.3-05(a)(1)(i)–(ii) (emphasis added). Further, Rule 3-05 provides: 

“Acquisitions of a group of related businesses that are probable or that have 

occurred subsequent to the latest fiscal year-end for which audited financial 

statements of the registrant have been filed shall be treated under this section 

as if they are a single business combination.” 17 C.F.R. § 210.3-05(a)(3) 

(emphasis added). Deutchman asserts that these regulations demonstrate that 
30

consolidation of two companies’ financial statements is permissible even before 

the combination has occurred, as long as it is probable that it will occur. 

Deutchman Post-hr’g Br. at 15–17. Nothing, however, shows that the auditors, 

when reviewing Accelera’s financial statements, considered this supposed 

rationale or the degree of probability in which Accelera’s transaction with 

Behavioral would be consummated. The information available to the auditors 

should have raised serious concerns undercutting that probability.

Moreover, Rule 3-05 merely requires the financial statements of a soonto-be subsidiary to be “furnished” to investors. See 17 C.F.R. § 210.3-05(a)(1). 

It does not support the notion that the financials of two entities should be 

consolidated in the situation presented by this case. See Instructions for the 

Presentation and Preparation of Pro Forma Financial Information and 

Requirements for Financial Statements of Businesses Acquired or To Be 

Acquired, 47 Fed. Reg. 29,832, 29,834–35 (July 9, 1982) (recognizing, in the 

adopting release, the distinction between furnishing an acquired or to-beacquired business’s financial statements and consolidating those financials 

with the acquiree after the acquisition). Indeed, Commission rules found 

elsewhere provide guidance on when consolidation is appropriate. See 17 

C.F.R. § 210.3A-02(a) (stating, with exceptions, “[g]enerally, registrants shall 

consolidate entities that are majority owned and shall not consolidate entities 

that are not majority owned”).

Deutchman also points to Rule 4-08 of Regulation S-X, which provides that 

“[a]mounts of related party transactions should be stated on the face of the 

balance sheet” and that when separate financial statements are presented for 

the entity or its subsidiaries, “intercompany profits or losses resulting from 

transactions with related parties and the effects thereof shall be disclosed.” 17 

C.F.R. § 210.4-08(k). He therefore argues that he was required to disclose 

Accelera’s contractual relationship with Behavioral, and that his failure to do 

so could also have been the basis for fraud charges. Deutchman Post-hr’g Br. 

at 19–20. But again, Rule 4-08 is talking about disclosure, not consolidation. 

Accelera could have drafted financial statements disclosing the relationship 

between Accelera and Behavioral without consolidating the entities.

Finally, Anton & Chia’s audit file never referenced any of the preceding 

Regulation S-X rules as a basis for consolidation, and Deutchman never 

mentioned any of them in his testimony as something he considered at the 

time. See Gregory M. Dearlove, CPA, Exchange Act Release No. 57244, 2008 

WL 281105, at *10 n.39 (Jan. 31, 2008) (“We consider the absence of work 

papers to be evidence that the audit team did not devote substantial, if any, 

effort to review the areas in question.”), pet. denied, 573 F.3d 801 (D.C. Cir. 

2009).
31

3.5. Anton & Chia’s audits and interim reviews of Accelera

3.5.1. 2013 audit

For the 2013 year-end audit, Wahl served as the engagement partner, and 

Yu-Ta Chen was one of two staff accountants. Ex. 136 at 5. In its planning 

memorandum, the firm stated that it would examine the agreements 

surrounding Accelera’s purchase of Behavioral and would request a purchase 

price allocation. Id. at 3.

The team was aware that their main correspondent at the company, 

Timothy Neher—who was the founder of Accelera and was doing the 

accounting at the time—had poor financial and accounting abilities. Tr. 56–57, 

474, 559–60. Anton & Chia documented that it would not rely on Accelera’s 

internal controls because it had no significant operations and a small board of 

directors. Ex. 1, 2013 Audit Annual, WP 1105 at 2. Neher did not provide 

Anton & Chia with a draft Form 10-K or draft financials until March 24, 2014, 

just six days before the filing deadline. Ex. 202 at 22969.

Anton & Chia, including Wahl, received all of the agreements concerning 

Accelera’s purchase of Behavioral. Exs. 302–04; Tr. 499–504. Wahl signed off 

as having reviewed several of them (including the stock purchase agreement). 

Ex. 138 at 1–2, 4. Accelera’s Form 10-K also noted that pursuant to the stock 

purchase agreement, Accelera was required to pay $1 million 90 days from the 

date of closing. Ex. 105 at F-7. Thus, it would have been obvious to the auditors, 

either from the Form 10-K itself, or certainly through review of the 

agreements, that payment was required to consummate the acquisition. At the 

hearing, Wahl admitted that Accelera had never paid Wolfrum the initial $1 

million. See Tr. 5216. 

Chen prepared a memo to document the Behavioral acquisition, which 

Wahl signed off on as having reviewed. Ex. 142; Ex. 138 at 4 (sign off for WP 

2503); Tr. 508. Chen did not have any auditing experience at the time and had 

just been hired earlier that month. Tr. 468, 471; see Ex. 280 (Chen’s resume). 

He had never worked on business combinations before and had never drafted 

anything like the acquisition memo previously. Tr. 514–15. He based the memo

largely on a template. Tr. 510, 513.

The memo identified ASC 805 as the relevant GAAP standard. Ex. 142 at 

2–3. It also acknowledged that it is key to determine if, in the transaction, 

“someone gain[ed] control.” Id. at 2. And it noted that “the usual condition for 

controlling interest is the ownership of the majority voting interest in the 

entity.” Id. at 4. After setting forth the basics of control, the memo then 

explained that one must identify the acquisition date, which is “not necessarily 

the date of an agreement or reaching binding terms.” Id. Yet curiously, the 
32

memo did not attempt to determine the acquisition date, and turned instead 

to other topics. It is not entirely clear whether Chen believed that the 

acquisition had even gone through yet. The memo noted, for example, that 

Accelera willpay Behavioral $4.55 million, and that “[a]s a result, [Behavioral]

would become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Issuer.” Id. at 1–2. And it 

further stated that per the agreement, Accelera “will obtained [sic] 100% of the 

ownership” of Behavioral. Id. at 2 (emphasis added). The memo concluded with 

another ambiguous remark, that “[r]evenue will begin to accrue to the Issuer 

from Target operations prospectively from the date the Issuer obtains control.” 

Id. at 9. In sum, the memo failed to explain if and when Accelera obtained 

control of Behavioral.

Anton & Chia performed no fieldwork for the 2013 audit. Tr. 497–98. 

There is no evidence in the workpapers that the team questioned Wolfrum 

about whether Accelera controlled Behavioral. Chen did not recall having any 

such conversations with Wolfrum. Tr. 536–37.

Accelera’s 2013 Form 10-K had an unqualified audit opinion from Anton 

& Chia. The firm opined that Accelera’s financial statements, “present fairly, 

in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Accelera 

Innovations, Inc. as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the consolidated 

results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years then ended, 

in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United 

States of America.” Ex. 105 at F-2. Anton & Chia further represented that it 

had “conducted [its] audits in accordance with the standards of the Public 

Company Accounting Oversight Board.” Id. The report included a going 

concern disclosure, noting “substantial doubt about [Accelera’s] ability to 

continue as a going concern” because of, among other things, the company’s 

“recurring operating losses and negative cash flow.” Id. 

In its report to Accelera’s board of directors related to its 2013 audit, Anton 

& Chia “identified a lack of sufficient personnel” for accounting and financial 

reporting “with appropriate skills, training, and experience” to ensure 

compliance with GAAP. Ex. 143 at 927. The firm recommended Accelera “hire 

a full time CFO with relevant experience.” Id.

3.5.2. 2014 interim reviews and year-end audit

Anton & Chia continued to audit Accelera in 2014, and Wahl remained the 

engagement partner on all engagements (including year-end) except for the 

third quarter review, in which he was not involved. Ex. 1.1 at 3; Ex. 1.4 at 3; 

Ex. 166 at 3; Ex. 171 at 5. Tommy Shek was the audit manager for the yearend audit. Ex. 171 at 5.
33

No additional analysis of Behavioral’s consolidation was undertaken in 

2014. See Tr. 548 (Chen testified that the issue did not come up again in the 

reviews he worked on). No additional workpapers analyzed the issue. See 

Tr. 1162 (confirmed by Devor’s review). Chen and others, however, wondered 

on a couple of occasions whether Accelera had ever paid off its debt to 

Behavioral. Ex. 206 at 27229 (August 2014 email from Chen to Neher asking 

whether “the Company paid off [Behavioral]”); Ex. 207 at 27237 (draft Q2 10-

Q with Richard Koch’s handwritten notes asking whether the purchase price 

installments had even been paid); Tr. 560–63.

Anton & Chia auditors visited Behavioral to perform fieldwork three 

times. Tr. 248. In mid-April 2014, Wolfrum instructed Anton & Chia staff by 

email to remain confidential and keep a low profile during the audit, and not 

to mention anything about the sale to Accelera to anyone but himself. Ex. 204 

at 15069. At the hearing, Wolfrum claimed he sent this email because he 

“didn’t want people in the office to think that we had sold the business, because 

we hadn’t.” Tr. 253. Wolfrum then told the staff who came for fieldwork that 

he still “owned Behavioral, and that no one’s made any payments yet, ... 

although I was hoping they would soon.” Tr. 255. He further told the auditors 

that he paid the taxes, wrote the checks, and managed the bank accounts, 

because “it’s totally separate from Accelera. They haven’t purchased us yet.” 

Tr. 256. Similarly, during field work at Behavioral in 2015, Wolfrum told the 

auditors that “Accelera hasn’t paid yet, and I still own a hundred percent of 

the company.” Tr. 258–59, 264. Indeed, during both audits, the auditors had 

access on site to Behavioral’s bank records, which, had the auditors looked at 

them, would have showed that Behavioral had not paid any of its revenues to 

Accelera. Tr. 258, 266.

Anton & Chia was hired to complete an acquisition audit for Behavioral. 

Ex. 839.6 at 110 (PDF). But, as of September 2014, Accelera had not completed 

the required filings on its end. Id. at 494 (PDF); Tr. 2345. Anton & Chia never 

completed the acquisition audit. Tr. 538–39.

Deutchman was staffed as the engagement partner on Accelera in the 

third quarter of 2014. Ex. 1.4 at 3; Tr. 729. For the year-end audit, on the other 

hand, he was listed as the EQR in the planning memo. Ex. 171 at 5. But while 

Deutchman maintained that he was indeed EQR, Tr. 769–70, a draft of the 

planning memo for the year-end audit and the engagement summary memo 

instead listed Deutchman as the engagement partner and Wahl as the EQR. 

Ex. 176 at 48171; Ex. 237 at 13485; Tr. 768–70. Moreover, in several emails 

from the time of the year-end audit, Deutchman was referred to as the “EP,” 

the “partner in charge,” or by other terms indicating he was engagement 

partner. Ex. 228 at 24839; Ex. 229 at 1475; Ex. 233 at 25660. Deutchman also 

took on roles that were more appropriate for an engagement partner: he 
34

communicated directly with Accelera, proposed calls, organized field work, and 

was involved in the audit planning meeting as well as other decisions at an 

early stage. Ex. 229 at 1475; Ex. 231 at 93380; Ex. 234 at 25680; Ex. 235 at 

25729; Ex. 237 at 1 (PDF); Ex. 311; see Ex. 88.1 at 65 (Devor opined in his 

report that communicating with the company to be audited is a duty “typically 

performed by the Engagement Partner”). Wahl was not even copied on some of 

these emails. See Ex. 231 at 93380; Ex. 235 at 25729. Freeman testified that 

he thought Deutchman was the engagement partner because Deutchman was 

working with him to get ready for the audit. Tr. 132–33.

Once Freeman became the CFO of Accelera in September 2014, he was 

concerned that Behavioral was inappropriately consolidated. Tr. 54, 79–80. 

Freeman raised his concerns to Deutchman on a number of occasions. On a 

phone call in October 2014, Freeman opined that consolidation was 

inappropriate. See Ex. 214 at 492. Freeman followed up by email in December, 

and asked Deutchman to forward Anton & Chia’s basis for consolidation, 

including any research and analysis the firm had done supporting 

consolidation. Id. Not receiving any response, Freeman pressed Deutchman 

again for a copy of the research in early January 2015. Tr. 102–03; Ex. 217 at 

22132–33. Deutchman, however, again did not provide any research. Tr. 103. 

On February 2, 2015, Freeman sent a draft agenda for a call to Deutchman 

and others, one discussion point being whether Behavioral should be 

consolidated for the 2014 audit. Ex. 223 at 1283. Freeman also emailed 

Deutchman directly, telling him that the issue of Behavioral’s consolidation 

would come up on the conference call, and that he did not agree with Neher’s 

rationale for consolidation, because Accelera’s “subsidiary never controlled” 

Behavioral. Ex. 222 at 1. At some point, Freeman also told Deutchman that he 

had called the hotline for the American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants (AICPA), and that they had told him that Behavioral had been 

inappropriately consolidated. Tr. 111, 119–21. 

During the conference call on February 9, Freeman again explained his 

problems with consolidation. Tr. 121–23; see Ex. 225. Accelera’s attorneys, 

although on the call, expressed no opinion on the matter, as they felt it was an 

accounting matter, not a legal one. Tr. 122. According to Freeman, Deutchman 

opined that the previous financial statements were fine and did not need 

restatement, but did not offer any reason for his opinion. Tr. 123; but see 

Tr. 712 (Deutchman could not recall much about the call). Also according to 

Freeman, the parties on the call agreed to have Accelera’s attorney Bob Acri 

meet with Wolfrum and enter into a supplemental agreement that would say 

that Behavioral “would be under the control of Accelera to get around the issue 

of consolidation.” Tr. 123. No such agreement, however, was ever entered into. 

Tr. 123–24. Freeman resigned from Accelera on March 20, 2015, in part 
35

because of “the inappropriate consolidation of Behavioral with Accelera.” 

Tr. 125–26; see Ex. 124; Ex. 227 at 1.

Deutchman never acted on any of Freeman’s concerns. See Tr. 707–08, 

711, 941. There is no evidence in the workpapers that Deutchman documented 

Freeman’s questions or told the other members of the engagement team about 

them. See Tr. 698–700, 2336 (Shek, the audit manager for 2014, testified that 

he would have liked to have known), 2346 (Shek testified there were no 

discussions about Accelera’s control of Behavioral during the 2014 audit). 

Moreover, it seems likely that Deutchman did not go back and review Chen’s 

consolidation memo. Tr. 1050–54.

Deutchman testified that he did not take Freeman’s concerns seriously for 

several reasons. For one, he and Wahl had a low opinion of Freeman’s work; 

the firm needed to make many audit adjustments to the financial statements 

Freeman prepared. Tr. 702–03, 917, 4620, 5292. Second, he thought that if 

Freeman had real concerns about consolidation, it was his job to prepare a 

proper memo documenting them. Tr. 707–08, 719, 892. Third, he felt that 

providing Freeman with Chen’s consolidation memo was inappropriate and 

would compromise his independence as an auditor. Tr. 938–39. Fourth, 

Deutchman believed that if Freeman had wanted an opinion on the legality of 

consolidation, it should have come from the Commission or another accounting 

firm that audited public companies, not the AICPA, which only worked with 

private companies. Tr. 870, 902. Finally, to a certain extent, he did not consider 

it to be his place to challenge his own firm’s prior determination. Tr. 762, 1060–

61; Ex. 839.6 at 480, 491 (PDF) (Deutchman’s 2018 and 2019 deposition 

testimony in the Commission’s district court case against Accelera). Anton & 

Chia had signed off on Accelera’s financial statements back in 2013, and 

Deutchman was not “reordering the work or replanning the work”; he instead 

assumed that consolidation had been “done correctly.” Tr. 762, 1061 (“I 

deferred to the firm’s opinion and I still do.”).

Despite the fact that Deutchman deferred to Anton & Chia on 

consolidation and did not formulate his own opinion, he testified (at the 

hearing at least) that he accepted the firm’s position because he had seen the 

stock purchase agreement, Wolfrum’s employment agreement, the promissory 

note, and the operating agreement—documents which convinced him that the 

firm’s position was at least reasonable. Tr. 1097–98; but see Tr. 1062 

(Deutchman impeached with 2016 investigative testimony where he said he 

could not recall whether he read any of the agreements). Deutchman was 

aware, however, that none of the purchase price for Behavioral had been paid. 

Among the workpapers for the 2014 audit on which Deutchman signed off was 

a confirmation signed by Wolfrum that Accelera had not paid him any of the 

$4.55 million purchase price for the company. See Ex. 239 at 1–2; Ex. 1, 2014 
36

Audit Annual, WP 5303; Ex. 147 at line 453; see also Ex. 247; Ex. 840 ¶ 36 

(Deutchman reviewed and signed off on the amendments to the stock purchase 

agreement extending the payment deadline). Further, Deutchman never asked 

Wolfrum about the status of the stock purchase agreement or whether Accelera 

had actually acquired Behavioral. Tr. 1066.

On March 31, 2015, Brian Rusywick, the chief operating officer of Anton 

& Chia, asked Deutchman to speak to an Accelera attorney and confirm which 

entities should be audited in 2014. Tr. 475; Ex. 240 at 1287. Deutchman did 

not think this was a legal question, however, and it appears he did not follow 

up with an attorney. See Tr. 796–99. On April 6, 2015, in an email titled “Legal 

- Accelera,” Shek asked Deutchman “to call the attorney and obtain written 

representation for the entity to be consolidated in 2014.” Ex. 241 at 1290. 

Deutchman did not follow up on this request either. Tr. 2333. The Division 

suggests that these incidents are further evidence Deutchman was put on 

notice that Behavioral’s consolidation may have been inappropriate and was 

in fact told to obtain a legal opinion on the matter. See Div. Post-hr’g Br. at 8–

10, 34; see also Div. PFOF at 88–89; Tr. 800–01, 2330.

But this is a stretch. The emails do not ask Deutchman to obtain a legal 

opinion about Behavioral’s consolidation. Rusywick told him to ask Accelera’s 

attorneys “what entities need to be audited,” but there is no indication that his 

query was related to the appropriateness of Behavioral’s consolidation. 

Similarly, there is no indication in Shek’s request that Deutchman obtain an 

attorney’s “written representation for the entity to be consolidated in 2014” is 

a representation about the appropriateness of Behavioral’s consolidation with 

Accelera. Shek’s subsequent email listing audit matters still outstanding, 

which asks for “[l]egal representation for business [Accelera] acquired in 2013 

and 2014,” is not questioning Behavioral’s consolidation; in a routine manner, 

the email also asks for other information from Behavioral such as revenue 

testing and confirmation about the $4.55 million not yet paid. Ex. 249 at 

30160–61. This suggests that the issue of consolidation was not the target of 

Shek’s emails. In any event, if Deutchman had asked Accelera’s attorneys 

about consolidation,it is not clear it would have been particularly illuminating. 

On the February 2015 call with Accelera—just a couple months before the 

emails from Rusywick and Shek—Accelera’s attorneys saw the matter as an 

accounting question and not a legal one. See Tr. 122.

Earlier, on November 25, 2014, Accelera entered into a stock purchase 

agreement with Grace Home Health Care, Inc. See Ex. 113. The same day, 

Accelera entered into an asset purchase agreement with Watson Health Care, 

Inc., and Affordable Nursing, Inc. Id. On January 5, 2015, Accelera entered 

into a stock purchase agreement with Traditions Home Care, Inc. See Ex. 116. 

Accelera never made any payments toward completing these acquisitions. 
37

Tr. 415. Unlike with Behavioral, however, Accelera did not consolidate these 

companies’ financials with its own. Tr. 416. Wahl and Deutchman signed off as 

having reviewed the purchase agreements for Grace, Watson, and Traditions. 

Ex. 1, 2014 Audit Annual, WP 0418.01 (Grace and Watson 8-K) and WP 

0419.01 (Traditions 8-K); Ex. 147 at lines 62, 66, 76, and 80 (Wahl and 

Deutchman’s sign offs on 0418.01 and 0419.01). But the fact that these 

companies were not consolidated did not cause the team to rethink whether 

Behavioral’s consolidation was appropriate. Shek testified that he reviewed 

the agreements and decided Accelera “didn’t have control.” Tr. 2340. He did 

not reevaluate the Behavioral transaction because he expected that the 2013 

audit team had looked into it. See Tr. 2340–41.

Although Accelera was required to prepare a goodwill impairment 

analysis and purchase price allocation for Behavioral within one year of the 

acquisition, it had not done so by the time of the 2014 audit. Tr. 2342–43. Shek 

therefore drafted a goodwill impairment analysis, which was reviewed by both 

Wahl and Deutchman. Ex. 146; Ex. 147 at lines 409 and 412; Tr. 898–99. Shek 

and Deutchman decided to impair the entire amount of goodwill, over $4 

million, because of Accelera’s losses and because it did “not have sufficient 

support to validate the goodwill for [Behavioral].” Ex. 146 at 1487–88. 

In addition to writing down all of the goodwill from the Behavioral

acquisition, Anton & Chia proposed a number of other adjustments to 

Accelera’s financials for the 2014 audit. Ex. 1204 at 5; Tr. 4612–17. In total, 

the firm made eight adjustments, which increased Accelera’s losses by over $18 

million and just about doubled the company’s reported losses for the year. 

Tr. 4612, 4616–17. Wahl testified that this showed that Accelera’s 

management was “not taking their job seriously,” and that conversely, Anton 

& Chia was taking its job seriously. Tr. 4614. Deutchman testified that by 

making Accelera’s losses worse, and especially by impairing all of the goodwill 

for Behavioral, Anton & Chia presented Accelera’s financials to investors in 

the most conservative way. Tr. 703–04, 911.

Anton & Chia’s unqualified audit report for 2014, like its 2013 report, 

stated that Accelera’s financials had been presented in accordance with GAAP 

and that Anton & Chia’s audit had complied with PCAOB standards. Ex. 114 

at F-2. It also contained a going concern disclosure. Id.

3.5.3. 2015 interim reviews

Not much changed during Anton & Chia’s quarterly reviews in 2015. The 

engagement team was similar; Wahl was the engagement partner and 
38

Deutchman was the EQR. Ex. 1.6 at 3; Ex. 152 at 3; Ex. 178 at 3.14 Although 

the firm noted in the second quarter of 2015 that Accelera still had not made 

any payments to Behavioral, no reassessment of the transaction was 

conducted. Tr. 582–84; Ex. 1.7. No one asked whether Accelera really 

controlled Behavioral. Tr. 2354–55. During the course of the 2015 reviews, 

Wahl continued to note that Accelera’s internal controls were very poor. 

Ex. 258 at 2214; Ex. 261 at 115024. By July 2015, Anton & Chia was aware 

that Accelera was being investigated by the Commission for its financial 

reporting related to the Behavioral consolidation. Ex. 840 ¶ 40.

3.6. Wahl and Deutchman failed to follow PCAOB standards.

In their respective roles in the Accelera engagement, Wahl and 

Deutchman did not adhere to several PCAOB standards in effect at the time.15

3.6.1. Inadequate audit evidence, insufficient professional skepticism, 

and improper acceptance of management representations

“The auditor must plan and perform audit procedures to obtain sufficient 

appropriate audit evidence to provide a reasonable basis for his or her opinion,” 

and appropriateness is measured by “relevance and reliability.” PCAOB 

Auditing Standard (AS) No. 15.4, .6. But in 2013, the team did not perform 

field work at Behavioral or ask Wolfrum any questions to determine whether 

 

14 Deutchman’s testimony that he did not believe he was involved in the 2015 

third quarter review is contradicted by the planning memo for that quarter. 

Compare Tr. 639, with Ex. 178 at 3.

15 Wahl and Chung make a global argument pertaining to all three 

engagements, suggesting that many of the professional standards the Division 

claims they violated are not obligatory, as the standards use words like “shall” 

and “should” instead of “must.” See Wahl Response to Div. PFOF at 2–3, 823 

(PDF). But the PCAOB considers “shall” to denote an “unconditional 

responsibility” and “should” a “presumptively mandatory” responsibility 

“unless the auditor demonstrates that alternative actions he or she followed in 

the circumstances were sufficient to achieve the objectives of the standard.” 

PCAOB Rule 3101(a)(1)–(2), https://pcaobus.org/Rules/Pages/Rule_3101.aspx. 

Similarly, FASB considers the words “shall” and “should” to be comparable, 

and notes that both represent “the requirement to apply a standard.” FASB 

Accounting Standards Codification, About the Codification (v 4.10), at 23 (Dec. 

2014), https://asc.fasb.org/imageRoot/71/58741171.pdf. The fact that neither 

Wahl or Chung understood the meaning of “shall” or “should” in the 

professional standards that were obliged to follow—either then or now—lends 

further credence to the proposition that they engaged in improper professional 

conduct.
39

Accelera was actually controlling Behavioral. The memo prepared by Chen and 

reviewed by Wahl failed to properly interpret the stock purchase agreement, 

and did not even opine on whether the acquisition had actually taken place. 

Wahl thus also failed to “consider the competency and sufficiency of the 

evidence.” PCAOB AU § 230.08. 

Further, “[i]f a representation made by management is contradicted by 

other audit evidence, the auditor should investigate the circumstances and 

consider the reliability of the representation made.” AU § 333.04. However, the 

engagement team improperly accepted management’s representation in its 

financial statements that Behavioral should be consolidated without properly 

evaluating the obviously contrary evidence in the legal agreements. All these 

failures contradict “an attitude that includes a questioning mind and a critical 

assessment of audit evidence” and demonstrate that they did not exercise due 

professional care and professional skepticism. AU §§ 230.01, 230.07.

In 2014, these failures were compounded. The engagement team stuck to 

their earlier position despite numerous red flags and additional evidence that 

consolidation was improper. Deutchman, as EQR, also failed to address several 

red flags of which he was aware. (1) On more than one occasion during 

fieldwork at Behavioral, Wolfrum told the team that he had never sold his 

company and that he did not work for Accelera. (2) Both Wahl and Deutchman 

knew that Accelera did not consolidate Grace, Watson, and Traditions because 

Accelera had never paid for those companies, but they did not reevaluate 

Behavioral’s consolidation even though they knew Accelera had not paid for it 

either. (3) Accelera failed to complete its paperwork to support Anton & Chia’s 

acquisition audit of Behavioral, but this did not cause the team to wonder 

whether Accelera had actually acquired the company. (4) Deutchman ignored 

Freeman’s repeated concerns that Behavioral was inappropriately 

consolidated, and did not question former management representations in 

light of the arguments Freeman made. (5) Deutchman impaired all of the 

goodwill from Accelera’s purchase of Behavioral, but then failed to take a closer 

look at the transaction itself and whether control had been obtained and 

consolidation was appropriate. All of these matters demonstrate a failure to 

obtain appropriate audit evidence, a failure to exercise due professional care 

and skepticism, and unreasonable acceptance of management representations 

in light of conflicting evidence. Accelera’s transaction with Behavioral, which 

accounted for 90% of Accelera’s revenues in 2013 and 2014, demanded much 

more scrutiny than it received.

The Division further alleges based primarily on AU § 230’s requirement 

to exercise due professional care and professional skepticism that Anton & 

Chia and Wahl also failed to properly plan the 2013 and 2014 audits. See Div. 

Post-hr’g Br. at 8–10; see also Div. PFOF at 56–57, 60–61, 81–82. For example, 
40

the team noted at the outset of the 2013 audit that they could not rely on 

Accelera’s internal controls, which means that they should have exercised 

heightened skepticism. But whether one characterizes the problems as being 

in the planning or in the execution, it is unquestionable that Wahl and 

Deutchman failed to exercise due professional care in conducting the audits.

3.6.2. Failure to document significant issues and findings

In 2013, Wahl failed to prepare audit documentation “in sufficient detail 

to provide a clear understanding of its purpose, source, and the conclusions 

reached” with appropriate organization “to provide a clear link to the 

significant findings or issues.” AS No. 3.4. Chen’s memo exploring Accelera’s 

stock deal with Behavioral, which Wahl reviewed, did not sufficiently support 

the conclusion that Accelera had acquired Behavioral. To the contrary, it was 

vague on essential points such as when the acquisition date was and whether 

Accelera actually exercised control over Behavioral. The engagement team 

prepared no other documentation concerning the purported acquisition. AS 

No. 3.6 requires audit documentation to “contain sufficient information to 

enable an experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the 

engagement: [t]o understand the nature, timing, extent, and results of the 

procedures performed, evidence obtained, and conclusions reached.” But from 

the memo alone, an auditor unconnected to the engagement would not have 

been able to determine Accelera’s basis for consolidation.

Deutchman failed to document the concerns raised by Freeman about 

improper consolidation. Instead, he did nothing. His approach was inconsistent 

with AS No. 3 because the auditor must retain “records documenting 

consultations on, or resolutions of, differences in professional judgment ...

between the engagement team and others consulted,” and “audit 

documentation must include information the auditor has identified relating to 

significant findings or issues that is inconsistent with or contradicts the 

auditor’s final conclusions.” AS No. 3.8. Further, if correct, Freeman’s concerns 

indicated that Accelera’s financial statements were misstated, and the auditor 

must document the actions taken to address significant findings, which include 

“the existence of material misstatements.” AS No. 3.12(b). But this was not 

done.

3.6.3. Insufficient experience and supervision

“The audit is to be performed by a person or persons having adequate 

technical training and proficiency as an auditor,” and “[t]he junior assistant, 

just entering upon an auditing career, must obtain his professional experience 

with the proper supervision and review of his work by a more experienced 

superior.” AU §§ 210.01, .03. Likewise, “[a]n auditor should possess ‘the degree 
41

of skill commonly possessed’ by other auditors’” and “should be assigned to 

tasks and supervised commensurate with their level of knowledge, skill, and 

ability so that they can evaluate the audit evidence they are examining.” AU 

§§ 230.05, .06. The Division maintains that Wahl should not have assigned 

Chen, who had no auditing experience, to the Accelera audit, or, at the very 

least, should not have tasked him with drafting the acquisition memo for 

Behavioral. 

Given that Chen had no experience in business combinations and the 

Behavioral acquisition was a significant part of the audit, it is indeed 

questionable whether Wahl should have assigned him to draft the memo. Yet 

regardless, Wahl failed to adequately supervise Chen. “[T]he engagement 

partner is responsible for proper supervision of the work of engagement team 

members” and must “[r]eview the work of engagement team” taking into 

account “[t]he knowledge, skill, and ability of each engagement team member.” 

AS No. 10.3, .5(c), .6(d); see AU § 230.06. Wahl reviewed the memo, but did not 

catch its glaring errors, including the fact that it failed to determine when 

Accelera had actually acquired Behavioral. If anything, Wahl had a heightened 

requirement to carefully supervise Chen given his lack of experience.

In light of Deutchman’s disciplinary history and performance issues at 

Anton & Chia, the Division argues that Wahl should not have assigned him to 

be the EQR for the 2014 Accelera audit. See Div. Post-hr’g Br. at 9–10; see also 

Div. PFOF at 79–80. In 2008, Deutchman was censured by the Commission for 

auditing a public company without being registered with the PCAOB. Tr. 643; 

Michael Deutchman, Exchange Act Release No. 58240, 2008 WL 2902011, at 

*1–2 (July 29, 2008). In 2015, the PCAOB found he participated in an effort to 

alter audit files in an attempt to deceive PCAOB inspectors in 2008. Tr. 647; 

Kabani & Co., PCAOB File No. 105-2012-002, at 4–6, 18–19 (PCAOB Jan. 22, 

2015), https://pcaobus.org/Enforcement/Adjudicated/Documents/105-2012-002-

Kabani.pdf. And while at Anton & Chia, in February 2015, Deutchman was 

written up for “[s]ubstandard job performance.” Ex. 226 at 51112. The warning 

was never signed or made effective, however, and Deutchman testified he was 

never presented with it. Tr. 659–61, 876; see Tr. 5593 (Wahl testified that he 

had wanted the document destroyed but that it was put in Deutchman’s file 

against his wishes). At one point in March or April of 2015, Wahl told 

Deutchman that he was too old to be an engagement partner. Tr. 661–62, 664. 

But Deutchman “didn’t take it personally,” and moved to San Diego to do 

marketing work for the firm instead. Tr. 662–63. After learning of 

Deutchman’s resignation in August 2016, Wahl wrote in an email that there 

were a “number of issues with Mike” and that he had hoped to “properly retire 

him in October,” but did not specify what the issues were. Ex. 271 at 50868; 

Tr. 5130.
42

Yet, despite these issues, Deutchman was an experienced auditor who had 

once worked for the Commission, Tr. 662, and there is no evidence that he was 

incapable of being an EQR or that he was inadequately supervised. His censure 

by the PCAOB was years prior, and the PCAOB’s decision about his second 

offense—the allegation that he altered documents—came out in the middle of 

the 2015 audit, and was promptly appealed. Kabani, 2017 WL 947229

(Commission decision on appeal released in March 2017). It is not clear that 

Wahl should have been required to remove Deutchman from the audit at that 

time. In terms of his performance at Anton & Chia, the warning drafted was 

never placed in his record, and Wahl’s comments about Deutchman’s age or 

other issues were vague. These matters are insufficient to show that Wahl 

violated PCAOB standards by having Deutchman work on the Accelera audit.

3.6.4. Lack of independent and appropriate engagement quality 

review in 2014

“To maintain objectivity, the engagement quality reviewer and others who 

assist the reviewer should not make decisions on behalf of the engagement 

team or assume any of the responsibilities of the engagement team.” AS 

No. 7.7. But Deutchman, as the EQR for the 2014 audit, assumed several 

engagement team responsibilities, such as communicating with Accelera. In 

fact, due to Deutchman’s extensive involvement in communicating about and 

planning the audit, Freeman thought Deutchman was the engagement partner 

and not the EQR.

Further, “the engagement quality reviewer should evaluate the significant 

judgments made by the engagement team and the related conclusions reached 

in forming the overall conclusion on the engagement and in preparing the 

engagement report.” AS No. 7.9. But Deutchman did not properly do so. As 

discussed above, he failed to acknowledge several red flags about Behavioral’s 

consolidation, including: (1) the fact that the agreements themselves indicated 

consolidation was inappropriate until the initial $1 million payment was made; 

(2) Accelera’s disparate treatment of Behavioral and Grace, Watson, and 

Traditions; (3) Freeman’s repeated warnings that consolidation was 

inappropriate; and (4) that the lack of support for goodwill from the Behavioral 

transaction might indicate the acquisition did not really take place. While it is 

true that Anton & Chia approved Accelera’s decision to consolidate Behavioral 

in 2013 before Deutchman got involved, he became aware of sufficient red flags 

as EQR in 2014 and should have reconsidered the firm’s earlier decision.
43

3.6.5. Failure to identify non-conformance with GAAP during interim 

reviews

“The objective of a review of interim financial information” under AU 

§ 722 “is to provide the accountant with a basis for communicating whether he 

or she is aware of any material modifications that should be made to the 

interim financial information for it to conform with generally accepted 

accounting principles.” AU § 722.07. If, during this review, the accountant 

becomes aware of possible non-conformance with GAAP, “the accountant 

should make additional inquiries or perform other procedures that the 

accountant considers appropriate to provide a basis for communicating 

whether he or she is aware of any material modifications that should be made 

to the interim financial information.” AU § 722.22.

Wahl was involved in all but one of Anton & Chia’s reviews of Accelera’s 

finances for its quarterly reports in 2014 and 2015. During those reviews, 

various red flags should have caused Wahl and the engagement team to 

reconsider whether Behavioral’s consolidation complied with GAAP. For 

example, in late April or early May 2014, Wolfrum told the members of the 

engagement team who did fieldwork at Behavioral that he still owned the 

company and Accelera’s purchase had not been completed. In August 2014, 

Chen wondered whether Behavioral had ever been paid for its stock, and 

Koch’s handwritten notes on the Q2 10-Q similarly asked whether the 

purchase price installments had even been paid. During the second quarter of 

2015, Anton & Chia noted that Accelera still had not made any payments to 

Behavioral. Yet in none of these instances did the engagement team examine 

the original sale documents or reassess whether the transaction was 

consummated and whether consolidation was appropriate. Nor, for example, 

did the team make further inquiries of Accelera management to determine 

what should be done. Finally, in no instance did the engagement team mark 

the Behavioral transaction as having continuing significance on forms and 

checklists prepared during its interim reviews. See Div. Post-hr’g Br. at 9; see 

also Div. PFOF at 69–70, 76–77, 97–98, 101–02; AU § 722.11 (procedures for 

interim reviews should include reading prior audit documentation to 

determine whether there are “significant financial accounting and reporting 

matters that may be of continuing significance, such as weaknesses in internal 

control”); see, e.g., Ex. 164 ¶ 4(a)(iv); Ex. 1.2 ¶ 4(a)(iv); Ex. 1.3 ¶ 4(a)(iv); Ex. 1.8 

at 1; Ex. 1, 2015 Q1, WP 3001 at 1; Ex. 1, 2015 Q2, WP 3001 at 1; Ex. 1, 2015 

Q3, WP 3001 at 1. Although the firm believed that Behavioral had been 

appropriately consolidated, and thus would have had no reason to flag the 

transaction as having continued significance, the failure to do so nonetheless 

demonstrates that Wahl and his the team neglected to notice red flags 

indicating that consolidation was inappropriate.
44

4. Premier facts and accounting violations

4.1. Introduction and summary

An audit team from Anton & Chia led by Wahl audited the 2013 year-end 

financial statements of Premier Holding Corporation. In those financial 

statements, in violation of GAAP standards, Premier recorded the value of an 

unsecured promissory note (the Note) it had received from a related party as 

$869,000 even though the note was worthless. In further contravention of 

GAAP, Premier recorded the entirety of its $4.5 million acquisition of The 

Power Company (TPC) as goodwill even though the transaction included 

identifiable assets that should have been recorded differently. Anton & Chia’s 

engagement team did not adequately review these problematic transactions 

according to PCAOB standards. Rather, in his work on and review of the audit, 

Wahl failed to: (1) exercise due professional care and skepticism; (2) prepare 

appropriate audit documentation and obtain sufficient audit evidence; (3) 

properly use the work of a valuation specialist; (4) consider the possibility of 

fraud in Premier’s financial statements; or (5) perform alternative 

confirmation procedures.

4.2. Premier’s initial accounting for the Note

4.2.1. Premier entered into several transactions with related parties 

that eventually led to the issuance of the Note.

Premier is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in 

Tustin, California. Ex. 840 ¶ 26. Premier’s common stock is and was at all 

relevant times registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act 

Section 12(g) and quoted on the OTC Link under ticker symbol PRHL. Id.

Premier files periodic reports with the Commission, including Forms 10-K and 

10-Q. Id. Throughout the relevant period, Premier raised funds through 

private sales of stock. Id.

In 2011, Premier’s primary intended line of business was to sell discount 

caskets to Native Americans and low-income groups. Ex. 400 at 3 (Premier 

2011 Form 10-K). Premier recorded $10,000 of revenue in 2011, and no revenue 

in 2010. Id. at 8. From late 2011 to early 2012, Premier exited the casket 

business and entered the green energy business. Ex. 401 at 5 (Premier 2012 

Form 10-K). 
45

By the end of December 2011, Premier completed asset purchase 

agreements with WePower, LLC,16 a Delaware limited liability company, and 

Green Central Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation, for assets to enable 

commercial buildings to reduce energy consumption. Ex. 407 at Item 2.01. 

Premier acquired those green energy assets from WePower, LLC, and Green 

Central in exchange for approximately 30.5 million shares, representing 

around 70% of Premier common stock. Ex. 401 at 12, 30. At the time, WePower,

LLC, was managed by Marvin Winkler, and Green Central was managed by 

Randall Letcavage. Ex. 401 at 19; Ex. 433 at 3; Tr. 1290–91, 5764. Premier 

contributed the newly acquired assets to its newly formed, wholly owned 

subsidiary called WePower Ecolutions Inc., through which it planned to 

operate the green energy business. Ex. 407 at Item 1.01; Ex. 400 at 3, 9. 

Premier reshuffled its management shortly after purchasing the green 

energy assets. On February 22, 2012, Premier appointed Kevin Donovan as 

one of its directors and as CEO of WePower Ecolutions. Ex. 401 at 5; Ex. 839.5 

at 4 (PDF); Tr. 1301. On February 24, 2012, the two other directors of Premier 

resigned, making Donovan the sole director. Ex. 400 at 27. On April 11, 2012, 

Donovan became the CEO of Premier. Ex. 401 at 5; Ex. 408 at Item 5.02.

In early 2012, Premier engaged the valuation firm of Doty Scott 

Enterprises, Inc., to perform a purchase price allocation for its transactions 

with WePower, LLC, and Green Central, including valuing the assets Premier 

acquired as of December 29, 2011. Ex. 440 at 1 (PDF); Tr. 1362–63. On April 

24, 2012, Doty Scott issued a final report that valued the assets WePower 

Ecolutions acquired from WePower, LLC, and Green Central, including sales 

leads, marketing materials, intellectual property, and contracts, at $48,874. 

Ex. 440 at 2. Notwithstanding the final valuation report, in its 2011 Form 10-

K, Premier valued the green energy assets as of December 31, 2011, at zero, 

because the acquisitions from WePower,LLC,and Green Central were relatedparty transactions and because the inventory acquired had been found to be 

impaired. Ex. 400 at 27. 

Throughout 2012, WePower Ecolutions operated the green energy assets 

at a loss; the total loss came to $756,912. Ex. 401 at 14, 46. Because Donovan 

was unsuccessful in generating revenue or value from the green energy assets,

Letcavage moved to end Donovan’s tenure. Tr. 5664, 5687–88.

 

16 There are three distinct “WePower” entities discussed in this section: (1) 

WePower, LLC, which sold green energy assets to Premier; (2) WePower 

Ecolutions, the Premier subsidiary that operated those assets; and (3) 

WePower Eco Corp. (aka “New Eco”), which exchanged the Note with Premier.
46

In October 2012, Premier announced its intent to spin off WePower 

Ecolutions. Ex. 409 at Item 5.07. Premier also announced that Donovan was 

ending his role as an officer and director of Premier and Letcavage had been 

appointed Premier’s CEO, president, treasurer, principal executive officer, and 

principal accounting officer. Id. at Item 5.02; Ex. 411, Shareholder Letter, at 

2. Concurrently, Letcavage, Winkler, and one other person became directors. 

Ex. 409 at Item 5.02.

In November 2012, Premier announced an agreement in principle to 

transfer the green energy assets from WePower Ecolutions to WePower Eco 

Corp (New Eco), a newly formed company controlled by Donovan, in exchange 

for the Note, which was an unsecured promissory note with a face value of 

$5,000,000. Ex. 410 at Item 8.01; Ex. 411, Shareholder Letter, at 3. As a result 

of this agreement in principle, Premier classified its WePower Ecolutions 

subsidiary as “held for sale” and reported it as “discontinued operations.” Ex. 

401 at 46. Premier recognized a “loss from discontinued operations” of 

$756,912, which was the amount of WePower Ecolutions’ net operating loss for 

2012. Id.; see id. at 28.

On January 7, 2013, Premier’s WePower Ecolutions sold the green energy 

assets, including three patents, six trademarks, 28 contracts, and certain 

“exclusive” business opportunities, to New Eco. Id. at 46; Ex. 402 at F-14

(Premier 2013 Form 10-K); see Ex. 840 ¶ 28; Ex. 442. In addition, WePower 

Ecolutions agreed to immediately cease using the WePower name. Ex. 442 

¶ 6(h); see Ex. 411, Shareholder Letter, at 3. The principal assets transferred 

from WePower Ecolutions to New Eco were those originally purchased from 

WePower, LLC, in December of 2011—trademarks, patents, and certain 

contracts. Ex. 402 at F-14; compare Ex. 433, Schedule 1, with Ex. 442, Schedule 

2(a). 

In exchange for the assets, WePower Ecolutions received the Note from 

New Eco and New Eco assumed roughly $100,000 in liabilities. Ex. 402 at F14; Ex. 412 at Ex. 10.3; Ex. 442 ¶ 2 & Schedule 2(b). The Note had a term of 20 

years, did not require New Eco to pay any principal for five years, and had an 

interest rate of 2%. Ex. 442 at Promissory Note ¶ 1. Before semi-annual 

interest payments commenced, New Eco was not required to pay interest for 

eleven months, so its initial semi-annual interest payment of $50,000 was due 

on December 7, 2013. Id. ¶ 1(a). If New Eco failed to make that payment within 

15 days of the due date, it would be in default. Id. ¶ 4(a). At the time, New 

Eco’s CEO, Donovan, understood there was a likelihood that New Eco would 

default on the Note. Ex. 839.5 at 23–24 (PDF). Yet, in the event that Donovan 

was successful, Letcavage viewed the Note as a means to provide value to 

Premier shareholders. Tr. 5668. 
47

New Eco never paid any interest on the Note, Ex. 839.5 at 12 (PDF), so 

the Note was in default on December 22, 2013, 15 days after New Eco failed to 

make the first $50,000 interest payment on December 7, 2013. Ex. 441 ¶ 4(a). 

Premier never attempted to collect on the Note. Tr. 3218; Ex. 839.5 at 12–14 

(PDF).

On March 4, 2014, Premier entered into an agreement to, among other 

things, transfer the Note to WePower, LLC, in exchange for the return of 2.5 

million shares of Premier common stock. Ex. 402 at F-14. This was part of an 

overarching agreement that resolved multiple disputes among multiple 

parties. Ex. 454; Tr. 1318. One of those disputes related to Premier’s purchase 

of TPC, discussed below: Winkler previously promised to return 5 million

shares of Premier stock to facilitate the TPC acquisition but had not yet done 

so. Tr. 1322–23. Under the agreement, to resolve the dispute related to the 

TPC acquisition, WePower, LLC, was to return 5 million shares of Premier

common stock to Premier and deliver 2.5 million shares of Premier common 

stock to Premier in exchange for the Note. Ex. 454 at Ex. B. These two 

transactions were entirely separate. Tr. 1325.

4.2.2. Doty Scott’s valuation of the Note

To prepare its financial statements, Premier needed to assign a value to 

the Note. Premier again engaged the valuation firm Doty Scott to determine 

the fair value of the Note as of the January 7, 2013, acquisition date. Exs. 443, 

444, 447; Tr. 1994–95. Doty Scott planned to determine the fair value of the 

Note by discounting the expected cash flows on the Note at New Eco’s 

estimated weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Tr. 6006. Doty Scott also 

needed to value New Eco, because the value of the Note depended on New Eco’s 

ability to pay it. Ex. 447.

On March 19, 2013, Phil Scott, Doty Scott’s manager, requested various 

information from the Premier officials responsible for its accounting function—

then Joseph Greenblatt and Eric Rosenberg—concerning New Eco and the 

performance of its assets in order to carry out the valuation. Ex. 444; Tr. 2186. 

Instead of providing the information Scott requested, Premier directed him to 

speak to Donovan. Tr. 1389. Scott then requested the information from 

Donovan and Winkler, but neither had financial projections, and they were 

unwilling to provide them even if they had them. Tr. 1389–90; see Exs. 445–

46; Ex. 839.5 at 15 (PDF). New Eco never provided any information to Doty 

Scott. Tr. 1391. As a result, Scott told Premier that he needed its “best 

estimates of future projections based on the sales leads you were able to 

generate during your year of ownership” of the assets. Ex. 446. Premier never 

sent Doty Scott any updated projections or other data. Tr. 1392.
48

In the interim, Alfred Haddad, who conducts financial modeling and 

analytics for Doty Scott, prepared a template of the valuation model that Doty 

Scott would use to value New Eco and the Note once it received the necessary 

information. Tr. 1991, 2005. Because Doty Scott never received financial 

projections for New Eco, as a placeholder, the valuation template used 

financial projections that Doty Scott had received when it valued the assets 

Premier had acquired from WePower, LLC, and Green Central at the end of 

2011. Tr. 2011. At that point, Haddad “had no evidence of anything,” but “was 

just ... sitting in front of the computer making up numbers until we got some 

data.” Tr. 2008. The draft tables he prepared had “so many unsupported 

assumptions built into it, that there really wasn’t a reasonable valuation of 

anything.” Tr. 2010.

On March 29, 2013, Scott sent these placeholder valuation tables to Doty 

Scott’s then-designated point of contact at Premier, Larry Young, in order to 

elicit information about New Eco’s performance and prospects, so that Doty 

Scott could complete a valuation. Ex. 447; Tr. 1393, 1396, 2008. In his 

transmittal email, Scott reiterated that Doty Scott sought to value New Eco in 

addition to the Note itself, and cautioned that since New Eco refused to provide 

Doty Scott with any information, the initial valuation tables made 

assumptions that needed to be verified and supported by management. Ex. 

447. Finally, Scott warned, “[t]his preliminary valuation is not to be quoted at 

this time.” Id.

The initial valuation tables contained three placeholder valuation figures: 

one figure for the fair value of the Note—$698,377—and two figures for the fair 

value of New Eco: $869,000 for the fair value of the New Eco enterprise and 

$861,000 for fair market value of the intellectual property, patents, and trade 

secrets acquired by New Eco. Ex. 447 at 2.

On April 22, 2013—just a few weeks after Doty Scott’s admonition to 

Premier not to quote the figures in its initial valuation tables—Premier 

nonetheless used $869,000, the value of the New Eco enterprise, as the 

“preliminary valuation” of the Note in its 2012 Form 10-K, Ex. 401 at 46, and 

concurrently stated that New Eco’s “product line and prospects have been 

conservatively valued at approximately $869,000.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added).

On April 24, 2013, unaware of the 10-K language, Scott forwarded his 

March 29 email to three Premier officials, advising them that there were still 

several issues requiring Premier’s input before Doty Scott could issue a report. 

Ex. 450. Premier never provided the requested information. Tr. 1413.
49

4.3. Anton & Chia’s initial review and subsequent audit of Premier’s 

accounting for the Note

4.3.1. Anton & Chia reviewed Premier’s treatment of the Note in the 

first quarter of 2013.

Just as it did in its 2012 Form 10-K, Premier included the Note as an asset 

worth $869,000 in its financial statements for the first quarter of 2013. Ex. 404 

at 3, 19 (Premier Q1 2013 Form 10-Q). The company also represented that the 

Note had “been independently valued at approximately $869,000.” Id. at 20;

see id. at 9. Premier further reported a gain from the sale of discontinued 

operations of $985,138 comprised of the purported $869,000 value of the Note 

and New Eco’s assumption of $116,138 in liabilities. Id. at 9. 

Unlike Doty Scott, at the time of Anton & Chia’s Q1 2013 review, Wahl 

was aware Premier had already disclosed to investors that the Note had a 

preliminary value of $869,000. Tr. 5306. As part of Anton & Chia’s review of 

Premier’s Q1 2013 financial statements, Chris Wen was assigned to evaluate 

the propriety of the recording of Premier’s note receivable balance as of quarter 

end. Tr. 2118–19. When Wen asked Premier’s accounting consultants for 

support for the $869,000 value for the Note, they advised him that the $869,000 

“was validated by a third-party firm” and sent him a copy of the hard-coded 

initial valuation tables by Doty Scott, which did not include the formulas used 

to calculate the valuation tables. Tr. 2119–21. Wen then asked for Premier’s 

help in obtaining a version of the tables that included the formulas. Tr. 2123–

24.

On May 22, 2013, Rosenberg asked Haddad to send copies of the Excel 

spreadsheets that contained the formulas to Anton & Chia. Ex. 451. Haddad 

then sent Wen three Excel files that contained the formulas and were clearly 

labeled as drafts, not final valuations. Ex. 452; Tr. 2125. Haddad’s email 

advised Wen not to share the proprietary models with anyone outside of Anton 

& Chia, including Premier, and to email with any questions. Ex. 452.17 Haddad 

assumed that Wen was a valuation professional, because Doty Scott typically 

deals with an audit firm’s valuation division, auditors with valuation expertise, 

or outside valuation consultants. Tr. 1354–55, 2028, 2032. However, at that 

time, Wen had no prior experience working with valuation and did not 

understand discount rate, enterprise value, or WACC. Tr. 2122, 2128, 2131. 

Wen was unfamiliar with complex Excel tables, and did not understand the 

 

17 Upon request, Doty Scott generally sends its models to the auditors so that 

the auditors can confirm that they are comfortable with Doty Scott’s 

methodology. Tr. 1353, 1423–24, 2030.
50

meaning and relationship of the three valuation figures that appeared on the 

Doty Scott spreadsheets. Tr. 2126–27, 2129. Even after reviewing them, Wen 

did not understand the models, the assumptions used, or the relationships of 

the fair value figures produced by the models. Tr. 2127–29.

On a brief telephone call, Scott provided Wen with some basic guidance 

about how to navigate and use the files so that Wen could conduct some form 

of review. Tr. 1424–25. No one from Doty Scott concluded, or would have said 

they concluded, that the fair value of the promissory note was $869,000, 

because the figure was unsupported by verified data, and because it was not 

even a provisional figure for the value of the Note. Tr. 1425–26, 1479, 1487, 

2023, 6027. After that, from Doty Scott’s perspective, the Note valuation 

engagement “went radio silent,” and Doty Scott ceased working on it for about 

a year. Tr. 1426.

After his conversation with Scott and conducting further research, Wen 

still did not understand the Doty Scott spreadsheets, and he told that to Wahl.

Tr. 2140–41. In response, Wahl told Wen to make sure that the math was 

correct, i.e., to use the formulas and numbers provided to confirm the 

calculation of the $869,000 value. Tr. 2140–41. Wen focused on the table’s 

$869,000 enterprise value, which was the one used by Premier in its financials, 

and never paid attention to the $698,377 value the table assigned to the Note. 

Tr. 2142–43. Wen did not pay attention the fact that the Doty Scott 

spreadsheets were labeled as drafts. Tr. 2132.

Wen prepared a workpaper for the Note valuation. Ex. 860; Tr. 2134. The 

workpaper consisted of Doty Scott’s initial draft spreadsheet with six lines of 

text that Wen inserted at the top of the summary sheet. Ex. 860; Tr. 2134–35. 

Wen’s text read:

Purpose: To evaluate the value of the Note receivable 

balance as of March 31, 2013 appropreately [sic] recorded.

Procedures: AnC has directly contact[ed] the thrid [sic] 

party Appraiser to obtain the valuation report.

AnC team has review[ed] the reasonableness of the 

assumptions, estimates of the fair value.

Conclusion: Based on the review of the reasonableness of 

the valuation, AnC agreed that the estimated fair value 

appropreately [sic] presented.
51

Ex. 860. Despite what Wen wrote, he could not have reviewed the 

reasonableness of Doty Scott’s assumptions used to estimate the fair value, as

he did not understand them. Tr. 2127–31, 2137–40.

4.3.2. Anton & Chia audited Premier’s treatment of the Note for yearend 2013.

Wahl was the engagement partner on Anton & Chia’s audit of Premier’s 

FY 2013 financial statements. Ex. 840 ¶ 42; Ex. 402 at F-1. Premier paid the 

firm $31,200 for the audit. Ex. 482. Anton & Chia’s team for the 2013 audit 

also included Richard Koch as the engagement quality reviewer, Tommy Shek 

as audit manager, and Monique Lai, Ivan Shing, and Chris Wen as staff. Ex. 

419 at 1857; see Tr. 2143, 2218–19, 2222.

In Anton & Chia’s December 31, 2013, audit planning memorandum, the 

engagement team determined that they would address two of Premier’s 

financial assertions: (1) the notes receivable balance, i.e., the value of the Note, 

which was Premier’s only note receivable; and (2) the value of goodwill. Ex. 419 

at 1854. As to the Note, Anton & Chia planned the following audit procedures: 

(1) “Valuation – [Anton & Chia] will test the assumptions for the discounted 

cash flow for the [Note] from disposal of WePower Co in Q1 2013” and (2) 

“Existence – [Anton & Chia] will send direct confirmation to verify the balance 

as of 12/31/2013 and also reconcile with the disposal agreement between 

[Premier] and the buyer.” Id. As to the second point, Anton & Chia never 

received confirmation of the balance due on the Note. Ex. 459; Tr. 2248–49.

As to the first point—the valuation of the Note—Shek asked Premier for 

a valuation report. Ex. 419; Tr. 2238–40. On March 7, 2014, Wen told Haddad 

and Scott that Premier requested that Anton & Chia review the note valuation 

report provided by Doty Scott. Ex. 455 at 3. Scott responded that the firm had 

not prepared a report on the Note. Id. at 1.

On April 1, 2014, Shek emailed Premier’s CEO’s assistant, Connie Absher, 

asking for the official report that valued the $5 million note at $869,000. Ex. 

461 at 13227. On April 2, Absher emailed Shek to advise him that Letcavage 

said Anton & Chia “should have everything” since it was something handled 

in 2012 and should already be presented in the 2012 Form 10-K. Id. at 13226. 

Shek then checked with Wen about what Anton & Chia previously received 

from Doty Scott, Ex. 460, and emailed Absher that Anton & Chia only had 

“numbers” from Doty Scott and would need “to spend a lot of time to 

understand his calculations without anything in writing.” Ex. 461 at 13226. 

On April 3, 2014, Shek emailed Scott to see if Doty Scott would prepare a 

report. Ex. 465. In an April 7, 2014, email, Scott explained to Shek that the 

Excel spreadsheets Doty Scott had prepared in 2013 were merely a “draft 
52

analysis” and that the firm would need additional information in order to 

complete its analysis and prepare a report, including New Eco’s financial 

statements at the time of the issuance of the Note and New Eco’s budget and 

financial projections. Ex. 466 at 131. Anton & Chia forwarded Scott’s email to 

Letcavage, Absher, and one other individual. Ex. 466 at 132. Later on April 7, 

2014, Absher told Scott that New Eco had paid “nothing” on the Note and 

Premier had no financial information from New Eco. Ex. 469 at 7544. Absher 

closed her email by stating: “Please advise us on how we should handle this. 

We do need to get this completed ASAP.” Id.

On April 8, 2014, Scott responded by reiterating Doty Scott’s need for 

financial information, including WePower’s 2012 financial statements, to 

prepare the valuation as Doty Scott had no financial information or projections 

from the buyer. Id. at 7542–43. Later that day, Young emailed Scott a copy of

the asset purchase agreement and some unspecific, unconfirmed information 

about financing New Eco might receive, “[h]oping this is sufficient as we are in 

a hurry.” Id.

