Auditing and Assurance Services (16th Edition)
16th Edition
ISBN: 9780134065823
Author: Alvin A. Arens, Randal J. Elder, Mark S. Beasley, Chris E. Hogan
Publisher: PEARSON
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 5, Problem 15.1MCQ
To determine
Identify the correct option to the statement given.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Mark Williams, CPA, was engaged by Jackson Financial Development Company to audit the financial statements of Apex Construction Company, a small closely held corporation. Williams was told when he was engaged that Jackson Financial needed reliable financial statements that would be used to determine whether to purchase a substantial amount of Apex Construction’s convertible debentures at the price asked by the estate of one of Apex’s former directors.
Williams performed his audit in a negligent manner. As a result of his negligence, he failed to discover substantial defalcations by Carl Brown, the Apex controller. Jackson Financial purchased the debentures, but it would not have done so if the defalcations had been discovered. After discovery of the fraud, Jackson Financial promptly sold them for the highest price offered in the market at a $70,000 loss.
If Apex Construction also sues Williams for negligence, what are the probable legal defenses Williams’s attorney would raise?…
Mark Williams, CPA, was engaged by Jackson Financial Development Company to audit the financial statements of Apex Construction Company, a small closely held corporation. Williams was told when he was engaged that Jackson Financial needed reliable financial statements that would be used to determine whether to purchase a substantial amount of Apex Construction’s convertible debentures at the price asked by the estate of one of Apex’s former directors.
Williams performed his audit in a negligent manner. As a result of his negligence, he failed to discover substantial defalcations by Carl Brown, the Apex controller. Jackson Financial purchased the debentures, but it would not have done so if the defalcations had been discovered. After discovery of the fraud, Jackson Financial promptly sold them for the highest price offered in the market at a $70,000 loss.
Will the negligence of Mark Williams, CPA, prevent him from recovering on a liability insurance policy covering the practice of…
Mark Williams, CPA, was engaged by Jackson Financial Development Company to audit the financial statements of Apex Construction Company, a small closely held corporation. Williams was told when he was engaged that Jackson Financial needed reliable financial statements that would be used to determine whether to purchase a substantial amount of Apex Construction’s convertible debentures at the price asked by the estate of one of Apex’s former directors.
Williams performed his audit in a negligent manner. As a result of his negligence, he failed to discover substantial defalcations by Carl Brown, the Apex controller. Jackson Financial purchased the debentures, but it would not have done so if the defalcations had been discovered. After discovery of the fraud, Jackson Financial promptly sold them for the highest price offered in the market at a $70,000 loss.
What liability does Williams have to Jackson Financial? Explain
Chapter 5 Solutions
Auditing and Assurance Services (16th Edition)
Ch. 5 - Prob. 1RQCh. 5 - Prob. 2RQCh. 5 - Prob. 3RQCh. 5 - Prob. 4RQCh. 5 - Prob. 5RQCh. 5 - Prob. 6RQCh. 5 - Prob. 7RQCh. 5 - Prob. 8RQCh. 5 - Prob. 9RQCh. 5 - Prob. 10RQ
Ch. 5 - What potential sanctions does the SEC have against...Ch. 5 - Prob. 12RQCh. 5 - Prob. 13RQCh. 5 - Prob. 14.1MCQCh. 5 - Prob. 14.2MCQCh. 5 - Prob. 14.3MCQCh. 5 - Prob. 15.1MCQCh. 5 - Prob. 15.2MCQCh. 5 - Prob. 15.3MCQCh. 5 - Prob. 16.1MCQCh. 5 - Prob. 16.2MCQCh. 5 - Prob. 16.3MCQCh. 5 - Prob. 17DQPCh. 5 - Prob. 18DQPCh. 5 - Prob. 19DQPCh. 5 - Prob. 20DQPCh. 5 - Prob. 21DQPCh. 5 - Prob. 22DQPCh. 5 - Prob. 23DQPCh. 5 - Under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and...Ch. 5 - Prob. 25DQPCh. 5 - Prob. 26DQPCh. 5 - Prob. 27C
