Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

In 1984, several individuals, including David Greenberg, formed seven limited partnerships to develop and operate a chain of one hundred “Video USA” video rental stores. One hundred and sixteen...

1 answer below »
In 1984, several individuals, including David Greenberg, formed seven limited partnerships to develop and operate a chain of one hundred “Video USA” video rental stores. One hundred and sixteen limited partners, who had invested $13 million in three private placements, sued the accounting firm Touche Ross, among others, for securities fraud.
Document Preview:

MBA05, W5 Question-1 In 1984, several individuals, including David Greenberg, formed seven limited partnerships to develop and operate a chain of one hundred “Video USA” video rental stores. One hundred and sixteen limited partners, who had invested $13 million in three private placements, sued the accounting firm Touche Ross, among others, for securities fraud. They alleged that Touche Ross had failed to disclose that David Greenberg was a convicted felon; that his twelve-year-old son was the sole officer, director, and shareholder of one of the corporations that served as a general partner; and that the principals used fraudulent invoices and made fraudulent claims against insurance companies. The limited partners further claimed that Touche Ross had prepared the materially misleading financial projections attached as exhibits to the offering memoranda. Touche Ross did not issue an opinion or certification regarding any part of the offering documents. Attached to each of the projections that Touche Ross issued was a letter stating that the projection was based on management’s “knowledge and belief,” cautioning that the projection “does not include an evaluation of the support for the assumptions underlying the projections.” Search the Internet and read the complete case of Shapiro v. Cantor, 123 F.3d 717 (2d Cir. 1997). -Is Touche Ross responsible for disclosing the criminal history of one of its principals? -If so, how? - If no, why? -To what extent, if any, must Touche Ross report to the officers, directors, and shareholders of the corporations that served as general partners? -Why? -Is Touche Ross responsible for reporting a principal who used fraudulent invoices and claims against insurance companies? Why or why not? -Is the projection as issued by Touche Ross materially misleading? -Why or why not? -To what extent, if any, is Touche Ross liable under Section 10(b) to the limited partners? Question 2- ABC Food Corporation, a food company with...

Answered Same Day Dec 23, 2021

Solution

Robert answered on Dec 23 2021
113 Votes
Part 1
1. Is Touche Ross responsible for disclosing the criminal history of one of its principals? -If
so, how? If no, why.
Yes, Touche Ross is responsible for disclosing the criminal history of one of its
principals. Touche Ross being the independent accounting firm of David Greenberg’s company
ca
ies the responsibility of disclosing any unethical practices that were going on in the firm
(Porter, 2008).
2. To what extent, if any, must Touche Ross report to the officers, directors, and
shareholders of the corporations that served as general partners? -Why?
Touhe Ross needs to report to the officers, directors and shareholders of the corporations
serving as general partners till the time the responsibility relates to being the independent
accounting firm of the corporation that it is service (Schilder, 2005). Therefore, there is no direct
eporting of Touche Ross to each of the officers, however being General Partners Touche Ross
needs to give them an idea of internal controls and procedures along with any unethical practices
going on in the firm.
3. Is Touche Ross responsible for reporting a principal who used fraudulent invoices and
claims against insurance companies? Why or why not?
Yes, being an independent auditor of the corporation Touche Ross is responsible for
eporting on a principle that used fraudulent invoices and claims against insurance company,
subject to the condition that it had been caught by Touche Ross.
4. Is the projection as issued by Touche Ross materially misleading? -Why or why not?...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here