Bankruptcy Services, Inc. v. Ernst & Young (CBI Holding Co.)
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112870, 419 B.R. 553, 2009 WL 4642005 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An auditor commits professional malpractice by departing from Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS), such as failing to investigate known red flags, which proximately causes injury to the client. To prove fraud, however, a plaintiff must show the auditor's conduct was so grossly negligent or reckless that it approximated an actual intent to aid in the fraud, requiring more than a mere failure to investigate suspicious items.
Facts:
- CBI Holding Company, Inc. ('CBI'), a pharmaceutical wholesaler, was primarily owned and managed by its President, Robert Castello.
- In 1992 and 1993, to sustain borrowing for an aggressive acquisition strategy, Castello and other CBI management orchestrated a scheme to falsely inflate the company's earnings.
- The scheme centered on inventory fraud, where CBI management intentionally failed to record invoices for goods received, thereby understating accounts payable. Payments for these unrecorded liabilities were disguised in the books as 'advances' to vendors.
- Ernst & Young ('E&Y') served as CBI's independent auditor for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, issuing unqualified 'clean' audit opinions that stated CBI's financial statements were fairly presented.
- During its audits, E&Y internally assessed CBI as a 'high risk' engagement with an 'ineffective' control environment, noted the existence of the 'advance' payments, but accepted management's explanation without independent verification.
- E&Y failed to perform planned 'vendor reconciliations' on CBI's largest vendors, a procedure that would have likely uncovered the unrecorded liabilities.
- In early 1994, after the audits were completed, CBI insiders revealed the fraud to E&Y. A subsequent investigation by E&Y confirmed millions in disguised liabilities, leading E&Y to withdraw its 1993 audit opinion.
- The public revelation of the fraud and the restatement of its financials caused CBI's business to collapse, leading to its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in July 1994.
Procedural Posture:
- Bankruptcy Services, Inc. ('Plaintiff'), on behalf of CBI Holding Company ('CBI'), sued Ernst & Young ('E&Y') in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York for malpractice and fraud.
- Following a bench trial, the Bankruptcy Court, as the court of first instance, found in favor of the Plaintiff and granted judgment against E&Y.
- E&Y, as the appellant, appealed the Bankruptcy Court's judgment to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's judgments.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and E&Y, as appellee, cross-appealed.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings on specific unresolved issues from the original appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an auditor's failure to investigate suspicious accounting entries and other known red flags during an audit, which results in the failure to detect a client's massive internal fraud, constitute both professional malpractice and fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Kimba M. Wood, District Judge
No. An auditor's failure to investigate suspicious accounting entries and other red flags constitutes professional malpractice when it deviates from Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS), but it does not rise to the level of fraud unless the conduct is so reckless that it approximates an actual intent to aid in the fraud. The court affirmed the malpractice finding because E&Y departed from GAAS by failing to exercise due professional care. Specifically, E&Y did not independently verify CBI management's explanation for the 'advance payments,' failed to perform a search for unrecorded liabilities on those payments, and did not conduct planned vendor reconciliations on CBI's largest vendors, all while knowing CBI was a high-risk client with a poor control environment. However, the court reversed the fraud finding because E&Y's conduct, while negligent, was not sufficiently reckless to infer fraudulent intent. To prove fraud, the plaintiff must show the audit was 'so deficient that the audit amounted to no audit at all, or an egregious refusal to see the obvious.' Although E&Y was aware of general red flags, there was no evidence that it knew the 'advance payments' were themselves part of a fraudulent scheme; its failure to investigate was deemed negligent, not a conscious attempt to avoid discovering the truth.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the significant distinction between auditor malpractice and fraud under New York law, establishing a high bar for proving fraudulent intent. It reinforces the principle that while substantial deviations from GAAS will support a malpractice claim, proving fraud requires showing a level of recklessness tantamount to intentional wrongdoing. This precedent protects auditors from fraud liability for negligent errors, even serious ones, unless there is clear evidence that they consciously disregarded or willfully refused to see obvious signs of fraud. The ruling emphasizes that scienter is the key differentiating factor between the two claims.
Unlock the full brief for Bankruptcy Services, Inc. v. Ernst & Young (CBI Holding Co.)