Anton & Chia never received anything else from Doty Scott while it 

worked on the audit. Wen ended up including two workpapers concerning the 

Note valuation for the audit. First, he created WP 4451, which Wahl instructed 

him to “roll forward” from the Q1 quarterly review to support the year-end 

Note valuation. Ex. 423; Tr. 2153–54. Second, at the request of Shek or Wahl, 

he prepared a second workpaper for the Note valuation: a one -page 

memorandum labeled WP 4452. Ex. 424; Tr. 2158. 

Workpaper 4451 is virtually identical to the Note valuation workpaper

Wen prepared for the 2013 first quarter review. It is a copy of the same Doty 

Scott “initial valuation” Excel workbook that served as the Note valuation 

workpaper for the Q1 review with largely the same legend that Wen inserted 

at the top of the first page. Ex. 423. Wen’s only addition to the legend indicates 

that Anton & Chia also checked the valuation firm’s credentials. Id. Other than 

checking Doty Scott’s credentials, Wen performed no additional substantive 

work on the Note valuation for the audit beyond what he did for the 2013 Q1 

review. Tr. 2157–58. With the exception of Wen’s conversation with Scott 

during the Q1 review, no one from Anton & Chia asked how the Note valuation 

was calculated. Tr. 6009. Wen did not even change the “as of” date of the 

workpaper from March 31, 2013, to December 31, 2013. Compare Ex. 860, with

Ex. 423; Tr. 2156–57. 

Workpaper 4451 states that Anton & Chia reviewed the “reasonableness 

of the assumptions” but does not indicate what assumptions Anton & Chia

evaluated or how it determined if they were reasonable. Ex. 423. It does not

contain any financial projections of New Eco, the payor under the Note, but 
53

instead contains projections for WePower Ecolutions, the subsidiary of 

Premier, once it purchased the assets from WePower, LLC. Id. The “Financial 

Projections” tab reveals that it involves a different transaction between the 

different companies in a prior year. The top of that page reads, in bold type: 

“Asset Sale Valuation (WePower, LLC, to WEPOWER Ecolutions, Inc.) as of 

12/31/12.” Similarly, many other tabs contain the same header. Id. Neither the 

“Project Overview”tab nor the “Value Assumptions” tab mentions the New Eco 

Note. Id. The workpaper incorporates over forty tabs/spreadsheets and 

includes complicated formulas, critical assumptions, and multi-year financial 

projections, but nowhere does it discuss whether any of those formulas, 

assumptions, or projections were reasonable. Id. The Excel workbook that Wen 

used to create WP 4451 does not contain any basis for the Note’s fair value or 

any reference to the Note other than on the summary page. Wahl has no 

memory of reviewing any tabs of WP 4451. Tr. 5345.

Workpaper 4452, the note valuation memo that Wen prepared, is in many 

ways similar to WP 4451. It includes, for example, a list of many of the same 

procedures Wen placed in the legend of WP 4451 to test whether the Note was 

reasonably recorded, and like WP 4451, contains no substantive analysis of 

how Wen actually made the determination. Ex. 424; Tr. 2161, 2165–66. It also 

indicates that no payment had been received on the Note as of December 31, 

2013, but doesnot discuss that New Eco was in default and that Premier made 

no effort to collect. See id. Wahl did not review WP 4452. See Ex. 417 at A&CPremier 144 (sign-offs for 2013 Premier audit).

Neither of the workpapers discussed the terms of the Note, which were 

highly favorable to New Eco. Ex. 441; Tr. 1448–49. Neither referred to a sale 

or settlement of the Note in early 2014. See Exs. 423 & 424. Anton & Chia’s 

workpapers do not reflect any analysis or consideration of how the same assets 

that generated losses for WePower Ecolutions in 2012 would generate profits 

for New Eco. Id.; see Ex. 401 at 28.

Like Wen, Shek did not understand the Doty Scott spreadsheets or what 

they did. Tr. 2237. Shek and Wen knew that Doty Scott had not completed a 

valuation of the Note. Ex. 455 at 1; Ex. 466 at 131; Tr. 2238–39, 2255. Beyond 

the Excel file, Shek told Wahl he was unable to obtain information to audit the 

Note valuation. Tr. 2255–56; Ex. 461. Shek refused to sign off on either Note 

valuation workpaper because he was unable to understand the spreadsheets. 

Tr. 2257; Ex. 417 at AnC-Premier 143–44 (showing that Wen and Wahl, but 

not Shek, signed off on workpaper 4451, and that Wen signed off on workpaper

4452, but Shek and Wahl did not).

Wahl testified at the hearing that the $869,000 valuation was reasonable 

because it was an 83% discount on the $5 million face value of the Note. Tr. 
54

5348–49. He explained that he did not use the $698,000 figure in the draft 

tables, even though it was labeled as the value of the Note, because it would 

have been an inappropriate “double discount” off the face value of the note. Tr. 

4443, 5359–60. Essentially, Wahl believed that the $869,000 figure was 

already appropriately discounted, and that Doty Scott must have applied the 

WACC discount a second time to $869,000 to arrive at $698,000. Tr. 5360–63. 

But Wahl never discussed his assumptions with anyone at Doty Scott. Tr. 

4444–45, 5364–65. In fact, Scott testified that there was no “double discount”; 

he applied the WACC only once to reach $698,000, and that the two figures—

$869,000 and $698,000—were “completely independent” of each other. Tr. 

6009–10, 6013–15. Moreover, Wahl never documented his analysis in the 

workpapers, Tr. 5365–66, and during a deposition in 2014, he could not recall 

why he had chosen $869,000 over $698,000, which suggests that his 

explanations at the hearing were post-hoc rationalizations. Tr. 5319, 5324.18

Wahl further testified that he chose $869,000 as the value of the Note

because he was aware of discussions that the Note was to be settled by the 

return of as many as 7.5 million shares to Premier, and that this would roughly 

match the chosen value. Tr. 5348, 5375, 5381–82. But neither Wahl nor Shek 

ever told Wen to document an analysis of the value of 7.5 million shares of 

Premier stock exchanged for the Note. Tr. 2159. Indeed, nothing about this 

rationale for using the $869,000 figure is found anywhere in the workpapers. 

See Tr. 1717 (Devor’s testimony). In addition, Premier’s 2013 10-K reflects that 

only 2.5 million shares were returned in exchange for the Note. Ex. 402 at F14. 

4.3.3. Doty Scott completed its valuation report before Premier filed 

its 10-K, but Anton & Chia did not receive it.

Although neither New Eco nor Premier ended up providing Doty Scott 

with the financial information requested, Doty Scott completed its analysis 

using the information it had, including WePower Ecolutions’s 2012 

performance as reported by Premier in its FY 2012 Form 10-K. Tr. 2051, 1453–

54. 

 

18 Misuraca’s expert testimony does not help Wahl either. Misuraca opined 

that the method Doty Scott used to reach $869,000 was reasonable, but 

withheld judgment on whether Wahl should have relied on the spreadsheet. 

Tr. 3461, 3567. Further, Misuraca never spoke with anyone at Doty Scott, and 

did not know that the $869,000 figure in the spreadsheet was supposed to 

represent the fair value of the entire enterprise, not just the value of the Note. 

Tr. 3586–87, 3589; Ex. 1122 at 5.
55

On April 9, 2014, Doty Scott sent Premier a draft report that valued the 

Note at $0. Ex. 472. In the report, Doty Scott gave the following reasons for 

valuing the Note at $0: (1) it was unsecured and secondary to all secured debt 

obtained by the borrower; (2) the terms were 20 years with no principal 

payments for five years and a significantly below market 2% interest rate with 

interest payments deferred until 11 months after issuance; (3) the payor, New 

Eco, was a start-up company incorporated in late 2012 with no other known 

assets; (4) New Eco had no known revenues; (5) New Eco had an undisclosed

and unknown quantity of secured and unsecured liabilities; (6) the assets 

transferred generated no revenue for Premier in 2012; (7) the assets generated 

a net loss in excess of $750,000 for Premier;19 and (8) New Eco refused to 

provide any information regarding its financial status or projections. Ex. 472 

at 48, 53; see Tr. 1446–49.

Scott explained that a discounted cash flow analysis of the Note’s payment 

terms netted a value of $272,488, with a WACC of 52.1%, which Scott 

concluded was more reasonable under the circumstances than the 27.91% used 

in the initial valuation tables. Ex. 472 at 48; see Tr. 1452. The firm also 

estimated the value of New Eco, which served as a cap on the value of the Note. 

Doty Scott found that the net enterprise value of New Eco was less than 

$10,000 and the net value of New Eco’s intangible assets was negative, so the 

Note was worthless. Ex. 472 at 48; Tr. 1451–52.

Despite having received Doty Scott’s report six days prior, Premier filed 

its 2013 audited financial statements on Form 10-K on April 15, 2014, and 

reported the Note as a note receivable valued at $869,000 on its balance sheet, 

as it had in 2012. Ex. 402 at F-2; see id. at F-4, F-9, F-14. Based on the Note 

valuation and New Eco’s agreement to assume $116,138 of WePower 

Ecolutions’s liabilities, Premier also reported $985,138 in income from 

discontinued operations. Id. at F-3. It does not appear, however, that Anton & 

Chia received Doty Scott’s valuation report before completing its audit. See

Div. Response to Wahl PFOF at 275.

4.4. The TPC acquisition

4.4.1. Premier’s acquisition of TPC and its accounting for the 

transaction in its 2013 Form 10-K

On February 28, 2013, Premier acquired an 80% interest in TPC, a 

deregulated power broker in Illinois, in exchange for 30,000,000 shares of 

 

19 At the hearing, Scott corrected a typographical mistake in the report, 

clarifying that the year that the assets generated a loss in excess of $750,000 

was 2012, not 2011. Tr. 1450.
56

Premier stock. Ex. 840 ¶ 29; Ex. 402 at 4, F-11. TPC’s customer contracts were 

the source of TPC’s revenue and receivables. Tr. 2478. Premier touted the TPC 

acquisition to the market by publicly emphasizing the quantity and the value 

of customer contracts:

 Its December 27, 2012, letter to shareholders preceding the 

acquisition stated that TPC had “significant assets,” including 

“receivables of over $1,000,000” and “power contracts with 8,600 

customers that we believe represent in excess of $8,000,000 of 

assets that will become part of Premier.” Ex. 411, Shareholder 

Letter, at 3.

 Its February 27, 2013, press release announcing the TPC 

acquisition claimed that TPC had “contracts with over 14,000 

customers representing assets estimated to be valued from 

$6,000,000 to $10,000,000.” Ex. 413 at Ex. 99.1 Press Release.

 Its May 30, 2013, press release quoted Letcavage and said Premier 

believed that TPC’s “contracts in hand today are worth 

approximately $20,000,000 ... if the company chose to sell them off 

in the deregulated energy markets” and that “[t]he market value of 

[TPC’s] contracts at year end, December 31, 2013, should exceed 

$35,000,000.” Ex. 414.

 Its 2013 first quarter Form 10-Q reported that “[a]s of March 31, 

2013, TPC had over 12,000 commercial contracts, and now has 

almost 18,000.” Ex. 404 at 21. Premier also reported:“The Power 

Company has over 12,000 residential and commercial customers, 

and has been adding between 1,000 and 1,500 clients per month, 

and it expects to add over 2,000 residential and commercial 

customers per month beginning as early as May 2013.” Id. at 20.

 Its 2013 second quarter Form 10-Q reported that TPC “clos[ed] 

second quarter 2013 with 18,000 contracts” and had “over 18,500 

residential and commercial customers.” Ex. 405 at 12, 21.

 Its 2013 third quarter Form 10-Q reported that TPC “clos[ed] third 

quarter 2013 with 40,000 contracts” and had “over 18,500 

residential and commercial customers.” Ex. 406 at 12, 16.

Premier engaged Doty Scott to do a purchase price allocation for the TPC 

acquisition and Doty Scott requested information it needed to value TPC’s 

assets. Ex. 451; Tr. 2027. Doty Scott never received any of the requested 

information, and never completed the TPC purchase price allocation. Tr. 2027.
57

In its 2013 Form 10-K, Premier stated that because an independent 

valuation of TPC’s identifiable assets and liabilities was “still in process,” it 

was reporting the entire $4.5 million purchase price—the purported value of 

the 30 million shares Premier issued to the sellers as consideration for the 

acquisition—as goodwill. Ex. 402 at F-11.

Premier’s decision to recognize the full purchase price from the TPC 

acquisition as goodwill was the primary reason that Premier’s reported 

goodwill increased from $138,000 as of December 31, 2012, to $4,555,750 as of 

December 31, 2013. Ex. 894 at F-11. Goodwill thus became the largest piece of 

Premier’s total reported assets of $6,879,145, with the goodwill attributed to 

the TPC acquisition constituting more than 65% of Premier’s total assets. Ex. 

402 at F-2.

In its 2013 Form 10-K, Premier further stated that it “periodically reviews 

the carrying value of intangible assets not subject to amortization, including 

goodwill, to determine whether impairment may exist.” Ex. 402 at F-8. It also 

represented that “[g]oodwill and certain intangible assets are assessed 

annually, or when certain triggering events occur, for impairment using fair 

value measurement techniques.” Id. Premier did not report any impairment of 

goodwill in its 2013 financial statements. See id.

In a September 19, 2013, email, Greenblatt, one of Premier’s accounting 

consultants, told Young that Premier had valued the TPC stake “solely based”

on its 12,000 customers. Ex. 478. According to Rosenberg, another of Premier’s 

accounting consultants, Anton & Chia knew that Premier had valued TPC 

based on its customer contracts, and Rosenberg would have provided Anton & 

Chia with worksheets he had received from TPC showing that TPC was adding 

1,500 to 2,000 contracts each month. Tr. 2191–95. Premier’s CEO would have 

provided information about the number and value of the TPC contracts if 

Anton & Chia asked for it. Tr. 5788.

4.4.2. Anton & Chia’s audit of the TPC acquisition

Anton & Chia’s planning memo for the 2013 audit stated that Premier 

“has to complete a purchase price allocation [for the TPC acquisition] within a 

year per SEC requirement” and that Anton & Chia would “look ... [at] the 

reasonableness of the purchase price allocation.” Ex. 419 at 1854. Anton & 

Chia’s audit team knew Premier engaged Doty Scott to complete a purchase 

price allocation for TPC, and that, as of April 3, 2014, Doty Scott was “awaiting 

data from the client to complete the engagement.” Ex. 480. Shek acknowledged 

that he was concerned that the purchase price allocation was not completed at 

the time of the audit even though over a year had passed since the TPC 

acquisition. Tr. 2264, 2267. Nonetheless, the purchase price allocation was not 
58

completed, so Anton & Chia did not review it. Tr. 2027, 2267. Anton & Chia’s 

audit team, including Wahl, knew that $4,500,000 of Premier’s reported 

goodwill of $4,555,750 was attributable to the full purchase price of the TPC 

acquisition. Tr. 2266–67; Ex. 402 at F-2. 

Despite its failure to obtain or consider a purchase price allocation, Anton 

& Chia did look at “impairment issues in the goodwill” regarding the TPC 

acquisition as it had stated in its audit planning memo. Ex. 419 at 3; Ex. 428; 

Tr. 2269. But because Premier never provided a goodwill impairment analysis, 

Anton & Chia considered goodwill impairment on its own. Tr. 2268–69; see Ex. 

428. Shek prepared WP 4500.04, titled “Goodwill Impairment Analysis.” Ex. 

428; Tr. 2269. That workpaper reflected the methodology Wahl directed: take 

two months of TPC’s cash inflows (not net cash flows), calculate the average, 

and project future income using that average monthly number. See Ex. 428;

Tr. 2274–76. Although the workpaper stated it calculated cash inflow 

projections for 60 months, it included only 36 months of projections. Ex. 428 at

2. Contrary to Wahl’s approach, Shek testified that analyzing impairment 

using net cash flow would have been more accurate. Tr. 2274–75. Indeed, 

according to bank records summarized in Devor’s report, TPC’s net cash flow 

was negative over the two months used for Shek’s impairment analysis from

January to February 2014. Specifically, TPC had net cash flow of $13,205 in 

January, but net cash flow of negative $17,322 in February. Taken together, 

TPC had a net cash flow of negative $4,117, an average of negative $2,058 per 

month. See Ex. 88.1 at 130–31 (Devor’s mathematical summary).

After calculating cash inflows, the workpaper then documented Anton & 

Chia’s inquiry “with the management,” where Premier purportedly advised 

that they expected TPC to keep growing “and did not see any factors that 

[would] significantly impair[] the goodwill.” Ex. 428 at 2. The workpaper also 

stated it would employ Wahl’s methodology of analyzing how many new 

customers TPC signed up in the first quarter of 2014 compared to the first 

quarter of 2013 to see whether the business was growing, but did not say it 

would consider whether TPC was actually making money from the new 

contracts. Id. at 2–3; Tr. 2282–83. Despite the fact that the information about 

growth came entirely from Premier and not independent inquiry on Anton & 

Chia’s part, the workpaper does not reflect any evaluation of whether the 

numbers Premier provided were reliable. See Ex. 428.

4.5. Wahl reviewed the audit workpapers very quickly.

Wahl signed off on 150 workpapers for the Premier audit between April 

10 and April 15, 2014, which was the day that Anton & Chia issued its 

unqualified audit opinion. Ex. 402 at F-1; Ex. 417 (workpaper sign off history 

report). Specifically, Wahl signed off on: 36 workpapers on April 10; 60 
59

workpapers on April 14; and 54 workpapers on April 15, 2014, including WP 

4451, Wen’s consideration of the Note’s valuation that was rolled forward from 

the 2013 Q1 review. Ex. 417 at A&C-Premier 144 (noting that Wahl signed off 

on WP 4451); Ex. 88 at Ex. 4 (Devor’s summary chart); see Ex. 423. According 

to Anton & Chia’s records, Wahl spent a total of 8.5 hours on his review; and 

of the six hours he spent from April 10 through 15, he only spent a half hour 

on the last day signing off on 54 workpapers including WP 4451 concerning the 

valuation of the Note. Ex. 417 at A&C-Premier 144; Ex. 418 at A&C-Premier

149.

20

4.6. Anton & Chia’s audit report asserted compliance with GAAP and 

PCAOB standards.

Anton & Chia’s audit report in Premier’s 2013 Form 10-K represented that 

it had conducted its audit “in accordance with the standards of the Public 

Company Accounting Oversight Board” and that Premier’s financial 

statements were materially accurate and in conformity with GAAP. Ex. 402 at 

F-1. The audit report contained a going concern qualification and a related 

party qualification, but neither were related to the valuation of the Note or the 

way the TPC transaction was recorded. Id.

4.7. Premier’s failures to comply with GAAP

4.7.1. Premier’s accounting for the Note did not comply with GAAP.

ASC 310 governs the accounting for notes receivable. ASC 310-10-05-4. 

When the face value of a note is materially different from its fair value, ASC 

310 requires the company to record the receivable at fair value. ASC 310-10-

30-5. After the initial transaction and measurement, ASC 310 requires a 

company to periodically measure receivables for impairment to ensure that the 

recorded amounts still reflect the likelihood of collection. ASC 310-10-35-8, 

-35-16.

In this case, there can be no disagreement that the $5 million face value 

of the Note was materially different than its fair value. At the outset of the 

transaction, New Eco’s CEO admitted there was a significant chance that the 

company would default without paying. Ex. 839.5 at 23–24 (PDF). 

Notwithstanding a few individuals’ hopes for the green energy assets, the Note 

had been exchanged for assets that were previously valued by Premier at $0. 

Ex. 400 at 27. Thus, ASC 310 required Premier to record the Note at fair value 

 

20 Wahl’s claim that he spent more time on the audit that he failed to record 

is unsubstantiated. See Wahl Response to Div. PFOF at 536 (PDF).
60

upon acquisition and thereafter to measure it for impairment. ASC 310-10-30-

5, -35-8, -35-16. 

In terms of the appropriate fair value for the assets, ASC 820 defines

acquisition-date “fair value” as “the price that would be received to sell an asset 

or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market 

participants at the measurement date.” ASC 820-10-20; see ASC 805-20-30-1; 

see also ASC 820-10-05-1B, ASC 820-10-35-9A. An “orderly transaction” is a 

“transaction that assumes exposure to the market for a period before the 

measurement date to allow for marketing activities that are usual and

customary for transactions involving such assets.” ASC 820-10-20. 

Circumstances that may indicate that a transaction is not orderly include, 

where “the seller marketed the asset or liability to a single market 

participant.” ASC 820-10-35-54I(b). “If the evidence indicates that a 

transaction is not orderly, a reporting entity shall place little, if any, weight 

(compared with other indications of fair value) on that transaction price.” ASC 

820-10-35-54J. 

The Note transaction was by no means orderly. The green energy assets 

were marketed only to New Eco and were never put up for sale by Premier. As 

such, there was no exposure to the market before the transaction. Even when 

Premier purchased the assets initially, it was from related parties, after which 

Premier itself reported that the assets had no value. For these reasons, no 

weight can be placed on the agreed-upon purchase price from either 

transaction.

Wahl contends that Anton & Chia determined that $869,000 was the 

Note’s historical cost to Premier based on Premier’s share price at the time it 

first acquired the assets in 2013, see Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 55; Ex. 1100 at 2 

(PDF), but this is not reflected as a rationale for accepting the $869,000 figure

in Anton & Chia’s workpapers or the testimony of the Anton & Chia

accountants who performed the work. It is also directly contradictory to Doty 

Scott’s conclusion that the fair value of the same green energy assets acquired 

in late 2011 was less than $50,000, as well as by Premier’s decision to discount 

that value to $0 in its 2011 Form 10-K.

In the alternative, Wahl contends that the Note valuation was appropriate 

in light of the Note’s supposed subsequent settlement for 7.5 million shares in 

2014. See Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 56–57. But because such an analysis is not 

reflected in the workpapers, and Wahl never requested that Wen do it, one 

must presume that it was not considered. See Dearlove, 2008 WL 281105, at 

*10 n.39. Further, of the 7.5 million shares that were returned to Premier, only 

2.5 million were exchanged for the Note. Ex. 402 at F-14. Thus, even under 
61

Wahl’s post-hoc analysis, the Note should only have been valued at about onethird of $869,000 based on the share price and number of shares exchanged.

Wahl’s claim that he found $869,000 to be a reasonable valuation because 

it was an 83% discount off the face value of the note is similarly baseless. See 

Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 55; Tr. 5359–63. It is not reflected in Anton & Chia’s 

workpapers, and as Scott testified, it has no relationship to the analysis 

performed by his firm either.

To put it simply, Premier, whether on its own or in tandem with Wahl, 

never had any basis to report the fair value of the Note at $869,000. As noted, 

Doty Scott’s draft tables—which were themselves not reliable—considered 

$869,000 the fair value of the entire enterprise, not the Note. And yet it was 

that number—without any apparent explanation or reflection—that Premier 

placed in its financial statements in contravention of ASC 310 and 820. Indeed, 

by the time that Premier issued its 2013 10-K, Doty Scott had determined that 

the fair value of the Note upon acquisition was $0—strikingly similar to the $0 

Premier recorded for the same green energy assets in its 2011 Form 10-K. 

Accordingly, under GAAP, Premier should have recorded the Note at $0. 

Instead, Premier improperly reported a value for the Note that was not based 

on any current financial measures, and which the company’s valuation expert 

had said was not to be used in its public filings. Ex. 447. The company also 

falsely suggested that a valuation was ongoing. Ex. 402 at F-9 (calling the Note 

amount “provisional” and referring to $869,000 as a “preliminary” appraised 

value). Though Wahl did not know about Doty Scott’s $0 valuation report, he 

knew more than enough to apprehend that Premier’s financial statement 

regarding the Note failed to comply with ASC 310 and 820.

4.7.2. Premier’s accounting for the TPC acquisition did not comply 

with GAAP.

As discussed above regarding Accelera, ASC 805’s definition of a business 

combination revolves around an acquirer obtaining control of a business. ASC 

805-10-20. After identifying the acquirer and acquisition date, the acquisition 

method requires the acquirer to recognize and measure the identifiable assets 

acquired, and to separately recognize and measure any goodwill arising from 

the transaction. See ASC 805-10-05-4, -20-25-10. Goodwill represents the 

future economic benefits arising from assets acquired in a transaction beyond 

the value of identifiable assets such as contracts. ASC 805-20-20, -30-30-1; see

ASC 805-20-55-2, -20-55-3, -20-55-4 (an asset separable from the acquired 

entity is identifiable). ASC 805-10-25-14 requires that the purchase price 

allocation, which separates identifiable assets from goodwill, be completed 

within one year of acquisition, and in many cases much earlier.
62

Premier purchased an 80% interest in TPC in February 2013, but in its 

financial statements for year-end 2013 prepared in April 2014, it allocated the 

entire purchase price to goodwill despite publicly touting the millions of dollars 

in value it was getting from TPC’s thousands of individual contracts. Given the 

requirement to conduct a purchase price allocation separating goodwill from 

identifiable assets within one year of acquisition at the latest, Premier’s 

attribution of all the value to goodwill was in violation of GAAP.

Wahl argues that the audit needed to consider Premier’s finances only as 

of year-end 2013, and since the purchase price allocation did not need to be 

completed until February 2014, it was acceptable to leave everything allocated 

to goodwill until the company’s first quarter 2014 report. See Wahl Post-hr’g 

Br. at 59 (calling the purchase price allocation a “subsequent event” to

December 31, 2013); Wahl Resp. to Div. PFOF at 491–92 (PDF). But Wahl is 

incorrect. Anton & Chia’s planning memorandum for the audit itself 

acknowledges that the purchase price allocation was due no later than one year 

from the acquisition and would be evaluated by the firm during the 2013 audit. 

Ex. 419 at 1854. And even assuming that Wahl has a colorable argument about 

the timing, one is not granted license to simply record everything as goodwill 

during the one year measurement period. Rather, an acquirer must adjust the 

provisional amounts recorded as new information that existed as of the 

acquisition date becomes available. ASC 805-10-25-13. The measurement 

period then ends as soon as the acquirer receives the information it was 

seeking about facts and circumstances that existed as of the acquisition date 

or learns that more information is not obtainable, even if one year has not yet 

passed. ASC-805-10-25-14. Since Premier surely had sufficient information 

about the value of TPC’s contracts to make the allocation long before a year 

expired—as evidenced by the numerous press releases and quarterly reports 

mentioning customer contracts and estimating their value—the company 

violated GAAP by instead leaving everything allocated to goodwill in its year -

end financial statements.

In making his argument, Wahl also appears to conflate the required 

timing for a purchase price allocation with the timing for a goodwill 

impairment analysis. See ASC 350-20-35-28 (after its initial recognition, 

goodwill “shall be tested for impairment on an annual basis”). Wahl seems to 

maintain that because Premier alleged it tested the goodwill associated with 

the TPC acquisition during Q1 2013, it had until Q1 2014 to complete the 

purchase price allocation. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 59; see Wahl PFOF at 346 

(PDF); Div. Resp. to Wahl PFOF at 279–80. But the relevant requirements are 

separate and independent; the timing of testing goodwill does not delay the 

one-year deadline for the purchase price allocation.
63

Wahl also argues that recording everything as goodwill was appropriate 

because Premier did not obtain any identifiable TPC assets in the acquisition: 

any customer list had no economic value because it identified contracts that 

were between suppliers and customers but not Premier or TPC. SeeWahl Posthr’g Br. at 59; Wahl PFOF at 338–43 (PDF); Wahl Resp. to Div. PFOF at 489–

90 (PDF); Tr. 4534–37; Ex. 1116 (purchase agreement between Premier and 

TPC does not record the transfer of customer contracts). But Premier acquired 

an 80% interest in TPC, and thus an 80% interest in all of TPC’s contracts and 

the revenue generated by those contracts, as underscored by Premier’s 

repeated public disclosures about the value of the contracts. Regardless of who 

held the contracts, TPC and Premier had economic rights flowing from them 

and they had the potential to generate revenue. The contracts were identifiable 

assets clearly separable from the company itself. See ASC 805-20-20, -20-55-3.

Wahl’s GAAP arguments about the TPC acquisition are further belied by 

Anton & Chia’s workpapers. The planning memo explicitly recognized that 

Premier had to complete the purchase price allocation within a year of 

acquiring TPC and stated that Anton & Chia would evaluate the 

reasonableness of the purchase price allocation. Ex. 419 at 1854. Wahl points 

to no evidence supporting the notion that he later decided to handle this issue 

differently based on the reasons he has proposed in this proceeding. See Wendy 

McNeely, CPA, Exchange Act Release No. 68431, 2012 WL 6457291, at *11 & 

n.26 (Dec. 13, 2012) (rejecting an after-the-fact rationalization unsupported by 

the evidence that also failed to explain the lack of due care).

After its initial recognition, goodwill must be presented in accordance with 

ASC 350, which requires that it “be tested for impairment on an annual basis.” 

ASC 350-20-35-28. In discussing its goodwill in its 2013 financial statements, 

Premier reported that it performed a two-step quantitative assessment when 

periodically reviewing goodwill for impairment. Ex. 402 at F-8; see ASC 350-

20-35-3 (concerning the two-step quantitative goodwill impairment test). But 

in fact, Premier never performed a goodwill assessment, and Anton & Chia 

performed one for Premier instead. Tr. 2268–69; see Ex. 428. Premier’s failure 

to perform a goodwill impairment analysis did not comport with GAAP.

4.8. Wahl failed to comply with PCAOB standards.

Wahl, in his role as engagement partner for the 2013 Premier audit, failed 

to comply with multiple PCAOB standards then in effect with regard to the 

Note and TPC acquisition.

4.8.1. Failure to exercise due professional care and skepticism

In violation of AU § 230, Wahl did not exercise due care in the sparingly 

few moments he reviewed just the summary page of Wen’s workpaper 
64

purporting to justify the $869,000 Note valuation. See AU §§ 230.01–.04. Wahl 

knew there was no completed valuation report on the Note. He further knew 

that neither Wen nor Shek understood the placeholder valuation tables Anton 

& Chia obtained from Doty Scott. Shek in fact refused to sign either workpaper 

Wen prepared. The lack of care employed by Wahl is underscored by the fact 

that the $869,000 placeholder value actually represented the overall value of 

New Eco, some $200,000 more than the placeholder value of the Note. 

Additionally, Wahl completely disregarded Doty Scott’s admonition that the 

spreadsheets should not be cited. The preceding failings also violated AU 

§ 230.08, which specifically “requires the auditor to consider the competency 

and sufficiency of the evidence.” And in contravention of AU § 230.07, Wahl did 

not exercise any professional skepticism with respect to Premier’s 

unsubstantiated assertion that the Note was worth $869,000. Instead, he 

seemed to take it for a given, and justified it only by reference to an 

inapplicable placeholder value that was never meant to be cited. 

Turning to the TPC acquisition, Wahl failed to exercise the requisite care

and professional skepticism when he did not follow up on the need for a 

purchase price allocation despite the fact that one had been commissioned, 

more than a year had passed since the acquisition, and Anton & Chia’s 

planning memo specifically indicated that it would review the allocation as 

part of the audit. See AU § 230.07. Further, in approving Premier’s provisional 

allocation of all of TPC’s assets to goodwill, Wahl either failed to review, or 

disregarded, Premier’s numerous public statements about identifiable assets 

in the form of customer contracts that made the acquisition valuable to 

Premier. Wahl also failed to demonstrate due care in signing off on Premier’s 

financial statements reporting that it assessed its recorded goodwill for 

impairment at least annually, when he knew, or should have known, that 

Premier had not conducted its own goodwill impairment analysis. Instead, 

Anton & Chia conducted a flawed goodwill impairment analysis for Premier on 

its own, and in signing off on that workpaper, Wahl was complicit in the 

paucity of its analysis and findings.

4.8.2. Failure to prepare adequate documentation or obtain sufficient 

audit evidence

Wahl violated AS Nos. 3, 14, and 15 due to insufficient audit 

documentation or workpapers (AS No. 3.2) and a lack of audit evidence (AS 

Nos. 14.4(f), 15). Engagement supervisors, like Wahl, review the workpapers 

“to understand how the engagement team reached significant conclusions, and 

whether there is adequate evidential support for those conclusions.” AS No. 

3.3(c). Workpapers “should be prepared in sufficient detail to provide a clear 

understanding of [their] purpose, source, and the conclusions reached”; they 

also “should be appropriately organized to provide a clear link to the significant 
65

findings or issues.” AS No. 3.4. The workpapers should “[s]upport the basis for 

the auditor’s conclusions concerning every relevant financial statement 

assertion” and “[d]emonstrate that the underlying accounting records agreed 

or reconciled with the financial statements,” AS No. 3.5(b), (c), which here 

included records concerning the Note’s value. Anton & Chia’s two workpapers 

on the Note, prepared by an accountant who warned Wahl he was unable to 

understand the information with which he was provided (a source that did not 

support management’s conclusion as to valuation anyway), could not possibly 

meet this standard. See AS No. 3.3(c), .4–.5. As discussed above, the 

workpapers addressing the Note valuation were thoroughly deficient, offering 

baseless conclusions supporting management’s valuation without any 

analysis. Moreover, the workpapers do not “clearly demonstrate that the work 

was in fact performed,” nor would an auditor lacking a “previous connection to 

the engagement” have been able to “understand the nature, timing, extent, and 

results of the procedures performed, evidence obtained, and conclusions 

reached.” AS No. 3.6. Quite the opposite in fact.

Under AS No. 14.6, evidence concerning unusual, related party 

transactions—like the Note and its purported valuation—should be reviewed 

for sufficiency in evaluating the audit results, and “[t]he auditor should obtain 

corroboration for management’s explanations regarding significant unusual ... 

transactions ... or relationships.” AS No. 14.8. Here, neither Wahl nor anyone 

else at Anton & Chia obtained corroboration regarding how a Note for assets 

previously valued at less than $50,000 and discounted to no value by Premier’s 

management was now worth close to a million dollars following a period in 

which the operation of those assets had resulted in the loss of three-quarters 

of a million dollars. 

Further, “[t]he objective of the auditor is to plan and perform the audit to 

obtain appropriate audit evidence that is sufficient to support the opinion 

expressed in the auditor’s report.” AS No. 15.3. As the risk of material 

misstatement or ineffective control over financial reporting increases—risks 

Wahl admits were present with Premier—“the amount of evidence that the 

auditor should obtain also increases.” AS No. 15.5. Yet, notwithstanding the 

heightened risk, Wahl sought no such additional evidence. In short, the 

workpapers related to the Note’s value were, on their face, patently insufficient 

to serve as evidence of the $869,000 valuation, and made use of Doty Scott’s 

draft spreadsheets that were never intended to be quoted. Even basic 

knowledge about the assets underlying the Note would have made one 

skeptical that it had anything more than nominal value.

Turning again to the TPC acquisition, the workpapers improperly 

provided no explanation for the absence of the overdue purchase price 

allocation. See AS No. 3.3(c), .4, .5(b); AS No. 14.32, .34(e), .35; AS No. 15.4. In 
66

light of Premier’s failure to conduct a purchase price allocation or a 

demonstrable assessment that $4.5 million purchase price was appropriately

attributed to goodwill, Wahl was presumptively obliged to “obtain 

corroboration for [Premier’s] explanations” concerning both, and if their 

responses “appear[ed] to be implausible, ... imprecise, or not at a sufficient 

level of detail to be useful, the auditor should [have] perform[ed] procedures to 

address the matter.” AS No. 14.8; see AS No. 15.5. But Wahl never asked for 

corroboration, even though Premier’s assertions regarding these issues in its 

financial statements, if not outright implausible, were, at a minimum, 

insufficient to be useful. See id. Further, Premier’s refusal to recognize any 

impairment to the value of the goodwill represented a potential fraud risk that 

Wahl and his team never considered. See AS No. 14.6(b), .9. And because they 

never considered it, they never took any measures to mitigate that risk.

Likewise, Anton & Chia’s goodwill impairment memorandum, which Wahl 

signed off on, did not afford Wahl, Koch, or any reader the ability to 

meaningfully understand how the engagement team concluded there was no 

impairment or that there was adequate evidentiary support for that 

conclusion. See AS No. 3.3(b)–(c), .4, .6. The memo’s points and authorities

provided no relevant or reliable bases for substantiating its conclusion. AS No. 

15.6–.8. For one, it relied only on cash inflows for two months instead of on net 

cash flows, which would have been more reliable, and would have showed the 

assets were losing money. It further failed to satisfy typical indicia of reliability 

because it depended on “internal company sources” of Premier, a company 

Anton & Chia determined had material weaknesses with regard to controls, 

instead of depending on an independent “knowledgeable source.” AS No. 15.8. 

The engagement team failed to conduct the required procedures to verify 

internal information, such as the positive assessment Premier provided 

regarding TPC’s future performance. See AS No. 15.10.

4.8.3. Improper use of the work of a specialist

AU § 336, “Using the Work of a Specialist,” applies, in pertinent part, 

where “[m]anagement engages ... a specialist and the auditor uses that 

specialist’s work as evidential matter in performing substantive tests to 

evaluate material financial statement assertions.” AU § 336.03(b). Here, 

Premier engaged the valuation firm Doty Scott to report on the value of the 

Note, and Anton & Chia treated Doty Scott’s placeholder valuation tables as 

evidential matter. Valuation is a prime example of the work of a specialist that 

is considered by an auditor. AU § 336.07(a). The auditor should understand, 

among other things, “[t]he methods or assumptions used” and “[t]he 

appropriateness of using the specialist’s work for the intended purpose.” AU 

§§ 336.09(c), (e); see AU § 336.12. Here, neither Wahl nor anyone at Anton & 

Chia understood Doty Scott’s methods or assumptions, nor did they 
67

understand that the placeholder tables contained outdated assumptions from 

a previous period and were never meant to be relied on. 

The auditor should also “make appropriate tests of data provided to the 

specialist.” AU § 336.12. Here, insufficient data had been provided to Doty 

Scott, and Wahl directed Wen (who told Wahl he did not understand the

spreadsheets) only to check the math. Checking math is not a test of the data: 

it instead presumes that the data is correct, and only evaluates whether one or 

more formulae are being calculated correctly. And the two workpapers that 

Wen prepared were entirely conclusory. Thus, Wahl failed not only to 

understand Doty Scott’s methods and assumptions, but also failed to 

appropriately test the data provided.

4.8.4. Failure to consider fraud in Premier’s financial statements

Wahl violated AU § 316, “Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement 

Audit,” by failing to properly evaluate and consider the circular and unusual 

nature of the transactions that Premier entered into surrounding the Note. 

Under PCAOB standards, fraud is “an intentional act that results in a material 

misstatement in financial statements that are the subject of an audit.” AU 

§ 316.05. Material misstatements due to aggressive applications of accounting 

rules that are rationalized by management can result in fraud. AU § 316.06. 

The auditor should therefore “design and perform audit procedures in a 

manner that addresses” the risk of fraud. AU § 316.52. In this context, auditors 

have a responsibility to consider “significant transactions that are outside the 

normal course of business for the entity, or that otherwise appear to be unusual 

given the auditor’s understanding of the entity and its environment.” AU 

§ 316.66. This responsibility includes: “gain[ing] an understanding of the 

business rationale for such transactions and whether that rationale (or the lack 

thereof) suggests that the transactions may have been entered into to engage 

in fraudulent financial reporting ... .” Id. In evaluating the business rationale 

for the transaction, the auditor should consider whether the transaction 

involves related parties and how that fact might contribute to the risk of fraud. 

See AU § 316.67. Yet Wahl gave no special attention to the unusual, related 

party transaction regarding the Note, which added almost $1 million to 

Premier’s balance sheet in exchange for certain assets that had lost more than 

$750,000 the year before, and were previously valued at zero dollars by 

Premier itself. With the facts that Anton & Chia had, this transaction

suggested possible fraud, yet Wahl failed to take any discernable action under 

AU § 316 to address that possibility. 

Further, Wahl failed to evaluate the TPC acquisition for fraud. He should 

have done so, particularly since it was a large cashless transaction for which 

the valuation of identifiable assets had not been completed in a timely fashion.
68

4.8.5. Failure to perform alternative confirmation procedures

In violation of AU § 330, Wahl, who was ultimately responsible for the 

audit, failed to perform alternative procedures when New Eco did not respond 

to Anton & Chia’s confirmation request regarding the Note. “Confirmation is 

undertaken to obtain evidence from third parties about financial statement 

assertions made by management,” and greater assurance is needed for 

“unusual or complex transactions.” AU §§ 330.06–.08. If a positive confirmation 

is not returned by the third party, the auditor “should apply alternative 

procedures to the nonresponses to obtain the evidence necessary to reduce 

audit risk to an acceptably low level.” AU § 330.31. After performing the 

alternative procedures, “the auditor should evaluate the combined evidence 

provided by the confirmations and the alternative procedures to determine 

whether sufficient evidence has been obtained about all the applicable 

financial statement assertions.” AU § 330.33. Anton & Chia planned to obtain 

third-party confirmation from New Eco of the Note’s existence and balance. Ex. 

419 at 1854 (stating that Anton & Chia would “send direct confirmation to 

verify the balance as of 12/31/2013 and also reconcile with the disposal 

agreement between the company and the buyer”). Yet, although Anton & Chia

never received confirmation from New Eco, Ex. 459; Tr. 2248–49, there is no 

evidence that it ever performed alternate procedures to reduce audit risk. 

5. CannaVEST facts and accounting violations

5.1. Introduction and summary

Anton & Chia conducted interim reviews of CannaVEST Corp. for the first 

three quarters of 2013. Ex. 840 ¶ 46. CannaVEST materially overstated 

goodwill from its acquisition of PhytoSphere Systems, LLC, in the first and 

second quarter reports. In the third quarter report, CannaVEST impaired the 

goodwill, but did not explain why and did not restate the earlier quarters’ 

reports. All three reports failed to follow GAAP. Wahl, who worked on all three 

interim reviews, and Chung, who was the EQR for the first quarter review, did 

not adequately review CannaVEST’s financial statements and did not identify 

the significant accounting problems in those statements. As such, Wahl and 

Chung failed to follow applicable PCAOB standards requiring due professional 

care, Wahl failed to follow standards for interim reviews with regard to 

planning and supervision and making inquiries of management, and Chung 

failed to conduct an appropriate engagement quality review.

5.2. CannaVEST acquires PhytoSphere

CannaVEST was incorporated under the name Foreclosure Solutions, 

Inc., in 2010. Ex. 702 at 4 (CannaVEST 2012 Form 10-K). It was unable to 

attract financing for its business plan of offering real estate services. New 
69

owners acquired control of Foreclosure Solutions in November 2012 in a series 

of stock transactions with a total purchase price of $375,000. Id. at 4, 17. After 

the sale, Michael Mona, Jr., became the company’s sole officer. Id. at 12. At the 

end of 2012, the company had earned no revenue since its inception, had a net 

loss for the year of $45,611, and its only asset was $431 in cash. Id. at F-3, F4, F-6.

In January 2013, Foreclosure Solutions changed its name to 

CannaVEST.21 Ex. 840 ¶ 30. The same day, CannaVEST closed a deal to 

purchase PhytoSphere from Medical Marijuana, Inc. Ex. 700 at 3. After the 

acquisition, the newly renamed CannaVEST planned to focus on producing and 

selling products containing cannabidiol (CBD), an extract from the hemp plant. 

Ex. 702 at 4. PhytoSphere had contracts to import hemp products from Europe 

as, at that time, cultivation of hemp in the United States was illegal. Id. at 5. 

CannaVEST also acquired PhytoSphere’s equipment, inventory, domain 

names, telephone numbers, licenses, and cash on hand of about $50,000. Ex. 

751 at 8.

The nominal purchase price for PhytoSphere was $35 million, payable in 

five installments by cash or CannaVEST stock at CannaVEST’s discretion. Id.

at 1–2. The value of the stock was based on the prior day’s closing price, but 

there was a price collar provision limiting the value to no greater than $6.00 

or less than $4.50 per share. Id. at 2. CannaVEST paid $950,000 in cash and 

issued 5,825,000 shares of stock to complete the purchase, valuing the stock at 

$5.85 per share. Ex. 715 at F-12 (CannaVEST 2013 Form 10-K). At the time of 

the purchase, however, CannaVEST stock did not trade on an active market, 

trading volume was “miniscule,” and the price was volatile. Tr. 2602; see Exs. 

776, 779. The previous major change of ownership of PhytoSphere was in April 

2012, when Medical Marijuana acquired an 80% stake in it for $2.5 million. 

Exs. 836, 837.

The day before CannaVEST changed its name and closed the PhytoSphere 

deal, Mona joined the board of directors and the sole previous director resigned. 

Ex. 702 at 12. Three additional directors joined the board in March 2013. Id.

5.3. CannaVEST’s financial reporting

The public accounting firm Turner, Stone & Company audited 

CannaVEST’s 2012 Form 10-K, which was filed in April 2013. Ex. 702 at F-2. 

Because the PhytoSphere acquisition had not been completed by the end of 

 

21 In 2016, after the events relevant to this proceeding, CannaVEST changed 

its name to CV Sciences, Inc. CannaVEST Corp., Current Report at 4 (Form 8-

K) (Jan. 4, 2016).
70

2012, the transaction was not included in the annual financial statements in 

the 2012 Form 10-K. Tr. 2072–73. Turner Stone informed CannaVEST 

management that, for the 2013 periodic reports, CannaVEST would need to 

have PhytoSphere’s assets valued. Ex. 782; Tr. 2084–85. In addition, since 

CannaVEST was no longer a shell company, the amount of work needed to 

audit the company would significantly increase. Tr. 2087–88. For its 2012 audit 

services, Turner Stone charged $16,230. Ex. 702 at 17. Turner Stone estimated 

that it would bill about twice as much in 2013. Tr. 2088. CannaVEST was 

unwilling to pay these higher fees and engaged Anton & Chia, which charged 

$2,500 for each quarterly review. Tr. 2089. 

No one from Anton & Chia contacted Turner Stone before or after 

accepting CannaVEST as an audit client. Tr. 2092.

CannaVEST’s report for the first quarter of 2013 was the first to include 

the PhytoSphere transaction. The balance sheet included $33,656,833 in net 

intangible assets, and the statement of cash flow recorded a $34,035,000

investment for the purchase of PhytoSphere’s goodwill. Ex. 705 at 3, 6. These 

intangible assets represented over 90% of CannaVEST’s total assets. Id. The 

report disclosed a material weakness in CannaVEST’s internal control over 

financial reporting, warning of a reasonable possibility of a material 

misstatement in its financial statements. Id. at 15. Ten days after filing the 

report, it filed an amended report to correct a mathematical error in the 

balance sheet, add missing items to the management’s discussion and analysis 

of financial condition and results of operation, and correct other errors. Ex. 706 

at 1.

The 2013 second quarter report’s balance sheet differed from the first 

quarter in that it recorded goodwill—$26,998,125—separately from other net 

intangibles—$4,995,895. Ex. 708 at 3. These two categories still accounted for 

85% of CannaVEST’s total assets. CannaVEST once again acknowledged a 

material weakness in its internal controls. Id. at 16.

In August 2013, CannaVEST engaged Vantage Point Advisors, Inc., to 

conduct an independent valuation of CannaVEST’s common stock. Ex. 830. 

Vantage Point estimated that the total equity value of CannaVEST was 

$12,200,000 and the value per share was $1.31, discounted to $0.68 due to lack 

of marketability. Ex. 797 at 29. Using a discounted cash flow method, Vantage 

Point estimated CannaVEST’s business enterprise value to be between 

$14,070,000 and $16,840,000. Id. at 25.

As this business enterprise value was less than half of the purported 

purchase price of PhytoSphere, CannaVEST had Vantage Point value 

PhytoSphere as of the acquisition date. Tr. 2626–27. In a draft report prepared 
71

in October 2013, Vantage Point estimated PhytoSphere’s fair market value as 

of January 2013 to be $8,150,000. Ex. 798 at 1. This value was less than one 

fourth of the $35,000,000 purported sale price. 

In its third quarter report, CannaVEST recognized an impairment to 

goodwill of $26,998,125, the entire amount it had on its balance sheet the 

previous quarter. Ex. 710 at 5. The third quarter report did not disclose the 

facts and circumstances of the impairment and did not mention that goodwill 

was recalculated based on an independent valuation of PhytoSphere. Ex. 710; 

Tr. 2874–75. As a result of this impairment, CannaVEST’s total assets 

decreased from $37,303,795 to $10,732,131 from the second quarter to the 

third quarter. Ex. 710 at 4; Ex. 708 at 3. Despite the valuation report showing 

that PhytoSphere was only worth $8 million at the time of purchase, 

CannaVEST did not at that time restate either of the prior quarters’ financial 

statements. The report did disclose a material weakness in internal controls. 

Ex. 710 at 17–18.

On the same day the third quarter 10-Q was filed, Wahl and Anton & Chia 

resigned as CannaVEST’s auditor. Tr. 2650, Ex. 711. The reason for the 

resignation was not a disagreement between CannaVEST management and 

Anton & Chia on a matter of accounting principles or practices. Ex. 711. 

CannaVEST hired PKF LLP to succeed Anton & Chia as its auditor in January 

2014. Ex. 713.

James Stewart, a partner at PKF, reviewed CannaVEST’s recent filings 

and was concerned about the impairment of goodwill. Tr. 2872–73. Stewart’s 

professional judgment was that CannaVEST could not rely on its stock price 

to value the PhytoSphere transaction and that an independent valuation was 

necessary. Tr. 2893–96. At PKF’s suggestion, CannaVEST had Vantage Point 

update its report with an allocation of the $8 million fair value of PhytoSphere 

allocated among the assets acquired. Exs. 771, 801; Tr. 2878–89.

CannaVEST filed its 2013 Form 10-K at the end of March 2014. 

CannaVEST valued PhytoSphere at $8,020,000 and allocated that money 

according to the Vantage Point report. Ex. 715 at F-12. CannaVEST explained 

that it based the value of PhytoSphere on an estimate of the fair market value 

acquired—rather than the nominal value of the stock paid—because 

CannaVEST’s “common stock was not trading and [CannaVEST] had no 

operations at the time.” Id.

In April 2014, shortly after filing the 10-K, CannaVEST advised investors 

not to rely on the financial statements in the three 2013 quarterly reports 

because of errors related to the purchase price and asset allocation of the 

PhytoSphere transaction. Ex. 716. Less than two weeks later, CannaVEST 
72

announced that it would restate the financial statements in those three 

reports. Ex. 717. By the end of April, CannaVEST filed Forms 10-Q/A 

amending the 2013 quarterly reports. Exs. 718, 719, 720. These amended 

reports explained that the purchase price of PhytoSphere originally reported 

did not represent fair market value of the transaction under GAAP. E.g., Ex. 

719 at 2. 

Staff from the Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance 

corresponded with CannaVEST management about the restatement. At first, 

the staff sought more information about the PhytoSphere transaction. See Exs. 

776, 777, 778 (letters from CannaVEST to the staff responding to inquiries and 

explaining the basis for the restatement). In a phone call in September 2014, 

Commission staff explained its disagreement with the accounting treatment of 

the PhytoSphere transaction in the 2013 10-K and restated 10-Qs. Ex. 779 at 

1. The Commission staff instead told CannaVEST to restate its 2013 financial 

statements to reflect the contract value of $35 million for PhytoSphere and to 

recognize an immediate impairment to goodwill of just under $27 million. Id.

CannaVEST appealed this decision to the Chief Accountant of the Division of 

Corporation Finance. Id. As a result of this appeal, CannaVEST was not 

required to restate the 2013 10-K or further restate the three 2013 10-Qs. Tr. 

2902.

5.4. CannaVEST violated GAAP

5.4.1. Failure to value PhytoSphere correctly

CannaVEST violated GAAP and materially misstated its assets in the 

2013 first and second quarter reports by valuing PhytoSphere at the $35 

million contracted purchase price when the actual fair value of the 

PhytoSphere assets was only about $8 million.

ASC 805 provides that goodwill is recognized on the acquiring company’s 

balance sheet when the consideration paid is greater than the net identifiable 

assets acquired. ASC 805-30-30-01. The consideration paid must be measured

at fair value. ASC 805-30-30-7. As noted regarding Premier, fair value is 

defined as “[t]he price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer 

a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the 

measurement date.” ASC 820-10-20.

The PhytoSphere transaction was not an orderly transaction between 

market participants, which, as noted above, assumes that usual and customary 

marketing activities took place. ASC 820-10-20. Evidence that a transaction is 

not orderly includes the seller marketing the asset to a single potential buyer, 

a lack of knowledge or due diligence by the buyer or seller, and a transaction 

price that is an outlier when compared to other recent transactions. ASC 820-
73

10-35-54I. Each of those was the case in this transaction. Medical Marijuana 

did not market PhytoSphere to anyone other than CannaVEST, CannaVEST 

performed no due diligence, and the price was an outlier, particularly when 

compared to the $2.5 million Medical Marijuana paid for 80% of PhytoSphere 

just nine months earlier. Ex. 779 at 4–5; Tr. 1531. Because the acquisition was 

not orderly, “little, if any, weight” should be placed on the acquisition price. 

ASC 820-10-35-54J. 

Wahl argues that the PhytoSphere acquisition was an orderly transaction 

because it was not a forced sale or a sale between related parties. Wahl PFOF 

at 143 (PDF); Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 49. A forced sale or related party 

transaction would be strong evidence that a transaction is not orderly and 

between market participants, but these are not the only factors considered. See 

ASC 820-10-30-3A, -35-54I. The overall weight of the evidence is that the 

acquisition was not an orderly transaction. See ASC 820-10-35-54I (“A 

reporting entity shall evaluate the circumstances to determine whether, on the 

weight of the evidence available, the transaction is orderly.”).

Even if it were an orderly transaction, CannaVEST knew many other facts 

at the time of the first and second quarter reports that showed that the $35 

million contract value of the PhytoSphere purchase price was an unreliable 

indicator of the fair value of the consideration paid. CannaVEST paid only 

$950,000 in cash. The bulk of the consideration was thinly traded and 

unmarketable CannaVEST stock. Ex. 779 at 2. Before the acquisition, 

CannaVEST was a corporate shell and had no revenue, net losses, and only 

$431 in assets. In the purchase, CannaVEST’s stock was valued at over $5.00 

per share based on limited trading and the price collar in the contract. The 

price collar was used to limit the number of shares exchanged and prevent 

dilution—it was not intended to represent fair market value. See Ex. 779 at 

2.22 The independent valuation of the PhytoSphere assets, which CannaVEST 

finally commissioned in the third quarter, confirmed these red flags. 

 

22 In explaining why it restated the earlier reports, CannaVEST told 

Commission staff that at the acquisition date 

[it] had minimal operations, (ii) [its] common stock was 

not trading, (iii) the number of shares issuable in the 

transaction was of little relevance to [CannaVEST], and 

(iv) the $35 million assigned purchase price was of little 

relevance to management and was not thought to 

represent the fair value of the business acquired when the 

transaction occurred.
74

Wahl argues that CannaVEST’s stock price was the most reliable method 

of determining the fair value of the acquisition. Wahl PFOF at 199 (PDF); but 

see Wahl Post-hr’g Br. 49.23 Under ASC 820’s hierarchy of valuation inputs, 

“quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities” 

are considered “Level 1 inputs” and should be used to measure fair value, if 

available. ASC 820-10-35-40; see ASC 820-10-35-36B, -37, -41. Because 

CannaVEST’s stock was not actively traded at the time of the transaction, 

however, its stock price cannot be considered a Level 1 input, as Anton & Chia 

itself recognized: the goodwill impairment memorandum, prepared in the third 

quarter, acknowledge that CannaVEST’s common stock had “finite trading 

volume” and did not qualify for Level 1 treatment. Ex. 763 at 1–2 (adjusting 

the stock price down to the contract collar upper bound).

By failing to follow ASC 805 and ASC 820 and by not noticing or ignoring 

the many red flags around the valuation of the PhytoSphere acquisition, 

CannaVEST materially overstated its assets by about $27 million in its 10-Qs 

for the first and second quarters of 2013. 

5.4.2. Failure to explain why goodwill was impaired

In its third quarter report, CannaVEST corrected the overstatement of 

goodwill by recognizing a $27 million impairment. CannaVEST did not, 

however, adequately explain the reasons for the impairment, a violation of 

GAAP. See ASC 350-20-50-2 (requiring, “[f]or each goodwill impairment loss 

recognized,” an explanation in the notes describing “the facts and 

circumstances leading to the impairment” and “the method of determining the 

fair value”). Namely, CannaVEST did not disclose in the third quarter report 

that it had commissioned a valuation report from Vantage Point that showed 

PhytoSphere to be worth about $8 million, not $35 million, at the time of the 

acquisition. See Ex. 710 at 10, 12 (stating simply that CannaVEST “has 

recorded the impairment loss of goodwill under operating expense of 

$26,998,125 for the nine months ended September 30, 2013”); Tr. 2874–75.

 

Ex. 779 at 2.

23 By contrast, Wahl asserted in his brief that the “purchase price was not 

tied to the stock price.” Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 49. If Wahl is alluding to the fixed 

contract price of $35 million, that contract price was not a reliable indicator of 

fair value because 97% of the price was paid in stock and the contract specified 

an arbitrary and inflated stock price collar. 
75

5.4.3. Failure to restate the first and second quarter reports

Once CannaVEST impaired the goodwill from the PhytoSphere 

acquisition in its third quarter 10-Q, it should have restated the prior two 

quarters. Under ASC 250, “[a]ny error in the financial statements of a prior 

period discovered after the financial statements are issued ... shall be reported 

as an error correction, by restating the prior-period financial statements.” ASC 

250-10-45-23. 

The Vantage Point draft valuation report showed that PhytoSphere was 

only worth $8 million as of the January 2013 transaction date. Although 

Vantage Point did not complete a final report until after the third quarter 10-

Q was filed, CannaVEST and Anton & Chia knew the conclusions in Vantage 

Point’s draft report, which were substantiated in the final report, and that was 

the reason the goodwill was impaired in the third quarter 10-Q. See, e.g., Ex. 

752 at 1–2 (PDF); Ex. 753 at 2 (PDF); Ex. 763 at 2 (PDF) (Anton & Chia’s third 

quarter workpapers and emails from Wahl showing that the valuation report 

was the reason for the impairment).

Wahl argues that CannaVEST missing revenue targets, rather than the 

Vantage Point draft report, was the “initial trigger” for the impairment. Wahl 

PFOF at 221 (PDF); Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 53. But Wahl never told Richard 

Canote—an independent contractor who worked as CannaVEST’s consulting 

interim CFO—that the failure to meet projections was a reason for the 

impairment, Tr. 2589–92, 2667, 2682, 2691; to the contrary, he explained that 

the valuation report was the reason for the impairment. Ex. 753 at 2 (PDF). 

Wahl also argues that Commission staff’s proposed accounting treatment—

recognizing $35 million in goodwill at the time of the transaction with an 

immediate impairment of $27 million—supports the way Anton & Chia 

handled the PhytoSphere valuation. According to Wahl, staff agreed with 

Anton & Chia’s “analysis of the fair value of the consideration” with the 

exception of “using significant hindsight to impair the goodwill on day one.” 

Wahl PFOF at 240–41 (PDF). At best, however, this is only partially true. As 

explained above, significant evidence existed in the first quarter that 

PhytoSphere was not worth $35 million, and this evidence was strengthened 

by the draft valuation report in the third quarter. Hindsight was not required 

to know that PhytoSphere was not worth $35 million when acquired, and by 

the third quarter it was even more apparent. CannaVEST should have restated 

the reports for the first and second quarter.
76

5.5. Anton & Chia’s reviews of CannaVEST’s interim financial information

5.5.1. First quarter

Anton & Chia performed the interim reviews of CannaVEST quickly and 

cheaply. CannaVEST engaged Anton & Chia on May 6, 2013. Ex. 703 at 2. 

CannaVEST filed its first quarter Form 10-Q just two weeks later on May 20, 

five days after the original deadline, and filed an amended 10-Q on May 30. 

Exs. 704, 705, 706. Wahl put pressure on his staff to complete the work quickly. 

Tr. 2375–76, 2457, 2809–10. Other audit firms considered the $2,500 Anton & 

Chia billed per review to be well below a reasonable fee for the amount of work 

necessary. Tr. 2089, 2653.

Anton & Chia had frequent personnel turnover, and the staff assigned to 

the first quarter review was inexperienced. Tr. 2456–57. Wahl, who took on 

the role of engagement partner, assigned Tommy Shek to be the manager for 

the CannaVEST review a few days before the deadline. Ex. 740 at 2; Tr. 2377–

78. Shek was the only manager-level employee at Anton & Chia at the time of 

the first quarter review, but he lacked audit-managing experience. Tr. 2372–

74. In particular, Shek had no experience in reviewing or auditing business 

combinations, applying ASC 805, or measuring the fair value of acquired 

assets. Tr. 2378. Wahl knew Shek lacked this experience. Id.

Wahl assigned Binh La to do “all the heavy lifting on the 10-Q.” Ex. 727 

at 4 (PDF). La started working at Anton & Chia in March, two months before 

he was assigned to the review. Tr. 2380, 2803–04. La had no auditing 

experience before coming to Anton & Chia. Tr. 2805. La’s training at Anton & 

Chia was “minimal” and not well organized, and he felt a “constant urgency” 

to work quickly. Tr. 2805–06, 2812. Wahl assigned La to the CannaVEST 

review two days before the Form 10-Q was due and seven days before it was 

filed. Ex. 727 at 3 (PDF). La was not knowledgeable about applying ASC 805 

or ASC 820, and no one told him that those standards applied to the 

PhytoSphere transaction. Tr. 2820. 

At CannaVEST, Edward Wilson prepared the first quarter financials and 

sent La an allocation of the assets of PhytoSphere. Tr. 2542, 2823; Ex. 793. 

Wilson was a CPA, family friend of Mona, and a member of CannaVEST’s 

board of directors. Tr. 2534. His CPA business focused on tax and bookkeeping 

work, and he had no expertise in business combinations or public company 

financial reporting and did not know how to apply ASC 805 or ASC 820. Tr.

2532–33, 2559. Wahl assumed that Wilson prepared the financial statements 

in accordance with GAAP. Ex. 727 at 5 (PDF). But neither Wahl nor Shek made 

any inquiries about Wilson’s competency to do that given the significant 
77

business combination and valuation issues that arose during the quarter. Tr. 

2382–83. 

La prepared a review planning memorandum for the first quarter review. 

Tr. 2834. The memorandum did not mention CannaVEST’s material weakness 

in internal control over financial reporting or how Anton & Chia might address 

the risks posed by that weakness. Ex. 740; but see Ex. 784 at 2 (PDF) (interim 

review inquiries checklist marked “yes” for “significant deficiencies or material 

weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls which could 

adversely affect the ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial 

data?”). The memorandum briefly described the PhytoSphere acquisition 

under “liabilities,” but there was no mention of any procedures Anton & Chia 

would employ to determine the fair value of the purchase price or assets 

acquired. Ex. 740 at 2. The planning memorandum simply said that Anton & 

Chia “will make inquiries of management to ensure that provided financials 

are properly presented.” Id.; see also Ex. 747 at 2 (engagement summary 

memo). The workpapers do not show that any inquiries were made about the 

fair value of assets acquired or the fair value of the consideration paid in the 

PhytoSphere transaction. See generally Ex. 3. Even though the interim review 

inquiries checklist reflects that fair value was not measured or disclosed in 

accordance with GAAP, no inquiries related to fair value were noted. Ex. 784 

at 2 (PDF). Shek and La made no such inquiries, and Wahl did not tell them 

to ask. Tr. 2361–62, 2823. 

The inquiries Anton & Chia did make were general. For example, Shek 

asked Wilson for an allocation of intangibles and goodwill and the support for 

those values. Ex. 761 at 2 (PDF). Wilson replied that CannaVEST did “not have 

a schedule for the detail of the intangibles” and offered to send the 

PhytoSphere agreement, but warned that it was “not very specific.” Id. at 1.

Wilson sent Shek the PhytoSphere agreement and a breakdown of the $35 

million in assets, which included $17 million in unspecified “other 

agreements.” See Ex. 793 at 1 (PDF). The $17 million in other agreements was 

a “balancing number” or “fudge factor” Wilson used to make the total add up 

to $35 million. Tr. 2558–59. Wilson did not perform any analysis on these 

assets or know whether the $35 million total was correct under GAAP. Tr. 

2560. Shek did not follow up or note the lack of detail in the agreement as a 

red flag. Tr. 2401–02. Anton & Chia did nothing to test the validity of the 

numbers provided by Wilson. Tr. 2422–23. La simply took the numbers Wilson 

provided and applied them to the balance sheet. Tr. 2823. As for the fair value 

of the consideration, Shek asked Wahl what he should do about the stock price 
78

collar in the purchase agreement, and Wahl said that it was the only thing that 

could be relied on and that Shek should accept it.24 Tr. 2405–06. 

Compounding the already short timeframe for completing the review, 

CannaVEST provided Anton & Chia its draft first quarter financial statements 

on May 14, 2013, one day before the filing deadline, and did not send the 

PhytoSphere agreement until May 15. Exs. 761, 793. CannaVEST requested a 

five-day filing extension from the Commission, but Shek and La knew that five 

more days were not enough complete the review. Tr. 2399–401, 2821–22; cf. Tr. 

2497–98 (Shek could complete a review in three to five days for a small, 

recurring client but could not review a “significant transaction” in that amount 

of time). When CannaVEST filed its Form 10-Q on May 20, Anton & Chia had 

not completed its review, no engagement quality review had been completed, 

and certain financial information in the report was left blank. Tr. 2418–21; Ex. 

705 at 4 (missing earnings per share and weighted average number of shares); 

Ex. 731 (signoff summary report showing many signoffs from Wahl, Chung,

and Shek dated May 29 and May 30). CannaVEST filed an amended Form 10-

Q on May 30 that included the information left out of the original filing. Ex. 

706. 

Chung was the EQR for the first quarter engagement. She took the role of

EQR because the only other partner at Anton & Chia had recently left the firm. 

Tr. 2431–32, 2468, 2807–09. Chung had limited experience in auditing 

matters. From 2005 to 2008, she had worked as a staff accountant at an audit 

firm and as an internal auditor. Ex. 875 at 10–11; Ex. 839.6 at 349 (PDF)

(designated portions of Chung’s deposition). Chung joined Anton & Chia in 

2009 as a co-owner. Ex. 875 at 10. From 2009 to 2013, Chung helped set up the 

firm and worked on administrative matters, but she did not work on any 

engagements except as an EQR for CannaVEST’s first quarter 2013 filing and 

one other matter. Ex. 839.6 at 346 (PDF). She did not have experience as an 

engagement partner in any public company review or audit before acting as 

EQR. See id. at 452 (PDF). Chung was not familiar with ASC 820 and could 

not recall having applied ASC 805 except in the CannaVEST engagement. Id. 

at 355, 357 (PDF).

Chung did not ask any questions of Shek or La or otherwise interact with 

them about the first quarter review. Shek did not believe Chung was 

competent to serve as EQR. Tr. 2432. He never received any advice from her, 

and she was rarely in the office. Id.; Ex. 839.6 at 346 (PDF). Shek found it 

 

24 While Anton & Chia was working on the first quarter review, Wahl and 

Chung were on a cruise, although Wahl corresponded by email and phone. Tr. 

2378–79.
79

unusual that Chung never communicated with him during the engagement 

quality review. Tr. 2434. La also noted that Chung was rarely in the office. Tr. 

2846. He did not interact with her regarding the first quarter review. Tr. 2845.

Chung failed to notice that the review team did not adequately consider 

whether the PhytoSphere transaction was recorded in accordance with GAAP. 

On the supervision, review, and approval form, she checked not applicable to 

“whether appropriate consultations have taken place on difficult or contentious 

matters, or significant unusual transactions” and commented that “[n]one is 

necessary.” Ex. 745 at 4.

5.5.2. Second quarter 

For the second quarter review, La was the staff accountant, Shek the audit 

manager, Wahl the engagement partner, and Richard Koch the EQR. Ex. 808 

at 2 (PDF). With respect to the PhytoSphere transaction, the review planning 

memorandum for the second quarter contained the same language as the 

previous quarter’s: that Anton & Chia “will make inquiries of management to 

ensure that provided financials are properly presented.” Id. There was again 

no mention of CannaVEST’s material weakness in internal controls or how 

that risk could be mitigated. See id. The balance sheet saw major changes to 

the way CannaVEST allocated the $35 million purported purchase price of 

PhytoSphere, but Anton & Chia’s workpapers do not explain the reasons for 

the changes. Compare Ex. 851 (second quarter balance sheet analytics), with 

Ex. 850 (first quarter balance sheet analytics). For example, the first quarter 

balance sheet analytics valued the right to purchase 460 kilograms of CBD at 

$11.5 million, but this was decreased to $947,387.50 in the second quarter.25

Id. The value of goodwill (to make up the difference between the listed assets 

and the purchase price) increased to about $27 million from $17.5 million. Id. 

Anton & Chia conducted no analysis and made no inquiries about why the 

allocation of assets changed so significantly. Like in the first quarter, Anton & 

Chia simply accepted the financial numbers provided by CannaVEST. Tr. 

2438, 2851. Anton & Chia did not prepare a balance sheet analytics page 

comparing the first quarter with the second quarter. Tr. 2850–51. Wahl did not 

direct Shek or La to ask about these changes. Tr. 2441–42. The interim review 

 

25 CannaVEST partially explained the difference in a revised calculation of 

intangible assets that Canote sent to La. Ex. 843. One tab on this spreadsheet 

explained that the first quarter right to purchase CBD was valued at $25,000 

per kilogram, while for the second quarter it was valued at $3,989 per 

kilogram. Ex. 843.1 (intangibles tab). This information did not make it into 

Anton & Chia’s analytical workpapers or CannaVEST’s Form 10-Q. See Tr.

2441–42.
80

inquiries checklist indicated that no unexpected differences were noted during 

the review period, even though the changes in allocations and goodwill were 

significant unexpected differences. Ex. 785 at 1; Tr. 2439–40, 2847–48. The 

checklist also incorrectly stated that there were no material weaknesses in 

CannaVEST’s internal controls. Ex. 785 at 2.

5.5.3. Third quarter

The engagement team for the third quarter was the same as the second 

quarter with Windy Wu added as a second staff accountant. Ex. 787 at 3. The 

third quarter planning memorandum again had no mention of CannaVEST’s 

material weakness in internal controls, and the inquiries checklist was again 

marked “no” for the material weakness question. Ex. 787; Ex. 789 at 2.

Based on the draft Vantage Point valuation, Anton & Chia proposed that 

CannaVEST record an impairment of $26,988,125 to goodwill, eliminating the 

entirety of goodwill from the second quarter balance sheet. Ex. 763. Anton & 

Chia’s workpapers and emails reflect that the basis for the goodwill 

impairment charge was the draft Vantage Point valuation report on 

PhytoSphere. See Ex. 763 at 2 (PDF) (goodwill impairment memo stating that 

independent advisors provided a valuation of PhytoSphere less than the 

originally booked purchase price, leading to impairment of goodwill); Ex. 752 

at 1 (PDF) (Wahl email stating that the “Phytosphere valuation implies an 

impairment”). In his investigative testimony, Wahl explained that the evidence 

of the impairment was the PhytoSphere valuation. Ex. 839.6 at 247–48, 279 

(PDF). He also stated that CannaVEST’s revenue for the past nine months, 

which was less than management projected “was also a factor in determining 

whether there was an impairment.” Id. at 290 (PDF). But Wahl never 

mentioned to Canote that the goodwill impairment stemmed from

CannaVEST’s failure to meet revenue projections, and his contention that 

revenue was a factor is not supported by the impairment memo, other 

workpapers, or emails. Tr. 2691; see Ex. 763 (goodwill impairment memo); Ex. 

752 (email); Ex. 753 (email).

Anton & Chia did not recommend that CannaVEST restate the financials 

of the first and second quarter reports even though Wahl knew that 

PhytoSphere was not worth $35 million when CannaVEST acquired it. See Ex. 

753 at 2 (PDF) (Wahl email to Canote stating that “the third party valuation 

came in at approximately $8.0MM[;] looks like this should have been booked 

originally at $8.0MM not the approximately $35MM”); see also Ex. 763 at 2 

(PDF). Had Anton & Chia insisted on restatement, CannaVEST would have

done so. Tr. 2650. Anton & Chia did not advise CannaVEST to disclose in the 

third quarter report the facts and circumstances of the impairment or the 
81

method used to determine the fair value of the goodwill—the independent 

valuation of PhytoSphere at the time of the transaction. Tr. 2643–44.

5.6. Wahl and Chung violated PCAOB standards

In conducting reviews of CannaVEST’s interim financial information, 

Wahl, as engagement partner on all three reviews, and Chung, as EQR for the 

first quarter review, violated applicable professional standards.

5.6.1. Failure to adequately plan and supervise the first quarter 

review, and failures of due professional care

Failures started even before Anton & Chia accepted the CannaVEST 

engagement. Before a successor auditor accepts an engagement, it should 

communicate with the predecessor auditor. AU §§ 315.07, 722.04, 722.12. This 

responsibility rests with the successor auditor. AU § 315.06. But the 

engagement team at Anton & Chia never contacted Turner Stone. Tr. 2092.

The first quarter review was rushed. Wahl assigned La and Shek to the 

audit only a few days before the due date, and CannaVEST provided significant 

financial information to Anton & Chia at the very last moment. Exs. 761, 793. 

CannaVEST sought a five-day extension of the deadline, but even with the 

extra time, Anton & Chia was unable to fully complete the review before it was 

filed. Tr. 2418–20; Ex. 705 at 4. Although the extension might have been 

sufficient if CannaVEST were still a shell company, there was insufficient time 

for Anton & Chia’s staff to evaluate a significant transaction for a new client—

one that increased its assets from $431 to a purported $36 million. Tr. 2399–

01, 2497–98, 2821–22; Ex. 706 at 3. Even after the extension, the Form 10-Q 

CannaVEST filed was incomplete and no engagement quality review had been 

done. CannaVEST had to file an amended 10-Q ten days later to fill in blanks 

in the original filing. Wahl did not give his staff adequate time and pressed 

them to get the review done quickly. 

The staff Wahl assigned to the review was ill prepared for it. Wahl 

expected La to do the “heavy lifting” despite La being new to Anton & Chia, 

having little previous auditing experience, and being unfamiliar with ASC 805 

and ASC 820. Wahl assigned Shek to be the audit manager even though he 

had no experience at that level and had not applied ASC 805 before. Because

the only other partner at Anton & Chia left the firm, Wahl had Chung act as 

EQR although she had limited relevant experience. It does not violate

professional standards to have new or inexperienced staff, but inexperienced 

staff need more supervision and support. AU § 150.02 (“The audit is to be 

performed by a person or persons having adequate technical training and 

proficiency as an auditor”; “[A]ssistants, if any, are to be properly supervised.”); 

AU § 722.01 (applying § 150.02 to interim reviews); cf. AU § 210.03 (“The 
82

junior assistant ... must obtain his professional experience with the proper 

supervision and review of his work by a more experienced superior.”). In this 

case, staff did not receive the support they needed. Wahl did not tell La, for 

example, that ASC 805 applied to the transaction or explain how to assess the 

financial figures provided by CannaVEST. And when asked by Shek about 

what to do with the stock price in the sale agreement, Wahl told him just to 

accept it. 

Further, Anton & Chia’s workpapers do not mention that ASC 805 and 

ASC 820 are the accounting standards that applied to the PhytoSphere 

acquisition. See Exs. 3, 747. Not identifying the accounting standards that 

applied was a planning failure that hindered the engagement team from 

making adequate inquires of management and performing appropriate 

analytical procedures. AU § 722.11 (“In planning a review of interim financial 

information, the accountant should ... identify particular events, transactions, 

or assertions to which ... inquiries may be directed or analytical procedures 

applied.”).

By not communicating with the predecessor auditor, assigning 

inexperienced staff, not providing sufficient guidance and supervision, and not 

giving his staff enough time to complete a thorough review, Wahl failed to 

adequately plan and supervise the first quarter interim review. These failures 

also violate the requirement that due professional care be exercised in the 

performance of work. AU §§ 150.02, 722.01; see AU § 230.02 (“This standard 

requires the independent auditor to plan and perform his or her work with due 

professional care.”); AU § 230.06 (“The engagement partner is responsible for 

the assignment of tasks to, and supervision of, the members of the engagement 

team.”). 

5.6.2. Failure to make adequate inquiries of management about the 

valuation of PhytoSphere

An auditor conducting an interim review is not responsible for “expressing 

an opinion about whether the financial statements are presented fairly, in all 

material respects, in conformity with” GAAP. AU § 722.07. The auditor’s 

objective is to understand whether GAAP requires any material modifications 

to the interim financial statements. Id. A key requirement for completing this 

objective is making adequate inquiries of management to understand the 

client’s business and financial statements. AU §§ 722.12, .15. In particular, the 

accountant should identify and inquire about any “items that appear to be 

unusual and that may indicate a material misstatement.” AU § 722.16.

The most significant item for CannaVEST was the PhytoSphere 

transaction. The engagement team noted the acquisition in the review 
83

planning memoranda, which stated that Anton & Chia “will make inquiries of 

management to ensure that provided financials are properly presented.” Ex. 

740 at 2; Ex. 808 at 2. But there is no evidence that this happened.26 Wahl and 

his team failed to make adequate inquiries of CannaVEST’s management 

about the PhytoSphere transaction.

Under ASC 805, the accounting for the acquisition should have reflected

the fair value of the consideration paid and fair value of the assets acquired. 

Wahl’s team failed, however, to adequately investigate what those fair values 

were. They simply accepted that the $35 million purchase price in the sale 

agreement was the actual value of PhytoSphere. When Shek asked what to do 

about the stock price collar in the agreement, Wahl told him it was the only 

thing to go by. Even basic inquiries of management would have revealed many

red flags showing that the acquisition was not an orderly transaction between 

market participants and thus “little, if any, weight” should have been placed

on the purchase price. ASC 820-10-35-54J; see Ex. 779 at 4–5; Tr. 1531. On top 

of that, an adequate investigation would have revealed that CannaVEST’s 

stock, which was thinly traded—in CannaVEST’s own words, “nonmarketable” (Ex. 779 at 4)—was not a reliable indicator of the consideration 

paid. CannaVEST later admitted that the stock price collar was not a reflection 

of the fair value of CannaVEST stock and the $35 million was not a figure 

management believed to be the fair value of the assets acquired. Ex. 779 at 2.

Wahl accepted the allocation of assets provided by Wilson, even though 

Wilson did not have documentation to back up the allocation. The sale 

agreement was not specific and CannaVEST did not have a detailed schedule 

of the allocation. Ex. 761 at 1–3 (PDF). Almost half of the assets allocated, $17 

million, were in a catch-all “other agreements” category assigned just to make 

the numbers add up. Wahl and his team did not find out whether Wilson had 

experience applying ASC 805 or ASC 820. He did not. Wahl, though, assumed 

that the financials Wilson prepared—and Anton & Chia adopted—followed 

GAAP. They did not.

Wahl argues that, in an interim review, management is responsible for 

preparing the financial statements and presenting them fairly. Wahl PFOF at 

151 (PDF); Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 48–49. This is correct. See AU § 722.07, .09. 

In addition, the reviewing accountant “ordinarily is not required to corroborate 

management’s responses with other evidence.” AU § 722.17. The accountant 

should, however, “consider the reasonableness and consistency of 

management’s responses in light of the results of other review procedures and 

 

26 If such inquiries were made, they were not documented, a violation of AU 

§ 722.52.
84

the accountant’s knowledge of the entity’s business and its internal control.” 

Id. Wahl’s team was aware of CannaVEST’s weakness over its internal 

financial controls, which was disclosed in its 2012 annual report and each of 

the three quarterly reports Anton & Chia reviewed. See Ex. 784 at 2 (first 

quarter interim review checklist). Despite these repeated disclosures, Anton & 

Chia never noted this weakness on any of the planning memoranda. Exs. 740, 

787, 808; see AU § 722.52 (review documentation should include any 

significant findings or issues). There is no evidence that the engagement team 

considered this risk when it accepted the financials management provided or 

made the inquiries the planning memoranda said it would. Given the risk of 

weak financial controls and the many red flags about the unreliability of the 

purported fair value of the PhytoSphere acquisition, Wahl should not have 

accepted the financials provided by management without question. AU 

§§ 722.11, .12, .15, .16. 

5.6.3. Failure to compare the first and second quarter balance sheets

Among the analytical procedures and related inquires to be performed in 

an interim review, the accountant should compare the quarterly interim 

financial information “with comparable information for the immediately 

preceding interim period.” AU § 722.16. In the second quarter, Anton & Chia 

failed to compare the second quarter data with the first quarter. Tr. 2850–51. 

CannaVEST altered the allocation of assets between its first quarter and 

second quarter reports, but no explanation was given in the reports or in Anton 

& Chia’s workpapers. The engagement team’s failure to perform this analytical 

step was a missed opportunity to identify these changes, which represented 

another red flag for the material misstatement of the PhytoSphere assets. See 

AU § 722.16; see also AU § 722.51–52 (discussing the need to prepare adequate 

documentation).

5.6.4. Failure to conduct an adequate engagement quality review

Chung violated AS No. 7 because she was not qualified to serve as EQR 

and she failed to adequately evaluate the significant judgments of the 

engagement team. 

An engagement quality review and concurring approval of issuance by the 

EQR is required for a review of interim financial information. AS No. 7.1. The 

purpose of an engagement quality review is to evaluate the “significant 

judgments” and overall conclusion of the engagement team. AS No. 7.2. For 

that reason, an EQR must be “a partner or another individual in an equivalent 
85

position.” AS No. 7.3. The EQR has to have “competence, independence,27

integrity, and objectivity.” AS No. 7.4. To be competent, an EQR “must possess 

the level of knowledge and competence related to accounting, auditing, and 

financial reporting required to serve as the engagement partner on the 

engagement under review.” AS No. 7.5. 

Competency to serve as an engagement partner can be gained in various

ways. Usually, competency is obtained through recent experience with 

accounting or auditing engagements, but industry, governmental, or academic 

experience may also be relevant in some cases. See PCAOB Quality Control 

Standards (QC) § 40.05 (describing how a CPA firm can implement a system 

of quality control to insure a practitioner-in-charge is sufficiently competent); 

AS No. 7.5 n.3 (referencing QC 40 as an applicable standard for EQR 

competency). Continuing professional education, consulting experience, or 

“rigorous self-study” may also supplement experience. QC § 40.05. The “nature 

and extent” of the competencies required “should be based on the 

characteristics of a particular client, industry, and the kind of service being 

provided.” QC § 40.07.

Chung lacked the experience necessary to be a competent EQR for the 

CannaVEST review. Chung had no experience as an engagement partner or 

audit manager. Her only auditing experience before coming to Anton & Chia 

was in low-level staff accountant positions, and that experience was five years 

before the CannaVEST engagement. At Anton & Chia, she mostly worked on 

administrative matters and had little contact with the auditing staff. Chung 

was unable to say whether she would have been comfortable serving as the 

engagement partner on the CannaVEST engagement. Ex. 839.6 at 452 (PDF). 

She also lacked experience based on the specific characteristics of CannaVEST, 

which had just completed a significant business combination. Chung was not 

familiar with ASC 820 and could not recall having applied ASC 805 before 

working on CannaVEST. Id. at 355, 357 (PDF).

Chung served as EQR because the only partner at Anton & Chia other 

than Wahl and Chung recently left the firm. She was EQR only for the first 

quarter review of CannaVEST and one other engagement. Once another 

 

27 An EQR must be “independent of the company” being reviewed. AS No. 

7.6. Chung was married to Wahl, but the PCAOB and Commission have no 

requirement that the EQR be independent of the engagement team as long as 

the EQR maintains objectivity and does not “assume any of the responsibilities 

of the engagement team.” AS No. 7.7; see 17 C.F.R. § 210.2-01(b) (setting forth 

requirements for the Commission to recognize an accountant as independent 

with respect to an audit client). The OIP does not allege that Chung failed to 

maintain independence or objectivity.
86

partner joined Anton & Chia, she stopped performing engagement quality 

reviews.

Chung’s review lacked the required rigor. For an interim review, an EQR 

is supposed to “evaluate the significant judgments ... and the related 

conclusions” of the engagement team. AS No. 7.14. To do this, the EQR should 

“(1) hold discussions with the engagement partner and other members of the 

engagement team, and (2) review documentation.” Id. 

Chung did not interact with La or Shek about the first quarter review. Tr. 

2433, 2845. Shek found it odd that she did not ask him any questions, as he 

“would expect at least some basic questions about the transaction” from the 

EQR. Tr. 2434. Chung could not recall speaking with Wahl or the other 

engagement team members about the engagement, although she said she 

would have discussed things if she had any concerns. Ex. 839.6 at 372, 416, 

465 (PDF). But she could not recall having any questions or concerns about the 

PhytoSphere transaction. Id. at 416–17.

Chung also detected none of the problems with the documentation of the 

first quarter review. In the engagement quality review section of the interim 

review approval form, Chung marked “none is necessary” to “whether 

appropriate consultations have taken place on difficult or contentious matters, 

or significant unusual transactions.” Ex. 745 at 4. By contrast, the interim 

review inquiries checklist was marked “yes” for there being “any unusual or 

complex situations or significant unusual transactions that may have an effect 

on the financial statements.” Ex. 784 at 1. Wahl and Shek both believed the 

PhytoSphere acquisition was a significant transaction. Ex. 839.6 at 231 (PDF); 

Tr. 2427. Had Chung adequately reviewed the documentation or discussed the 

matter with the engagement team, she would not have thought that no 

consultations or analysis of the transaction was necessary. See AS No. 7.10h, 

.15f. Finally, by providing her concurring approval of issuance without the 

required competency and by failing to adequately review the significant 

judgments of the engagement team, Chung failed to act with due professional 

care. See AS No. 7.17; AU § 230. 

5.6.5. Failure to recommend restatement of the first and second 

quarter financial statements

Anton & Chia recommended that CannaVEST take a $27 million 

impairment to goodwill in the third quarter, but it did not recommend 

restating first and second quarter financial results. The Division argues that 

Wahl violated AU § 722 by not considering whether a restatement was 

necessary. Div. Post-hr’g Br. at 19; OIP at 35; see AU § 722.26 (if a 

misstatement is identified, the accountant should evaluate “whether material 
87

modification should be made to the interim financial information for it to 

conform with generally accepted accounting principles,” which includes 

consideration of “whether the misstatements originated in the preceding year 

or interim periods of the current year”). 

Wahl argues that it would have been inappropriate to restate the prior 

quarters’ financials based on Vantage Point’s draft report. Wahl PFOF at 221 

(PDF); see Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 50–51. The final Vantage Point report was not 

completed until five days after CannaVEST filed its third quarter report and 

Anton & Chia resigned as CannaVEST’s auditor. Nonetheless, if Anton & Chia 

could recommend a write down of goodwill based on the draft report, the report 

should have also served as notice that goodwill was misstated in the prior two 

quarters. Wahl also argues that CannaVEST missing revenue targets was the 

“initial trigger” for impairment of goodwill, Wahl PFOF at 221 (PDF); Wahl 

Post-hr’g Br. at 52, but as noted, this argument is not supported by the 

evidence. The draft report on valuation is what prompted the impairment, see 

Exs. 752, 753, 763; Tr. 2691, and based on it, Wahl knew that PhytoSphere 

was not worth $35 million in the first or second quarter. Ex. 753 at 2 (PDF). 

