Question

Rowell and Associates, a CPA firm, was engaged by American Widget Corp. to audit its annual financial statements. American Widget officials told Rowell that the company planned a new issue of stock and that Rowell's audit report would be included in the registration statement. Rowell's audit team "booked" several large sales for which no written contracts or orders appeared in the files, but for which verbal confirmations were given by "customers" during telephone conversations initiated by American Widget personnel. The customers were nonexistent; the purchases never were made. American Widget went bankrupt shortly thereafter. Several investors in the new common stock then sued Rowell. Rowell's audit team truly believed the sales in question had been made and that the customers had confirmed the validity of the sales. In view of these facts, the plaintiffs:
A. will lose their suit because they cannot show that Rowell committed a willful wrong.
B. will win their suit if it is a Rule 10b-5 suit, because Rowell was negligent.
C. will win their suit if it is brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, because Rowell cannot prove due diligence.
D. will lose the suit because they cannot show that Rowell was aware of the oversight.

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 315 characters.