Common Law Liability Exposure. An accounting firm was engaged to examine thefinancial statements of Martin Manufacturing Corporation for the year ending December 31.Martin needed cash to continue its operations and agreed to sell its common stock investment in a subsidiary through a private placement. The buyers insisted that the proceeds beplaced in escrow because of the possibility of a major contingent tax liability that couldresult from a pending government claim against Martin’s subsidiary. The payment in escrowwas completed in late November. Martin’s president told the audit partner that the proceedsfrom the sale of the subsidiary’s common stock, held in escrow, should be shown on the balance sheet as an unrestricted current account receivable. The president held the opinion thatthe government’s claim was groundless and that Martin needed an “uncluttered” balancesheet and a “clean” auditors’ opinion to obtain additional working capital from lenders. Theaudit partner agreed with the president and issued an unmodified opinion on Martin’s financial statements, which did not refer to the contingent liability and did not properly describethe escrow arrangement.The government’s claim proved to be valid, and pursuant to the agreement with the buyers, the purchase price of the subsidiary was reduced by $450,000. This adverse development forced Martin into bankruptcy. The accounting firm is being sued for deceit (fraud) byseveral of Martin’s unpaid creditors who extended credit in reliance on the accounting firm’sunmodified opinion on Martin’s financial statements.Required:a. What deceit (fraud) do you believe the creditors are claiming?b. Is the lack of privity between the accounting firm and the creditors important in this case?c. Do you believe the accounting firm is liable to the creditors? Explain.
Common Law Liability Exposure. An accounting firm was engaged to examine the
financial statements of Martin Manufacturing Corporation for the year ending December 31.
Martin needed cash to continue its operations and agreed to sell its common stock investment in a subsidiary through a private placement. The buyers insisted that the proceeds be
placed in escrow because of the possibility of a major contingent tax liability that could
result from a pending government claim against Martin’s subsidiary. The payment in escrow
was completed in late November. Martin’s president told the audit partner that the proceeds
from the sale of the subsidiary’s common stock, held in escrow, should be shown on the
the government’s claim was groundless and that Martin needed an “uncluttered” balance
sheet and a “clean” auditors’ opinion to obtain additional
audit partner agreed with the president and issued an unmodified opinion on Martin’s financial statements, which did not refer to the
the escrow arrangement.
The government’s claim proved to be valid, and pursuant to the agreement with the buyers, the purchase price of the subsidiary was reduced by $450,000. This adverse development forced Martin into bankruptcy. The accounting firm is being sued for deceit (fraud) by
several of Martin’s unpaid creditors who extended credit in reliance on the accounting firm’s
unmodified opinion on Martin’s financial statements.
Required:
a. What deceit (fraud) do you believe the creditors are claiming?
b. Is the lack of privity between the accounting firm and the creditors important in this case?
c. Do you believe the accounting firm is liable to the creditors? Explain.
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps