[rvcpa]

Can someone please just list for me the defenses for a cpa can use for fraud and the 33 and 34′ act. I cant seem to keep it straight. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

If you're using Roger CPA review he gives a good listing of these.

[rzrbkfaith]

Negligence and breach of contract (ordinary negligence) – due diligence defense

Fraud and constructive fraud (gross negligence) – lack of scienter or presence of good faith

1933 governs only IPOs – LAM must be present (stock ACQUIRED, LOSS suffered, caused by MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT); NO negligence, scienter or reliance is required for liability claim

1934 governs securities purchased after IPO – LAM must be present, along with scienter (intent) and investor reliance on CPA; also, because its a federal law, interstate commerce must be present.

AUD - 99
BEC - 97
REG - 91
FAR - 1/8/16

[Mamabear]

Just commenting so I can come back later and write your response down. Thanks!

CPA Exam - Finally DONE (November 2014)
BEC (08/10/13) 80
AUD (08/24/13) 65 (11/13/13) 85
FAR (04/12/14) 81
REG (07/19/14) 69 (11/29/14) 87!!

[rvcpa]

@cole- unfortunately i have becker so they are kinda scattered a bit.

@rzrbkfaith- thanks for your help!

If anyone else wants to contribute I would definately appreciate it.

[rzrbkfaith]

@rvcpa – one other thing that Becker homework stressed was that with negligence, you have to show that the CPA's negligence caused the loss (proximate cause). Another defense for negligence is that the creditor was not known or foreseeable to the CPA (for majority states) or lack of privity (for minority states).

AUD - 99
BEC - 97
REG - 91
FAR - 1/8/16

[Anonymous]

Looking at this topic makes me wonder how I got an 87 on REG lol

[Author]

Replies