Govt. Regulation of Bus: Accountants' Legal Responsibilities Flashcards
(42 cards)
In a suit for damages under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 damages are calculated as:
damages = value of securities on date suit is filed - price paid for securities
Misstatements on a registration statement are governed by which act?
The Securities Act of 1933.
To win in a case governed by the ‘34 Act, what must a plaintiff do to win?
- The plaintiff must prove reliance on the F/S in question.
- There must be evidence of a material misstatement or omission knowingly (or recklessly) made, which the injured party relied upon to his or her detriment.
In a case governed by the ‘34 Act, when can an accountant be held liable?
- When the accountant has engaged in gross negligence, or reckless disregard for the truth.
- In the case of company fraud, a accountant can not be held liable merely for “aiding and abetting” fraud.
Which of the following would constitute a valid defense by a CPA in an action for fraud where the plaintiff was NOT in privity of contract with the CPA?
That the client’s reliance was not reasonable is a valid defense for the CPA.
To recover in an action for common law fraud, one must prove five elements:
- Misstatement or omission;
- Of a material fact;
- Knowingly made with an intent to deceive (scienter);
- Relied upon by the complaining party;
- Which results in damages.
In a suit by A against B, CPA, for common law fraud, A will prevail only if:
A actually relied on B’s services.
Is privity of contract a necessary element to prove common law fraud?
Privity of contract may exist, but is not a necessary element.
Is proof of mere negligence enough to establish scienter?
No, a willful intent to deceive must be proven.
One has fulfilled the general standard of care expected of an accountant if:
- The services provided by the accountant were provided w/the level of skill ordinarily exercised under the circumstances.
- An accountant is expected to exercise ordinary care and diligence, measured by the particular circumstances.
T/F: A CPA only has liability to the client?
False. CPAs are liable to third parties as well.
constructive fraud
- The CPA did not act with malice of with a specific intent to deceive, but was reckless or grossly negligent.
- A CPA’s failure to carry out the duty expressed in the engagement will result in liability for breach of contract regardless of negligence.
When are CPAs liable to foreseen third parties?
- When they are aware that their work will be relied upon, such as for an extension of credit.
- This is usually the standard used.
When are CPAs liable to foreseeable third parties?
- When they are reasonably certain their work will be relied upon.
- This standard is not applied in most jurisdictions.
When is an accountant liable for breach of contract?
- if negligent in performing the contracted work.
2. It is not necessary for a client to prove gross negligence or fraud.
For a third party to recover against a CPA, the third party must:
- Prove fraud or gross negligence on the part of the CPA,
1a. OR, if the CPA is merely negligent, the third party may recover if it can be shown that the CPA knew the third party would be relying on the CPAs work product, and actually did rely.
accountant-client privilege. Is it broad? Can it be waived?
- Not as broad as attorney-client privilege.
2. It can be waived only by the client.
Section 7525 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 provides:
- Provides taxpayers a privilege regarding written or verbal tax advice from a CPA.
- The creation of the new privilege was not intended to modify, but rather to extend the attorney-client common law confidentiality privilege to other practitioners, such as CPAs.
- The preparation of tax accrual work papers is not considered tax advice when developed to evaluate a client’s contingent tax liabilities in connection with financial condition disclosures.
- The privilege does not extend to written tax advice to corporate clients concerning their corporation’s involvement in tax shelters.
Can a legal action may be successfully maintained against an accountant by a person not in privity of contract with the accountant?
Mere negligence by an accountant is actionable by an entity not in privity with the accountant only if the accounting work was intended for the plaintiff (or for a group which included the plaintiff) making the plaintiff a “foreseen” third party.
To comply with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, members of an audit committee must ensure which of the following:
- Financial reports reflect all material correcting adjustments; 2. Off–balance sheet transactions be disclosed;
- Companies disclose to the public on a rapid and current basis information concerning material changes in its financial condition.
In a Section 11 ‘33 Act case, can a CPA successfully defend himself/herself? If so, how?
Plaintiffs need not prove negligence on the part of the CPA, but a CPA can avoid liability by proving the exercise of due diligence.
‘33 At requirements for a public offering > $5 mil:
- Either a registration statement must be filed 2. OR, resale of the securities within two years is restricted.
Rule 505 of Regulation D
- Permits a company to sell up to $5 million in securities over a 12 month period
1a. but prohibits general advertising, - Limits a sales to not more than 35 nonaccredited investors and restricts resale for two years.
- If nonaccredited investors purchase the securities, an audited balance sheet must be provided.
In general, the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 accomplish the goal of stability in the marketplace for securities by:
generally assuring that prospective investors are provided information about an issuer of securities necessary to make an informed investment decision.