Talk about misdirection. Here's what KPMG actually wrote in Friday's amended 8K:
[LETTERHEAD OF KPMG]
[LOGO]
KPMG
Three Embarcardero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
January 6, 2004
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We were previously principal accountants for Calypte Biomedical Corporation
("Calypte" or the "Company") and, under the date of February 7, 2003, except
Note 20, which is as of March 24, 2003, we reported on the consolidated
financial statements of Calypte as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and for the
three years ended December 31, 2002. On December 23, 2003, our appointment as
principal accountants was terminated. We have read the Company's statements
included under Item 4 of its Form 8-K dated December 23, 2003 and we agree with
such statements except for the following:
1) we are not in a position to agree or disagree with the Company's statement
that the change in auditors was recommended by the Audit Committee of the
Board of Directors of the Company;
2) we are not in a position to agree or disagree with the Company's statement
that at the time of KPMG's dismissal, the Audit Committee had completed
its investigation, had reported the results of its investigation and
associated recommendations to the Board of Directors, and the Board of
Directors had approved such recommendations. At the time of our dismissal,
we were not provided with the results of the investigation and associated
recommendations and we were thus unable to determine whether an adequate
investigation was conducted or whether appropriate conclusions were
reached or actions taken;
3) we disagree with the statement that at the time of KPMG's dismissal,
counsel for the Audit Committee had commenced to provide information to
KPMG concerning the investigation conducted, conclusions reached and the
actions taken by the Company. We did receive certain information related
to the investigation. We did not receive any information related to the
conclusions reached or the actions taken by the Company. We do not know
whether counsel for the Audit Committee had begun to prepare other
information to provide to KPMG at the time of our dismissal; and
4) we are not in a position to agree or disagree with the Company's statement
that during the Company's two most recent fiscal years and through
December 24, 2003, the Company has not consulted with OUM regarding either
(i) the application of accounting principles to a specified
<PAGE>
January 6, 2004
Securities and Exchange Commission
Page 2
transaction, either completed or proposed; or the type of audit opinion
that might be rendered on the Company's financial statements, and neither
a written report nor oral advice was provided that was an important factor
considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to the accounting,
auditing, or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was either
the subject of a disagreement, as that term is defined in Item
304(a)(1)(iv)(A) of Regulation S-B and the related instructions to Item
304 of Regulation S-B.
Very truly yours,
/s/ KPMG LLP
sec.gov |
