Chat with AI
Ethical Obligations and Decision-Making in Accounting: Text and Cases 4th Edition by Steven Mintz,Roselyn Morris
Edition 4ISBN: 978-1259543470Ethical Obligations and Decision-Making in Accounting: Text and Cases 4th Edition by Steven Mintz,Roselyn Morris
Edition 4ISBN: 978-1259543470 Exercise 1
Advanced Battery Technologies: Reverse Merger
![Advanced Battery Technologies: Reverse Merger Questions 1.Do you believe the legal standards of allegations with particularity sufficient facts and of no audit at all cited in ABAT under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are too strict, too lenient, or just about right with respect to auditors' legal liability in cases similar to ABAT ? Explain. 2. In ABAT , the plaintiffs alleged that the auditors falsely represented that they performed their audits in accordance with professional standards and that ABAT's financial statements were fairly presented. The amended complaint alleged that the audit firms were reckless and committed an extreme departure from the reasonable standards of care by failing to identify several purported red flags. Do you believe the failure to identify red flags should be sufficient in a court of law to successfully allege gross negligence? Include in your discussion the purpose of auditors looking to detect red flags as part of their audits in accordance with GAAS. 3. Do you believe that auditors should be held legally liable when their filings to the SEC are [overly] optimistic while filings with Chinese regulatory agencies are [unduly] pessimistic? Explain using ethical reasoning to craft your answer.](https://d2lvgg3v3hfg70.cloudfront.net/SM1615/11eb75b5_726e_daf9_adfc_69fb0babd137_SM1615_00.jpg)
![Advanced Battery Technologies: Reverse Merger Questions 1.Do you believe the legal standards of allegations with particularity sufficient facts and of no audit at all cited in ABAT under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are too strict, too lenient, or just about right with respect to auditors' legal liability in cases similar to ABAT ? Explain. 2. In ABAT , the plaintiffs alleged that the auditors falsely represented that they performed their audits in accordance with professional standards and that ABAT's financial statements were fairly presented. The amended complaint alleged that the audit firms were reckless and committed an extreme departure from the reasonable standards of care by failing to identify several purported red flags. Do you believe the failure to identify red flags should be sufficient in a court of law to successfully allege gross negligence? Include in your discussion the purpose of auditors looking to detect red flags as part of their audits in accordance with GAAS. 3. Do you believe that auditors should be held legally liable when their filings to the SEC are [overly] optimistic while filings with Chinese regulatory agencies are [unduly] pessimistic? Explain using ethical reasoning to craft your answer.](https://d2lvgg3v3hfg70.cloudfront.net/SM1615/11eb75b5_726f_020a_adfc_c7135eee58df_SM1615_00.jpg)
Questions
1.Do you believe the legal standards of allegations with "particularity sufficient facts" and of "no audit at all" cited in ABAT under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are too strict, too lenient, or just about right with respect to auditors' legal liability in cases similar to ABAT ? Explain.
2. In ABAT , the plaintiffs alleged that the auditors falsely represented that they performed their audits in accordance with professional standards and that ABAT's financial statements were fairly presented. The amended complaint alleged that the audit firms were reckless and committed an "extreme departure from the reasonable standards of care" by failing to identify several purported "red flags." Do you believe the failure to identify red flags should be sufficient in a court of law to successfully allege gross negligence? Include in your discussion the purpose of auditors looking to detect red flags as part of their audits in accordance with GAAS.
3. Do you believe that auditors should be held legally liable when their filings to the SEC are [overly] optimistic while filings with Chinese regulatory agencies are [unduly] pessimistic? Explain using ethical reasoning to craft your answer.
Questions
1.Do you believe the legal standards of allegations with "particularity sufficient facts" and of "no audit at all" cited in ABAT under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are too strict, too lenient, or just about right with respect to auditors' legal liability in cases similar to ABAT ? Explain.
2. In ABAT , the plaintiffs alleged that the auditors falsely represented that they performed their audits in accordance with professional standards and that ABAT's financial statements were fairly presented. The amended complaint alleged that the audit firms were reckless and committed an "extreme departure from the reasonable standards of care" by failing to identify several purported "red flags." Do you believe the failure to identify red flags should be sufficient in a court of law to successfully allege gross negligence? Include in your discussion the purpose of auditors looking to detect red flags as part of their audits in accordance with GAAS.
3. Do you believe that auditors should be held legally liable when their filings to the SEC are [overly] optimistic while filings with Chinese regulatory agencies are [unduly] pessimistic? Explain using ethical reasoning to craft your answer.
Explanation
Verified
Verified
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (SEA): T...
Ethical Obligations and Decision-Making in Accounting: Text and Cases 4th Edition by Steven Mintz,Roselyn Morris
Why don’t you like this exercise?
Other Minimum 8 character and maximum 255 character
Character 255
