Tag: Lawsuits

The Deloitte Lawsuit Du Jour

Thumbnail image for DTa.jpgDeloitte is doing a damn fine job of keeping attorneys in business these days.

Two founders of casino industry supplier Global Cash Access Holdings Inc. [(“GCA”)] of Las Vegas are suing an accounting firm, charging it harmed them by disclosing information in an FBI bulletin they say wrongly associated the founders with criminal activity.
Attorneys for Robert Cucinotta and Karim Maskatiya filed suit Friday in federal court in Las Vegas against Deloitte & Touche LLP and Larry Krause, managing partner of Deloitte’s Nevada practice.
Asked about the allegations Monday, Deloitte & Touche said in a statement: “We believe the complaint to be without merit and intend to defend against it vigorously.”

The lawsuit alleges that Deloitte told GCA’s audit committee that Cucinotta and Maskatiya were involved in criminal activity including, ‘murder, extortion, tax fraud and financial fraud, and also may be subject to substantial back taxes.’
That didn’t go over well:

Cucinotta and Maskatiya assert Deloitte didn’t contact them or investigate the information in the FBI Bulletin before contacting the GCA Audit Committee; and that Deloitte demanded that GCA investigate the allegations and said it wouldn’t certify the third quarter 2007 financial statements until the probe was completed.
The actions by Deloitte caused GCA to announce on Nov. 14, 2007, it would delay filing its quarterly financial report with the Securities and Exchange Commission pending conclusion of an investigation into “confidential” issues, the lawsuit says.
“Predictably, the market reaction to that shocking press release was brutal and GCA market capitalization declined by $400 million,” the lawsuit charged, adding Cucinotta and Maskatiya together lost almost $100 million in a single day.

GCA hired Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom to perform an internal investigation and the subsequent report found, ‘no evidence that (Cucinotta and Maskatiya) engaged in serious wrongdoing or are under investigation by law enforcement officials.’
Deloitte, still sketched out by Cucinotta and Maskatiya, threatened to resign as the auditors of GCA if they didn’t remove themselves from the company’s board of directors. Eventually the two men agreed and ‘pursuant to seriously oppressive terms’ sold all their shares in GCA back to the company.
So C&M get strong-armed into selling their shares back to company at a huge loss and now they want to Deloitte to settle up. While the plaintiffs’ seem to have a legitimate beef, was Deloitte acting as they should have?
Sure, maybe they jumped the gun with the information. It’s not uncommon. If you assume that Deloitte informed the audit committee that C&M were bad dudes to protect GCA’s investors, then they were probably acting in good faith (insane as that may seem). Auditors just can’t seem to win.
Casino supply company’s founders sue over link to criminal activity [Las Vegas Sun]

Deadline Watch: Porsche Suing Crocs For ‘Cayman’ Use

crocs533.jpgAs we warned last week, today is the filing deadline of 3rd Quarter 10-Qs for accelerated filers. While many of you may be coming down to the 5:30 deadline, just as many have probably hit the button long ago and the filings are now getting scoped.
Michelle Leder over at Footnoted.org has one interesting Q that tells us about the fashion eyesore company Crocs, who is being sued by Porsche in Germany over the use of the name “Cayman”:

Now few people would probably confuse Crocs’ Cayman sandal for the Porsche Cayman. After all, one sells for $29.99 and the other starts at $51,000. And if this had been filed in the United States, instead of in Germany, we’d be even quicker to dismiss it. But at the very least, it’s got to be an expensive distraction for Crocs, which had to find a law firm in Germany to represent its interests. In the filing, Crocs says it plans to “vigorously defend” itself against the claims. But vigorous defenses rarely come cheaply. It’s not clear from the filing whether Crocs has already stopped selling the Caymans in Germany or not.

Crocs has survived plenty of near-death experiences already so we’re not getting our hopes up. Besides, if the First Lady wears them, is there really any hope for rubber shoe extinction?
Porsche vs. Crocs… [Footnoted.org]

Another Lawsuit Against Deloitte Is Back from the Dead

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for DTa.jpgDeloitte has another lawsuit on its hands that is seemingly back from the dead. After last week’s revival of the Washington Mutual shareholders’ lawsuit, a suit in New York has gained new life after Deloitte initially won a dismissal.
The plaintiff in the case, Symbol Technologies, is proving tenacious:

…the panel found that Symbol Technologies had sufficiently alleged that the “continuous representation” exception to the statute of limitations and the company’s amended complaint “trigger[ed]” the “adverse interest” exception to the in pari delicto doctrine.
“Symbol’s pleading is sufficient to establish that the parties mutually contemplated that Deloitte’s work and representation for each audit year would continue after the issuance of the audit opinion/report and, therefore, the continuous representation doctrine applies,” Justice Leonard B. Austin wrote for the 4-0 panel in Symbol Technologies v. Deloitte & Touche, 2008-06642.
He later added, “In its amended complaint, Symbol set forth sufficient allegations that members of its senior management committed accounting fraud for their own benefit and totally abandoned its interest, thereby triggering the adverse interest exception.”

Nothing too fancy. Just a good, old-fashioned case of senior management fraud not being detected by the auditors:

Symbol’s lawsuit against its former auditing firm stems from an accounting-fraud scandal at Symbol that culminated with the technology giant agreeing to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $37 million and shareholders an additional $100 million.
The SEC had charged Symbol, a Long Island, N.Y.,-based supplier of mobile information systems, and 11 of its former executives with numerous fraudulent accounting practices that together overstated the company’s reported revenue for the fiscal years of 1998 through 2001 by more than $230 million and its pre-tax earnings by more than $530 million.
The fraud resulted in overpayments to Symbol’s senior management of more than $100 million.
At least eight former Symbol executives have pleaded guilty to various charges stemming from the fraud. The company’s former chief executive, Tomo Razmilovic, remains a fugitive, living in Bussevik, Sweden.
Symbol sued Deloitte & Touche, now known as Deloitte, in November 2005, alleging the “Big Four” auditor had failed to detect the fraud. The company’s complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.

The amount of damages being sought by Symbol hasn’t been disclosed but you’d figure Deloitte could cough up $137 mil just to put the company back to square one. But no, Deloitte is as equally determined, saying ‘the action is without merit and intends vigorously to defend this matter’.
Sorry. With a sub-par year in revenues and breaking ground on the new Animal House, Big D can’t spare the change. We’ll see you in another ten years when this thing is finally settled.
Symbol Technologies’ Massive Malpractice Action Against Deloitte Is Reinstated [New York Law Journal vi Law.com]

Lawsuit Against Deloitte Gets New Life

Thumbnail image for DTa.jpgDeloitte has managed to keep its name out of the news lately, except for breaking ground at its version of Animal House and releasing the number of employees it has on LinkedIn.
On a more litigious note, Deloitte has managed to keep its name out of well publicized lawsuits, whether they relate to Madoff feeder funds or subprime lenders. Until now, that is.


According to AM Law Litigation Daily, a judge in Seattle has allowed a revised lawsuit to proceed that lists “Washington Mutual officers and directors, underwriters, and the auditing firm Deloitte & Touche” as defendants.
The revised lawsuit was trimmed down to a “concise” 267 pages from the original 388 that the judge described as “verbose” and “disorganized”.
The plaintiffs allege that “offering documents contained “materially misstated financial returns for WaMu” and that “offering documents contain false or misleading statements as to WaMu’s internal controls”.
Specifically — without getting into too many gory details — the plaintiffs say that WaMu did not have a sufficient loan allowance in a “manner commensurate with the quality of its home mortgage products” and that their “Loan Performance Risk Model” that determined the allowance, was basically bunk.
Deloitte, as the auditors, was supposed to call WaMu on all this shoddy work and the plaintiffs aren’t satisfied with the job they did. Unfortunately, this all amounts to a pretty major (and long) headache for Deloitte but their attorneys at Latham and Watkins are probably grateful.
Let us be the first to welcome Deloitte back to the high-profile litigation party.
Second Time’s the Charm for Plaintiffs in Washington Mutual Complaint [AM Law Litigation Daily via Law Review]
Wamu.pdf

We’d All Appreciate It if Grant Thornton Got Involved in a New Lawsuit

bondi_enrico01g.jpgGrant Thornton just isn’t able to shake Parmalat, the freaky-ass extended-life milk company. Parmalat appealed the latest dismissal of its lawsuit against GT and Bank of America that accuses the two companies of helping set up phony transactions so “insiders could steal from the company.”
Parmalat’s Chief Milk-Magician, Enrico Bondi, is obviously not satisfied with the $100 million that he twisted away from BofA and will continue to hassling both companies until long past the expiration date on his product.
Parmalat appeals BofA, auditor lawsuit dismissals [Reuters]

(UPDATE) Madoff Investors Sue KPMG, JP Morgan, Bank of New York Mellon

By our last count KPMG had been named in ten lawsuits related to Madoff feeder funds. What’s one more?

KPMG, JP Morgan, Bank of New York Mellon, Oppenheimer Acquisition Corp. and Mass Mutual Life Insurance, along with the Tremont founders were all named in an amended lawsuit that was filed yesterday.

Cotchettt, Pitre, & McCarthy, the attorneys for the Plaintiffs, are not mincing words on KPMG’s part in the whole mess. From the firm’s website:

The sheer size and scope of the fraud make it impossible for Madoff to have acted alone. The complaint alleges JP Morgan and the Bank of New York as well as powerhouse accounting firm KPMG LLP and their international counterparts, KPMG UK and KPMG International were primary players responsible for the fraud.

The amended complaint further alleges that the phantom trades “should have been discovered by KPMG UK, the auditor for Madoff’s London based operation, Madoff Securities International Ltd. Instead, KMPG UK never raised any red flags that investors’ money was used by Madoff as his personal piggy bank.”

KPMG declined to comment for the Reuters article but we’ll assume that they don’t take kindly to the complaint.
Madoff investors sue KPMG and major banks [Reuters]

MADOFF_WEXLER_FIRST_AMENDED_COMPLAINT.pdf

UPDATE: The UK Firm issued the following, per Accountancy Age:

KPMG considers the allegations in the complaint to be wholly without merit and will defend them vigorously. The complaint cites KPMG in its capacity as statutory auditor of Madoff Securities International Limited (MSIL), a London based company directly owned by the Madoff family. KPMG acted in this capacity for several years and issued unqualified audit opinions on MSIL’s financial statements. We are not aware of any suggestion that the financial statements of MSIL contain errors.

The SEC Probably Thought Madoff Victims Would Just Let the Whole Thing Slide

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for 140px-United_States_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission.pngFinally someone has had enough of the SEC’s new-sheriff-in-town act and is suing their asses for missing Bernie Madoff’s not so subtle Ponzi scheme.
Two victims are suing the House of Schape for their money that just up and disappeared, which amounts to $2.4 million. The suit also serves as a friendly reminder for the Commission that they sucked at their jobs big time for the better part of a decade.
According to the suit, the two victims, Phyllis Molchatsky and Steven Schneider, initially tried playing nice by filing administrative claims with the SEC but the Commission told them to get bent, thus allowing Molcahtsky and Schneider to sue in Federal court.
This may result in other Madoff victims filing suit as well, so our advice to M. Schape would be to call over to the Fed and to see if she can borrow that money printing machine.
Two Madoff victims file lawsuit against the SEC [Reuters]
See also: Madoff Victims Devise Hedging Strategy [DB]

If KPMG Had Just Made Her Feel Like a Prostitute, They Would Have Gotten Off Way Cheaper

8ball.jpgKPMG has been ordered to pay £45,000 to a former employee who failed The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales’s (ICAEW) computerized qualifying exams due to her dyslexia.
According to Accountancy Age, “[Dhrupa] Bid failed her first exam and was given permission by the firm to defer her retake so that a dyslexia assessment could be obtained from the ICAEW. She was warned by the firm if she failed she would have to be dismissed.”
More, after the jump


Previously, Ms. Bid had taken paper exams scoring in the 80s before taking the computerized exam and scoring 40% lower. She only found out that she had dyslexia until after she had failed the exam the second time. Her condition warranted her to an extension of time and to be given a paper exam.
It seems a little odd that she would take the exam again and fail, before finding out she had dyslexia since she was allowed to defer her re-take of the exam to determine if she had dyslexia.
Maybe the ICAEW was dragging on the assessment or KPMG didn’t have the patience to wait for the results but since Ms. Bid failed the second time she has had to return to Kenya since she no longer held a work visa.
KPMG issued the following statement:

“KPMG believes it acted properly and fairly at all times and did what was required of a responsible employer in supporting Ms Bid once the probability of her having dyslexia was made known to us.”

What’s not clear is whether the Radio Station would have preferred paying out less in damages and ended up being perceived as a pimp. Pretty tough call but it looks as though shelling out the additional £45,000 was worth it to the Firm.
The bright side for Ms. Bid is that she wasn’t made to feel like a prostie and she got paid way better than one too. Silver lining people. Silver lining.
KPMG forced to pay £45,000 in discrimination case [Accountancy Age]

Former KPMG Partner Sues Firm for $30 Million

prison.jpgThis whole tax shelter problem for KPMG is back from the dead, as a former partner who was indicted and later exonerated of the charges has sued the firm for “attorney fees, lost wages, and future earnings,” according to the L.A. Times.
David Greenberg’s lawsuit alleges that “[he] was singled out as a rogue employee to cover up the company’s own widespread practice of tax evasion and conspiracy. The suit says KPMG publicly accused Greenberg of committing crimes and allegedly tried to divert attention from its illegal practices.”
So, yeah, that kinda sounds ugly. Nineteen people were originally indicted in 2005 for the tax shelter schemes and the lawsuit alleges that Greenberg is the only person whose legal fees have not been paid by KPMG. He also claims that he’s still being named in lawsuits and has amassed $10 million in legal fees. Dude’s probably a little pissed.
Continued, after the jump


Natch, KPMG isn’t amused by the whole accusation of ‘widespread practice of tax evasion and conspiracy’ and released the following statement:

“The claims throughout this lawsuit are baseless,” KPMG spokesman Dan Ginsburg said. “We will use all appropriate measures to defend ourselves…This lawsuit attempts to revive issues that are long dead,” Ginsburg said. “Mr. Greenberg released KPMG from any obligation to pay his legal expenses in a 2003 agreement which has been upheld by the court.”

Hell, if that’s true, then this thing should get thrown out, no prob, right? WTFK really but it’ll be fun following how nasty this gets.
Oh and just for fun, Greenberg is suing for an additional $20 million for “…defamation and emotional distress from spending five months in jail.” Not sure where Greenberg did his time but if the digs qualify as PMITA prison, then $4 million a month is probably fair.
We realize that it’s still early in LA for a Monday but if you’ve got insider information on this story, shoot it our way. You know, the ugly stuff.
Former KPMG partner sues accounting firm for $30 million [Los Angeles Times]

Deloitte Passes on the Opportunity to Admit Mistakes

DTa.jpgObviously we were too busy promoting democracy and creativity to notice Deloitte getting named in Private Capital Management co-founder Bruce Sherman’s lawsuit against Bear Stearns.
Continued, after the jump


WSJ:

