FN1 Harvey L. Pitt, “Remarks at the SEC Speaks Conference” (Feb. 22, 2002) (text available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/ speech/spch540.htm).

FN2 425 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1969).

FN3 17 C.F.R. � 210.1-02(d).

FN4 1 AICPA, Professional Standards, AU � 110.01.

FN5 Thor Power Tool Co. v. C.I.R., 439 U.S. 522, 544 (1979); see also Shulala v. Guernsey Mem. Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 101 (1995) (“Far from being a single source of accounting rulebook, the GAAP encompasses the conventions, rules, and procedures that define accepted accounting practice at a particular point in time’ … the GAAP changes and, even at any one point, is often indeterminate.” (citation omitted).

FN6 The elements of a charge of mail and wire fraud are a scheme and intent to defraud and the use of the mails or wires in furtherance of that scheme. 18 U.S.C. �� 1341, 1343.

FN7 18 U.S.C. � 371.

FN8 The “false filing” provision of the securities statute criminalizes the “willful and knowing” filing of a false statement with the SEC. 18 U.S.C. � 1001.

FN9 17 C.F.R. � 240.10b-5.

FN10 See, e.g., SEC v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1982).

FN11 See U.S. v. Boyer, 694 F.2d 58, 59 (3d Cir. 1982).

FN12 See Arnold S. Jacobs, 5C Disclosure & Remedies Under the Securities Laws, � 12:116 (2001).

FN13 425 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1969).

FN14 Id. at 805.

FN15 Id. at 805-06.

FN16 Id. at 806.

FN17 Id. at 807.

FN18 677 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1982).

FN19 Seaboard, 677 F.2d at 1304.

FN20 Id. at 1312.

FN21 Compare In re Carter-Wallace, Inc. Sec. Litig., 150 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that civil class action plaintiffs failed to state a claim solely by alleging a GAAP violation, but must have accompanying allegation with a statement of fraudulent intent); and In re Software Toolworks, Inc. Sec. Litig., 50 F.3d 615, 627-28 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming summary judgment for civil defendants where difference of opinion concerning revenue recognition issue under the GAAP foreclosed finding of scienter because reasonable accountants could have made the same decision under the same circumstances) with Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1490-91 (9th Cir. 1996) (denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment where evidence of failure to comply with the GAAP was combined with insider trading), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 808 (1997).