Matching
For each of the following facts, indicate the case to which it relates using the following code:
Premises:
An SAS on subsequent events was issued after the decision.
The accountant’s liability for ordinary negligence was extended to foreseen groups.
The critical issue was the CPA’s failure to inform the client of employee wrong-doings, regardless of the service rendered.
The jury found that the requisite of scienter was met through the accountant’s negligence.
The auditors were convicted of criminal charges.
Accounting firms should no longer be permitted to hide within the citadel of privity and avoid liability for their malpractice.
The accountant should not be held liable to any third party for negligence except to a primary beneficiary.
Plaintiffs claimed the accountants were negligent in their audit because they had not challenged or investigated the “mail rule.”
The accounting firm was guilty of breach of contract because they did not comply with the specific representation in their engagement letter.
The court concluded that the defendant knew that his certification was to be used for potential financiers.
The court concluded that the accountant should be held liable to reasonably foreseeable parties for ordinary negligence.
The work done by the senior did not meet the standards of the profession because he did not take some of the steps prescribed in the auditing firm’s written program.
Accountant should not be exposed to a liability in indeterminate amounts, for an indeterminate time, to an indeterminate class.
The defendant accountant was orally engaged to perform a service for the plaintiff.
The government charged that the defendant’s disclosure of related party relationships was false and misleading.
When a statute speaks so specifically in terms of manipulation and deception, we are quite unwilling to extend the scope of the statute to negligent conduct.
When the independent auditor furnishes an opinion with no limitation on its dissemination, he has a duty to all those whom that auditor should reasonably foresee as recipients.
The judge instructed the jury to determine whether the financial statements fairly presented financial position without reference to GAAP.
The U. S. Supreme Court rendered the decision.
The jury found the accountants guilty of aiding and abetting violations of securities laws (Rule 10b-5) and common law fraud.
Responses:
Ultramares Corp. v. Touche
1136 Tenants Corp. v. Rothenberg
Rusch Factors Inc. v. Levin
Rosenblum v. Adler
Escott v. BarChris Corp.
Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
Fund of Funds Limited v. Arthur Andersen
United States v. Simon (Continental Vending)
Correct Answer:
Premises:
Responses:
An SAS on subsequent events was issued after the decision.
The accountant’s liability for ordinary negligence was extended to foreseen groups.
The critical issue was the CPA’s failure to inform the client of employee wrong-doings, regardless of the service rendered.
The jury found that the requisite of scienter was met through the accountant’s negligence.
The auditors were convicted of criminal charges.
Accounting firms should no longer be permitted to hide within the citadel of privity and avoid liability for their malpractice.
The accountant should not be held liable to any third party for negligence except to a primary beneficiary.
Plaintiffs claimed the accountants were negligent in their audit because they had not challenged or investigated the “mail rule.”
The accounting firm was guilty of breach of contract because they did not comply with the specific representation in their engagement letter.
The court concluded that the defendant knew that his certification was to be used for potential financiers.
The court concluded that the accountant should be held liable to reasonably foreseeable parties for ordinary negligence.
The work done by the senior did not meet the standards of the profession because he did not take some of the steps prescribed in the auditing firm’s written program.
Accountant should not be exposed to a liability in indeterminate amounts, for an indeterminate time, to an indeterminate class.
The defendant accountant was orally engaged to perform a service for the plaintiff.
The government charged that the defendant’s disclosure of related party relationships was false and misleading.
When a statute speaks so specifically in terms of manipulation and deception, we are quite unwilling to extend the scope of the statute to negligent conduct.
When the independent auditor furnishes an opinion with no limitation on its dissemination, he has a duty to all those whom that auditor should reasonably foresee as recipients.
The judge instructed the jury to determine whether the financial statements fairly presented financial position without reference to GAAP.
The U. S. Supreme Court rendered the decision.
The jury found the accountants guilty of aiding and abetting violations of securities laws (Rule 10b-5) and common law fraud.
Premises:
An SAS on subsequent events was issued after the decision.
The accountant’s liability for ordinary negligence was extended to foreseen groups.
The critical issue was the CPA’s failure to inform the client of employee wrong-doings, regardless of the service rendered.
The jury found that the requisite of scienter was met through the accountant’s negligence.
The auditors were convicted of criminal charges.
Accounting firms should no longer be permitted to hide within the citadel of privity and avoid liability for their malpractice.
The accountant should not be held liable to any third party for negligence except to a primary beneficiary.
Plaintiffs claimed the accountants were negligent in their audit because they had not challenged or investigated the “mail rule.”
The accounting firm was guilty of breach of contract because they did not comply with the specific representation in their engagement letter.
The court concluded that the defendant knew that his certification was to be used for potential financiers.
The court concluded that the accountant should be held liable to reasonably foreseeable parties for ordinary negligence.
The work done by the senior did not meet the standards of the profession because he did not take some of the steps prescribed in the auditing firm’s written program.
Accountant should not be exposed to a liability in indeterminate amounts, for an indeterminate time, to an indeterminate class.
The defendant accountant was orally engaged to perform a service for the plaintiff.
The government charged that the defendant’s disclosure of related party relationships was false and misleading.
When a statute speaks so specifically in terms of manipulation and deception, we are quite unwilling to extend the scope of the statute to negligent conduct.
When the independent auditor furnishes an opinion with no limitation on its dissemination, he has a duty to all those whom that auditor should reasonably foresee as recipients.
The judge instructed the jury to determine whether the financial statements fairly presented financial position without reference to GAAP.
The U. S. Supreme Court rendered the decision.
The jury found the accountants guilty of aiding and abetting violations of securities laws (Rule 10b-5) and common law fraud.
Responses:
Related Questions
Q57: Action under RICO requires a "pattern" of
Q58: When financial statements are determined to be
Q59: All of the following are true with
Q60: Consider the following three situations: X, Y,
Q61: 1.Distinguish between the following:
(a) primary versus
Q62: Explain why there is such a misconception
Q63: Explain the responsibilities of the plaintiff and
Q64: Which of the following would be an
Q65: Whitlow & Company is a brokerage firm
Q66: For each one of the following descriptions,
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents