This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Appeals saying that one who breaches a duty of inquiry and disclosure owed another is liable for damages for aiding a third party’s violation of Rule 10b-5 if the fraud would have been discovered or prevented had the breach not occurred. The ruling was overturned again by the US Supreme Court which held to the “intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud” aspect of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which simply wasn’t present in Ernest and Ernest, nor is it present in the current example of Brown and Associates. This limits their liability to Johnson, despite the fact that their audit was deficient and should have uncovered a “huge embezzlement.”...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/18/2011 for the course LITERATURE LIT 101 taught by Professor Stault during the Spring '11 term at Albany State University.
- Spring '11