1. Lauren Yost & Co., a medium-sized CPA firm, was engaged to audit Stuart Supply Company. Several staff were involved in the audit, all of whom had attended the firm's in-house training program on effective auditing methods. Throughout the audit, Yost spent most of her time in the field planning the audit, supervising the staff, and reviewing their work.

1(Click the icon to view additional information.)

2 Read the requirements .

Requirement a. What defense should Lauren Yost & Co. use in the suit by Stuart?

Yost and Co. should use the defenses of (1)

Supply Company was a reasonably (3) suggested by Yost.

In most circumstances it (5)

and (2) one and (4)

. The fraud perpetuated by Stuart

to uncover except by the procedures

be necessary to physically count all inventory at different locations on the

same day. Furthermore, the president of the company contributed to the failure of finding the fraud by (6) . There is evidence of that through his signed statement.

Requirement b. What defense(s) should Lauren Yost & Co. use in the suit by First City National Bank? (Select all that apply.)

A. breach of contract

B. lack of privity of contract

C. contributory negligence

D. the firm employed due care and followed auditing standards in the audit of inventory

Requirement c. Is Yost likely to be successful in her defenses?

She is likely to be (7) in her defense against the client because (8) . She is likely to be (9) in her defense against the bank because (10) .

Requirement d. Would the issues or outcome be significantly different if the suit was brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934?

The issues and outcomes should be (11) under the suit brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If the suit were brought under Rule 10b-5, it is certainly (12) that the plaintiff would be successful, inasmuch as there was (13) .

1: More Info

A significant part of the audit entailed verifying the physical count, cost, and summarization of inventory. Inventory was highly significant to the financial statements, and Yost knew the inventory was pledged as collateral for a large loan to First City National Bank. In reviewing Stuart's inventory count procedures, Yost told the president she believed the method of counting inventory at various locations on different days was highly undesirable. The president stated that it was impractical to count all inventory on the same day because of personnel shortages and customer preference. After considerable discussion, Yost agreed to permit the practice if the president signed a statement that no other method was practical. The CPA firm had at least one person at each site to audit the inventory count procedures and actual count. There were more than 40 locations.

Eighteen months later, Yost found out that the worst had happened. Management below the president's level had conspired to materially overstate inventory as a means of covering up obsolete inventory and inventory losses resulting from mismanagement. The misstatement occurred by physically transporting inventory at night to other locations after it had been counted in a given location. The accounting records were inadequate to uncover these illegal transfers.

Both Stuart Supply Company and First City National Bank sued Lauren Yost & Co.