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, alleges that [Jimmy “Don’t Call Me Cheech”] Cayne and others at Bear made material misrepresentations about the company’s financial health and its risk management, causing Sherman to hold shares of Bear stock he “would otherwise have sold months before Bear ultimately collapsed.”
“Defendants knew that the market and the financial press would view Sherman’s sale of his Bear stock as a loss of confidence in Bear by a well-known and long-standing investor,” the lawsuit said. “This, in turn, would have undermined confidence in Bear’s management at a critical time when Bear’s liquidity and Bear’s valuation of its assets were open to question following the implosion of two Bear-sponsored hedge funds in the summer of 2007.”
Cayne; Warren Spector, Bear Stearns’ former co-president and chief operating officer; Bear Stearns; and its outside auditor Deloitte & Touche are defendants in the case.

Regardless of what Deloitte ‘knew’, the firm did not jump at the chance to start a trend of Big 4 firms issuing mea culpas. Big D issued the following statement, which we plan on to memorize for future reference, per the Journal, ‘Deloitte believes the complaint to be totally without merit and we will defend against it vigorously.’ We’ll continue to update you on the vigorous defense as it progresses.
PCM Co-Founder Sues Bear Stearns For Misstatements [WSJ]

If Failure = ‘Chaos’, What Does Chaos Look Like?

Riots.jpgThe British government has denied a change in the law there that would limit audit firms’ liability. The Big 4, who seem to enjoy a far more prestigious and influential existence in Britain than in the U.S., lobbied for a change to the law but it was ultimately dismissed by the British Business Secretary.
The British government cites existing law that would allow companies to reach agreements with their auditors to limit their liability.
Continued, after the jump

Under present company law, directors can agree to restrict their auditors’ liability if shareholders approve; however, to date, no blue-chip company has done so. Directors have seen little advantage in limiting their auditors’ liability, and objections by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have also been a significant obstacle.

Ahh, the SEC, exerting its far-reaching influence another over sovereign government, not to mention their stellar track record . This does not amuse in the UK:

Peter Wyman, a senior PwC partner, who was involved in the discussions, said that the Government’s lack of action was disappointing. He said: “The Government, having legislated to allow proportionate liability for auditors, is apparently content to have its policy frustrated by a foreign regulator.”

The firms are lobbying, not solely for their own survival, dammit, but the sake of everyone, “They warned that British business could be plunged into chaos if one of them were bankrupted by a blockbuster lawsuit.”
We’re not really sure what ‘choas’ would entail. Hank Paulson had his own version of financial Armageddon but we hardly think that’s a plausible scenario if a Big 4 firm were to fail.
Perhaps there would be an army of accountants roaming the streets in zombie-like states offering their excel expertise to anyone that would accept it. While this is a completely horrifying scene, we’re skeptical of true ‘chaos’.
If you’ve got your own visions of chaos in the event of a large firm failure, describe it in the comments.
Audit firms left unprotected against claims of negligence [Times Online]
Also see: No legislated cap on audit liability [AccMan]

PwC ‘Prostitute’ Hopefully Won’t Spend it All in One Place

Thumbnail image for prostie2.jpgDammit people, if someone is going to go to the trouble to sue the #1 company in all of Great Britain for every bloody list that can possibly be put out could we possibly get a more anti-climatic ending?
Mihaela Popa, who was obviously unaware that accountants are made to feel like prosties all over the world on a daily basis, hence, why the f*ck are you so special, wound up receiving £750 from a tribunal, according to the Romanian Times.
More, after the jump


The court:

“We find that in no way whatsoever did the unlawful victimisation either prevent Miss Popa from obtaining employment or cause her to lose employment. There was no loss of opportunity in this case. It is simply a case of injury to feelings.”

Maybe we’re a little shrewd but repeatedly seeing your name in the British press next to ‘whore’, ‘prostitute’, and ‘communist spy’, and then for a court to basically say you’re thin-skinned, all for £750 seems totally worth it.
Earlier: What if Everyone Sued Their Employer for Being Made to Feel Like a Prostitute?