The International Corporate Governance System pp 264-292 | Cite as
Auditor Legal Liability
- 21 Mentions
- 1k Downloads
Abstract
Like other professionals such as physicians and architects, auditors are liable both civilly and criminally. Civilly, an auditor can be found liable either under the common law or a statutory law liability. Common law liability arises from negligence, breach of contract, and fraud. Statutory law liability is the obligation that comes from a certain statute or a law which is applied to society. The scope of both common law liability and statutory liability has been expanded to include certain third parties, mainly the foreseen or foreseeable users of audited financial statements. Also, a lawsuit in a state court provides greater protection than the one brought before the federal court.
Keywords
Audit Firm Fiduciary Duty Audit Financial Statement External Auditor Certified Public AccountantPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 1.AU-C Section 210; Source: SAS No. 122, paras 9 and 10.Google Scholar
- 2.Idem, para. 20.Google Scholar
- 3.Idem, paras 35–39.Google Scholar
- 4.Idem, para. 20.Google Scholar
- 5.Idem, paras. 14–17.Google Scholar
- 6.Cerillo, William A., Proving Business Damages, Wiley Law Publications, 1990, pp. 1–3, 4.Google Scholar
- 7.World Radio v. Coopers & Lybrand, 251 Neb. 261, 557 NW 2d 1 (1996).Google Scholar
- 8.World Radio alleged damages in the following particularsGoogle Scholar
- Inability to obtain or raise equity capital for expansion.Google Scholar
- Inability to expand its business by opening new stores and increasing credit lines.Google Scholar
- The making of operating decisions based on false financial information.Google Scholar
- Inability to conduct normal business operations.Google Scholar
- Lost revenues.Google Scholar
- Lost discounts, rebates, and advertising allowances and participation credits.Google Scholar
- Inventory losses.Google Scholar
- Decrease in employee morale.Google Scholar
- Attorney, accounting and polygraph fees.Google Scholar
- 9.Ryan v. Kanne, 170 NW 2d 395, Iowa.Google Scholar
- 10.Larsen v United Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 300 NW 2d 281, Iowa.Google Scholar
- 11.Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. James, 466 SW 2d 873 (Tex Civ App).Google Scholar
- 12.Coleco Indus. v. Berman, 423 F Supp 275 (ED Pa).Google Scholar
- 13.Rosenblum v. Adler, 93 NJ 324 (1983) 461 A2d 138.Google Scholar
- 14.AHERF Creditors’ Comm. v. PwC, No. 2000 CV 684 (W.D. Pan. January 17, 2007).Google Scholar
- 15.National Surety v. Lybrand, 256 A.D. 226 (1939).Google Scholar
- 16.Shapiro v. Glekel, 380 F. Supp. 1053, 1056 (SDNY 1974).Google Scholar
- 17.Reeves et al. v. Ernst & Young, 507 US 170 (1993).Google Scholar
- 18.Blair A. Nicholas ‘Auditor Liability: Institutional Investors Pursue Opt-Out Actions to Maximize Recovery of Securities Fraud Losses’, Securities Litigation and Enforcement Institute (PLI), 2008, p. 9.Google Scholar
- 19.Idem, p. 11.Google Scholar
- 20.Continental Vending [US v. Simon, 425 F 2d 796 (2d Cir. 1969)].Google Scholar
- 21.Ronald M. Mano, Matthew Maurissen, and Ryan Pace, ‘Principles-Based Accounting: It’s Not new, It’s Not the Rule, It’s the Law’, The CPA Journal, 2006.Google Scholar