1. Confidential or privileged information cannot be denied to the courts. Under common law, CPAs do not have the right to withhold information from the courts on the grounds that the information is privileged. 2. Cullen should be made liable for negligence as due care was not taken in auditing the valuation of securities. Also, audit was not planned in well advance due to which Cullen was uncertain about correct valuation of securities. 3. Joanie cannot be held in this case. A partner cannot be held liable for the professional misconduct of other partner. If she had been involved in the audit with other partner, then she could have been made liable. 4. Hockaday is convinced that he has followed all standards and procedures in performing the audit. Hence, he can use his Non-negligent performance supported by hi s audit documentation as a tool to defend himself in the lawsuit. 5. The external auditors of Eastman Kodak should have assessed the existence of Going concern in the reporting period. Thereafter, explanatory paragraph should have been included in the audit report in case of non-existence of going concern. Solution 1. Confidential or privileged information cannot be denied to the courts. Under common law, CPAs do not have the right to withhold information from the courts on the grounds that the information is privileged. 2. Cullen should be made liable for negligence as due care was not taken in auditing the valuation of securities. Also, audit was not planned in well advance due to which Cullen was uncertain about correct valuation of securities. 3. Joanie cannot be held in this case. A partner cannot be held liable for the professional misconduct of other partner. If she had been involved in the audit with other partner, then she could have been made liable. 4. Hockaday is convinced that he has followed all standards and procedures in performing the audit. Hence, he can use his Non-negligent performance supported by hi s audit documentation as a tool to defend himself in the lawsuit. 5. The external auditors of Eastman Kodak should have assessed the existence of Going concern in the reporting period. Thereafter, explanatory paragraph should have been included in the audit report in case of non-existence of going concern..