Auditing & Assurance Services: A Systematic Approach (Irwin Accounting)
10th Edition
ISBN: 9780077732509
Author: William F Messier Jr, Steven M. Glover Associate Professor, Douglas F. Prawitt Associate Professor
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Education
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 20, Problem 20.23MCQ
To determine
Introduction:
When material fraud is detected by the auditor during the course of audit, and he is of the opinion that the same if goes un-corrected shall have a impact on opinion expressed in the audit report, he is required to intimate the same to board of directors who shall inform the same to securities exchange commission (SEC) within one business day.
On failure of the board of directors to report the same to SEC, auditor shall inform the same to SEC within one business day.
To select: The correct option.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
While 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.
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.
If Apex Construction also sues Williams for negligence, what are the probable legal defenses Williams’s attorney would raise?…
Chapter 20 Solutions
Auditing & Assurance Services: A Systematic Approach (Irwin Accounting)
Ch. 20 - Prob. 20.1RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.2RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.3RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.4RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.5RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.6RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.7RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.8RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.9RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.10RQ
Ch. 20 - Prob. 20.11RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.12RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.13RQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.14MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.15MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.16MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.17MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.18MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.19MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.20MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.21MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.22MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.23MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.24MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.25MCQCh. 20 - Prob. 20.26PCh. 20 - Prob. 20.27PCh. 20 - Prob. 20.28PCh. 20 - Prob. 20.29P
Knowledge Booster
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. What liability does Williams have to Jackson Financial? Explainarrow_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_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
- 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_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_forwardThe following scenarios may result in non-compliance with one or more of the principles in the code of ethics, by the auditor or accountants. John, a chartered accountant who is employed by a state-owned enterprise, appeared before a commission of enquiry into financial irregularities that occurred under his direction. John denied his involvement but there was proof made available which indicated he was lying. John acknowledged that he had lied and then went on to state that he was instructed to do so by his superiors. Discuss if the chartered accountants or registered auditors in each of the scenarios above, have failed to comply with any of the fundamental ethical principles in the code of conduct.arrow_forward
- [The following information applies to the questions displayed below.] Per SEC release, from 2012 through 2014 then EY partner Pamela Hartford violated Independence Rules by having an affair with a client. Reports state she engaged in a personal relationship with Robert Brehl, the chief accounting officer of a public company that she serviced as a member of the audit engagement team. Another EY partner Michael Kamienski (the supervising partner on this engagement) became aware of facts suggesting an improper relationship between Hartford and Brehl. However, he failed to follow up on his suspicions. While Hartford and Brehl tried to keep their relationship a secret, they did attend client and EY social events. This suggests that others at both EY and the client could have been aware of the affair. As part of the first SEC enforcement action of its kind, the SEC made charges of a breach of Independence against EY, Hartford, and Kaminski as well as Brehl. All parties agreed to settle the…arrow_forward[The following information applies to the questions displayed below.] Per SEC release, from 2012 through 2014 then EY partner Pamela Hartford violated Independence Rules by having an affair with a client. Reports state she engaged in a personal relationship with Robert Brehl, the chief accounting officer of a public company that she serviced as a member of the audit engagement team. Another EY partner Michael Kamienski (the supervising partner on this engagement) became aware of facts suggesting an improper relationship between Hartford and Brehl. However, he failed to follow up on his suspicions. While Hartford and Brehl tried to keep their relationship a secret, they did attend client and EY social events. This suggests that others at both EY and the client could have been aware of the affair. As part of the first SEC enforcement action of its kind, the SEC made charges of a breach of Independence against EY, Hartford, and Kaminski as well as Brehl. All parties agreed to settle the…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
- During a recent discussion with the top management of GreenTree Company, a large publicly-traded entity, the external auditors, Wood's CPA firm has been apprised that the management of GreenTree may have knowingly allowed misstatements in the firm's most recent financial statements to be published. GreenTree's management are inquiring of the auditor as to management's potential liability in such a situation. The best response to this question by the external auditor would be which of the following?arrow_forwardThe following relates to the Menendez–Halliburton situation described in the text.(a) How would you characterize Halliburton’s accounting for revenue from ethical and professional perspectives?(b) Once KPMG learned that Menendez had provided a complaint to Halliburton’s audit committee highlighting questionable accounting and auditing practices, the KPMG audit partner instructed the audit team members to avoid communications with Menendez. How would you characterize those actions ethically and professionally?arrow_forwardA 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_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 LearningBusiness/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