31. Under the Securities Act of 1933 the burden of proof that the plaintiff sustained a loss must be proven bythe: A.Plaintiff.B. Defendant.C. SEC.D. Jury.32. A case by a client against its CPA firm alleging negligence would be brought under: 33. Assume that a CPA firm was negligent but not grossly negligent in the performance of an engagement. Which of the following plaintiffs probably would not recover losses proximately caused by the auditors' negligence?
34. Which of the following court cases highlighted the need for obtaining engagement letters for professional services? 35. In which type of court case is proving "due diligence" essential to the auditors' defense? A.Court cases brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.B.Court cases brought by clients under common law.C.Court cases brought by third parties under common law.D.Court cases brought under the Securities Act of 1933.36. Which common law approach leads to increased CPA liability to "foreseeable" third parties for ordinary negligence? 37. Which of the following is the best defense that a CPA can assert against common law litigation by a stockholder claiming fraud based on an unqualified opinion on materially misstated financial statements? 38. Which of the following must be proven by the plaintiff in a case against a CPA under the Section 11 liability provisions of the Securities Act of 1933?
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 10 pages?
- Fall '16
- Tort Law, Auditor's report, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, cpas