Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VIP
ch4
www.baidu.com
33
Chapter
04 - Lega
l Liabilit
y of CPA
s
4-9
4-34
SOLUTI
ON: Th
omas &
Ross, CP
As (Esti
mated ti
me: 15
minutes)
(a)
(1)
Under c
ommon l
aw in a j
urisdicti
on that a
dheres to
the
Ultram
ares
doctrine
, the
stockhol
ders mus
t show th
at they i
ncurred l
osses, th
at the CP
As were
grossly
negligen
t, and th
at this gr
oss negli
gence w
as the pr
oximate
cause of
the stock
holders'
losses.
(2)
Under c
ommon l
aw, the d
efendant
is "presu
med inn
ocent un
til prove
n guilty,"
and
therefore
bears no
burden o
r affirma
tive proo
f. The a
uditors
will, ho
wever, i
ntroduce
evidence
refuting
the plain
tiffs' alle
gations.
(b)
(1)
In a suit
brought
under th
e Securit
ies Act o
f 1933, i
nitial pur
chasers
of the se
curity
must sho
w only t
hat they
had a los
s and tha
t the fina
ncial stat
ements
were mis
leading.
(2)
The audi
tors, in o
rder to a
void liab
ility, mu
st prove
either th
at they p
erformed
their
audit wit
h "due di
ligence"
(that is,
were not
negligen
t) or that
their neg
ligence
was not
the proxi
mate cau
se of the
plaintiffs
' losses.
(c)
(1)
In a suit
brought
under th
e Securit
ies Exch
ange Act
of 1934,
the plain
tiffs nor
mally
must pro
ve relian
ce upon t
he misle
ading fin
ancial st
atements
, as well
as that th
ey
sustaine
d a loss
and that
the state
ments w
ere misle
ading.
(2)
To avoid
liability,
the audit
ors must
prove eit
her that t
hey "act
ed in go
od faith"
(were
not gross
ly neglig
ent), and
that their
gross ne
gligence
was not t
he proxi
mate cau
se of
the plain
tiffs' loss
es.
4-35
SOLUTI
ON: Ch
arles Wo
rthington
, CPA (E
stimated
time: 20
minutes)
Craft has
stated th
at the CP
A firm h
as "revie
wed the
books an
d record
s of Flac
k Ventur
es," whe
n in
fact no s
uch "revi
ew" has
occurred
. A "rev
iew" of f
inancial
statemen
ts consis
ts of limi
ted
investiga
tory proc
edures d
esigned t
o provid
e statem
ent users
with a li
mited de
gree of a
ssurance
that
the finan
cial state
ments ar
e in conf
ormity w
ith gener
ally acce
pted acc
ounting
principle
s. Craft'
s
actions a
re simila
r to issui
ng an au
ditors' re
port with
out first
performi
ng an au
dit. Suc
h an acti
on may
well be c
onsidere
d an act
of crimi
nal fraud
, intende
d to misl
ead user
s of the f
inancial
statemen
ts. In
addition,
Craft's a
ctions vi
olate Rul
es 102, 2
02, and
501 of th
e AICPA
Code o
f Profe
ssional
Condu
ct
.
If the fin
ancial st
atements
of Flack
Ventures
turn out t
o be misl
eading, t
here is li
ttle doub
t that an
y
court wo
uld find t
he CPA f
irm guilt
y of at le
ast const
ructive f
raud and
liable to
any third
party wh
o
sustains
a loss as
a result o
f relianc
e upon t
he state
ments.
The fact
that Craf
t violate
d Worthi
ngton's p
olicy of
submitti
ng all re
ports for
Worthin
gton's
review
would n
ot lessen
the CPA
firm's lia
bility. T
he conce
pt of mut
ual agen
cy allow
s Craft, a
sa
partner, t
o commi
t the fir
m to con
tracts, in
cluding
auditors'
reports a
nd accou
ntants' re
ports. T
he fact
that this
report w
as not su
bmitted f
or Worth
ington's
review
might be
introduc
ed as evi
dence ag
ainst
Craft in t
he event
he is acc
used of c
riminal f
raud.
Chapter
04 - Lega
l Liabilit
y of CPA
s
4-10
4-36
SOLUTI
ON: Un
audited
Stateme
nts (Esti
mated ti
me: 30
minutes)
(a)
The com
pilation (
preparati
on) of fi
nancial s
tatement
s is quite
different
from an
audit, an
d it is
importan
t that the
client un
derstand
this. Or
al comm
itments,
such as t
elephone
conversa
tions,
can ofte
n be mis
understo
od and s
hould be
followed
up by a
written e
ngageme
nt letter
spelling
out the n
ature an
d limitati
ons of th
e service
s to be p
erformed
.
