Osborne Computer Corporation manufactured the first portable personal computer for the mass market. Shipments began in 1981, and by fall 1982, sales of the company’s sole product, the Osborne I, had reached $10 million per month. In late 1982, the company began planning for an early 1983 initial public offering of its stock. In order to obtain the financing it needed to meet its capital requirements until the offering, the company issued warrants to investors, in exchange for direct loans or letters of credit, to secure bank loans to the company. The warrants entitled their holders to purchase blocks of the company’s stock at favorable prices that were expected to yield a sizable profit when the public offering took place. The company retained Arthur Young & Company, which issued unqualified or "clean" audit opinions on the company’s 1981 and 1982 financial statements. Each opinion appeared on Arthur Young’s letterhead and stated that (1) Arthur Young had examined the accompanying financial statements in accordance with the accounting profession’s generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS); (2) the statements had been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); and (3) the statements "presented fairly" the company’s financial position. The 1981 financial statement showed a net operating loss of approximately $1 million on sales of $6 million. The 1982 financial statement revealed a modest net operating profit of $69,000 on sales of more than $68 million. As the warrant transaction closed on April 8, 1983, the company’s financial performance began to falter, and the company later filed for bankruptcy. Investors who had purchased Osborne stock and warrants (plaintiffs) brought suit against Arthur Young, claiming that they had made their investments in reliance on Arthur Young’s unqualified audit. The plaintiffs presented evidence that Arthur Young’s audit was not performed in accordance with GAAS and that, as a result, Osborne’s financial statements had overstated the company’s profits by $3 million. The plaintiffs also presented evidence that Arthur Young had discovered material weaknesses in the company’s accounting controls but had failed to report these weaknesses to management. Should the defendant be held liable under the common law? Explain.