Killing a lot of people and causing the 9/11 attacks
The correct answer is Social Learning
Explanation:
Social learning is a term used to describe the way we model our behavior, beliefs, and actions based on others as we observe and then imitate their behavior. This is a learning theory that relies on social interactions and personal relationships with others as we learn from family, close friends, and classmates. The case presented is an example of Social learning because two close friends show the same behavior in terms of sociability and it is likely one of them has learned from the other by observing him and then imitating him.
I think this would be the Constitution of Massachusetts, created in 1779, approved in 1780. It was actually the first constitution written by a convention and remains the oldest constitution (apart from parts of that of San Marino) still in use.
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
