Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach (MindTap Course List)
11th Edition
ISBN: 9781337619455
Author: Karla M Johnstone, Audrey A. Gramling, Larry E. Rittenberg
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 4, Problem 20RQSC
(a)
To determine
Introduction: Auditor is appointed by the company in order to get their financial statements checked whether they are authentic or reliable for further usage by the shareholders and other users.
The merits of the actions that can be taken by the common stock purchaser and by the bank.
(b)
To determine
Introduction: Auditor is appointed by the company in order to get their financial statements checked whether they are authentic or reliable for further usage by the shareholders and other users.
The different if the client file the case using registered statement company under 1933 act.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
In order to expand its operations, Barton Corp. raised $5million in a public offering of common stock, and also negotiated a $2 million loanfrom First National Bank. In connection with this financing, Barton engaged Hanover &Co., CPAs, to audit Barton’s financial statements. Hanover knew that the sole purpose ofthe audit was so that Barton would have audited financial statements to provide to FirstNational Bank and the purchasers of the common stock. Although Hanover conductedthe audit in conformity with its audit program, Hanover failed to detect material actsof embezzlement committed by Barton Corp.’s president. Hanover did not detect theembezzlement because of its inadvertent failure to exercise due care in designing theaudit program for this engagement.After completing the engagement, Hanover issued an unqualified opinion on Barton’sfinancial statements. The financial statements were relied upon by the purchasers ofthe common stock in deciding to purchase the shares. In…
In 1983, to obtain financing prior to a public offering, Osborne Corporation sold warrants entitling investors to buy Osborne shares at a favorable price. The investors were given and relied on an unqualified audit opinion regarding Osborne’s 1982 financial statements, which indicated that Osborne had a net operating profit of $69,000 on sales of $68 million. The audit opinion, issued by Arthur Young & Company, stated that the audit had been completed in compliance with GAAS, that the financial statements had been prepared in compliance with FGAPP, and that the financial statements fairly presented Osborne’s financial position. Arthur Young could foresee that the audited financial statements might be used by buyers of Osborne’s warrants, but Arthur Young did not know that buyers of warrants would in fact use the financial statements. The buyers of the warrants lost their investments when Osborne’s manufacturing problems and IBM’s dominance in the PC market forced Osborne into…
Dirks was an officer of a New York broker-dealer firm that specialized in providing investment analysis of insurance company securities to institutional investors. On March 6, Dirks received information from Ronald Secrist, a former officer of Equity Funding of America. Secrist alleged that the assets of Equity Funding, a diversified corporation primarily engaged in selling life insurance and mutual funds, were vastly overstated as the result of fraudulent corporate practices. Dirks decided to investigate the allegations. He visited Equity Funding’s headquarters in Los Angeles and interviewed several officers and employees of the corporation. The senior management denied any wrongdoing, but certain corporation employees corroborated the charges of fraud. Neither Dirks nor his firm owned or traded any Equity Funding stock, but throughout his investigation he openly discussed the information he had obtained with a number of clients and investors. Some of these persons sold their holdings…
Chapter 4 Solutions
Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach (MindTap Course List)
Ch. 4 - Prob. 1CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 2CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 3CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 4CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 5CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 6CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 7CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 8CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 9CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 10CYBK
Ch. 4 - Prob. 11CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 12CYBKCh. 4 - Prob. 1RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 2RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 3RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 4RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 5RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 6RQSCCh. 4 - Refer to the Focus on Fraud feature “Moss Adams...Ch. 4 - Prob. 8RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 9RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 10RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 11RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 12RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 13RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 14RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 15RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 16RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 17RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 18RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 19RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 20RQSCCh. 4 - Prob. 21RQSCCh. 4 - Able Corporation decided to make a public offering...Ch. 4 - KPMG (LO 1, 2, 3) KPMG LLP served as the external...Ch. 4 - ToshIba, EY (LO 1, 2, 3) In 2015, the business...
