OpenTuition | ACCA | CIMA
Free ACCA and CIMA on line courses | Free ACCA, CIMA, FIA Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums
Spread the word
If you have benefited from our materials, please spread the word so more students can benefit.
To help us keep materials up to do and add new content you can also donate
Kim Smith says
January 10, 2019 at 9:50 am
The Caparo decision is that the auditor has a duty of care to current shareholder as a class (for their common needs, e.g. to exercise their rights as shareholders) and not to individual shareholders (whether existing or prospective). The decision basically brought some sense to litigation in England and Wales – it simply isn’t reasonable to expect auditors to anticipate the wide range of varying needs that individual users of financial statements might have. The point in the RBS case was that the auditor knew that the bank would rely on the financial statements.
October 16, 2018 at 7:10 am
The conclusion on the two case studies are contradicting. Why were the investors not able to sue for damages and the bankers were? Shouldn’t the auditors have known that investors would also use it for investing decisions?
Both investors and banks are big users of financial statements.
You must be logged in to post a comment.