(b)
Even a r
egular a
udit can
not be re
lief upon
to disclo
se defalc
ations, a
nd in an
engagem
ent
involvin
g the co
mpilatio
n of una
udited fi
nancial s
tatement
s, the CP
As do no
t even pe
rform
any audi
t proced
ures. Th
e fact tha
t the CP
A intend
s to perf
orm no i
nvestigat
ive proc
edures
and will
rely upo
n the rep
resentati
ons of th
e managi
ng agent
should s
pecifical
ly be set
forth in
the writt
en engag
ement le
tter.
Of cours
e, if the
CPA has
reason to
suspect t
hat the r
epresent
ations of
the mana
ging
agent are
erroneou
s, the co
ncept of
due prof
essional
care req
uires tha
t she inf
orm her
client of
her reser
vations.
(c)
The wor
d "Audit
" should
be avoid
ed in ref
erring to
all engag
ements o
ther than
audits.
Otherwis
e, it may
appear t
hat the C
PAs hav
e led the
client to
believe t
hat they
were acti
ng as
auditors,
in which
case the
y may be
held acc
ountable
for cond
ucting th
eir work
in accor
dance
with gen
erally ac
cepted a
uditing s
tandards.
The CP
A should
explain t
his situat
ion to th
e
client an
d persua
de the cli
ent to ch
ange the
account t
itle to "
Accounti
ng Fees.
"
(d)
While D
ay does
not have
a respon
sibility t
o perfor
m audit
procedur
es when
compilin
g
unaudite
d financi
al statem
ents, he
does hav
e a respo
nsibility
to exerci
se due pr
ofession
al care.
This wo
uld inclu
de advisi
ng the cl
ient of a
ny situat
ion that
might su
ggest a p
roblem f
or the
client.
The CPA
should al
ert his cl
ient to th
e missin
g invoic
es in wri
ting and
advise th
e client
to follow
up on th
e matter,
or, if the
client wi
shes, the
CPA cou
ld invest
igate the
matter as
an
addition
al accou
nting ser
vice. Th
e key poi
nt is that
the CPA
must not
fail to al
ert the cl
ient to
the unde
rlying po
tential fo
r fraud.
4-37
SOLUTI
ON: Ma
rk Willia
ms, CPA
(Estimat
ed time:
20 minut
es)
(a)
CPAs as
members
of a prof
ession ar
e obligat
ed to exe
rcise due
professio
nal care.
Thus, a
CPA ma
y be held
liable to
the clien
t for the
damages
resulting
from the
CPA's or
dinary
negligen
ce.
Since Ja
ckson Fi
nancial
was the
client, Ja
ckson ca
n recove
r losses
proximat
ely caus
ed
by Willi
ams' neg
ligence.
It would
appear t
hat Jacks
on Finan
cial coul
d also re
cover th
e audit
fee as da
mages b
ecause o
f Willia
ms' brea
ch of co
ntract.
(b)
The first
argumen
t which
Williams
' attorne
y would
make is t
hat Apex
had no ri
ghts und
er the
contract
between
Jackson
and Will
iams. In
most juri
sdictions
, an "oth
er" third
party is a
ble to
recover l
osses att
ributable
to the au
ditor's gr
oss negli
gence, b
ut not or
dinary n
egligenc
e.
A secon
d argum
ent is tha
t Willia
ms' negli
gence w
as not th
e proxim
ate cause
of Apex'
s
loss. Th
e loss ap
parently
occurred
prior to t
he audit
by Willi
ams and
could no
t have be
en
prevente
d even if
Williams
had disc
overed t
he defalc
ations.
Finally, t
he attorn
ey woul
d argue
contribut
ory negli
gence on
the part
of Apex.
Normall
y losses
are alloc
ated bet
ween the
parties
when bo
th partie
s are neg
ligent.
Chapter
04 - Lega
l Liabilit
y of CPA
s
4-11
Whether
the first
argumen
t that Jac
kson has
no rights
under th
e contrac
t will pre
vail is
an intere
sting que
stion. T
here is li
ttle auth
ority on t
he precis
e situatio
n in the
problem.
Althoug
h Apex i
s not the
client an
d is not
mention
ed as a b
eneficiar
y in the
engagem
ent letter
,
it is the c
ompany
whose fi
nancial s
tatement
s were a
udited.
Whether
this fact
creates t
he duty
of care o
wed by
Williams
to Jacks
on Finan
cial is, at
present,
unclear.
