him at the time of their release. See id. at 1226. Cf. Cashman v. Coopers & Lybrand, 877 F.Supp. 425, 433-34 (N.D.Ill.1995) (primary liability permissible where an accounting firm “played a central role in the drafting and formation” of misstatements that a partnership incorporated into a fraudulent Prospectus, even if Prospectus did not disclose the accountant’s role as “mastermind”). So far, the courts in this district have uniformly rejected efforts to impose liability on accountants for merely reviewing and approving financial statements where there was no evidence the accountant played a significant role in drafting the statement, and there are no attributions in the statement to the accountant. See In re Kendall Square Research Corp. Sec. Litig., 868 F.Supp. 26, 28 (D.Mass.1994) (<HOLDING>) (citing Software Toolworks, 38 F.3d at 1078,
holding that an auditor intricately involved in the creation of misstatements and omissions may be liable under  10b even if the statements could not be reasonably attributable to him holding that defendant could not be liable for distributing defamatory statements unless it knew or had reason to know of statements holding an auditors review and approval of quarterly financial statements nonactionable under  10b and stating that because defendant did not actually engage in the reporting of the financial statements  but merely reviewed and approved them the statements are not attributable to defendant and thus defendant cannot be found liable for making a material misstatement holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant