A) The court allowed the case to proceed contingent on the plaintiffs submitting proof by an expert that misrepresentations occurred.
B) The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case recognizing that it is impossible as a matter of law for purchasers of aftermarket shares to have claims based on Section 11 because Section 11 does not apply to secondary-offering shares.
C) The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case recognizing that it is often impossible for purchasers of aftermarket shares to have claims based on Section 11 because they normally purchase through brokers that do not acknowledge the source of the shares.
D) The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case recognizing that the plaintiffs had not submitted sufficient evidence of misrepresentations.
E) Finding that the plaintiffs had met all prerequisites in regard to proof,the court ruled that the case should be allowed to proceed to trial.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The American Institute of Auditors
B) The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
C) The Financial Accounting Standards Board
D) The Federal Accounting Standards Board
E) The American Accounting and Auditing Standards Board
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) About half the states
B) All the states
C) One-fourth of the states
D) None because there is no Restatement test
E) Only a few states
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Joel was correct because the accountant-client privilege is recognized in all states through statutory law.
B) Joel was incorrect because there is no an accountant-client privilege in any state.
C) Joel was correct since the accountant-client privilege exists in all states through common law.
D) Joel was correct because the accountant-client privilege is recognized by federal law.
E) More information is needed in order to know if Joel is correct because the accountant-client privilege is recognized in some states,but not in all states.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The Auditing Analysis and Review Board
B) The Certified Public Accountant Commission
C) The Public Accounting Firms Oversight Commission
D) The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
E) The Securities Review Board
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) No,because federal law recognizes the accountant-client privilege.
B) No,because of the attorney-client privilege.
C) Yes,because no accountant-client privilege exists and the attorney-client privilege does not apply because Kayla is not an attorney.
D) Yes,because no accountant-client privilege exists.
E) Yes,because the communication was not made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the attorney.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) None,because Sami's conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.
B) None,because Sami,not Javier,engaged in fraud.
C) Strict liability.
D) Fraud,because there is evidence of Javier's wrongful intent.
E) Negligence,because Javier failed to exercise the care of a competent,reasonable professional.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) errors and omissions policy.
B) deductible policy.
C) professional indemnification and malpractice policy.
D) professional errors policy.
E) professional malpractice policy.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Privity.
B) Reliance on the statement as the cause of the plaintiff's loss.
C) Reliance on the fraudulent statement.
D) Fraudulent act or deception.
E) Scienter.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
B) The Fraud and Illegality Deterrence Act
C) The Public Securities Auditing Reform Act
D) The Accountant Crime Deterrence Act
E) The Public Detection Act
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) Fraud
B) Negligence
C) Privity
D) Breach of contract
E) Strict product liability
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Comparative negligence is an affirmative defense.
B) Comparative negligence and contributory negligence are affirmative defenses,and also an affirmative defense exists when the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts constituting the underlying violation or cause of action.
C) An affirmative defense exists when the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts constituting the underlying violation or cause of action.
D) There are no affirmative defenses available.
E) Contributory negligence is an affirmative defense.
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) Breach of contract,fraud,and accounting misalignment
B) Fraud,negligence,and accounting misalignment
C) Breach of contract,negligence,and innocent misrepresentation
D) Negligence,breach of contract,and accounting misalignment
E) Negligence,breach of contract,and fraud
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Malpractice
B) Malfeasance
C) Fraud
D) Negligence
E) Misfeasance
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Negligence in performing an audit or in the construction of a financial statement.
B) Fraudulent statements made to courts.
C) Fraudulent statements made to a client in connection with performing an audit.
D) Fraudulent statements made to the SEC.
E) Fraud in performing an audit.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 61 - 80 of 91
Related Exams