When law firms break up, litigation often follows.  The case of Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC v. Hemmings, decided Tuesday by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, involved claims between lawyers of defamation and violation of a nondisparagement provision in a settlement agreement.

The Defendants had left the Plaintiff’s firm to start their own practice. The Plaintiff sued them over sharing of fees and reimbursement of costs. The fighting lawyers settled the first lawsuit. A nondisparagement provision was included in their settlement agreement.

Then came round two. Plaintiff sued the Defendants again, saying they hadn’t complied with the settlement. The Defendants responded that they were excused from their obligations for several reasons, including a breach of the nondisparagement provision. They counterclaimed for defamation.

The defamation claim involved statements made by Plaintiff’s office manager. He had been out one night at a bar in Raleigh called "White Collar Crime." He allegedly said to a friend of one of the Defendants that the Defendant was "untrustworthy" and "suggested" that the Defendant "had done something wrong or committed some kind of crime when he left the firm."

The Defendants said that the office manager had been acting on behalf of the Plaintiff law firm when he made these statements and that the nondisparagement provision had been breached. The Plaintiff disputed that the office manager was authorized to speak for the firm, and said that the after hours statements at the bar hadn’t been made within the course and scope of his employment anyway.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for the Plaintiff, and said that the Defendants could "articulate no legal connection between these facts and the legal relationship of principal and agent. Defendants offered no evidence that the scope of [the office manager’s] employment included barroom gossip about members of the firm, and cite no appellate opinions suggesting that an employee is considered an ‘agent’ of his employer even when he acts far outside the scope of his employment."

The Court of Appeals split today 2-1 on whether two partners with claims against a third partner for self-dealing and breach of opportunity could make an unfair and deceptive practices claim.  The case is White v. Thompson.  Judge Wynn wrote the majority opinion, and Judge Ervin dissented. 

The partnership was Ace Fabrication and Welding, the partners were White, Ellis, and Thompson.  Ace did several jobs for a large customer, but Thompson then secured a number of jobs from that customer on his own, without performing them with the partnership.

The other partners obtained a jury verdict on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, and were awarded damages of $138,195.  The trial court trebled the damages, but the Court of Appeals majority reversed. 

Its reasoning was that the claim was for a breach of partnership duties involving matters of internal management of the partnership, so the claim did not make out the "in or affecting commerce" requirement of a Section 75-1.1 claim.  It said that the Defendant’s activities had indeed harmed the partnership, "but had no impact in the broader marketplace."

Judge Ervin saw things completely differently.  He said:

"Impairing the ability of others to compete for work in this fashion is tantamount to unfair competition, a type of conduct which is clearly actionable" as an unfair and deceptive practice.

"The effect of such conduct was to deprive the partnership of the ability to actually perform certain specialty fabrication jobs . . . a fact which clearly implicates the ‘activities the business regularly engages in and for which it [was] organized.’"

"Depriving the partnership of the opportunity to perform these . . .  jobs inevitably affected its financial viability, producing an inevitable impact on competitive conditions in the market for the performance of . . . jobs in the area served by the partnership."

The North Carolina Business Court has faced the issue of what is "in or affecting commerce" on a number of occasions.

Continue Reading Court Of Appeals Rules That Partner’s Self-Dealing Isn’t “In Or Affecting Commerce” And Isn’t An Unfair And Deceptive Practice

A Plaintiff who obtained an Arbitration Award against two members of an LLC lost the right to recover under the Award from the LLC when it settled up with the two LLC members.  The case, decided today by the Business Court, is Essa Commercial Real Estate, Inc. v. Five Trees, LLC.

The facts are complicated, but they boil down to this: Plaintiff got an arbitration award of $325,000 against two members of an LLC (Five Trees).  Plaintiff then sued the LLC and its other members to collect on the Award.  In the meantime, Plaintiff settled its claims against the two members against whom it had obtained the Award.

Under the settlement, the Plaintiff agreed to give up its claims against the two members in exchange for $150,000 and an assignment of the two members’ interest in the LLC.  The Plaintiff attempted to preserve its right to pursue the LLC and the other members for the balance by including language in the settlement which said "nothing in this Agreement shall act to release, dispose of, compromise, or otherwise impair the right or ability of [Essa] to seek recovery from Five Trees, its members or members of its members under any theory of law or for recovery of the Arbitration Award."

That didn’t work.  The Court held that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the "one satisfaction rule," which says that a party is only entitled to a single recovery for any judgment. Since the Plaintiff had resolved the Arbitration Award, it no longer had any right to seek recovery under the Award.

That was so even though the LLC and the other members weren’t released by the settlement agreement. In this respect, the case is similar to a recent Court of Appeals decision, Santoni v. Sundown Cove, LLC, where the Court held that a plaintiff”s settlement with some defendants resulted in a settlement as to all plaintiff’s claims, even against non-parties to the settlement.

In an earlier opinion in the Five Trees case, the Business Court ruled that the Arbitration Award had collateral estoppel effect. 

This case, which involved four related lawsuits between the shareholders of a closely held corporation, contains a discussion of when a claim is a compulsory counterclaim.  The Court said "Rule 13(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party is required to plead as a counterclaim: (1) “any claim which at the time of serving the [responsive] pleading the pleader has against any opposing party”; (2) “if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim”; and (3) if it “does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.” N.C. R. Civ. P. 13(a) (2007)."

The Court dismissed some of the claims, finding that they should have been brought in an earlier action, and discussed also the distaste of North Carolina courts for claim splitting. It held "North Carolina law requires that all damages incurred as a result of a single injury, transaction, or occurrence be recovered in one lawsuit."

The Court also held that an individual shareholder was not entitled to maintain a derivative action on a pro se basis, ruling that "an individual non-attorney litigant may not proceed derivatively on behalf of a corporation without counsel."  This would presumably have been the unauthorized practice of law.  The Court said there was no authority in North Carolina on this point.

Full Opinion

 

This post is a listing and short summary of the fourteen new cases designated to the Business Court during the month of April 2009.  I may start doing a post like this on a monthly basis.

The Sunbelt v. Ahern case (which was settled almost immediately after it was filed) made me think of Yogi Berra.

1st Americard, Inc. v. Kitchens (Mecklenburg)(Diaz) and Grainger v. Kitchens (Union) (Diaz): Dispute between shareholders of a credit card processing company.

Ammons v. Fire & Wire, inc. (Guilford)(Tennille): Dispute between shareholders of a fire alarm and security company.  Plaintiff, a 1/3 shareholder of a Virginia corporation, alleges that his two co-shareholders set up a competing North Carolina company to engage in the same business.

Bason v. Euliss, Inc. (Alamance)(Tennille): enforceability of deed restrictions entered into by a dissolved corporation requiring the operation of an 18-hole golf course.

Browning Systems, Inc. v. Davis (Henderson)(Tennille): claim for breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets against former officers and shareholder of Plaintiff for their actions in starting a competing business as issuing agents for Chicago Title Insurance Company.  Counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and dissolution of the Plaintiff.

ChampBoat Series, LLC v. In2Focus Films, Inc. (Mecklenburg)(Diaz): copyright case alleging that the Defendant has infringed on Plaintiff’s rights to audio and video of powerboat racing series.

Cunniff v. Lewis (Mecklenburg)(Diaz): shareholder derivative action against Bank of America regarding the Bank’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch. 

LeCann v. Cobham, LeCann & Torres, P.A. (Wake)(Jolly): Dissolution of dental practice.

McKinnon v. CV Industries (Catawba)(Tennille): Interpretation of severance agreement and former shareholder’s rights under a Shadow Equity Plan.

Pfeiffer v. Frontier Spinning Mills, Inc. (Lee)(Jolly): securities fraud claim in connection with squeeze out merger, breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, dissenters’ rights.

Pharma Services, Network, Inc. v. Associated Medical Group (Mecklenburg)(Diaz): Dispute over agreements relating to clinical drug testing trials.  (Don’t forget that the Business Court has mandatory jurisdiction over cases involving "biotechnology.")

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (Mecklenburg)(Diaz): Claim by equipment leasing company against its competitor, charging that the defendant has "coordinated multi-state employee raids . . . to pirate away employees of Sunbelt through unlawful and unfair conduct."  If you think this is deja vu all over again, well, you are right.

USFalcon, Inc. v. Yorktown Systems Group, Inc. (Wake)(Jolly): Dispute whether Defendants have an ownership interest in an LLC.

Waste Industries, LLC v. Waste Hauling Services, LLC (New Hanover)(Jolly): Dispute between waste disposal and collection companies.  The Plaintiff claims that its competitor’s alleged failure to comply with municipal regulations constitutes unfair competition because the non-compliance reduces its competitor’s operational costs and results in an anti-competitive market.

This case from the North Carolina Business Court involves the world’s 29th richest man, the City of Detroit, and a $55 million default judgment.  Oh, and airplanes too.  Big ones.

All this and more was discussed in the Business Court’s decision today in Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Tradewinds Airlines, Inc., 2009 NCBC 12 (N.C. Super. Ct. April 29, 2009). 

The $55 Million Default

The saga began when TradeWinds, an air freight carrier, obtained an entry of default against C-S Aviation in August 2004.  C-S was once the world’s largest lessor of A300 aircraft, and had leased planes to TradeWinds. 

The entry of default was obtained jointly by TradeWinds, its sole shareholder, TradeWinds Holdings, and another company, Coreolis Holdings.  The three parties did not pursue a default judgment.

Four years passed.  TradeWinds by then had been sold.  Its new owners included the General Retirement System of the City of Detroit and the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit. 

TradeWinds learned that the plaintiff in a New York lawsuit had pierced the corporate veil of C-S Aviation.  That was a worthwhile endeavor.  The shareholders of C-S Aviation are George Soros, who Forbes Magazine says is the 29th richest man in the world (the "S"); and Purnendu Chatterjee, also a "wealthy individual," according to the Court (who is the "C.")

TradeWinds decided to pursue a big payday.  It moved in April 2008, without TradeWinds Holdings or Coreolis, to secure the missing default judgment.  It obtained that on June 27, 2008.  The judgment was a whopper: $54,867,872.49.  The very next day, TradeWinds filed suit in the Southern District of New York against Soros and Chatterjee to recover the $55 million.  A month later, TradeWinds filed for bankruptcy protection in Florida in what the Court described as an apparent effort to "shield" the default judgment.  Op. ¶73.

The Motion To Set Aside

Coreolis and TradeWinds Holdings didn’t appreciate being left out of this potential multi-million dollar recovery.  They filed a motion in the Business Court to be added as beneficiaries of the judgment.  By then, C-S had moved to set aside both the entry of the default and the default judgment in the Business Court based on service of process, personal jurisdiction, and "extraordinary circumstances."

Judge Tennille deferred ruling on the Motion, noting the multi-state litigation pending concerning his default judgment, including a Bankruptcy Court stay.  He said "like aircraft lined up for departure, the litigation involving TradeWinds is stacked up on the taxiway awaiting clearance for takeoff."  Op. ¶2.  The Court didn’t make any definitive ruling in the case because of the Bankruptcy Court stay, but stated what it was likely to do once the stay was lifted.

Service of Process

C-S, a Delaware corporation, claimed that the service of the Third Party Complaint was invalid because Delaware law (8 Del. Code §321) requires in-person delivery of service on a Delaware corporation.  TradeWinds had served C-S by certified mail addressed to C-S’ registered agent, CT Corporation, which C-S contended was inadequate.  That was perfectly valid service under Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Tennille ruled that the argument of C-S was "unpersuasive," and that "the local law of the forum determines the method of serving process and of giving notice of the proceeding to the defendant."  Op. ¶36.  North Carolina law therefore controlled the question of service of process.

The Judge further held that he could look to Delaware substantive law "to decide whether the party is properly qualified as an ‘agent’ to receive service of process," but that he was "not bound by Delaware’s restrictions on the manner in which service on a duly qualified agent must be conducted."  Op. ¶36, 39.

C-S further quibbled that the Affidavit of Service filed electronically with the Business Court didn’t show a signature reflecting receipt.  The return receipt in the paper file at the Guilford County Superior Court did have the missing signature, however, and Judge Tennille held that the statute permitted him to consider not only "the attached registry receipt" but also "other evidence satisfactory to the court of delivery to the addressee."  Op. ¶51; N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-75.10(a)(4)b.

Personal Jurisdiction

The jurisdictional question turned on N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. §1-75.4 which permits jurisdiction if there has been "solicitation or services activities . . . carried on within this State by or on behalf of the defendant."  C-S said it hadn’t solicited TradeWinds in North Carolina, and that it was actually TradeWinds that had initially approached it. 

The Court said that this made no difference, holding that "C-S Aviation negotiated a contract for the leasing of aircraft, made assurances about the aircraft engine performance, induced TradeWinds to enter into the contract, maintained an ongoing relationship with TradeWinds, renegotiated the agreement that resulted in better leasing terms for TradeWinds, and delivered the aircraft to TradeWinds in North Carolina. . . . C-S Aviation directed its efforts toward TradeWinds, who, while operating out of a North Carolina airport, was a North Carolina resident."  Op. ¶68.

Jurisdiction was therefore proper in North Carolina.

Default Judgment

It doesn’t appear that the default judgment will stand.

Judge Tennille observed that he had the power under Rule 60(b)(6) to set aside a default judgment if "(1) extraordinary circumstances exist, (2) justice demands the setting aside of the judgment, and (3) the defendant has a meritorious defense." 

Although the Court didn’t set aside the default judgment, it said that it was likely to do so once the bankruptcy court stay was lifted, based on the following:

  • The sheer size of the award itself was "an extraordinary circumstance in favor of setting aside a default judgment."
  • There were "significant procedural irregularities with respect to the Entry of Default and the Default Judgment." 
  • Although the entry of default was entered on behalf of three parties, only TradeWinds sought and obtained the default judgment.

Op. ¶¶71-72.  The Court concluded that "[a] full hearing on damages with all affected parties represented and participating would provide a more just resolution than the procedural gamesmanship now being employed."  Op. ¶73.  

The Court further expressed concerns about what it described as a "lack of transparency on the part of TradeWinds, particularly its failure to disclose the divergence of interests between TradeWinds and the other parties to the Entry of Default."  Op. ¶73.

The fiduciary duties owed by members and managers of limited liability companies are very different under North Carolina and Delaware law.  In a bit of judicial serendipity, the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the Delaware Court of Chancery each issued opinions on those issues last week, just a day apart. 

The North Carolina case is Kaplan v. O.K. Technologies, LLC (April 21).  the Delaware Court of Chancery case is Bay Center Apartments Owner, LLC v. Emery Bay PKI, LLC (April 20).  The two cases highlight the differences in the nature and scope of fiduciary duties in the LLC context.

The Delaware View

The Delaware view, crisply stated in the Emery Bay decision, was summed up by the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog (which you should absolutely be reading) as follows:

On the point of the fiduciary duty of a manager to the members: ‘in the absence of a contrary provision in the LLC Agreement, the manager of an LLC owes the traditional fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the members of the LLC.’

On the point of the fiduciary duty of a member to other members: ‘the LLC cases have generally, in the absence of provisions in the LLC Agreement explicitly disclaiming the applicability of default principles of fiduciary duty, treated LLC members as owing each other the traditional duties that directors owe a corporation.’

North Carolina on Fiduciary Duties of LLC Members

North Carolina goes off in a different direction entirely on the fiduciary duty of an LLC member to another member.  There is none, though there can be exceptions.  But the general rule, stated in the Kaplan case, is that:

The North Carolina Limited Liability Company Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 57C-1-01 et seq., does not create fiduciary duties among members. Members of a limited liability company are like shareholders in a corporation in that members do not owe a fiduciary duty to each other or to the company.

The exception is when the member has majority control.  Then, "a controlling shareholder owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders," and an LLC member with control would owe a fiduciary duty to the minority members.

North Carolina on Fiduciary Duty of LLC Managers

A manager of a North Carolina  LLC does owe a fiduciary duty, as does a manager of a Delaware LLC.  But in North Carolina, the fiduciary duty is not owed directly to other members, as it is in Delaware.  It is instead owed to the LLC:

Managers of limited liability companies are similar to directors of a corporation in that ‘[u]nder North Carolina law, directors of a corporation generally owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation, and where it is alleged that directors have breached this duty, the action is properly maintained by the corporation rather than any individual creditor or stockholder.’ Thus, like directors, managers of a limited liability company also owe a fiduciary duty to the company, and not to individual members.

The principles described above are default rules, applied by the North Carolina and Delaware courts in the absence of provisions in the LLC Operating Agreement as to the duties of members and managers.  The members are free to provide for the imposition of fiduciary duties (which the Court found they had in the Emery Bay case); or to provide for no or limited fiduciary duties (as they did in the Kaplan case).

It’s pretty common for North Carolina attorneys to be advising clients regarding Delaware LLC issues, because so many corporate attorneys opt for formation under Delaware law.  There were 111,820 LLCs formed in Delaware in 2007, and 81,923 in 2008.  The North Carolina numbers show significantly fewer LLC formations here: there were 33,212 LLCs formed in NC in 2007 and 29,384 formed in 2008.  These numbers were provided by the Division of Corporations at the Delaware Secretary of State and by the Director of Corporations at the North Carolina Secretary of State.

