Assume that in a particular audit the cpas were negligent

· 4–41.

The following appeared in a brief article in a major business newspaper: A local court is in the process of ruling on whether the public accounting firm of James Willis and Co., CPAs, PC, should be required to pay all or part of $16 million in damages relating to Geiger Co. for failing to detect a scheme to defraud the company, a former audit client.

Geiger Co., an SEC registrant, charges that Willis was negligent in failing to discover fraud committed by the company's controller and wants Willis to foot the bill for all $16 million in claims by and against the company. The company claims that if it had known about the fraud, it could have stopped it and recovered financially. The bank involved claims that it granted the loan based on misstated financial statements. The shareholders involved claim that they purchased the stock on the American Stock Exchange at an inflated price due to the misstated financial statements. They acknowledged that while stock had been outstanding and traded for many years (10) prior to the fraud, they made their investment decisions relying upon the misstated financial statements.

Willis's general counsel said, “We anxiously await a decision that will show that CPAs are not guarantors for everything that goes on in the company.” Geiger Co.'s lawyer said that she anxiously awaited a decision because it will “clearly show that CPAs are liable for finding fraud.”

Assume that Willis performed that audit with ordinary negligence and this ordinary negligence is the reason that the defalcation was not discovered and recovered. Further, assume that the $16,000,000 of loss is properly allocated as follows:

Company itself

$8,000,000

Bank that gave a commercial loan

5,000,000

Shareholders

3,000,000

Reply from the perspective that the only issues involved here are whether the plaintiffs involved may recover from a CPA that has performed the engagement with this degree of negligence. Assume the situation described above, and assume that other elements of proof (e.g., loss, proximate cause) are not at issue.

1. Required:

Assume that the case is brought under common law, and that the state in which Geiger Co. is headquartered follows the known user approach for third-party legal liability.

1. Should Willis be found liable to the company, Geiger Co., itself? Explain.

1. Should Willis be found liable if sued by a bank that used the financial statements as a basis for providing a loan and, due to the misstatement, lost $5 million on the loan? Explain.

1. Should Willis be found liable if sued by shareholders who invested in the stock of the company? Assume these investors invested relying upon the misstated financial statements and as a result thereof lost $3 million. Explain.

1. Which of answers 1, 2, and 3 might change if the jurisdiction involved followed the Restatement of Torts approach? Explain.

The Answer (here is what you need to paraphrase)

(1) Yes. Since Willis is liable to a client for ordinary negligence, it is likely that it will be found liable to Geiger.

(2) Uncertain. Liability to the bank involved is dependent upon whether the bank can establish itself as a third-party beneficiary, and thereby recover for ordinary negligence. To accomplish this the bank will have to establish that the auditors had been aware that the financial statements were to be used by that particular bank as a basis for granting the loan. If it is unable to accomplish this, it is unlikely that it will be able to recover since other third parties must prove gross negligence.

(3) No. The shareholders are considered third parties who ordinarily must establish that the audit was performed with gross negligence.

(4) Answer 2 is most likely to be affected since the Restatement of Torts Approach expands third party liability to a limited class of known or intended users whose specific identity need not be known by the CPA. Accordingly, a bank that was unable to establish itself as a third party beneficiary under the Ultramares approach might be able to establish itself as a foreseen third party under the Restatement of Torts approach and thereby recover for ordinary negligence. Differences between the Restatement of Torts and Ultramares approaches relate to common law liability to third parties, and accordingly, liability to the company itself is unaffected. Shareholders have not ordinarily been able to establish themselves as foreseen third parties under the Restatement of Torts Approach.

What you need to do

-Rewrite the answer is your own words and paraphrase it. Because it is taken from solution- Make sure to say the same but in different order from the answer and write it in completely your words. I don’t what it to look as the given answer at all.

-Write a very short summary of the answer after it is written in your own words – separated paragraph – indicated it

-Make sure you don’t copy anything from the answer.