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Nixon & Co., CPAs, issued an unmodified opinion on the 2015 financial statements of Madison Corp. These financial statements were included in Madison’s annual report and Form 10-K filed with the SEC. Nixon did not detect material misstatements in the financial statements as a result of negligence in the performance of the audit. Based upon the financial statements, Harry Corp. purchased stock in Madison. Shortly thereafter, Madison became insolvent, causing the price of the stock to decline drastically. Harry has commenced legal action against Nixon for damages based upon Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. What would be Nixon’s best defense to such an action? Explain.arrow_forwardSawyer and Sawyer, CPAs, audited the financial statements of Rattler Corporation that were included in Rattler’s Form 10-K, which was filed with the SEC. Subsequently, Rattler Corporation went bankrupt and the stockholders of the corporation brought a class-action lawsuit against management, Sawyer and Sawyer, and the corporation’s board of directors and attorneys for misstatements of the financial statements. Assume that the jury in the case decides that responsibility for $5 million in losses should be allocated as follows: Management 70% Board of directors 20 Auditors 5 Attorneys 5 100% Under what securities act would the stockholders initiate this lawsuit? Assuming that all the defendants in the case are financially able to pay their share of the losses, calculate the amount of losses that would be allocated to Sawyer and Sawyer. Assuming that management had no financial resources, describe how Sawyer and Sawyer’s share of the losses might be increased.arrow_forwardWhile conducting an audit, Larson Associates, CPAs, failed to detect material misstatements included in its client's financial statements. Larson's unqualified opinion was included with the financial statements in a registration statement and prospectus for a public offering of securities made by the client. Larson knew that its opinion and the financial statements would be used for this purpose. Which of the following statements is correct with regard to a suit against Larson and the client by a purchaser of the securities under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933? Larson will not be liable if the purchaser did not rely on the financial statements. Larson will not be liable if it had reasonable grounds to believe the financial statements were accurate. The purchaser must prove that Larson knew of the material misstatements. The purchaser must prove that Larson failed to conduct the audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.arrow_forward
- A group of investors sued Anderson, Olds, and Watershed, CPAs (AOW) for alleged damages suffered when the entity in which they held common stock went bankrupt. To avoidliability under the common law, AOW must demonstrate which of the following?a. The investors actually suffered a loss.b. The investors relied on the financial statements audited by AOW.c. The investors’ loss was a direct result of their reliance on the audited financial statements.d. The audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards andwith due professional care.arrow_forwardA CPA issued an unqualified opinion on the financial statements of a company that sold common stock in a public offering subject to the Securities Act of 1933. Based on a misstatement in the financial statements, the CPA is being sued by an investor who purchased shares of this public offering. Which of the following represents a viable defense? A) The investor has not proven CPA negligence. B) The CPA detected the misstatement after the audit report date. C) The audit work was adequate to support the CPA's opinion. D) The investor did not rely upon the financial statement.arrow_forwardIn January 2008, it was discovered that William Borchard, who handled due diligence for clients of PwC interested in mergers and acquisitions, divulged controversial plans to Gregory Raben, an auditor at the firm, and Raben used the information to buy stock ahead of a series of corporate takeovers. The SEC found the two guilty of insider trading, a violation of the law. Assume none of the clients were audit clients. What are the ethical issues involved in engaging in such transactions? Were any of the AICPA rules of conduct violated? Explain.arrow_forward
- J, B & J, Certified Public Accountants, has audited the Highcredit Corporation for the past five years. Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has commenced an investigation of Highcredit for possible violations of Federal securities law. The SEC has subpoenaed all of J, B & J’s working papers pertinent to the audit of Highcredit. Highcredit insists that J, B & J not turn over the documents to the SEC. What action should J, B & J take? Why?arrow_forwardFleming and Company CPAs, issued an unqualified opinion the 20x3 financial statements of Walton Corporation Late in 20X4, Walton determined that its controller had embezzled over $2,000,000. Fleming was unaware of the embezzlement. Walton has decided to sue Fleming to recover the $2,000,000. The suit is based upon Fleming's failure to discover the missing money while performing the audit. Which of the following is Fleming's best defense? Multiple Choice The controller was Walton's agent and as such had designed the controls which facilitated the embezzlement Fleming had no knowledge of the embezzlement. That the audit was performed in accordance with GAAS The financial statements were presented in conformity with GAAP.arrow_forwardGordon & Moore, CPAS, were the auditors of Fox & Company, a brokerage firm. Gordon & Moore examined and reported on the financial statements of Fox, which were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Several of Fox's customers were swindled by a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by two key officers of the company. The facts establish that Gordon & Moore were negligent, but not reckless or grossly negligent, in the conduct of the audit, and neither participated in the fraudulent scheme nor knew of Its existence. The customers are suing Gordon & Moore under the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alding and abetting the fraudulent scheme of the officers. The customers' sult for fraud is predicated exclusively on the negligence of the auditors in falling to conduct a proper audit, thereby failing to discover the fraudulent scheme. Required: Answer the following, setting forth reasons for any conclusions stated. a. What is…arrow_forward
- Gordon & Moore, CPAs, were the auditors of Fox & Company, a brokerage firm. Gordon & Moore examined and reported on the financial statements of Fox, which were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Several of Fox’s customers were swindled by a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by two key officers of the company. The facts establish that Gordon & Moore were negligent, but not reckless or grossly negligent, in the conduct of the audit, and neither participated in the fraudulent scheme nor knew of its existence. The customers are suing Gordon & Moore under the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for aiding and abetting the fraudulent scheme of the officers. The customers’ suit for fraud is predicated exclusively on the negligence of the auditors in failing to conduct a proper audit, thereby failing to discover the fraudulent scheme. What is the probable outcome of the lawsuit? Explain. What other…arrow_forwardLiability under the Securities Acts. Orange is a public entity whose shares are traded ona national exchange. A Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspection revealed adeficiency in audits conducted by Orange’s auditor, LeGrow. LeGrow had failed to performimportant auditing procedures; after performing these procedures in response to the inspection, LeGrow identified several material misstatements and requested that Orange restateits financial statements. These restatements had the effect of reducing Orange’s reportedincome and cash flow from operations and increasing its liabilities.Upon the disclosure of these restatements, Orange’s stock price declined more than 40percent. Angered over this decline, investors are contemplating bringing legal action againstLeGrow for failing to detect the misstatements.Required:a. Assume that investors are bringing suit under the Securities Act of 1933. What wouldinvestors need to demonstrate to bring suit against LeGrow under this act?b. What…arrow_forwardAnalyze each of the following situations below and provide your assessment of the potential resolution of each scenario, including potential liability for the auditor or audit firm involved. Yasmeen CPA is a defendant in a lawsuit alleging that she should be held liable for gross negligence for a fraud involving the valuation of securities included in the financial statements of one of his clients. Yasmeen was uncertain how to establish a correct valuation for the securities and decided to rely on the price estimation supplied by management. A lawsuit has been filed against Elena CPA, charging here with constructive fraud in the audit of Broughton Company’s financial statements. Elena has examined all the audit documentation in his files and reviewed all relevant auditing standards. She is convinced that his audit fully complies with standards of the profession but is uncertain what he should use as his primary defense tactic. Canon Film filed for a bankruptcy in January 2012. A…arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach (MindTap Course L...AccountingISBN:9781337619455Author:Karla M Johnstone, Audrey A. Gramling, Larry E. RittenbergPublisher:Cengage Learning
Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach (MindTap Course L...
Accounting
ISBN:9781337619455
Author:Karla M Johnstone, Audrey A. Gramling, Larry E. Rittenberg
Publisher:Cengage Learning