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Dryden, a certified public accountant, audited the books of Elixir, Inc., and certified incorrect financial statements in a form that was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Shortly thereafter, Elixer, Inc., went bankrupt. Investigation into the bankruptcy disclosed that through an intricate and clever embezzlement scheme Kraft, the president of Elixir, had siphoned off substantial sums of money that now support Kraft in a luxurious lifestyle in South America. Investors who purchased shares of Elixir have brought suit against Dryden under Rule 10b-5. At trial, Dryden produces evidence demonstrating that his failure to discover the embezzlement resulted merely from negligence on his part and that he had no knowledge of the fraudulent conduct. Is Dryden liable under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934? Why?arrow_forwardAble Corporation decided to make a public offering of bonds to raise needed capital. It publicly sold $2,500,000 of 8% debentures in accordance with the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. The financial statements filed with the registration statement contained the unqualified opinion of Baker & Baker, CPAs. The financial statements overstated Able’s net income and net worth. Through negligence, Baker & Baker did not detect the overstatements. As a result, the bonds, which originally sold for $1,000 per bond, have dropped in value to $700. Ira is an investor who purchased $10,000 of the bonds. He promptly brought an action against Baker & Baker under the Securities Act of 1933. Answer the following, providing reasons for your conclusions: a. Will Ira likely prevail on his claim under the Securities Act of 1933? b. Identify the primary issues that will determine the likelihood of Ira’s prevailing on the claim.arrow_forwardMonicker Co. engaged the audit firm of Gasner & Gasner to audit its financial statements that Monicker was going to use in connection with a public offering of its securities. Monicker's stock regularly trades on the NASDAQ. The audit was completed and the auditor issued an unqualified opinion on the financial statements, which Monicker submitted to the SEC along with the registration statement. Three hundred thousand shares of Monicker common stock were sold to the public at $13.50 per share. Eight months later, the stock fell to $2 per share when it was disclosed that several large loans to two "paper" companies owned by one of the directors were worthless. The loans were secured by the stock of the borrowing corporation and by Monicker stock owned by the director. These facts were not disclosed in the financial statements. The director and the two corporations are insolvent. Considering these facts, indicate whether each of the following statements is true or false, and briefly…arrow_forward
- Monicker Co. engaged the audit firm of Gasner & Gasner to audit its financial statements that Monicker was going to use in connection with a public offering of its securities. Monicker's stock regularly trades on the NASDAQ. The audit was completed and the auditor issued an unqualified opinion on the financial statements, which Monicker submitted to the SEC along with the registration statement. Three hundred thousand shares of Monicker common stock were sold to the public at $13.50 per share. Eight months later, the stock fell to $2 per share when it was disclosed that several large loans to two "paper" companies owned by one of the directors were worthless. The loans were secured by the stock of the borrowing corporation and by Monicker stock owned by the director. These facts were not disclosed in the financial statements. The director and the two corporations are insolvent. Considering these facts, indicate whether each of the following statements is true or false, and briefly…arrow_forwardMajor, Major & Sharpe, CPAs, are the auditors of MacLain Technologies. In connectionwith the public offering of $10 million of MacLain securities, Major expressed anunqualified opinion as to the financial statements. Subsequent to the offering, certainmisstatements were revealed. Major has been sued by the purchasers of the stockoffered pursuant to the registration statement that included the financial statementsaudited by Major. In the ensuing lawsuit by the MacLain investors, Major will be ableto avoid liability if(1) the misstatements were caused primarily by MacLain.(2) it can be shown that at least some of the investors did not actually read theaudited financial statements.(3) it can prove due diligence in the audit of the financial statements of MacLain.(4) MacLain had expressly assumed any liability in connection with the public offering.arrow_forwardIngram is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) employed by Jordan, Keller and Lane, CPAs, to audit Martin Enterprises, Inc., a fast-growing service firm that went public two years ago. The financial statements Ingram audited were included in a proxy statement proposing a merger with several other firms. The proxy statement was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and included several inaccuracies. First, approximately $1 million, or more than 20 percent, of the previous year’s “net sales originally reported” had proven nonexistent by the time the proxy statement was filed and had been written off on Martin’s own books. This was not disclosed in the proxy statement, in violation of Accounting Board Opinion Number 9. Second, Martin’s net sales for the current year were stated as $11.3 million when in fact they were less than $10.5 million. Third, Martin’s net profits for the current year were reported as $700,000, when the firm actually had no earnings at all. a. What civil…arrow_forward
