Globaltek Ventures says financial statements for 2019 through 2025 can no longer be relied upon after auditor resigns

Globaltek Ventures, Inc. said in the 8-K filed on 15 October 2026 that its previously issued consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2019 through December 31, 2025, and subsequent interim periods, should no longer be relied upon. The filing states that Bansal & Co LLP, the company's independent registered public accounting firm, notified the company by letter dated September 10, 2026 of its resignation, effective immediately.

According to the filing, the resignation followed an order issued by the District Court of Nevada on August 11, 2026, which found that the company's custodian, who was also its sole director, Chief Executive Officer and principal accounting officer, had been improperly appointed, and that all related party transactions involving the company were void ab initio. The filing states that Dr. Shaun Passley was never properly appointed as a director or officer of the company.

As a result, the filing says, the company had no directors, officers or custodian from August 11, 2026 until October 12, 2026, when Jacob Sherman was appointed as Custodian of the company. Because the company lacked a validly appointed board of directors or audit committee during that period, the filing states that the reportable events behind Bansal's resignation were not discussed with Bansal by a board or audit committee.

The filing states that Bansal's reports dated April 14, 2026 and March 31, 2025 on the company's financial statements had each contained no adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion and were not qualified or modified. Bansal subsequently advised, in letters dated August 20 and September 10, 2026, that it had recalled its previously issued audit reports for fiscal years 2019 through 2025 and subsequent interim periods, concluding the Nevada order materially adversely affected those statements. The filing states the company had experienced no disagreements with Bansal on accounting principles, financial statement disclosure or audit scope during the relevant periods, and that the company is proposing to reappoint Bansal as its auditor going forward. The filing does not say what the underlying findings in the Nevada District Court order were beyond the improper appointment of the custodian and director and the voiding of related party transactions.