As such, Wahl should have recommended restatement.28 Even so, taking note 

of the lower standard generally applicable to interim reviews compared to 

audit engagements, AU § 722.07, and given the fact that Anton & Chia 

resigned on the day the third quarter report was filed, the failure to 

recommend restatement is of lesser import than Wahl’s other missteps that led 

to the misstatements in the first and second quarters to begin with.

6. Other federal litigation

In addition to the claims in the OIP, the Commission has also pursued in 

federal court claims against other entities and persons related to the audits at 

issue in this proceeding. In September 2017, the Commission charged Accelera, 

its founder and board chairman Geoffrey J. Thompson, its CEO John Wallin, 

and another company named Synergistic Holdings, LLC, with violating or 

aiding and abetting violations of antifraud, reporting, registration, and 

certification provisions of the federal securities laws due to the inappropriate 

consolidation of Behavioral, among other reasons. SEC v. Accelera Innovations, 

Inc., No. 1:17-cv-7052 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2017), ECF No. 1; SEC v. Wallin, 

 

28 Wahl’s argument that he did not recommend restatement in part because 

CannaVEST management did not want to restate lacks support. See Wahl 

Post-hr’g Br. at 51. To the contrary, CannaVEST would have restated if Anton 

& Chia had insisted, Tr. 2650, and it did restate when PKF recommended it. 

Regardless, an auditor’s responsibility to follow PCAOB standards is not 

dependent on whether or not the client wants to comply.
88

No. 1:17-cv-7057 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2017), ECF No. 1. The defendants settled 

and were enjoined from further violations of those provisions; Synergistic and 

Thompson agreed to disgorge the stock sale proceeds; Thompson and Wallin 

agreed to pay a civil money penalty; and Wallin was prohibited from serving 

as an officer or director of a public company. Wallin, No. 1:17-cv-7057 (N.D. Ill. 

Feb. 26, 2019), ECF No. 42; Accelera, No. 1:17-cv-7052 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2020), 

ECF Nos. 48, 49, 50. 

In December 2017, the Commission brought charges against Premier, its 

CEO Randall Letcavage, and consultant Joseph Greenblatt, alleging that their 

baseless valuation of the Note and irregularities in accounting for the TPC 

acquisition, among other things, violated the antifraud, reporting, internal 

controls, and certification provisions of the securities laws. SEC v. Premier 

Holding Corp., No. 1:17-cv-9485 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2017), ECF No. 1. After the 

case was transferred to another district court, that court granted summary 

judgment against the defendants, finding that Premier and Letcavage 

committed antifraud violations, Greenblatt aided and abetted Premier’s 

antifraud and reporting violations, and that Greenblatt also violated the 

internal accounting controls provisions. Premier, No. 8:18-cv-813 (C.D. Cal. 

Dec. 10, 2019 & Nov. 30, 2020), ECF Nos. 146, 208. Premier and Letcavage 

were enjoined from further violations of the antifraud and other provisions of 

the securities laws, were ordered to disgorge profits jointly and severally, and 

each were ordered to pay a civil penalty. Premier, No. 8:18-cv-813 (C.D. Cal. 

Jan. 20, 2021), ECF Nos. 220, 221.29

In June 2017, the Commission charged CannaVEST and its CEO, Michael 

Mona, with violating the antifraud, reporting, bookkeeping, internal controls, 

certification, and other provisions of the federal securities laws by overstating 

the value of the assets acquired in the PhytoSphere transaction. SEC v. 

CannaVEST Corp., No. 2:17-cv-1681 (D. Nev. June 15, 2017), ECF No. 1. The 

parties settled the allegations in 2018; CannaVEST and Mona were enjoined 

and ordered to pay a civil money penalty. CannaVEST, No. 2:17-cv-1681 (D. 

Nev. June 1, 2018), ECF Nos. 37, 38.

 

29 A final judgment has not yet been entered as to Greenblatt.
89

Conclusions of Law

1. Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b),30 it is unlawful for any person—by 

use of interstate means or the mails—to “make any untrue statement of a 

material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the 

statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were 

made, not misleading ... in connection with the purchase or sale of any 

security.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b); see 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (authorizing the 

Commission to adopt rules prohibiting manipulative and deceptive conduct).

“[A]n accounting firm acts ‘in connection with’ securities trading when it 

produces an audit report that it knows its client will include in a Form 10–K.” 

McGann v. Ernst & Young, 102 F.3d 390, 397 (9th Cir. 1996). Further, the 

interstate commerce requirement is satisfied when misstatements appear in 

filings made on EDGAR, a system maintained by the Commission for the 

electronic filing of documents. See SEC v. Straub, No. 11-cv-9645, 2016 WL 

5793398, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2016); McConville, 2005 WL 1560276, at 

*10.

An auditor’s letter expressing an opinion as to compliance with GAAP and 

PCAOB standards can be found to contain fraudulent misstatements “(1) if the 

auditor does not actually hold the stated opinion; (2) if the opinion contains an 

embedded statement of fact that is [untrue or] misleading; or (3) if the opinion 

omits a fact that makes the opinion misleading to [a reasonable] investor.” In 

re Am. Realty Capital Props., Inc. Litig., No. 15-cv-307, 2019 WL 2082508, at 

*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2019); see Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council 

Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175, 184–89 (2015); Tongue v. Sanofi, 

816 F.3d 199, 209–10 (2d Cir. 2016) (explaining that under Omnicare, an 

opinion in a Commission filing could be actionable if it does not “rest on some 

meaningful inquiry” into facts in the opinion maker’s possession but instead 

reflects “baseless, off-the-cuff judgments”); In re Valeant Pharm. Int’l, Inc. Sec. 

Litig., No. 15-cv-7658, 2017 WL 1658822, at *14 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2017).31

 

30 Because the scope of Rule 10b-5 is coextensive with the coverage of Section 

10(b), SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 816 n.1 (2002), a reference to either 

covers both.

31 Some courts have suggested that an auditor’s statement in an audit 

opinion letter is more fact than opinion to begin with and that analysis under 

Omnicare is unnecessary, but the matter remains unsettled. Compare Querub 

v. Moore Stephens Hong Kong, 649 F. App’x 55, 58 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Audit 
90

A misstatement or omission is material if there is a substantial likelihood 

that a reasonable investor would view “disclosure of the omitted fact ... as 

having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available.” 

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27, 38 (2011) (quoting Basic 

Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 231–32 (1988)). A corollary is that material 

statements create a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investo r would 

deem the statement important when making an investment decision. Basic, 

485 U.S. at 231–32.

Liability requires a showing of scienter, “a mental state embracing [an] 

intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 686 

n.5, 691, 695 (1980) (quoting Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 194 

n.12 (1976)). In certain cases, a respondent’s recklessness satisfies the scienter 

requirement. See Ottmann v. Hanger Orthopedic Grp., Inc., 353 F.3d 338, 343–

44 (4th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). For “recklessness on the part of a nonfiduciary accountant” to satisfy scienter, “such recklessness must be conduct 

that is ‘highly unreasonable’, representing ‘an extreme departure from the 

standards of ordinary care.’ It must, in fact, approximate an actual intent to 

aid in the fraud being perpetrated by the audited company.” Rothman v. 

Gregor, 220 F.3d 81, 98 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, 

Ltd., 681 F.2d 111, 120–21 (2d Cir. 1982)). Scienter is thus established when 

an auditor acts with an “egregious refusal to see the obvious, or to investigate 

the doubtful, or that the accounting judgments which were made were such 

that no reasonable accountant would have made the same decisions if 

confronted with the same facts.” N.M. State Inv. Counsel v. Ernst & Young 

LLP, 641 F.3d 1089, 1097–98 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Software Toolworks 

Inc., 50 F.3d 615, 628 (9th Cir. 1994)). “While a violation of GAAP, standing 

alone, is not sufficient, allegations of recklessness have been sufficient where 

defendants ‘failed to review or check information that they had a duty to 

 

reports, labeled ‘opinions’ and involving considerable subjective judgment, are 

statements of opinion subject to the Omnicare standard ... .”), and Se. Penn. 

Transp. Auth. v. Orrstown Fin. Servs., No. 12-cv-993, 2015 WL 3833849, at 

*33–34 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2015) (applying Omnicare to a defendant’s

“representation that its audit reports were presented in conformity with 

GAAP”), with Miller Inv. Tr. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 308 F. Supp. 3d 411, 

430 (D. Mass. 2018) (“In the wake of Omnicare, I have come to agree ... that 

statements by auditors of their own compliance with the PCAOB standards or 

GAAS are statements of fact.”), and In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662, 

2016 WL 1533553, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2016) (“[A]n auditor’s ‘opinion’ is a 

term of art, the meaning of which may not be entirely synonymous with the 

more everyday use of the word discussed in Omnicare ... .”).
91

monitor, or ignored obvious signs of fraud.’” Id. (quoting Novak v. Kasaks, 216 

F.3d 300, 308 (2d Cir. 2000)). Similarly, with regard to violations of PCAOB 

standards, “the more likely an auditor would have discovered the truth if a 

reasonable audit had been conducted, the stronger the scienter inference.” Id.; 

see McLean v. Alexander, 599 F.2d 1190, 1198 (3d Cir. 1979) (“Circumstantial 

evidence may often be the principal, if not the only, means of proving bad faith. 

A showing of shoddy accounting practices amounting at best to a pretended 

audit, or of grounds supporting a representation so flimsy as to lead to the 

conclusion that there was no genuine belief back of it have traditionally 

supported a finding of liability in the face of repeated assertions of good faith, 

and continue to do so.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).32

1.1. Deutchman aided and abetted Anton & Chia’s antifraud violations in 

his role in the 2014 Accelera audit.

Deutchman is charged under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 with aiding and 

abetting Anton & Chia’s fraud related to its 2014 audit report for Accelera.

To establish an aiding and abetting violation, it must be shown that (1) a

primary violation of the securities laws was committed; (2) the alleged aider 

and abettor provided substantial assistance to the primary violator; and (3) the 

alleged aider and abettor provided such assistance with the necessary scienter, 

i.e., he or she rendered such assistance knowingly or recklessly. Graham v. 

SEC, 222 F.3d 994, 1000 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see Russo Sec. Inc., Exchange Act 

Release No. 39181, 1997 WL 603786, at *4 & n.16 (Oct. 1, 1997).

Anton & Chia committed primary violations because its audit report 

claiming GAAP and PCAOB standard compliance was misstated on two fronts: 

the consolidation of Accelera and Behavioral did not comply with GAAP, and 

the auditing team violated PCAOB standards. At the very least, these opinions 

were misleading due to omitted facts about Anton & Chia’s systematically 

deficient audit procedures and underlying falsehoods in the financial 

statements. See Omnicare, 575 U.S. at 185–89; Tongue, 816 F.3d at 209–10; 

Petrobras, 2016 WL 1533553, at *4 (audit opinions must necessarily rely on 

embedded facts in the underlying financial statements or else “would be of no 

use to anyone”).

 

32 Courts have rejected Wahl’s assertion that the Commission must also

prove “loss causation,” “injury,” “reliance,” or follow the heightened pleading 

requirements applicable to private securities actions. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 30–

31; see Gebhart v. SEC, 595 F.3d 1034, 1040 n.8 (9th Cir. 2010); SEC v. Rana 

Research, Inc., 8 F.3d 1358, 1363–64 (9th Cir. 1993); SEC v. ICN Pharm., Inc., 

84 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
92

These misstatements were material. Behavioral’s improper consolidation 

modified Accelera’s revenues in 2014 by 90% and millions of dollars. See Ponce, 

2000 WL 1232986, at *9 (“AAC’s overstatement of its assets, which for fiscal 

years 1988–91 ranged from 88 to 95%, coupled with the fact that AAC’s 

treatment did not, contrary to Ponce’s representation, comply with GAAP, 

would have been material to a reasonable investor.”). Of note, the engagement 

team had determined in the planning memo for the 2014 audit that the 

materiality threshold was $41,000. Ex. 171 at 2. Further, the fact that Anton 

& Chia failed to adhere to PCAOB standards and disregarded numerous red 

flags—such as concerns raised by Freeman, Accelera’s CFO, about 

consolidation—was something a reasonable investor would surely have wanted 

to know because it directly contributed to the 90% revenue misstatement.33

Anton & Chia’s scienter can be inferred from Deutchman’s own scienter. 

In re Omnicare, Inc. Sec. Litig., 769 F.3d 455, 476 (6th Cir. 2014) (holding that 

the scienter of a corporate agent who reviewed or approved a misstatement 

before its issuance can be attributed to the corporation); see Bernerd E. Young, 

Securities Act Release No. 10060, 2016 WL 1168564, at *19 n.81 (Mar. 24, 

2016), pet. dismissed, 956 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Thus, I turn to the second 

and third elements of the aiding and abetting test: whether Deutchman 

provided substantial assistance toward Anton & Chia’s fraud, and whether he 

acted recklessly or knowingly.

In his role as EQR for the 2014 audit, Deutchman was responsible for 

evaluating significant judgments made by the engagement team and the 

conclusions they reached. AS No. 7.9. An audit report may only be used by the 

client once the EQR provides concurring approval. AS No. 7.13. By performing 

a markedly inadequate review in dereliction of key duties, Deutchman 

substantially assisted Anton & Chia’s fraud. See vFinance Invs., Inc., 

Exchange Act Release No. 62448, 2010 WL 2674858, at *13 (July 2, 2010)

(substantial assistance is satisfied by a respondent’s failure to act where he 

“has a clear duty to act and the failure to act itself constitutes the underlying 

primary violation”); see also Armstrong v. McAlpin, 699 F.2d 79, 91 (2d Cir. 

1983) (recognizing that even inaction may be treated as substantial assistance 

when “it was in conscious and reckless violation of a duty to act”); SEC v. 

KPMG, 412 F. Supp. 2d 349, 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (explaining that a concurring 

 

33 Wahl argues that the larger adjustments Anton & Chia proposed to other 

portions of Accelera’s financial statements render the Behavioral transaction 

immaterial by comparison. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 27–28. This argument fails. 

Even if Anton & Chia and Deutchman proposed larger adjustments, and even 

if the Behavioral transaction was not the most significant issue in the audit, it 

was still material.
93

review partner could incur aiding and abetting liability). Moreover, 

Deutchman performed extra duties that were more appropriate for an 

engagement partner, compounding his assistance in the fraud. See AS No. 7.7 

(“To maintain objectivity, the engagement quality reviewer and others who 

assist the reviewer should not make decisions on behalf of the engagement 

team or assume any of the responsibilities of the engagement team.”).

Deutchman also demonstrated scienter. Freeman told Deutchman on 

multiple occasions to revisit consolidation, but he never did. Instead, he just 

ignored Freeman. Further, he never documented Freeman’s concerns or shared 

them with the engagement team. Deutchman does not seem to have reviewed 

the stock purchase agreements or Chen’s memo in any meaningful way; if he 

had, he would have realized that control never transferred because the 

purchase price was never paid. If Deutchman had spoken with Wolfrum, he 

could have learned that Accelera never controlled Behavioral. Deutchman’s 

failure to perform a single audit procedure in response to Freeman’s warnings 

was “an egregious refusal to see the obvious, or to investigate the doubtful.” 

Ernst & Young, 641 F.3d at 1097–98; see Russell G. Davy, Accounting and 

Auditing Enforcement Act Release No. 53, 1985 WL 660828, at *3–4 (Apr. 15, 

1985) (finding that an auditor committed fraud by certifying financial 

statements stating that the company owned certain properties when in fact the 

transaction had not been consummated and the auditor “simply ignored 

information that he received both before and after his audit which clearly 

should have put him on notice that [the company’s] financial statements 

contained materially false information”); Reiger v. Price Waterhouse Coopers 

LLP, 117 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1012 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (noting that district courts 

had found sufficient evidence of scienter when there were “warning signs” that 

“more closely resembled ‘smoking guns’ than ‘red flags,’” such as “specific facts 

suggesting the independent accountant consciously entertained doubts about 

the veracity of its client’s financial disclosures, either from a client or third 

party informing the accountant of the client’s fraud, or from contemporaneous 

statements made by the accountant”), aff’d sub nom. DSAM Glob. Value Fund 

v. Altris Software, Inc., 288 F.3d 385 (9th Cir. 2002).

While it is true, as Deutchman argues, that the prior engagement team 

determined to consolidate a year before he started working on the audit, 

Deutchman Post-hr’g Br. at 5, Deutchman still had the responsibility to revisit 

the issue when confronted with red flags such as Freeman’s additional 

information. And although Deutchman and Wahl had no confidence in 

Freeman’s abilities, having made many adjustments to his financial 

statements, this too did not absolve Deutchman of an obligation to investigate 

the doubtful when Freeman raised a well-substantiated concern.
94

Deutchman argues that it was Freeman’s obligation to prepare a memo 

explaining why consolidation was inappropriate. See Tr. 707–08, 719, 892. 

Even if this were true, Deutchman declined to provide Freeman with any 

information that might have helped him. At the hearing and in his brief, 

Deutchman cites concerns about auditor independence to explain his refusal to 

provide information. Deutchman Post-hr’g Br. at 7, 8–9 (noting testimony at 

the hearing that Anton & Chia “was concerned with losing its independence as 

independent auditors were they to provide legal/auditing advice to Accelera” and 

FASB guidance stating that “responsibility for the choices and judgments 

inherent in the preparation of ... financial statements cannot be delegated to the

auditor or to anyone else”); Tr. 938–44. But those concerns do not support the

notion that he should have avoided and ignored the issue. According to 

Commission guidance, it does not impugn Anton & Chia’s independence to 

consult with management; Deutchman just needed to use good judgment when 

doing so. See Div. of Corp. Fin., Office of the Chief Accountant, “Staff Statement

on Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting” (May 

16, 2005), https://www.sec.gov/info/accountants/stafficreporting.htm (“[T]he 

auditor’s discussing and exchanging views with management does not in itself 

violate the independence principles,” but “a hallmark of [an auditor’s]

professionalism is to exercise sound judgment in both the audit and in ongoing 

dialogue with management. ... Investors benefit when auditors and 

management engage in dialogue, including regarding new accounting 

standards and the appropriate accounting treatment for complex or unusual 

transactions.”).

Deutchman further maintains that he fulfilled his responsibility to 

investors by impairing all of Accelera’s goodwill from Behavioral in 2014. In 

his opinion, the goodwill impairment made Accelera look significantly worse 

from a financial perspective (Accelera retained all of Behavioral’s debt and its 

contractual obligations under the stock purchase agreement but none of the 

benefits), which warned investors that the company was a bad investment. 

Deutchman Post-hr’g Br. at 10, 19; Tr. 703–04, 911. But the companies should 

never have been consolidated. Making a company’s financials look materially 

worse than they should be by increasing debt or obligations does not negate 

scienter. Cf. S.W. Hatfield, C.P.A., Exchange Act Release No. 69930, 2013 WL 

3339647, at *24 & n.148 (July 3, 2013) (finding unpersuasive applicant 

auditors’ claim that a scienter finding was unjustified because, as the auditors 

argued, they “required [the client] to increase the reserve for bad debt 

exposure, and then to concurrently write off, and recognize, the portion of 

accounts receivable that were never to be collected”; “[a]pplicants were not 

freed from the many auditing requirements they inexcusably ignored simply 

because [the client] increased its reserve for bad debt”). Accelera’s financials 
95

were still materially misstated, depriving investors of access to accurate 

financial information.34

Deutchman claims that the question of consolidation was a “complex 

problem,” Deutchman Post-hr’g Br. at 19, and since “auditors are not lawyers,”

he should not be held liable for securities fraud for adhering to a good faith but 

ultimately incorrect legal analysis. Id. at 20 (quoting Coastal States Gas Corp. 

v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 860 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). But this is not a case 

where the auditors needed to “apply extraordinarily complicated regulations.” 

Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 860 n.8. The stock purchase agreement and its 

attendant documents were quite clear: the companies were to merge only once 

Accelera had paid for Behavioral’s stock. That never occurred. Deutchman’s 

explanations are post-hoc justifications; there is no documentation in the 

workpapers that he did anything to evaluate Behavioral’s consolidation. See 

Dearlove, 2008 WL 281105, at *10 n.39 (“We consider the absence of work 

papers to be evidence that the audit team did not devote substantial, if any, 

effort to review the areas in question.”). Indeed, in his sworn investigative 

testimony, Deutchman had no recollection that he reviewed the key 

documents. Tr. 1062. Faced with red flags warning that consolidation was 

inappropriate, Deutchman simply did nothing to satisfy his duties as an 

auditor in this circumstance.35

 

34 Moreover, the very fact that Deutchman proposed impairing all of the 

goodwill from the purchase price was a red flag that should have made him 

reconsider whether consolidation was appropriate in the first place.

35 In an attempt to deflect blame, Deutchman generally points to 

management’s ultimate responsibility over the content of its financial 

statements. See Deutchman Post-hr’g Br. at 6–9, 15; AU § 110.03 (“The 

financial statements are management’s responsibility.”). But regardless, 

Anton & Chia as auditor had the responsibility to audit the financial 

statements and perform certain duties in connection with the audit. See, e.g., 

AU § 110.03 (“The auditor’s responsibility is to express an opinion on the 

financial statements”); and the numerous standards cited in this decision, 

supra. The arguments that Deutchman (and at times Wahl, see, e.g., Wahl 

Post-hr’g Br. at 30–31) make about management’s responsibility do not absolve 

Respondents who had their own independent duties that they failed to fulfill.
96

1.2. Wahl violated antifraud provisions and aided and abetted Anton & 

Chia’s violations in his role as engagement partner in the 2013 Premier 

audit.

Wahl is charged under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 with 

fraud for his role in the 2013 audit of Premier and of aiding and abetting Anton 

& Chia’s fraud.

To be liable as a primary violator under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, one 

must have “made” the misstatement in question, or in other words, be “the 

person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its 

content and whether and how to communicate it.” Janus Capital Grp. v. First 

Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, 141–42 (2011). The auditors who prepare an 

audit report possess the authority over that report, including its content and 

whether it is issued to the client. See S.W. Hatfield, CPA, Exchange Act Release 

No. 73763, 2014 WL 6850921, at *6 (Dec. 5, 2014). Ultimate authority over the 

content of an audit report may be shown if an individual was the audit 

engagement partner whose sign-off was required to issue the opinion. See 

KPMG, 412 F. Supp. 2d at 375–76. Wahl, the engagement partner, possessed 

ultimate authority over the audit opinion and report Anton & Chia issued for 

Premier’s 2013 Form 10-K, and in fact signed off on it. Ex. 419 at 6 (PDF); Ex. 

840 ¶ 42; Tr. 764 (an engagement partner takes “responsibility for the job”), 

2223 (Wahl, as the engagement partner for Premier, would have been “the first 

partner to sign off in the audit report”). He was also a 90% owner of the firm. 

Ex. 839.6 at 156 (PDF). For these reasons, he can be held directly liable for any 

misstatements in the audit report.36

Further, under the same legal standards set forth above regarding 

Deutchman, Wahl is liable for aiding and abetting Anton & Chia’s antifraud 

violations concerning Premier: Anton & Chia committed a primary violation, 

Wahl provided substantial assistance, and as the principal of Anton & Chia, 

Wahl’s scienter can be imputed to the company. See Graham, 222 F.3d at 1000; 

Young, 2016 WL 1168564, at *19 n.81; vFinance, 2010 WL 2674858, at *13.

Anton & Chia’s 2013 audit report for Premier was misstated. Contrary to

its representations, the audit was not conducted according to PCAOB 

 

36 Wahl contends that no Rule 10b-5 liability has been established because 

he lacked ultimate authority over the contents of Premier’s 2013 Form 10-K. 

Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 25–26. However, the Division’s allegations concern 

misstatements in Anton & Chia’s audit opinion that was included in that 

annual report. See, e.g., OIP at 30; Div. Post-hr’g Reply Br. at 6–7. An 

independent auditor possesses ultimate authority over its own audit opinion 

and report. See Hatfield, 2014 WL 6850921, at *6.
97

standards, and the issuer’s financial statements did not comply with GAAP 

because of the baseless valuation of the Note and the allocation of the entire 

TPC transaction to goodwill. See Omnicare, 575 U.S. at 185–89; Tongue, 816 

F.3d at 209–10; Petrobras, 2016 WL 1533553, at *3–4.

These misstatements were material. Premier reported total assets of 

$6,879,145 as of December 31, 2013, an increase of over $6,000,000 from 

December 31, 2012. Ex. 402 at F-2. Together, the Note and TPC goodwill 

represented 78% of Premier’s reported assets as of that date. Id.

Assuming that the Note was worth nothing, as Doty Scott eventually 

concluded, and not $869,000, the misstatement of the Note’s value inflated

Premier’s balance sheet by nearly 13%. Although Wahl did not receive Doty 

Scott’s zero-dollar valuation report for the Note before the 10-K was issued, the 

$869,000 valuation was still baseless and did not comply with GAAP: it was 

copied from Doty Scott’s draft tables that were not to be used and were missing 

information. Even worse, the valuation represented the draft tables’ fair value 

estimate of the enterprise of a whole, not of the Note. However one looks at it, 

properly determining the fair value of an unsecured promissory note with a $5 

million face value was a material component of Premier’s financial statements, 

particularly since Anton & Chia’s own planning threshold for materiality was 

only $25,000. Ex. 419 at 2. Moreover, the superficiality of the audit procedures 

the firm used to determine the Note’s value, which ensured the misstatement’s 

perpetuation in the 10-K, were in flagrant disregard of PCAOB standards and 

would have been of interest to a reasonable investor.

Premier’s reporting of the entire TPC purchase price of $4,500,000 as 

goodwill, which made up 65% of its assets, was also a material misstatement. 

Premier’s financials reported its goodwill figure as purportedly provisional as 

of year-end without mentioning that, as of the filing date, a purchase price 

allocation had not been timely completed. In any event, because of the actual 

customer contracts from which TPC would benefit, the $4,500,000 should not 

have been assigned entirely to goodwill even as a provisional figure. See SEC 

v. Todd, 642 F.3d 1207, 1221 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Information regarding a 

company’s financial condition is material to investment.”); SEC v. Talbot, 530 

F.3d 1085, 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (courts consider a variety of factors, including 

the magnitude of a transaction to the issuer, when determining materiality); 

Hughes v. Huron Consulting Grp., Inc., 733 F. Supp. 2d 943, 947–48 (N.D. Ill. 

2010) (“disguising” payments as goodwill to make company appear more 

profitable held to be actionable); In re Unicapital Corp. Sec. Litig., 149 F. Supp. 

2d 1353, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (“[T]he prospectus and the registration 

statement overstated Unicapital’s goodwill by approximately 20% and, 

consequently, its total assets by approximately 8%. Such misstatements would 

presumably be important to a reasonable investor.” (footnote omitted)).
98

While it is true that Premier disclosed in the 10-K that the value of the 

goodwill was only provisional, that does not render the misstatement 

immaterial. Premier’s disclaimer about the goodwill was at best a “half-truth.” 

See SEC v. Gabelli, 653 F.3d 49, 57 (2d Cir. 2011) (“The law is well settled ... 

that so-called ‘half-truths’—literally true statements that create a materially 

misleading impression—will support claims for securities fraud.”), rev’d on 

other grounds 568 U.S. 442 (2013). A reasonable investor would have wanted 

to know that the allocation of the majority of Premier’s assets to goodwill did 

not accord with GAAP and that, contrary to PCAOB standards, Anton & Chia 

and Wahl had failed to follow up on red flags which called into question how 

65% of Premier’s assets had been reported. 

Moreover, as a result of Premier’s representations about its goodwill 

accounting, investors could reasonably have believed that Premier assessed its 

goodwill for impairment at least annually and concluded that none of the 

goodwill was impaired as of December 31, 2013. See Ex. 402 at F-8. But the 

goodwill impairment analysis performed by Anton & Chia, which did not 

examine net cash flows, was significantly flawed, and, had it been done 

properly, could have easily made a material difference to Premier’s balance 

sheet given the $25,000 materiality threshold.

Wahl acted with scienter. For the Note transaction, Wahl and Anton & 

Chia ignored the obvious signs that the Doty Scott initial valuation tables were 

incomplete and based on data for the wrong company as of the wrong date. He 

also ignored the concerns raised by his own audit team that they did not 

understand the spreadsheets and could not understand them without a 

valuation report, and he ultimately disposed of the problem by instructing his 

staff to simply make sure the mathematical formulas in the Excel files were 

operating properly. Wahl spent only 30 minutes reviewing and signing off on 

54 workpapers, including the crucial Note valuation workpaper prepared by 

Chen. In his review of the workpaper and the draft tables, Wahl failed to notice

that the $869,000 value Premier had assigned to the Note was actually the 

placeholder for the “Fair Market Value of the Enterprise,” or all of New Eco, 

while $698,377 was the placeholder assigned to the “Fair Value of the 

Promissory Note.” This elementary error would not have occurred if he had 

done anything but the most cursory of reviews.37Further, Wahl’s claim that he 

understood the calculations and found $869,000 supportable based on his own 

analysis of the discount rate was thoroughly refuted by Scott’s testimony. To 

the contrary, it appears that Wahl’s assertion is a post-hoc fabrication and 

 

37 Not that it would have been much better had Wahl used the $698,377 

value assigned to the Note instead—as noted, the tables used draft placeholder 

figures, which is something Wahl should have known.
99

that, in fact, he performed no analysis of the spreadsheet at all; given the 

amount of time he recorded as having spent reviewing the audit on that day, 

he could not have spent more than seconds reviewing the spreadsheet. And 

when Wahl learned during the audit that Anton & Chia had not received a 

report from Doty Scott and could not understand the valuation tables without 

one, Wahl told Wen just to bring the workpaper from the quarterly review 

forward. If those were not warnings enough, Shek, Wahl’s audit manager for 

Premier, refused to sign both workpapers related to the Note’s valuation 

because he did not understand them. That alone underscores the recklessness 

of Wahl’s course of action.

For the TPC acquisition, Wahl recklessly disregarded a significant red flag 

that the one-year deadline for the purchase price allocation had passed, but 

the allocation had not been completed. Yet, rather than engage Premier on the 

issue, Wahl simply ignored it and later rationalized that failure based on

several post-hoc arguments including a muddled interpretation of a different 

annual requirement for goodwill impairment analysis and a claim that 

Premier did not purchase TPC’s customer contracts. It was at least reckless for 

Wahl to disregard the issue of the purchase price allocation given that it was 

something the engagement team specifically flagged in the planning memo. To 

make matters worse, he endorsed Premier’s assignment of the entire value of 

the acquisition to goodwill, even though, from the outset, Premier itself 

reported that the value of the acquisition came from quantifiable contractual 

assets.

Wahl also knew that Premier had not conducted the goodwill impairment 

analysis it professed it had because Anton & Chia had to attempt an analysis

on its own. And Anton & Chia’s goodwill analysis was little better than no 

analysis at all. In concluding, at Wahl’s direction, that there was no 

impairment: (1) the drafter prepared projections for three years into the future

based on only two months of cash inflows, even though Shek understood that 

net cash flows (which would show whether TPC was actually losing money) 

would be more accurate; (2) credited the unsubstantiated growth predictions 

of Premier insiders; and (3) credited an increase in the number of contracts 

without an assessment of which if any of those contracts were profitable. Here, 

as with the Note, Wahl’s gross disregard of the applicable requirements is 

sufficient to establish scienter.

The Division does not dispute, as Wahl notes, that Anton & Chia

suggested several audit adjustments that reduced Premier’s net income by 

over $600,000, and “identified a global material weakness over ... Financial 

Reporting, Operations, Acquisitions, Anti-Fraud programs and Corporate 

Governance.” Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 46; Ex. 432 at 7, 9–11; Ex. 1107; see Div. 

Post-hr’g Reply Br. at 4–5. Those adjustments demonstrate that Anton & Chia
100

conducted creditable work on other aspects of its engagements with Premier 

that are not at issue here. However, providing adjustments of more than half 

a million dollars and identifying overarching material weaknesses in Premier’s 

financial reporting and anti-fraud program do not excuse the violations that 

are at issue. If anything, the firm’s identification of problems should have 

intensified its vigilance, especially with respect to the Note and TPC 

acquisition that Wahl agreed were not routine transactions. See, e.g., AS No. 

15.4–.5; Tr. 5710.

38

Further, contrary to Wahl’s arguments, even if a going concern disclosure 

“is about the most conspicuous ‘red flag’ that an auditor can wave,” Wahl Posthr’g Br. at 45–46 (quoting In re N. Am. Acceptance Corp. Sec. Cases, 513 F. 

Supp. 608, 636 n.15 (N.D. Ga. 1981)); see Drabkin v. Alexander Grant & Co., 

905 F.2d 453, 455–56 (D.C. Cir.1990), it does not shield one from fraud liability 

when the filing in question contains material misstatements. See Barry C. 

Scutillo, Exchange Act Release No. 48238, 2003 WL 21738818, at *8 (July 28, 

2003) (finding scienter and a Section 10(b) violation because “Scutillo had 

neither persuasive evidence nor sufficient competent evidential matter to 

support the CDs’ valuation. His insertion of a going concern qualification in his 

report did not justify that valuation.”). A going concern qualification is a 

forward-looking disclosure about the company’s health, and while it might 

discourage investment in a weak company, it cannot, by its nature, cure a 

material misstatement in a company’s presentation of its past year’s financial 

statements. See, e.g., In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig., 35 F.3d 1407, 1414 

(9th Cir. 1994) (“The bespeaks caution doctrine applies only to precise 

cautionary language which directly addresses itself to future projections, 

estimates or forecasts in a prospectus.” (emphasis added)) (quoting In re 

Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig., 814 F. Supp. 850, 858 (N.D. Cal. 1993)); cf. 

Saltzberg v. TM Sterling/Austin Assocs., Ltd., 45 F.3d 399, 400 (11th Cir. 1995) 

(per curiam) (affirming a summary judgment order finding no material 

misstatement or omission when “[t]he cautionary language ... was no 

 

38 Wahl makes the same argument regarding Anton & Chia’s approximately 

$20 million in adjustments for Accelera made over three years and 

adjustments of nearly $28 million made during the CannaVEST reviews, but 

those arguments fail for the same reasons as the Premier argument fails—they 

do not excuse fraud, violations of professional standards, or other securities 

law violations. See Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 46–47, 53; Ex. 801 at 1–2 

(documenting CannaVEST adjustments).
101

boilerplate and was not buried among too many other things, but was explicit, 

repetitive and linked to the projections about which plaintiffs complain”).39

2. Exchange Act Section 13(a)

Wahl is charged with aiding and abetting and causing Premier’s violation 

of Section 13(a) and its rules, and Wahl and Deutchman are both charged with 

aiding and abetting and causing Accelera’s Section 13(a) violation.

Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 provide, in part, that issuers 

with securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12 must file annual and 

quarterly reports. 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a); 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.13a-1, -13. An issuer’s 

“obligation to file these reports includes an obligation that the filings be 

accurate.” Robert W. Armstrong III, Exchange Act Release No. 51920, 2005 WL 

1498425, at *10 (June 24, 2005) (citing United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 

1285, 1298 (2d Cir. 1991)). An issuer violates these provisions if it files reports 

that contain materially false or misleading information. SEC v. Blackburn, 431 

F. Supp. 3d 774, 815 (E.D. La. 2019); SEC v. Kalvex, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 310, 

315–16 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).

As noted, aiding-and-abetting liability requires a violation, substantial 

assistance by the respondent, and scienter. Graham, 222 F.3d at 1000. Causing 

liability requires “an act or omission by the respondent that was a cause of the 

violation,” and a finding that the individual “knew, or should have known, that 

his conduct would contribute to the violation.” Robert M. Fuller, Securities Act 

Release No. 8273, 2003 WL 22016309, at *4 (Aug. 25, 2003), pet. denied, 95 F. 

App’x 361 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Negligence is sufficient to show 

causing liability if the underlying violation does not require a showing of 

scienter.KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, Exchange Act Release No. 43862, 2001 WL 

47245, at *19 (Jan. 19, 2001), pet. denied, 289 F.3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2002); SEC 

v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 740–41 (2d Cir. 1998) (no showing of scienter is 

required to prove Section 13(a) reporting violations).“One who aids and abets 

a primary violation is necessarily a ‘cause’ of the violation.” Ronald S. 

Bloomfield, Exchange Act Release No. 71632, 2014 WL 768828, at *16 (Feb. 

27, 2014), pet. denied, 649 F. App’x 546 (9th Cir. 2016).

An auditor can be found to have aided and abetted Section 13(a) violations 

if there is a showing of substantial assistance and scienter, or to have caused 

 

39 Nor does the inclusion of a going concern warning demonstrate that the 

auditor applied heightened professional judgment. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 45–

46. Wahl’s serious lapses of professional judgment show quite the opposite in 

fact.
102

the violations as long as the assisting auditor was negligent. Ponce, 2000 WL 

1232986, at *5.40

Premier violated Section 13(a) because of the material inaccuracies in its 

2013 Form 10-K concerning the value of the Note and the goodwill associated 

with the TPC acquisition, as well as by including Anton & Chia’s audit report, 

which falsely indicated that the audit complied with PCAOB standards and 

Premier’s financial statements were presented in accordance with GAAP. 

Wahl, the engagement partner on Anton & Chia’s audit, aided and abetted and 

caused this violation. As explained above, he signed the unqualified audit 

report for Premier’s 10-K despite his recklessly deficient review that failed to 

identify the 10-K’s material deficiencies.

Eight of Accelera’s periodic filings—the 2013 and 2014 10-Ks and all six 

of the 2014 and 2015 10-Qs—were materially inaccurate because they 

improperly consolidated Behavioral’s revenues with Accelera’s. The two 10-Ks 

were additionally misstated because they included Anton & Chia’s inaccurate, 

unqualified audit report claiming GAAP and PCAOB standard compliance. 

Wahl (in all seven Accelera engagements in which he was involved) and 

Deutchman (in the 2014 audit and in the 2014 and 2015 quarterly reviews in 

which he participated) aided and abetted and caused Accelera’s violations by 

authorizing Anton & Chia’s year-end audit reports and signing off on Accelera’s 

quarterly reports after performing recklessly deficient work.

Deutchman’s scienter and assistance is demonstrated above. And Wahl, 

as the engagement partner, also assisted Accelera’s violations in each report 

he reviewed and authorized, as he was reckless in failing to catch the material 

misstatement about Behavioral in Accelera’s filings. See Novak, 216 F.3d at 

308 (“Under certain circumstances, we have found allegations of recklessness 

to be sufficient where plaintiffs alleged facts demonstrating that defendants 

failed to review or check information that they had a duty to monitor, or 

 

40 Wahl argues that he cannot be held liable under Section 13(a) because he 

did not prepare the issuers’ financial statements. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 41. 

However, he did prepare the misleading audit reports at issue and sign off on 

misstated 10-Ks and 10-Qs, which is sufficient to find aiding-and-abetting and 

causing liability for assisting the issuers’ Section 13(a) violations. See Ponce, 

2000 WL 1232986, at *5–6. Wahl argues that Ponce is distinguishable because 

“Ponce prepared the financial statements (i.e. acted like management) [and] 

he then completed audits and review[s] of the numbers he created, which is a 

clear violation of the independence rules.” Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 41. The 

Commission, however, did not consider Ponce’s management-like activities, yet 

still found that Ponce aided, abetted, and caused the issuer’s reporting 

violations. Ponce, 2000 WL 1232986, at *11 n.49.
103

ignored obvious signs of fraud.”). Wahl signed off on Chen’s woefully deficient 

memo that failed to explain how Accelera obtained control of Behavioral or 

when it did so. See Tr. 5086–87 (Wahl testified that “when the engagement 

partner reviews the work paper, he’s taking responsibility for it”). Anything 

more than a hurried, superficial review of the memo should have alerted him 

to the problems with it. Further, the interpretation of the stock purchase 

agreement and its exhibits that Wahl advanced at the hearing is entirely 

unreasonable and evidently a post-hoc rationalization. It is hard to see how 

anyone could read the agreements with the appropriate degree of care and 

conclude that the stock purchase had been consummated. This is no mere 

careless violation of a complicated or esoteric portion of GAAP. Behavioral’s 

consolidation should have presented an obvious question and red flag to any 

but the most disengaged reviewer. That Wahl nonetheless went along with 

Accelera’s consolidation of Behavioral—signing off on it on behalf of the firm 

on multiple occasions—was an egregious refusal to see the obvious or 

investigate the doubtful. See Scutillo, 2003 WL 21738818, at *8–9 (finding a 

reckless and egregious refusal to see the obvious or investigate the doubtful 

when an auditor performed a perfunctory audit of a suspicious transaction that 

accounted for more than half of the company’s assets).

3. Rule 2-02(b) of Regulation S-X 

Regulation S-X Rule 2-02 requires an auditor furnishing audit reports to 

public companies to indicate in those reports the professional standards it 

followed and whether, in the auditor’s opinion, the company’s financial 

statements are consistent with accounting principles. 17 C.F.R. § 210.2-

02(b)(1), (c)(1). Rule 2-02 is violated when an auditor issues a report stating 

that auditing standards were followed when they were not. See KPMG Peat 

Marwick, 2001 WL 47245, at *19.41

Anton & Chia violated Rule 2-02 by issuing two audit reports for Accelera 

and one report for Premier falsely indicating that the audits complied with 

PCAOB standards and recklessly opining that the financial statements 

audited were presented in accordance with GAAP.

42 Wahl and Deutchman are 

 

41 Wahl argues that the rule does not require the auditor to comply with 

GAAP and GAAS, but only to state the professional standards under which the 

audit was conducted. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 39–40. But once the auditor states 

that it complied with a professional standard, the statement needs to be true. 

Anton & Chia’s statements were not.

42 Despite the fact that at the time of Respondents’ alleged misconduct, Rule 

2-02(b)(1) required the auditor to state whether the audit complied with 

“GAAS,” instead of the current language, which refers to “applicable 
104

charged with aiding and abetting and causing Anton & Chia’s violations of this 

rule for their respective involvement (Wahl for all three audit reports, and 

Deutchman for the 2014 Accelera audit report). The Division has met its 

burden to demonstrate Wahl and Deutchman’s liability. As documented above, 

they provided substantial assistance to Anton & Chia’s violation in their 

instrumental roles in making the findings in the audit reports and acting 

recklessly in their conduct of the underlying audits.

4. Exchange Act Section 4C and Rule 102(e)

Under Exchange Act Section 4C and Rule 102(e), the Commission may 

deny accountants the privilege of appearing or practicing before the 

Commission if the accountants engaged in “improper professional conduct” or 

if they willfully committed or aided and abetted federal securities law 

violations. 15 U.S.C. § 78d-3(a)(2)–(3); 17 C.F.R. § 201.102(e)(1)(ii), (iii).43

Wahl, Chung, and Deutchman are charged with engaging in improper 

professional conduct in connection with Anton & Chia’s audits of public 

companies. Additionally, as discussed above, Wahl and Deutchman are 

charged with committing or aiding and abetting violations of the federal 

securities laws.

Improper professional conduct includes intentional, knowing, or reckless 

conduct that leads to violations of applicable professional standards, as well as 

negligent conduct if it is either: (1) a single instance of highly unreasonable 

conduct in a situation where the accountant knows or should know heightened 

scrutiny is warranted and standards are violated; or (2) repeated unreasonable 

conduct leading to violations and demonstrating a lack of sufficient competence 

to practice before the Commission. 15 U.S.C. § 78d-3(b); 17 C.F.R. 

§ 201.102(e)(1)(iv)(A)–(B).44 The applicable professional standards referenced 

 

professional standards,” see Div. Post-hr’g Br. at 37 (noting that Rule 2-02(b) 

requires a statement about GAAS compliance), Commission interpretive 

guidance from 2004 clarified that the reference to GAAS meant the PCAOB 

standards and the Commission’s applicable rules. See Commission Guidance 

on PCAOB Standard No. 1, 69 Fed. Reg. at 29,065.

43 Establishing willfulness does not require an intent to violate the law, but 

simply an intent to perform an act which constitutes a violation. See Wonsover 

v. SEC, 205 F.3d 408, 413–15 (D.C. Cir. 2000); accord Robare Grp. v. SEC, 922 

F.3d 468, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

44 Rule 102(e)(1)(iv) describes improper professional conduct with respect to 

persons licensed as accountants; Section 4C describes improper professional 
105

include GAAP and the PCAOB auditing standards. See Amendment to Rule 

102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 63 Fed. Reg. 57,164, 57,166 (Oct. 

26, 1998); Commission Guidance on PCAOB Standard No. 1, 69 Fed. Reg. at 

29,065.

Recklessness under Rule 102(e) “can be demonstrated simply by evidence 

of ‘an extreme departure from the standard of ordinary care for auditors,’” in 

violating the applicable professional standards, and does not require a showing 

of fraud. Marrie v. SEC, 374 F.3d 1196, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting Michael 

J. Marrie, CPA, Exchange Act Release No. 48246, 2003 WL 21741785, at *7 

(July 29, 2003)). Highly unreasonable conduct is “an intermediate standard, 

higher than ordinary negligence but lower than the traditional definition of 

recklessness used in cases brought under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the 

Exchange Act.” James Thomas McCurdy, CPA, Exchange Act Release No. 

49182, 2004 WL 210606, at *8 (Feb. 4, 2004) (quoting Amendment to Rule 

102(e), 63 Fed. Reg. at 57,167). Repeated instances of unreasonable conduct 

can be shown by applying “an ordinary or simple negligence standard.” 

Amendment to Rule 102(e), 63 Fed. Reg. at 57,169.

Wahl engaged in many instances of professional misconduct in the 

Accelera, Premier, and CannaVEST engagements by failing to follow PCAOB 

standards and ensure GAAP compliance. At times his behavior was reckless, 

at times highly unreasonable, and at the very least, was repeatedly 

unreasonable. Wahl also violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in connection 

with his work on Premier and aided and abetted Anton & Chia’s Section 13(a) 

and Rule 2-02 of Regulation S-X violations in connection with his work on both 

Premier and Accelera. Deutchman also engaged in reckless, highly 

unreasonable, and repeatedly unreasonable professional misconduct during 

his work on Accelera. Deutchman further aided and abetted Anton & Chia’s 

violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, Section 13(a), and Rule 2-02 with 

regards to Accelera. Finally, Chung demonstrated professional misconduct in 

her work as EQR on the first quarter 2013 CannaVEST engagement. She was 

aware of the competency requirements of AS No. 7, yet she acted as EQR 

despite falling well below the standard required. See Ex. 839.6 at 395–96, 452 

(PDF) (in her deposition, Chung indicated that the CannaVEST engagement 

quality review would have been performed according to AS No. 7). Her failure 

to perform or document any audit procedures when reviewing the engagement 

team’s valuation of the Phytosphere acquisition was at the very least an 

 

conduct with respect to any registered public accounting firm or associated 

person.
106

instance of highly unreasonable conduct; in fact, it seems as though Chung 

essentially performed no review at all.

Wahl and Chung argue that their conduct was within the bounds of 

professional judgment, and since Rule 102(e) “does not entail arbitrary 

subjective second-guessing of auditing judgment calls,” Marrie, 374 F.3d at 

1206, they should not be found liable. Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 37. But to the 

contrary, Wahl and Chung abandoned their professional responsibilities. 

Wahl’s review of documents in all three engagements was severely wanting. 

He repeatedly and recklessly ignored PCAOB standards and red flags that 

should have been obvious in the course of a proper review. And, at most, Chung 

performed a perfunctory and wholly insufficient review of the CannaVEST 

report in the first quarter of 2013. There is no evidence that she applied 

deliberative professional judgment in her review process. Instead, she in effect 

rubber stamped the insufficient efforts of the engagement team to let the 

interim review proceed, which was highly unreasonable conduct.

Finally, to the extent that Wahl and Chung argue that they should not be 

sanctioned for the CannaVEST engagement because Anton & Chia did not 

issue an audit report for the 10-Qs and thus were not the makers of any 

statement, they are incorrect. See Wahl Post-hr’g Br. at 47–49. With respect to 

CannaVEST, the Division charged them under Rule 102(e), which does not 

require any material misstatement on the part of Respondents. It is sufficient 

that Wahl and Chung failed to follow professional standards.

Sanctions

The Commission directed that I determine whether: to impose 

disgorgement against Wahl; to impose cease-and-desist orders and civil money 

penalties against Wahl and Deutchman; and to censure Wahl, Deutchman, and 

Chung or deny them, temporarily or permanently, the privilege of appearing 

or practicing before the Commission as accountants. OIP at 42. The Division 

seeks all the preceding sanctions except disgorgement. Respondents oppose 

any sanction.

1. Disgorgement

Although the Division originally sought disgorgement of the funds Wahl 

earned from the engagements, Div. Post-hr’g Br. at 46, it waived its request for 

disgorgement in light of Liu v. SEC, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020). Div. Post-hr’g Reply 

Br. at 1, 24. “Statements by ... staff ... do not necessarily bind th[e] 

Commission,” George Salloum, Exchange Act Release No. 35563, 1995 WL

215268, at *6 n.40 (Apr. 5, 1995), but the Commission typically declines to 

consider positions abandoned by the Division. See, e.g., Larry C. Grossman, 
107

Securities Act Release No. 10473, 2018 WL 1532792, at *2 & n.12 (Mar. 29, 

2018) (respecting the parties’ agreement that disgorgement should not be 

imposed); James S. Tagliaferri, Securities Act Release No. 10308, 2017 WL 

632134, at *2 n.17 (Feb. 15, 2017) (considering a charge from the OIP 

“abandoned” when “the Division declined to pursue that alleged violation in its 

motion for summary disposition”). I therefore decline to impose the sanction.

2. Cease-and-desist order and the public interest

Exchange Act Section 21C authorizes the Commission to issue a ceaseand-desist order against any person found to have violated, or caused a 

violation of, a provision of the act or a rule or regulation promulgated under it. 

See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-3(a). To issue such an order,“there must be some likelihood 

of future violations.” KPMG Peat Marwick, 2001 WL 47245, at *24. But the 

risk of future violations “need not be very great to warrant issuing a cease-anddesist order. Absent evidence to the contrary, a finding of violation raises a 

sufficient risk of future violation.” Id.; see also id. at *26. Here, I have found 

that Wahl and Deutchman violated, or aided and abetted or caused violations 

of, Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 13(a); Rules 10b-5, 13a-1, and 13a-13; and 

Rule 2-02(b) of Regulation S-X.

Additionally, the Commission considers the public-interest factors 

described in Steadman v. SEC, 603 F.2d 1126, 1140 (5th. Cir. 1979), aff’d on 

other grounds, 450 U.S. 91 (1981), when determining whether to issue a ceaseand-desist order. KPMG Peat Marwick, 2001 WL 47245, at *23 & n.114, *26; 

see Timothy S. Dembski, Securities Act Release No. 10326, 2017 WL 1103685, 

at *14 (Mar. 24, 2017), pet. denied, 726 F. App’x 841 (2d Cir. 2018). These 

factors include: (i) the egregiousness of the actions; (ii) the isolated or recurrent 

nature of the infractions; (iii) the degree of scienter involved; (iv) the sincerity 

of the respondent’s assurances against future violations; (v) a respondent’s 

recognition of the wrongful nature of his or her conduct; and (vi) the likelihood 

that a respondent’s occupation will present opportunities for future violations. 

KPMG Peat Marwick, 2001 WL 47245, at *26; see also Steadman, 603 F.2d at 

1140. In addition to these factors, the Commission also may consider (vii) the 

extent to whicha sanction will have a deterrent effect, see Schield Management 

Co., Exchange Act Release No. 53201, 2006 WL 231642, at *8 (Jan. 31, 2006), 

(viii) whether the violation is recent, (ix) the degree of harm to investors or the 

marketplace resulting from the violation, and (x) the remedial function to be 

served by the cease-and-desist order in the context of any other sanctions being 

sought in the same proceedings. KPMG Peat Marwick, 2001 WL 47245, at *26. 

The inquiry is flexible, no single factor in this analysis is dispositive, and the 

entire record is considered when deciding whether to issue a cease-and-desist 

order. Id. Accordingly, I also consider (xi) Wahl’s misrepresentations to his 

expert and false statements under oath during the proceeding. See Robert 
108

Bruce Lohmann, Exchange Act Release No. 48092, 2003 WL 21468604, at *5 

n.20 (June 26, 2003) (noting that a respondent’s lies to staff during the 

investigation can be considered in assessing sanctions even though it was not 

charged in the OIP); see also Don Warner Reinhard, Exchange Act Release 

No. 63720, 2011 WL 121451, at *5 & n.21 (Jan. 14, 2011) (considering 

respondent’s post-OIP criminal conviction in assessing sanctions and citing 

Lohmann).

Finally, although the Division seeks a cease-and-desist order only against 

Wahl and Deutchman, because the public-interest factors are also relevant 

with regard to whether Respondents should be sanctioned under Exchange Act 

Section 4C and Rule of Practice 102(e), I also consider them in relation to 

Chung. See Chris G. Gunderson, Exchange Act Release No. 61234, 2009 WL 

4981617, at *5 (Dec. 23, 2009) (applying the Steadman factors to a disciplinary 

proceeding under Rule 102(e)).

2.1. Egregiousness

The Commission has “repeatedly held that conduct that violates the 

antifraud provisions of the securities laws is especially serious and subject to 

the severest of sanctions under the securities laws.” Peter Siris, Exchange Act 

Release No. 71068, 2013 WL 6528874, at *6 (Dec. 12, 2013) (internal quotation 

marks omitted), pet. denied, 773 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Commission-required 

periodic reports are the “primary statutory tools for protecting the integrity of 

the securities marketplace.” China-Biotics, Inc., Exchange Act Release No.

70800, 2013 WL 5883342, at *11 (Nov. 4, 2013). Thus, Respondents’ 

misconduct—which in the case of Wahl and Deutchman violated antifraud 

provisions and for all three Respondents occurred in the context of a company’s 

public financials contained in periodic reports—is considered egregious. 

2.1.1. Wahl

Although Wahl did not steal anyone’s money or intentionally commit 

fraud, and he claims that he carefully considered each engagement at issue, he 

rushed haphazardly to finish work, and in the face of glaring red flags, 

approved utterly inadequate workpapers when even minimal inquiries would 

have uncovered the issuers’ misrepresentations. In light of the public trust 

reposed in auditors, Wahl’s conduct was egregious. Davy, 1985 WL 660828, at 

*4.

2.1.2. Deutchman

Deutchman’s conduct when working on the Accelera engagement was also 

egregious. Anton & Chia’s only workpaper supporting the consolidation of 

Behavioral was grossly deficient. Although Deutchman first came to the 
109

engagement after Behavioral was consolidated, he was warned by Accelera’s 

CFO Freeman that it had been improperly consolidated. Regardless of 

Deutchman’s personal view of the CFO’s abilities, that warning required 

Deutchman to revisit the rationale for consolidation, and, at that point, it 

should have been clear, at a minimum, that the workpaper was grossly 

deficient and that further diligence was warranted. From there, it would have 

been evident from Anton & Chia’s file that consolidation was in error. Instead, 

however, Deutchman assumed consolidation was correct and that it was not 

his role to question it, which is exactly the opposite of how Deutchman should 

have proceeded in discharging his responsibilities. It is that aspect of his 

conduct that is egregious, particularly for someone of his experience.

2.1.3. Chung

Chung’s involvement in this action arises from unfortunate circumstances 

and inopportune timing, when the only other Anton & Chia partner who could 

serve as EQR for CannaVEST left the firm shortly before the quarterly review 

was due to be filed. At that point, Wahl—rather than taking the time, effort,

and expense of engaging an outside partner to act as EQR—instead turned to 

his wife, who had no EQR experience. Chung had not practiced accounting for 

years, had no partner or manager experience, and—significantly here—lacked 

any previous experience analyzing business combinations under ASC 805 and 

820. Chung should have declined Wahl’s request to serve as EQR, but she did 

not. As I have found, Chung failed markedly in her EQR duties. The severity 

of those failings are mitigated in part by the fact that there was no suitable 

partner to serve as EQR at the time. But the fact that she did such a poor job 

once she assumed the role of EQR remains egregious.

2.2. Recurrence

2.2.1. Wahl

Wahl’s violations recurred across multiple engagements with three 

different issuers during a three-year period. This repeated misconduct weighs 

in favor of sanctions.

2.2.2. Deutchman

Deutchman’s misconduct recurred across five Accelera engagements over 

two years. Although matters outside the OIP do not show recurrence of the 

violations at issue in this proceeding, I also consider two of his previous 

securities law violations in assessing sanctions, as they show a recurring 

pattern of misconduct. First, the Commission censured Deutchman in 2008 on 

two grounds: he “willfully violated Section 102(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 

2002” by preparing and issuing an audit report in 2004 for an issuer while 
110

failing to register as a public accounting firm, and he practiced public 

accounting while he “did not possess the requisite qualifications to represent 

others.” Deutchman, 2008 WL 2902011, at *1–2. Second, the PCAOB barred 

Deutchman from association with a registered public accounting firm in 2014 

for two years and ordered him to pay a civil penalty of $35,000, in connection 

with a scheme he participated in while employed at his prior employer, Kabani

& Company. Order Summarily Affirming Findings, Kabani, PCAOB File No. 

105-2012-002, at 19; Kabani, 2017 WL 947229 (sustaining the PCAOB’s 

findings of violations and sanction imposed); Deutchman Answer at 3. At 

Kabani, Deutchman was responsible for the quality control function of the 

firm. Tr. 3342. The PCAOB found that Deutchman participated in a “widespread and resource-intensive effort ... to alter documents in the audit files of 

three issuers in an attempt to deceive PCAOB inspections in an upcoming 

inspection about the deficiencies in the firm’s audit work papers.” Kabani, 

PCAOB File No. 105-2012-002, at 1; see also Kabani, 2017 WL 947229, at *1. 

Third, the California Board of Accountancy revoked Deutchman’s CPA license 

in 2019, but this does not appear to be based on violations that are independent 

of the preceding matters, and, as such, does not denote an additional

recurrence of violations. See Order Denying Petition for Rehearing, Michael 

Deutchman, No. AC-2019-24 (Cal. Board of Accountancy August 27, 2019),

https://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/actions/ac-2019-24.pdf; Tr. 3322. 

Although Deutchman’s violations as a whole were not frequent—except 

with respect to the Accelera engagements that he is charged with here—the 

Division did establish that he has engaged in a recurring pattern of misconduct

over the course of a decade, such that this factor weighs strongly in support of 

a sanction in the public interest.

2.2.3. Chung

Chung’s violationswere not recurrent. Her misconduct concerned only the 

first quarter 2013 interim review of CannaVEST, on which she worked

intermittently over the course of two weeks. Her lack of recurring misconduct 

weighs in her favor.

2.3. Scienter

Respondents did not commit intentional violations. Nonetheless, as 

discussed above, Wahl and Deutchman acted recklessly and repeatedly failed

to exercise the due care required of their chosen profession. And Chung’s 

violation of professional standards was highly unreasonable, which is more 

than ordinary negligence but does not reflect scienter. See McCurdy, 2004 WL 

210606, at *8.
111

2.4. Sincerity of assurances against future violations

None of the Respondents made any assurances against future violations. 

They instead claimed that they acted properly in all respects, which suggests 

that they would persist in similar misconduct in the future. Although 

Deutchman testified he was retired, Tr. 639, and he is of retirement age, there 

is no assurance that he will stay in retirement. And Wahl’s conduct in this 

proceeding further demonstrates his difficulty in carrying out assurances of 

compliance. For example, he did not fully abide by the order of a previously 

assigned judge to return or destroy all copies of the voicemail recording he was 

ordered not to disclose to any person. Anton & Chia, Admin. Proc. Rulings 

Release No. 6361, 2018 SEC LEXIS 3306, at *8 (ALJ Nov. 26, 2018); Tr. 5065–

68 (under seal). 

2.5. Recognition of wrongdoing

Respondents uniformly failed to recognize the wrongfulness of their 

actions, notwithstanding restatements made by Accelera and CannaVEST 

acknowledging the prior accounting was wrong, and a federal court finding 

that Premier’s accounting for the WePower Note was materially misleading. 

Although Respondents are entitled to vigorously contest the charges in these 

proceedings, their failure to acknowledge any wrongdoing is a missed

opportunity to mitigate sanctions. See Geiger v. SEC, 363 F.3d 481, 489 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004) (“[The respondent] still thinks he did nothing wrong, which casts 

doubts on his promise that he will mend his ways.”); Jose P. Zollino, Exchange 

Act Release No. 55107, 2007 WL 98919, at *6 (Jan. 16, 2007) (“[F]ailure to 

acknowledge guilt or show remorse indicates that there is a significant risk 

that, given the opportunity, [the respondent] would commit further misconduct 

in the future.”); see also Seghers v. SEC, 548 F.3d 129, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (due 

process is not violated where a respondent is “given the option of recognizing 

the wrongfulness of [her] conduct or refusing to do so and risking more severe 

remedial action”).

2.5.1. Wahl

Wahl has long maintained that he made no mistakes in the audits and 

interim reviews in question. Tr. 5086, 5300. Even after sitting through the 

hearing and reviewing the evidence, Wahl said he would have carried out the 

same accounting for key transactions, such as the Note. Tr. 5385–86; see Tr.

4270.

Wahl also failed to acknowledge his wrongdoing regarding the false 

document that he “forwarded” to his expert witness, Misuraca, for use as the 

principal basis for the expert’s opinion regarding CannaVEST, where he made

it seem as if the key data in the document originated from the issuer. Compare
112

Ex. 823 (email from Wahl to Misuraca), with Ex. 824 (original, un-doctored 

email). Instead, Wahl first falsely testified that he inadvertently pasted thenexisting data from CannaVEST into that email that he “forwarded”—which is 

also what he wrote in his sworn declaration on the matter—before effectively 

acknowledging that he invented the financial projections on his own long after 

the original email was written. Tr. 5494–5516; see Opp’n to Mot. to Exclude 

Misuraca at 7.

Finally, although Wahl was aware of two PCAOB inspection reports that 

identified more than a dozen deficiencies with Anton & Chia’s audit practices, 

Wahl never read either of them. See Ex. 82; Ex. 83; Tr. 4977, 4991. For another 

PCAOB inspection, Wahl directed another Anton & Chia partner to tell 

PCAOB inspectors he had performed work that had not been done, writing: “if 

you didn’t [do the work], try and say you did so it goes away.” Ex. 309 (Dec. 27, 

2016, email from Wahl to Rahul Gandhi). Although those inspections do not 

address the wrongdoing at issue in this case and two of them occurred well 

after the engagements at issue here, Wahl’s disinterest in seeking to 

understand the deficiencies for which his firm was cited suggests, at the very 

least, a lax approach to wrongdoing. 

2.5.2. Deutchman

In addition to the fact that Deutchman claimed his conduct when working 

on Accelera was appropriate, he also fell short of recognizing the wrongful 

nature of his conduct leading to his previous securities law violations. He 

referred to the Commission’s censure of him as “literally a nothing case,” Tr. 

3362–63, and characterized the PCAOB case as a “travesty” at his expense, 

based on an “overstatement of the facts.” Tr. 3357.

2.5.3. Chung

Chung failed to acknowledge the possibility she did anything wrong. 

Although she was unable to recall what work she had done on the CannaVEST 

engagement, Tr. 5182, she nonetheless testified that she had done “everything 

right, nothing wrong” and “according to the U.S. GAAP and GAAS standard.”

Tr. 5161; see also Tr. 5146–47. While I do not fault her for expressing the 

general view that she follows professional standards, her refusal to consider 

the possibility that she made mistakes is troubling given the fact that she had 

no recollection of her work.Absent objective evidence establishing that no error 

was committed, which Chung did not offer, this is an extraordinary position 

for a person to take.
113

2.6. Opportunities for future violations

2.6.1. Wahl

Wahl’s current position presents the opportunity for violations. Wahl 

works for NorAsia Consulting and Advisory, a company owned by Chung, 

which conducts consulting work for private and public companies. Tr. 5191,

5195, 5198. Wahl is the principal, public-facing point of contact for NorAsia. 

See NorAsia Consulting & Advisory, Location and Contact, https://www.

norasiaconsulting.com/index.php/contact (last visited Feb. 4, 2021); Exs. 892,

892.1 (Website capture declaration; NorAsia website and LinkedIn profile 

website captures).

One possible example of Wahl’s continued involvement in public audit 

work concerns a 2019 review of the financial statements for a public company 

called Max Sound Corporation, for which there is an audit opinion affixed to 

the company’s Form 10-K under the name “G.A. Wahl.” Ex. 863 at 25–26 

(PDF); Tr. 3710–11, 3754, 3757–58, 3776; see Tr. 4947–53. While there is some 

confusion as to whether Wahl authorized the use of his name on the opinion, 

the other facts highlight how Wahl’s consulting work with public companies—

which continues at NorAsia to this day—presents opportunities for future 

violations. Tr. 3735–39, 3741–42, 3744, 3748, 3750.

2.6.2. Deutchman

Deutchman, who is retired, is in a position that ostensibly presents the 

least opportunity for future violations. Nonetheless, nothing precludes him 

from returning to the industry. See Donald L. Koch, Exchange Act Release No. 

31047, 2014 WL 1998524, at *20 (May 16, 2014) (“[A]bsent a bar there is 

nothing to prevent [the respondent] from coming out of retirement and 

participating in the industry.”), petition granted in part on other grounds and 

denied in part, 793 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2015). This factor is neutral for 

Deutchman. 

2.6.3. Chung

Although Chung appeared to carry out little or no current auditing work 

at the time of the hearing, she owns NorAsia, which provides accounting 

consulting services to public companies, and she continues to work with her 

husband or helps to enable his work. Her continued involvement could pose 

the risk of her contributing to future violations. 

2.7. Deterrence

Cease-and-desist orders may deter Wahl and Deutchman from committing 

the proscribed misconduct again. In addition, a cease-and-desist order also 
114

makes them and the market aware of what conduct gave rise to the violations.

Aside from providing context and depth to the remedial order, it would stand

as a cautionary tale for potential future violators, including Wahl and 

Deutchman, to avoid the underlying violative conduct in the future. The other 

sanctions sought by the Division have a similar deterrent effect, and 

deterrence is a relevant consideration in deciding whether to impose Rule 

102(e) sanctions against all three Respondents. See Michael C. Pattison, CPA, 

Exchange Act Release No. 67900, 2012 WL 4320146, at *8 (Sept. 20, 2012); 

Steven Altman, Esq., Exchange Act Release No. 63306, 2010 WL 5092725, at 

*19 & n.71 (Nov. 10, 2010), pet. denied, 666 F.3d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

The need for deterrence in the area of public accounting is at a premium 

because of that profession’s crucial role in ensuring the integrity of market 

information. As the Commission has explained, citing the Supreme Court: 

By certifying the public reports that collectively depict a 

corporation’s financial status, the independent auditor 

assumes a public responsibility ... [and] owes ultimate 

allegiance to the corporation’s credits and stockholders, 

as well as to [the] investing public. This ‘public watchdog’ 

function ... requires complete fidelity to the public trust. 

... [T]he independent auditor’s obligation to serve the 

public interest assures that the integrity of the securities 

markets will be preserved ... .

Davy, 1985 WL 660828, at *4 (quoting United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 

465 U.S. 805, 817–18, 819 (1984)).

45 

2.8. Recency

The violations at issue here are not particularly recent, having mostly 

occurred more than five years ago at this point. But neither are they especially 

old, given that the misconduct at Anton & Chia took place no more than seven 

to eight years ago. Accordingly, this factor does not weigh strongly one way or 

the other.

2.9. Harm to investors or the market

The Division did not present any evidence, such as investor testimony,

that any Respondent’s conduct actually harmed investors. Indeed, the case 

 

45 While the Supreme Court in Young used this reasoning to reject workproduct immunity for accountants’ tax accrual workpapers, the rationale 

nonetheless underscores the crucial role of accountants in maintaining the 

public trust.
115

concerns thinly traded companies, where most of the shares were in the hands 

of corporate officials. Nevertheless, material inaccuracies appeared in the 

annual and quarterly reports of the companies, and investors were deprived of 

accurate information, which harms market efficiency and investors. See

McConville, 2005 WL 1560276, at *16 (“Fraudulent misstatements and 

omissions in financial statements and periodic reports mislead investors who 

buy or sell stock based on the information contained therein.”); see also SEC v. 

Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1377 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“Dissemination of 

false or misleading information by companies to members of the investing 

public may distort the efficient workings of the securities markets and injure 

investors who rely on the accuracy and completeness of the company’s public 

disclosures.”). This kind of general informational harm that potentially 

impacts investors weighs in favor of sanctions. vFinance, 2010 WL 2674858, at 

*17 (“The absence from the record of evidence demonstrating any direct 

customer harm is not mitigating, as our public interest analysis focus[es] ... on 

the welfare of investors generally.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2.10. Remedial function in the context of other sanctions

Although Wahl and Deutchman will be precluded from practicing before

the Commission altogether, a cease-and-desist order will still serve a 

meaningful remedial function, particularly if either Respondent serves in an 

advisory or consulting capacity to public companies. Further, it will deter them 

and others from future misconduct.

2.11. Wahl’s misconduct during the proceeding

As discussed at length earlier, Wahl intentionally misled his expert 

witness, submitted a perjurious declaration, and lied about it under oath. See 

supra Preliminary Issues § 2.2.1. Perjury is serious misconduct in any 

proceeding, particularly for an accountant. Not only is candor necessary for the

fair and efficient functioning of the public securities markets, see Frank 

Kufrovich, Exchange Act Release No. 45437, 2002 WL 215446, at *5 (Feb. 13, 

2002) (because the securities industry “presents numerous opportunities for 

abuses of trust,” a “propensity for dishonest behavior is of particular concern”), 

but this concern is especially applicable to auditors, on whose honesty, 

integrity, and competence “the Commission and the investing public rely 

heavily.” Marrie, 2003 WL 21741785, at *17, pet. granted on other grounds, 374 

F.3d 1196; see 15 U.S.C. § 78d-3(a)(2); 17 C.R.F. § 201.102(e)(1)(ii); Myron 

Swartz, File No. 4-98, 1961 WL 62209, at *5 (May 24, 1961) (noting the “high 

standard of honesty and professional conduct we must demand of accountants 

and others practicing before this Commission”); AICPA Code of Professional 

Conduct 0.300.040.03 (“Integrity requires a member to be, among other things, 

honest and candid within the constraints of client confidentiality.”); Id. 
116

1.400.001.01 (“A member shall not commit an act discreditable to the 

profession.”) (emphasis in original). Wahl’s misconduct in preparation for and 

at the hearing demonstrates the need for a strong sanction in the public 

interest.

* * *

Based on the foregoing analysis, I find that a cease-and-desist order is 

appropriate for Wahl and Deutchman’s violations, and that sanctions in some 

form are warranted for all three Respondents in the public interest. While 

there are a handful of mitigating considerations, they are insufficient to render 

a cease-and-desist order or other sanctions unnecessary to serve the public 

interest.

3. Civil penalties

Exchange Act Section 21B(a)(2) authorizes civil penalties in cease-anddesist proceedings against any person who has violated, or caused a violation 

of, a provision of that act or a rule or regulation thereunder. 15 U.S.C. § 78u2(a)(2). Under consideration are civil penalties against Wahl and Deutchman.

3.1. Civil penalties are in the public interest.

Civil penalties must be in the public interest, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-2(a)(1), 

which the Commission determines by considering six factors: (1) whether the 

violation involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless 

disregard of a regulatory requirement; (2) the resulting harm, directly or 

indirectly, to other persons; (3) any unjust enrichment and prior restitution; 

(4) the respondent’s prior regulatory record; (5) the need for deterrence; and (6)

such other matters as justice may require. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §78u-2(c).

The first factor weighs in favor of penalties because Wahl and 

Deutchman’s violations involved the reckless disregard of regulatory 

requirements and violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws. As 

to harm, although it appears that Wahl and Deutchman’s violations did not 

result in actual harm to persons by direct or indirect means, their material 

misrepresentations to the marketplace posed the risk of harm and were 

generally harmful to market integrity. Still, because of the lack of specific harm 

and the fact that disgorgement is no longer at issue, unjust enrichment and 

prior restitution are not relevant here. Next, although Wahl has no past record 

of regulatory violations, Deutchman’s regulatory history weighs in favor of

some penalty. Turning to deterrence, it is necessary to impose a civil penalty 

of sufficient magnitude to deter Wahl and Deutchman from future violations 

and influence senior accountants working with publicly traded companies to 

not violate, aid and abet, or cause violations of the securities laws at issue here. 
117

See Johnny Clifton, Securities Act Release No. 9417, 2013 WL 3487076, at *16 

(July 12, 2013) (third-tier penalty was “necessary to deter [the respondent] 

from future misconduct and will have an additional remedial effect of deterring 

others from engaging in similar misconduct”). Finally, as far as other matters 

that justice requires, Respondents have not identified any matters that would 

mitigate the need for penalties, and Wahl’s perjury weighs in favor of a penalty 

for him.

In sum, although there are a handful of mitigating factors, taken as a 

whole, the public-interest factors weigh in favor of civil penalties. 

3.2. Second tier penalties are appropriate.

The maximum penalty that can be imposed is based on the seriousness of 

the violation and divided into three tiers. First-tier penalties are available 

based on the fact of the violation alone. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-2(b)(1). Second-tier 

penalties may be imposed if the misconduct involved fraud, deceit, 

manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement. 

15 U.S.C. § 78u-2(b)(2). Third-tier penalties require the additional finding that 

the misconduct, “directly or indirectly, resulted in substantial losses or created 

a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons or resulted in 

substantial pecuniary gain” to the respondent who committed the violation. 15 

U.S.C. § 78u-2(b)(3). As relevant here, for a natural person’s misconduct that 

occurred betweenMarch 6, 2013, and November 2, 2015, the maximum secondtier penalty per violation is $80,000 and the maximum third-tier penalty per 

violation is $160,000. 17 C.F.R. § 201.1001 tbl. I.

The record supports second-tier penalties for Wahl and Deutchman’s 

misconduct, which evidenced scienter and was deceitful. See SEC v. M & A W., 

Inc., 538 F.3d 1043, 1054 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he imposition of second-tier 

penalties requires an assessment of scienter.”). 

The Division, however, requests third-tier penalties based on its assertion 

that “[t]he material overstatement of Premier and Accelera’s financial 

statements posed a significant risk of substantial losses to investors.” Div. 

Post-hr’g Br. at 47. But the bases for the Division’s contention are unclear. 

While there were material inaccuracies in the issuers’ periodic filings that 

sometimes made the issuers appear to be better investments than they would 

have been otherwise, neither Accelera nor Premier appears to have been a 

particularly attractive investment, which is highlighted by Anton & Chia’s 

inclusion of going concern disclosures for each issuer.

46 Although going concern

 

46 Premier’s lack of financial attractiveness was further underscored by the 

periodic report’s prominent inclusion of the fact that the transactions with the 
118

qualifications do not absolve the auditor of performing its other obligations 

with due care, they nonetheless represent cautionary statements to investors. 

Further, even though material inaccuracies in financial reporting can pose a 

significant risk of substantial losses, the Division did not meet its burden here 

to establish such a loss, or risk of loss, with testimony from actual or potential 

investors, an expert witness, or documentary evidence such as trade data. As 

such, I find second-tier penalties more appropriate for each violation. Indeed, 

even if a significant risk of substantial losses had been established, I would 

exercise my discretion to impose second-tier penalties in light of the other 

public interest factors. See J.S. Oliver Capital Mgmt., LP, Exchange Act 

Release No. 78098, 2016 WL 3361166, at *18 (June 17, 2016) (imposing secondtier penalties in light of the public interest despite the Division’s request for 

third-tier penalties and the substantial losses caused), vacated on other 

grounds, Pending Admin. Proc., 2018 WL 4003609; Rockies Fund, Inc., 

Exchange Act Release No. 54892, 2006 WL 3542989, at *7 (Dec. 7, 2006) 

(imposing second-tier penalties), pet. denied, 298 F. App’x 4 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

That leaves the question of how many second-tier penalties to impose. The 

securities statutes allow a penalty to be imposed for each act or omission, but 

leave the precise unit of violation undefined. Anthony Fields, CPA, Securities 

Act Release No. 9727, 2015 WL 728005, at *24 n.162 (Feb. 20, 2015). The 

Division requests what it characterizes as a “conservative interpretation, 

applying a single third-tier penalty for each respondent, for each issuer,” 

resulting in two penalties for Wahl, and one for Deutchman. Div. Post-hr’g Br.

at 48. I find the Division’s method appropriate here (although not the tier 

requested), because the misconduct during each engagement, while involving 

multiple acts or omissions, can be deemed an overall unit of violation. Wahl’s 

misconduct spanned two engagements—Accelera and Premier—and his 

actions were separate and distinct enough between them to warrant the two

separate penalties sought by the Division.

Therefore, I impose two maximum second-tier penalties for a total of 

$160,000 for Wahl’s misconduct with respect to Accelera and Premier and one 

second-tier penalty of $40,000 for Deutchman’s Accelera-related misconduct. 

Notwithstanding Deutchman’s regulatory history, he was less involved than 

Wahl in the Accelera engagement, coming on as EQR well after consolidation 

had initially been evaluated by the firm, and participating in one audit and 

four reviews. Wahl on the other hand participated in seven Accelera 

engagements, was the engagement partner for both the 2013 and 2014 audits, 

approved the thoroughly deficient consolidation memo, and was the majority 

 

greatest impact to the financial statements were among related parties. See

Ex. 402 at F-1, F-12.
119

owner of the firm and the one who managed it. Moreover, Wahl’s perjury 

evidences a propensity for dishonest behavior, which is particularly troubling 

in light of his continued involvement as a consultant to publicly traded 

companies at NorAsia. In sum, Wahl bears more responsibility than 

Deutchman and must be thoroughly deterred against future misconduct. His 

conduct warrants higher overall penalties.

4. Section 4C and Rule 102(e) 

Rule 102 sanctions protect the public from future reckless or negligent 

conduct by professionals who practice before the Commission and the 

“integrity of [the Commission’s] own processes.” Touche Ross & Co. v. SEC, 609 

F.2d 570, 582 (2d Cir. 1979). “If incompetent or unethical accountants should 

be permitted to certify financial statements, the reliability of the disclosure 

process would be impaired.” Id. at 581. And that is precisely what happened 

here.

Wahl and Deutchman recklessly violated applicable professional 

standards and willfully violated or willfully aided and abetted violations of the 

federal securities laws. Given the extent of their misconduct and the points 

discussed below, their bars should be permanent, without a right to reapply 

after a period of years. 

As to Deutchman, where, as here, “[l]ess stringent sanctions” for similar 

past violations have “proved to be insufficient to preclude future misconduct,”

a permanent bar is warranted. Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc., 

Securities Act Release No. 8251, 2003 WL 21658248, at *17 (July 15, 2003) 

(granting permanent bar in third Commission proceeding against respondent, 

finding that his “past misconduct holds out scant assurance against future 

violations”). Also, while Deutchman may remain retired, he could change his 

mind.

Wahl’s misconduct was the most extensive. He showed no remorse, and 

defended his misconduct by, among other things: submitting a false declaration 

under penalty of perjury, lying under oath, and deceiving his own expert 

witness. While Wahl’s perjury is not mentioned in the OIP, it took place in the 

course of the proceeding, and highlights the need to bar Wahl from appearing 

or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. The integrity of the 

Commission’s processes are undermined when an individual submits false 

documents and testifies falsely. While Wahl’s numerous violations of the

securities laws and professional standards seem sufficient to support a 

permanent bar on their own, his further misconduct at the hearing further 

demonstrates he does not deserve a right to reapply after a fixed amount of 

time.
120

Chung performed a perfunctory and wholly insufficient engagement 

quality review of the CannaVEST report in the first quarter of 2013, rubber -

stamping the firm’s thoroughly deficient work product. As I noted earlier, her 

conduct was highly unreasonable. See supra Law § 4; 15 U.S.C. § 78d3(b)(2)(A). 

The Division seeks a multi-year suspension for Chung. Div. Post-hr’g Br. 

at 44. In doing so, it argues that I should consider as precedent: (1) the twoyear bar with a right to reapply given to Koch because of his work as EQR on 

two of CannaVEST’s interim reviews after Chung and his work as EQR on the

2013 Premier audit; and (2) the one-year bar with a right to reapply given to

Shek because of his work as audit manager on all of CannaVEST’s 2013 

interim reviews. Id. at 45 (citing Richard Koch, Exchange Act Release No. 

82207, 2017 WL 6015563 (Dec. 4, 2017), and Anton & Chia, 2018 WL 3388553). 

But I decline to treat these settled orders as precedent, because both “are not 

binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding.” Koch, 

2017 WL 6015563, at *1 n.3; Anton & Chia, 2018 WL 3388553, at *1 n.3. As

settled matters, the many factors that contributed their respective resolutions 

are unknown to me. See Joseph John VanCook, Exchange Act Release No. 

61039A, 2009 WL 4026291, at *19 (Nov. 20, 2009) (“[T]he sanctions that are 

imposed in settled cases are the result of a myriad ‘pragmatic considerations 

such as the avoidance of time-and-manpower-consuming adversarial litigation’ 

that enter into decisions to accept offers of settlement from respondents. For 

this reason, they cannot be meaningfully compared to the sanctions imposed 

in litigated cases, which are the result of fact-specific considerations of various 

factors designed to best protect the public interest.” (quoting Philip A. Lehman, 

Exchange Act Release No. 54660, 2006 WL 3054584, at *9 (Oct. 27, 2006))), 

pet. denied, 653 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2011). 

Even if I were to consider those orders as persuasive authorities, a multiyear penalty does not seem appropriate given that Chung, in contrast to Koch 

for example, worked on only one CannaVEST interim review that lasted only 

two weeks. Without minimizing the importance of her role as EQR, the limited 

timeframe is a distinction that tips in favor of a shorter bar. While it would 

have behooved Chung to be more willing, in retrospect, to examine her 

shortcomings as an EQR, her conduct is sufficiently sanctioned by a bar with 

the right to reapply after one year. This sanction should demonstrate to Chung 

that her conduct was wrongful and must not be repeated. Although the 

Commission typically imposes a twelve month suspension with automatic

reinstatement in lieu of a one-year bar with a right to reapply, see John J. 

Aesoph, Exchange Act Release No. 78490, 2016 WL 4176930, at *17 & n.84 

(Aug. 5, 2016), vacated on other grounds, Pending Admin. Proc., 2018 WL 

4003609, Chung’s highly unreasonable conduct warrants a bar, which will 
121

enable the Commission to perform an important gate-keeping role should 

Chung seek to appear or practice after the year has elapsed.

Record Certification

I certify that the record includes the items set forth in the corrected record 

index issued by the Secretary of the Commission on December 11, 2020. See 17 

C.F.R. § 201.351(b).

Order

Exhibit 1036 is ADMITTED.

Exhibit 1113 is NOT ADMITTED.

Under Section 4C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 

102(e) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rules of Practice:

Gregory A. Wahl, CPA, and Michael Deutchman, CPA, are 

PERMANENTLY DENIED the privilege of appearing or practicing 

before the Commission as accountants; and 

Georgia Chung, CPA, is DENIED the privilege of appearing or 

practicing before the Commission as an accountant, provided, however, 

that she may reapply to the Commission for permission to appear or 

practice before it after one year.

Under Section 21C(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

Gregory A. Wahl, CPA, and Michael Deutchman, CPA, must CEASE 

AND DESIST from committing or causing violations, and any future 

violations, of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 13(a), and Rules 10b-5, 

13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, and Regulation S-X Rule 2-02(b).

Under Section 21B(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

Gregory A. Wahl, CPA, must PAY A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY in the 

amount of $160,000; and 

Michael Deutchman, CPA, must PAY A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY in 

the amount of $40,000.

Payment of civil penalties must be made no later than 21 days following 

the day this initial decision becomes final, unless the Commission directs 

otherwise. Payment must be made in one of the following ways: (1) transmitted 

electronically to the Commission, which will provide detailed ACH 

transfer/Fedwire instructions upon request; (2) direct payments from a bank 
122

account via Pay.gov through the SEC website at http://www.sec.gov/ofm; or 

(3) by certified check, bank cashier’s check, bank money order, or United States 

postal money order made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission 

and hand-delivered or mailed to the following address alongside a cover letter 

identifying the Respondent and Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-18292: 

Enterprise Services Center, Accounts Receivable Branch, HQ Bldg., Room 181, 

AMZ-341, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73169. A 

copy of the cover letter and instrument of payment must be sent to the 

Commission’s Division of Enforcement, directed to the attention of counsel of 

record.

This initial decision will become effective in accordance with and subject 

to the provisions of Rule 360. See 17 C.F.R. § 201.360. Under that rule, a party 

may file a petition for review of this initial decision within 21 days after service 

of the initial decision. Under Rule of Practice 111, a party may also file a 

motion to correct a manifest error of fact within ten days of the initial decision. 

See 17 C.F.R. § 201.111. If a motion to correct a manifest error of fact is filed 

by a party, then a party has 21 days to file a petition for review from the date 

of the order resolving such motion to correct a manifest error of fact.

The initial decision will not become final until the Commission enters an 

order of finality. The Commission will enter an order of finality unless a party 

files a petition for review or motion to correct a manifest error of fact or the 

Commission determines on its own initiative to review the initial decision as 

to a party. If any of these events occur, the initial decision will not become final 

as to that party.

_______________________________

Jason S. Patil

Administrative Law Judge

Served by email on all parties.
123

Appendix – Comparison of Vantage Point Projections to Wahl email

Year

Vantage 

Point 

Ex. 824

Wahl 

email 

Exs. 823, 1036

reduction

(increase)

% reduced 

(increased)

Total Revenue

2013 $3,582,405 $3,575,000 $7,405 0%

2014 $22,237,108 $10,029,798 $12,207,310 55%

2015 $41,181,331 $19,725,617 $21,455,714 52%

2016 $53,449,793 $34,815,276 $18,634,517 35%

2017 $64,968,557 $43,335,356 $21,633,201 33%

Cost of Goods Sold

2013 $666,040 $1,881,500 ($1,215,460) (182%)

2014 $7,072,676 $2,156,407 $4,916,269 70%

2015 $16,326,519 $4,241,008 $12,085,511 74%

2016 $21,190,404 $7,485,284 $13,705,120 65%

2017 $25,757,069 $9,317,102 $16,439,967 64%

Gross Profit

2013 $2,916,365 $1,693,500 $1,222,865 42%

2014 $15,164,432 $7,873,391 $7,291,041 48%

2015 $24,854,812 $15,484,609 $9,370,203 38%

2016 $32,259,389 $27,329,992 $4,929,397 15%

2017 $39,211,489 $34,018,254 $5,193,235 13%

Total Operating Expense (“G&A” in Wahl email)

2013 $1,192,354 $1,015,559 $176,795 15%

2014 $5,456,994 $5,794,345 ($337,351) (6%)

2015 $11,800,433 $10,638,455 $1,161,978 10%

2016 $15,315,937 $15,957,683 ($641,746) (4%)

2017 $18,616,617 $21,542,871 ($2,926,254) (16%)

EBITDA (“Net Income” in Wahl email)

2013 $1,724,012 $677,941 $1,046,071 61%

2014 $9,707,438 $2,079,046 $7,628,392 79%

2015 $13,054,379 $4,846,154 $8,208,225 63%

2016 $16,943,452 $11,372,309 $5,571,143 33%

2017 $20,594,871 $12,475,383 $8,119,488 39%