- Brad Dolan, a stockholder of Rhode Corporation, has asked you, the firm's accountant, to explain why his stock warrants were not included in diluted EPS. In order to explain this situation, you must briefly explain what dilutive securities are, why they are included in the EPS calculation, and why some securities are antidilutive and thus not included in this calculation. Rhode Corporation earned $228,000 during the period, when it had an average of 100,000 shares of common stock outstanding. The common stock sold at an average market price of $25 per share during the period. Also outstanding were 30,000 warrants that could be exercised to purchase one share of common stock at $30 per warrant. Instructions Write Mr. Dolan a 1–1.5-page letter explaining why the warrants are not included in the calculation.arrow_forwardParch Inc. and Rees Urch, Parch's former head of R&D, formed Sede Inc., which will perform research and development. Sede issued 10,000 shares of common stock to Urch, who is now Sede's president. Parch lent $800,000 to Sede for initial working capital in return for a note receivable that can be converted at will into 100,000 shares of Sede's common stock. Parch also granted Sede a line of credit of $1,000,000. Is consolidation appropriate for Parch and Sede? Explain and justify your answer. What would Parch accomplish with this arrangement? If consolidation were not appropriate, what serious reporting issue exists regarding Parch's separate financial statements?arrow_forwardAs an auditor for the CPA firm of Bunge and Dodd, you encounter the following situations in auditing different clients. Desi Corporation is a closely held corporation whose stock is not publicly traded. On December 5, the corporation acquired land by issuing 5,000 shares of its $20 par value common stock. The owners’ asking price for the land was $120,000, and the fair market value of the land was $115,000. Lucille Corporation is a publicly held corporation whose common stock is traded on the securities markets. On June 1, it acquired land by issuing 20,000 shares of its $10 par value stock. At the time of the exchange, the land was advertised for sale at $250,000.The stock was selling at $12 per share. Instructions: Prepare the journal entries for each of the situations above.arrow_forward
- As an auditor for the CPA firm of Hinkson and Calvert, you encounter the following situations in auditing different clients. 1. Monty Corp. is a closely held corporation whose stock is not publicly traded. On December 5, the corporation acquired land by issuing 4,000 shares of its $20 par value common stock. The owners’ asking price for the land was $125,000, and the fair value of the land was $118,000. 2. Wildhorse Co. is a publicly held corporation whose common stock is traded on the securities markets. On June 1, it acquired land by issuing 19,000 shares of its $8 par value stock. At the time of the exchange, the land was advertised for sale at $269,000. The stock was selling at $9 per share. Prepare the journal entries for each of the situations above.arrow_forwardJ, B & J, Certified Public Accountants, has audited the Highcredit Corporation for the past five years. Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has commenced an investigation of Highcredit for possible violations of Federal securities law. The SEC has subpoenaed all of J, B & J’s working papers pertinent to the audit of Highcredit. Highcredit insists that J, B & J not turn over the documents to the SEC. What action should J, B & J take? Why?arrow_forwardMark Williams, CPA, was engaged by Jackson Financial Development Company to audit the financial statements of Apex Construction Company, a small closely held corporation. Williams was told when he was engaged that Jackson Financial needed reliable financial statements that would be used to determine whether to purchase a substantial amount of Apex Construction’s convertible debentures at the price asked by the estate of one of Apex’s former directors. Williams performed his audit in a negligent manner. As a result of his negligence, he failed to discover substantial defalcations by Carl Brown, the Apex controller. Jackson Financial purchased the debentures, but it would not have done so if the defalcations had been discovered. After discovery of the fraud, Jackson Financial promptly sold them for the highest price offered in the market at a $70,000 loss. If Apex Construction also sues Williams for negligence, what are the probable legal defenses Williams’s attorney would raise?…arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach (MindTap Course L...AccountingISBN:9781337619455Author:Karla M Johnstone, Audrey A. Gramling, Larry E. RittenbergPublisher:Cengage Learning
Business Its Legal Ethical & Global EnvironmentAccountingISBN:9781305224414Author:JENNINGSPublisher:Cengage
Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach (MindTap Course L...
Accounting
ISBN:9781337619455
Author:Karla M Johnstone, Audrey A. Gramling, Larry E. Rittenberg
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Business Its Legal Ethical & Global Environment
Accounting
ISBN:9781305224414
Author:JENNINGS
Publisher:Cengage