Principles Of Auditing & Other Assurance Services
21st Edition
ISBN: 9781259916984
Author: WHITTINGTON, Ray, Pany, Kurt
Publisher: Mcgraw-hill Education,
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 4, Problem 23QRA
To determine
Decide the legal implications of the given facts relating to W the client and S the auditor relationship.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
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 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…
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…
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.
Chapter 4 Solutions
Principles Of Auditing & Other Assurance Services
Ch. 4 - Prob. 1RQCh. 4 - Prob. 2RQCh. 4 - Prob. 3RQCh. 4 - Prob. 4RQCh. 4 - Prob. 5RQCh. 4 - Prob. 6RQCh. 4 - Prob. 7RQCh. 4 - Prob. 8RQCh. 4 - Prob. 9RQCh. 4 - Prob. 10RQ
Ch. 4 - Prob. 11RQCh. 4 - Prob. 12RQCh. 4 - Prob. 13RQCh. 4 - Prob. 14RQCh. 4 - Prob. 15RQCh. 4 - Prob. 16RQCh. 4 - Prob. 17RQCh. 4 - Prob. 18RQCh. 4 - Prob. 19RQCh. 4 - Prob. 20QRACh. 4 - Prob. 21QRACh. 4 - Prob. 22QRACh. 4 - Prob. 23QRACh. 4 - Prob. 24QRACh. 4 - Prob. 25QRACh. 4 - Prob. 26QRACh. 4 - Gordon Moore, CPAs, were the auditors of Fox ...Ch. 4 - Prob. 28AOQCh. 4 - Prob. 28BOQCh. 4 - Prob. 28COQCh. 4 - Prob. 28DOQCh. 4 - Prob. 28EOQCh. 4 - Prob. 28FOQCh. 4 - Prob. 28GOQCh. 4 - Prob. 28HOQCh. 4 - Prob. 28IOQCh. 4 - Prob. 28JOQCh. 4 - Prob. 28KOQCh. 4 - Prob. 28LOQCh. 4 - Prob. 29OQCh. 4 - Prob. 30OQCh. 4 - Match the important cases listed below with the...Ch. 4 - Prob. 32OQCh. 4 - For each definition (or portion of a definition)...Ch. 4 - Prob. 34PCh. 4 - Prob. 35PCh. 4 - Prob. 36PCh. 4 - Charles Worthington, the founding and senior...Ch. 4 - Prob. 38PCh. 4 - Prob. 39PCh. 4 - Prob. 40PCh. 4 - Prob. 41ITCCh. 4 - Prob. 42RDC
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. Will the negligence of Mark Williams, CPA, prevent him from recovering on a liability insurance policy covering the practice of…arrow_forwardMark 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_forwardMark 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?…arrow_forward
- The 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_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_forwardPost, CPA, accepted an engagement to audit the financial statements of General Co., a new client. General is a publicly held retailing entity that recently replaced its operating management. In the course of applying audit procedures, Post discovered indicators of fraud. After further investigation, they determined that a warehouse employee was stealing inventory.1) Discuss fraud materiality thresholds and explain whether the specific fraud case outlined above can be considered inconsequential. 2) Discuss Post's responsibilities regarding required communications if the fraud was determined to be:a) Clearly inconsequential.b) Not clearly inconsequential. 3) Discuss auditor obligations regarding client confidentiality and allowed disclosures relating to fraud.arrow_forward
- Jones, CPA, is planning the audit of Rhonda’s Company. Rhonda verbally asserts to Jones that all expenses for the year have been recorded in the accounts. Rhonda’s representation in this regarda. Is sufficient evidence for Jones to conclude that the completeness assertion is supported for expenses.b. Can enable Jones to minimize the work on the gathering of evidence to support Rhonda’s completeness assertion.c. Should be disregarded because it is not in writing.d. Is not considered a sufficient basis for Jones to conclude that all expenses have been recorded.arrow_forwardI need the answer as soon as possiblearrow_forwardKay & Lee LLP was retained as the auditor for Holligan Industries to audit the financial statements required by prospective banks as a prerequisite to extending a loan to the client. The auditor knows whichever bank lends money to the client is likely to rely on the audited statements. After the audit report is issued, the bank that ultimately made the loan discovers that the audit client’s inventory and accounts receivable were overstated. The client subsequently went bankrupt and defaulted on the loan. The bank alleged that the auditor failed to communicate about the inadequacy of the client’s internal recordkeeping and inventory control. Moreover, the bank claims that the auditors were grossly negligent in not discovering the overvaluation of inventory and accounts receivable. The auditors asserted that there was no way for them to know that the client included in the inventory account $1 million of merchandise in transit to a customer on December 31, 2015. The shipping terms…arrow_forward
- Kay & Lee LLP was retained as the auditor for Holligan Industries to audit the financial statements required by prospective banks as a prerequisite to extending a loan to the client. The auditor knows whichever bank lends money to the client is likely to rely on the audited statements. After the audit report is issued, the bank that ultimately made the loan discovers that the audit client’s inventory and accounts receivable were overstated. The client subsequently went bankrupt and defaulted on the loan. The bank alleged that the auditor failed to communicate about the inadequacy of the client’s internal recordkeeping and inventory control. Moreover, the bank claims that the auditors were grossly negligent in not discovering the overvaluation of inventory and accounts receivable. The auditors asserted that there was no way for them to know that the client included in the inventory account $1 million of merchandise in transit to a customer on December 31, 2015. The shipping terms…arrow_forwardKay & Lee LLP was retained as the auditor for Holligan Industries to audit the financial statements required by prospective banks as a prerequisite to extending a loan to the client. The auditor knows whichever bank lends money to the client is likely to rely on the audited statements. After the audit report is issued, the bank that ultimately made the loan discovers that the audit client’s inventory and accounts receivable were overstated. The client subsequently went bankrupt and defaulted on the loan. The bank alleged that the auditor failed to communicate about the inadequacy of the client’s internal recordkeeping and inventory control. Moreover, the bank claims that the auditors were grossly negligent in not discovering the overvaluation of inventory and accounts receivable. The auditors asserted that there was no way for them to know that the client included in the inventory account $1 million of merchandise in transit to a customer on December 31, 2015. The shipping terms…arrow_forwardBelow are two independent situations.1: Grinner and Greeter, CPAs, were engaged to perform an audit of the financial statements of Happy, Inc. Happy's management would not allow Grinner and Greeter to confirm any of the accounts receivable. All other auditing procedures were performed as considered necessary by Grinner and Greeter and no issues were encountered. However, Grinner and Greeter were unable to satisfy themselves with regard to the balance in accounts receivable. 2: Tick and Tie, CPAs, were performing their annual audit of Johnson Manufacturing Company. Johnson is currently being sued for $2,000,000 related to an alleged defective product that they sold to a customer. Johnson's legal counsel has told Tick and Tie that it is probable that Johnson will lose the suit and have to pay the entire $2,000,000. Johnson's management has included information in the footnotes about the lawsuit. However, they have not recorded any loss or liability in the income statement or balance…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