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
Videos
Textbook Question
Chapter 5, Problem 24DQP
Under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a CPA may be sued by a purchaser of registered securities. The following items relate to what a plaintiff who purchased securities must prove in a civil liability suit against a CPA.
The plaintiff security purchaser must allege or prove:
- 1. Material misstatements were included in a filed document.
- 2. A monetary loss occurred.
- 3. Lack of due diligence by the CPA.
- 4. Privity with the CPA.
- 5. Reliance on the financial statements.
- 6. The CPA had scienter (knowledge and intent to deceive).
For each of the items 1 through 6 listed above, indicate whether the statement must be proven under
- a. Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 only.
- b. Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 only.
- c. Both Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
- d. Neither Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 nor Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.*
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Individuals who believe they relied on misstated financial statements to make a decision andhave suffered losses as a result will issue an action known as aa. Breach of contract.b. Tort.c. Securities litigation.d. Constructive fraud.
When investors sue auditors for damages under section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,they must allege and provea. Scienter on the part of auditors.b. The audited financial statements contained a material misstatement.c. They relied on the materially misstated financial statements.d. Their reliance on the materially misstated financial statements was the direct cause oftheir loss.
Under the 1933 Securities Act, which of the following must be proven by the purchaserof the security?Reliance on the Fraud byFinancial Statements The CPA(1) Yes Yes(2) Yes No(3) No Yes(4) No No
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
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, accounting and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.Similar questions
- An auditor was sued and found guilty of negligence. For each of the following situations, indicate the likelihood the plaintiff would win if the plaintiff is: An investor suing under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. An investor suing under the 1933 Securities Act.arrow_forward1. Under the Statute of Frauds, the following contracts must be in writing, otherwise they cannot be enforced in court litigation except CHOICES: Sale of personal property at a price not more than P300.00 Sale of real property regardless of the price involved Sale of property not to be performed within a year from the date thereof regardless of the nature of the property and price involved Answer not givenarrow_forwardSection 11(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that individuals can be sued and maybe liable for investors’ losses in connection with a public securities offering under which ofthese circumstances?a. The chairman of the board of directors performed a reasonable investigation of facts inconnection with preparing the section in the registration statement concerning the specification of the use of the proceeds of the offering.b. A consulting engineer performed a reasonable investigation and reported in the registration statement on the feasibility of construction of a roadway to be financed with theoffering proceeds.c. The president of the issuing entity had no reason to doubt the report of the consultingengineer, although the president did not perform a separate reasonable investigation ofher own.d. The officers of the issuing entity were relieved that the independent auditors did notmake an issue about the excessive valuation of inventory held to support construction inprogressarrow_forward
- Misrepresentation discovered by an insurer may result in the policy being voided. Which one (1) of the following circumstances must the insurer show occurred to legally void the policy? The misrepresentation was malicious. The misrepresented fact was material to the risk. The misrepresentation was the result of extreme carelessness by the insured's broker. The misrepresented fact was the product of collusion between the insured and the broker.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 comparison to the burden of proof required of plaintiffs in civil lawsuits against independent auditors under common law, section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934a. Is the same regarding plaintiffs’ need to prove damages or losses.b. Is the same regarding plaintiffs’ need to establish privity or a beneficiary relationshipwith auditors.c. Does not require that plaintiffs prove their reliance on materially misstated financialstatements.d. Does not require that plaintiffs prove that relying on the materially misstated financialstatements caused their losses.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_forwardWhich of the following statements regarding auditors’ liability under the Securities Act of1933 is not true?a. The act relates to the initial issuance of securities to the public, normally through an initial public offering.b. Auditors’ liability arises because of audited financial information filed with the SEC.c. Third parties must demonstrate that they relied on misstated financial statements thatwere examined by auditors.d. Auditors may be liable if they are found to have engaged in ordinary negligence.arrow_forwardConsider section 24 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 32 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (see Module C). Based on the case information, do you believe that Madoff’s auditor, Friehling, should be facing criminal charges? Why or why not?arrow_forward
- Title Nora, an accountant, prepares a financial statement as part of a registration statement that Omega,. Description Nora, an accountant, prepares a financial statement as part of a registration statement that Omega, Inc., files with the Securities and Exchange Commission before making a public offering of securities. The statement contains a misstatement of material fact that is not attributable to Nora's fraud or negligence. Pat relies on the misstatement, buys some of the securities, and suffers a loss. Can Nora be held liable to Pat? Explain. (See Potential Liability of Accountants under Securities Laws.)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_forwardThe following pertains to auditor legal liability standards under the PSLRA:a. The Reform Act requires that, in any private securities fraud action in which the plaintiff is alleging a misleading statement or omission on the part of the defendant, “the complaint shall specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, the complaint shall state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed.”90Do you believe this standard better protects auditors from legal liability than the standards which existed before the PSLRA? Explain.b. Do you believe the change in standards for auditors’ liability under the PSLRA from joint-and-several to proportional liability was a good thing? Explain.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
Business/Professional Ethics Directors/Executives...AccountingISBN:9781337485913Author:BROOKSPublisher:Cengage
Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach (MindTap Course L...
Accounting
ISBN:9781337619455
Author:Karla M Johnstone, Audrey A. Gramling, Larry E. Rittenberg
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Business/Professional Ethics Directors/Executives...
Accounting
ISBN:9781337485913
Author:BROOKS
Publisher:Cengage
Revenue recognition explained; Author: The Finance Storyteller;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=816Q6pOaGv4;License: Standard Youtube License