As a consequence of his failure to adhere to generally accepted auditing standards in the
course of his examination of the Lamp Corp., Harrison, CPA, did not detect the
embezzlement of a material amount of funds by the company’s controller. As a matter of
common law, to what extent would Harrison be liable to the Lamp Corp. for losses
attributable to the theft?
A) He would have no liability, since the ordinary examination cannot be relied upon to
detect thefts of assets by employees.
B) He would have no liability because privity of contract is lacking.
C) He would be liable for losses attributable to his negligence.
D) He would be liable only if it could be proven that he was grossly negligent.
Which of the following is an accurate statement regarding Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934?
A) The Supreme Court has ruled that liability under Rule 10b-5 does not extend to
aiders or abettors who participated in financial statement misstatements that were not
the primary defendants.
B) Federal court decisions have clarified that Rule 10b-5 applies only to direct sellers.
C) Hochfelder and subsequent court decisions have increased the liability of auditors
under Rule 10b-5.
D) According to most recent court decisions, poor judgment is proof of fraud.