On the other hand, it may not effect their independence if they like their current Job and could not care less about the other auditors transferring to the client. 1 c) The Serbians-Solely Act of 2002 require current auditors to wait at least one year pass since they were involved in the auditing of a client before they are able to accept an employment offer in certain designated positions. They also require that auditors report any employment offer or intention to seek employment with an audit client, after which they are removed from all engagements until they either reject the offer or are no longer seeking other employment.
At which time the accounting firm should determine if any additional measures need to be taken to ensure that reasonable assurance can be given that the work of that specific CPA had been objective and with integrity. Old)No, it is not appropriate for auditors to trust executives of a client. If an auditor trusts the executives of a client, the auditor’s independence is compromised. Auditors are supposed to look for fraud, errors, and problems; they are to expect them until they can prove that there is a reason not to.
If they trust them, they will not expect or be cooking for fraud or errors, they will assume that everything is correct because of their trust. AAA) b) AAA) Yes, I would pursue legal action against the auditor in this situation. The basis of my claim would be similar to those that filed against Coopers, that the auditors were reckless and provided misleading statements causing so many investors to invest when they probably wouldn’t have if everything would have been appropriately stated. I would bring suit under The Federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section BOB and Section 18. B) “For the CPA, negligence is failure to perform a duty in accordance with applicable standards. For practical purposes, negligence may be viewed as failure to exercise due professional care. ” c) Fraud is misrepresenting a material fact that is known by the person misrepresenting it, where negligence may also be misrepresenting a fact but it is not known to the person misrepresenting it. So, the primary difference is that fraud is done on purpose and negligence is not. AAA) When a third party is not a primary beneficiary or they are unidentified, auditors can still be held liable if they committed fraud or gross negligence.
They cannot be held liable for ordinary negligence like they can for a primary beneficiary that is specifically identified as a user of the report and their client. B) Even though the third party had not specifically identified to the Caps, they were still aware that the financial statements were going to be used to obtain financing from third parties. It made them liable for more than Just their client and third parties that were known because they were able to “foresee” other third parties being involved 05) The Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 are very similar but they have large differences as well.
Under the 1933 Act plaintiffs do not need to prove that they relied on the audited financial statements, only that they suffered a loss and that the statements were misleading. However, under the 1934 Act the plaintiffs do need to prove that they relied on the financial statements in their decisions. Another major difference is that under the 1933 Act the auditors need to prove that they acted with due diligence, where under the 1934 Section 18 Act they need to only prove that they acted in good faith. Under Section 10 in the 1934 Act plaintiffs must prove that there was a sciences as well.
The 1934 Act gives a little leeway to Auditors when compared to the 1933 Act. With the third party (plaintiff needing to prove that they relied on the financial statements and that there was a sciences, it is more difficult for them to easily win the case. Along with it being easier for auditor to prove that they acted in good faith rather than they acted with due diligence. AAA) I am not positive how “high-profile” these companies were in their accounting scandal, but the two I found are Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Crazy Eddies Electronics.
In the Bristol-Myers scandal, the insane chief and the man who ran the worldwide medicines group misled investors by concealing the extra inventory held by the company’s wholesalers from 1999 to 2001. This resulted in inflated revenues of millions of dollars. Similarly, Crazy Eddies Electronics also committed inventory fraud by exaggerating the numbers by millions of dollars for several years before being caught. B) Auditors are not able to audit the entire inventory at every store of a company. They select smaller portions at a select number of stores.
Also, if a company has someone who used to be an auditor, specially the auditor for your company, you are given an insight to what auditors look for and what/how to hide it from them. It also helps to have so many people involved in the scheme; different people from different levels of management and non-management. Par-Moor took advantage of the fact that the auditor was trying to cut the costs of the audit and would not be able to audit the entire inventory. They also had hired their former auditor in their financial department who helped cover up the fraud and misstatements.
Par-Moor knew what to expect from the auditors and planned ahead accordingly. C) Doing test counts on larger samples from more stores will give a better insight to the accuracy of the inventories. Also, the auditors do not need to let the management know ahead of time or during the audit which samples they tested, that only makes it easier for them misstate the rest of the inventory and know which ones to expect to be audited next time. Also, they should never make a pattern in the samples that they count, it should never be detectable. And as always, be skeptical of everything you count, never trust the company or management.