(c)
No. A C
PA firm
is not pr
evented
from rec
overing
against it
s insurer.
This is
precisely
the
purpose
of this ty
pe of ins
urance; i
t serves t
o protect
the insur
ed firm f
rom its o
wn negli
gence.
CPAs m
ay be bar
red from
recoveri
ng from
their ins
urers, ho
wever, if
they are
found gu
ilty of
criminal
fraud.
4-38
SOLUTI
ON: Cra
gsmore
& Comp
any, CP
As (Esti
mated ti
me: 20
minutes)
The lega
l proble
ms for C
ragsmor
e & Com
pany inv
olve pos
sible cri
minal lia
bility, as
well as c
ivil
liability,
for fraud
. The fa
cts in the
Marlowe
Manufac
turing, I
nc. audit
bear mar
ked simi
larities t
o the
facts in t
he
Contin
ental V
ending
case. In
Contin
ental V
ending
, the cou
rt found
two part
ners and
a
manager
of a CPA
firm guil
ty of cri
minal fra
ud for fa
iling to i
nsist upo
n adequa
te disclo
sure of t
he
uncollect
ibility of
a substa
ntial rec
eivable f
rom an a
ffiliate.
Mr. Crag
smore's
conduct
has impl
ications
of a cons
piracy w
ith mana
gement a
nd owne
rs of Ma
rlowe to
conceal t
he relate
d-party
aspects o
f the
lease bet
ween M
arlowe a
nd Acme
Leasing
Compan
y. Altho
ugh the i
nadequat
e disclos
ure of th
e facts
of the le
ase is no
t the pro
ximate c
ause of l
osses to
Marlowe
's credito
rs becau
se of the
company
's
bankrupt
cy, it is c
onceivab
le that a
finding o
f fraud a
gainst Cr
agsmore
& Comp
any with
respect t
o the
lease dis
closure
would le
ad to rec
overy of
damages
against t
he CPA
by the cr
editors o
f Marlo
we.
Generall
y, there i
s no requ
irement t
hat finan
cial state
ments or
notes dis
close the
lack of fi
re
insuranc
e. Many
compani
es do not
obtain in
surance
coverage
by choic
e; others
cannot o
btain
coverage
because
of the ha
zards of
their pro
ducts or
locations
. Accor
dingly, t
he unqua
lified opi
nion
of Crags
more &
Compan
y does n
ot appea
r to be in
appropri
ate beca
use of M
arlowe's
lack of i
nsurance
coverage
.
4-39
(SOLUT
ION: Se
curities
Acts Lia
bility (E
stimated
time: 15
minutes)
(a)
(3) Secti
on 11 of
the Secu
rities Ac
t of 1933
imposes
liability
on audit
ors for m
isstatem
ents or
omission
s of a ma
terial fac
t in certif
ied finan
cial state
ments or
other inf
ormation
provided
in
registrati
on state
ments.
Similarl
y, under
Section
10(b), R
ule 10b-
5 of the
Securitie
s Exchan
ge
Act of 1
934, the
plaintiff
must pro
ve there
was a m
aterial m
isstatem
ent or o
mission i
n
informat
ion relea
sed by th
e compa
ny, such
as audite
d financi
al statem
ents.
(b)
(3) Unde
r both Se
ction 11
of the 19
33 Act a
nd Secti
on 10(b)
of the 19
34 Act, t
he plaint
iff
must alle
ge or pro
ve that s/
he incurr
ed mone
tary dam
ages.
(c)
(1) Und
er Sectio
n 11 of t
he 1933
Act, the
burden o
f proof is
shifted t
o the def
endant,
accounta
nt. The
accounta
nt may t
hen defe
nd himse
lf or hers
elf by est
ablishing
due dilig
ence.
The plai
ntiff doe
s not hav
e to sho
w lack o
f due dili
gence by
the CPA
Under S
ection 1
0, the
plaintiff
must pro
ve scient
er.
(d)
(4) The
plaintiff
does not
have to p
rove that
s/he was
in privit
y with th
e CPA u
nder eith
er
section.
(e)
(2) Und
er Sectio
n 10(b),
the plain
tiff must
prove ju
stifiable
reliance
on the fi
nancial
informat
ion. Thi
s is not t
rue unde
r Section
11 in wh
ich the p
laintiff n
eed prov
e only th
e items
in item (
a) and (b
) discuss
ed above
.
1234567890ABCDEFGHIJKLMNabcdefghijklmn!@#$%^&&*()_+.
VIP
10
240
2017 Baidu | | | |
Principle of Au
/15
0 VIP,
| | | | |