I originally wrote about the Kaplan case when it was decided by the Business Court in June 2008.  You can find that post here.

Ken Lewis, Bank of America’s CEO, has testified under oath to threats by former Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson to remove the Bank’s Board of Directors and its management if the Bank didn’t close its deal to acquire Merrill Lynch, and secret promises to support the Bank with federal funds if it did close the transaction. 

Those statements are contained in Lewis’ deposition, portions of which were released yesterday by New York’s Attorney General. 

Lewis testified that the financial deterioration of Merrill in the fourth quarter of 2008 was "staggering,"  Dep. 13, and the acquisition  was turning out to be "a $15 billion hole" for the Bank. Dep. 60.  Lewis told Paulson that the Bank "was strongly considering" invoking the Material Adverse Change provision (the "MAC") in the Merger Agreement with Merrill.  Dep. 34, 58. The action of "calling a MAC" would have permitted Bank of America to terminate the Merrill transaction or at least to negotiate a better deal.  Paulson didn’t like that idea, and asked Lewis to temporarily "stand down."  Dep. 42.

The Threat And The "Undisclosable" Promise Of Federal Funds

Lewis followed with a personal call to Paulson (who was out riding his bike at the time) and told Paulson, again, that the Bank was considering the invocation of the MAC.  According to Lewis’ testimony, Paulson responded that the government "does not feel it’s in your best interest for you to call a MAC" and that if the Bank did so or maybe even intended to do so, that the Treasury Department "would remove the board and management" of Bank of America.  Dep. 52. 

Paulson, testified Lewis, promised government support for the growing burden of the acquisition, but was unwilling to put that promise in writing.  He said to Lewis that a written commitment for federal funds "would be a disclosable event and we [the Treasury] do not want a disclosable event."  Dep. 80.

Lewis Reports To The BofA Board On The Threat And The Promise

Lewis reported to the Bank’s board, shown in the minutes of the December 22, 2008 meeting, that if the Bank were "to invoke the material adverse change clause in the merger agreement with Merrill Lynch and fail to close the transaction, the Treasury and Fed would remove the Board and management of the" Bank.   He also reported on the verbal assurances provided by Paulson and also by Fed Chair Ben Bernanke.

In a bit of corporate minutekeeping that will undoubtedly become pivotal in the flood of shareholder suits already filed over this merger and those yet to come, the December 22 minutes say that "the Board concurred it would reach a decision that it deemed in the best interest of the Corporation and its shareholders without regard to this representation by the federal regulators."  In other words, the Board minutes says the Board wasn’t influenced at all by Paulson’s threat.  (How, well, fiduciary-like of them.)

Lewis Still Wants To "Call A MAC," But Reports To The Board On "Detailed" — But Secret — Assurances From Federal Regulators

Merrill’s condition worsened over the eight days before the next Bank board meeting.  The minutes of that December 30th meeting show that Lewis reported he had told federal regulators "were it not for the serious concerns regarding the status of the United States financial services system and the adverse consequences of that situation to the Corporation articulated by the federal regulators, the Corporation would, in light of the deterioration of the operating results and capital position of Merrill Lynch, assert the material adverse change clause in its merger agreement with Merrill Lynch and would seek to renegotiate the transaction."

Lews reported at that meeting that he had "obtained detailed oral assurances from the federal regulators with regard to their commitment and has documented those assurances with e-mails and detailed notes of management’s conversations with the federal regulators."  Those e-mails and notes haven’t yet been made publicly available, but they will certainly provide interesting reading when they are.

The Treasury Comes Through, Post-Closing, With Billions Of Dollars Of Funds

The Merrill transaction closed two days after the December 30th board meeting, on January 1, 2009.  The oral promises made by Paulson and the "federal regulators" weren’t disclosed in connection with the transaction. 

But about two weeks after the closing, the Treasury showered Bank of America with an additional $20 billion in TARP funds and a $118 billion "backstop" on the assets acquired from Merrill.  That’s more than enough to fill a "$15 million hole,"  as long as you aren’t still digging. 

There’s already a shareholder derivative action pending in the North Carolina Business Court over the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch merger, Cunniff v. Lewis.

The photo is from Rainforest Action Network’s photostream.

Three decisions from the North Carolina Business Court were affirmed today by the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  They involve fiduciary duties of members of LLCs, the right of limited partners to sue directly for injury to a partnership, and the obligation of the personal representative of an estate to give notice to creditors.   They are:

Kaplan v. O.K. Technologies, LLC, in which the Court of Appeals ruled that a member of an LLC without majority control does not have a fiduciary duty to the other members of the LLC or to the LLC itself.  Nor does a manager have a fiduciary duty to the other members, as that duty is owed directly to the LLC.  The Court also affirmed the Business Court’s ruling that the Plaintiff’s control over the funding of the LLC did not create a fiduciary duty. The Business Court ruling was by Judge Tennille, Judge Stephens wrote the appellate opinion.

Gaskin v. Proctor, ruling that a limited partner was not entitled to bring suit in his personal capacity for claimed injury to the partnership in the absence of "a special duty or a separate and distinct injury."  The Court rejected the argument that the limited partner was entitled to maintain his suit due to "the closely held nature of the company, and the domination of the company by the defendants and resulting powerlessness of the plaintiffs." The Business Court ruling was by Judge Diaz, Judge Stroud wrote the appellate opinion.

Azalea Garden Board & Care, Inc. v. Vanhoy, holding that the personal representative of an estate was not obligated under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 28A-14-1(b) to give personal notice to a creditor because the creditor’s claims were not "actually known" or "reasonably ascertain[able]" by her.  The claims of the Plaintiff were barred because it failed to assert its claim by the date specified in the notice of the estate administration published in the newspaper.  The Court said that the initial burden should be with the claimant "to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating that a material issue of fact exists as to whether its identity and its claim were reasonably ascertainable" a standard which the Plaintiff was unable to meet.  The Business Court ruling was by Judge Tennille, Judge Robert C. Hunter wrote the appellate opinion.

Until today, there wasn’t any law in North Carolina on the proper choice of law analysis to decide what state’s law to apply in an accounting malpractice case.  That changed with the North Carolina Business Court’s decision today in Harco Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Grant Thornton LLP, 2009 NCBC 11 (N.C. Super. Ct. April 20, 2009)

Harco sued Grant Thornton, alleging that it relied on the accounting firm’s audit of Capital Bonding Corporation, a Pennsylvania company, in deciding to participate in a bonding program.  Capital failed and Harco paid millions of dollars in claims for bonds issued by Capital.

The claim touched at least three states: Illinois, where both Harco and Grant Thornton are headquartered; Pennsylvania, where Capital was based and where Grant Thornton did its auditing of Capital; and North Carolina, where Harco directed its operations with regard to the bonding program, Harco’s key officers were located, and where Harco paid its first and some of its most significant losses on the bonding program.

The three states have very different approaches to the duty of care owed by an auditor to a third party claiming reliance on an audit opinion.  Grant Thornton moved for summary judgment relying on Illinois law, which requires near privity, a standard very favorable to accountants when they are sued by third parties claiming to have relied upon an audit.  In fact, Judge Tennille said that Grant Thornton would have been entitled to summary judgment under Illinois law.

Harco argued for the application of North Carolina law, which is less favorable to accountants.  North Carolina follows the test  of the Restatement (Second) of Torts §552, which is not as stringent a standard as privity but which requires more than reasonable forseeability. 

Judge Tennille, however, ruled that Pennsylvania law should apply, under what he referred to as the "Audit State Test."  He held that "[t]he law of the state where an audit is performed, delivered, and disseminated (the ‘Audit State’) should control the scope of liability to third parties not in privity with an accountant."  Op. ¶30. 

The justifications for this choice of law standard, according to Judge Tennille, are that "the Audit State has the most significant public policy interest in the liability of auditors performing audits within the state for local companies," and that it "provides clarity, certainty, and consistency for the auditing profession and those relying on the auditor’s work."  This will promote "clear risk analysis" for both the auditor and those relying on the auditor’s work. Op. ¶¶31-32.

The clarity will be only short-lived, because Pennsylvania has not clearly staked out a position on the issue of the liability of auditors to third parties. 

The painting at the top is of Luca Pacioli, the "Father of Accounting."  According to the website of the American Institute of Incorporated Public Accountants, Pacioli said "do not go to bed at night until the debits equal the credits." 

Harco Amended Brief In Support Of Choice Of Law Determination

(Grant Thornton’s Brief was filed under seal).