Exam 4: Auditors Legal Liability

arrow
  • Select Tags
search iconSearch Question
flashcardsStudy Flashcards
  • Select Tags

RICO was originally drafted as part of the 1980 Organized Crime Control Act.

(True/False)
4.8/5
(84)

Anyone identified to the auditor by name prior to the audit who is to be the principal recipient of the auditor's report is a

(Multiple Choice)
5.0/5
(99)

An auditor would be guilty of gross negligence for delivery of a report past the agreed-upon date.

(True/False)
4.8/5
(92)

The auditor's working papers are of little importance in refuting charges for breach of contract and breach of duty in a tort action.

(True/False)
4.8/5
(72)
For each of the following facts, indicate the case to which it relates using the following code:
An SAS on subsequent events was issued after the decision.
Ultramares Corp. v. Touche
The accountant’s liability for ordinary negligence was extended to foreseen groups.
1136 Tenants Corp. v. Rothenberg
The critical issue was the CPA’s failure to inform the client of employee wrong-doings, regardless of the service rendered.
Rusch Factors Inc. v. Levin
Correct Answer:
Verified
Premises:
Responses:
An SAS on subsequent events was issued after the decision.
Ultramares Corp. v. Touche
The accountant’s liability for ordinary negligence was extended to foreseen groups.
1136 Tenants Corp. v. Rothenberg
The critical issue was the CPA’s failure to inform the client of employee wrong-doings, regardless of the service rendered.
Rusch Factors Inc. v. Levin
The jury found that the requisite of scienter was met through the accountant’s negligence.
Rosenblum v. Adler
The auditors were convicted of criminal charges.
Escott v. BarChris Corp.
Accounting firms should no longer be permitted to hide within the citadel of privity and avoid liability for their malpractice.
Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
The accountant should not be held liable to any third party for negligence except to a primary beneficiary.
Fund of Funds Limited v. Arthur Andersen
Plaintiffs claimed the accountants were negligent in their audit because they had not challenged or investigated the “mail rule.”
United States v. Simon (Continental Vending)
(Matching)
4.9/5
(80)

The 1136 Tenants case showed that the accountant's working papers cannot be used against him.

(True/False)
4.9/5
(88)

The Restatement (Second) of Torts extends the auditor's liability for ordinary negligence to a specific but unlimited group of users for whose benefit the auditor intends to supply the information.

(True/False)
4.9/5
(75)
Showing 61 - 67 of 67
close modal

Filters

  • Essay(0)
  • Multiple Choice(0)
  • Short Answer(0)
  • True False(0)
  • Matching(0)