Monroe v. Hughes
1994 WL 380901, 31 F.3d 772 (1994)
Rule of Law:
An independent auditor satisfies its professional obligations under Section 11 of the Securities Act by complying with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS), and is not required to disclose a company’s internal control deficiencies in an audit report unless those deficiencies cause material misstatements in the financial figures themselves.
Facts:
- Hughes Homes, a retailer of manufactured housing, hired Deloitte and Touche as its independent auditor for the fiscal years ending in 1987 and 1988.
- During the 1988 audit, Deloitte reviewed Hughes' internal controls and found them to be flawed but functional.
- Deloitte adjusted the scope of its audit to perform independent testing to verify the accuracy of the financial records, compensating for the control weaknesses.
- In September 1988, Deloitte issued an unqualified audit report stating Hughes' financial statements complied with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
- Deloitte privately reported the internal control flaws to Hughes' management and audit committee but did not mention them in the public audit report.
- In April 1989, Hughes Homes sold approximately $3.5 million in debentures using a prospectus that included Deloitte's 1988 audit report.
- The plaintiffs purchased these debentures relying on the offering documents.
- Hughes Homes collapsed in the fall of 1989, causing the investors to lose their investments.
Procedural Posture:
- James and Penelope Monroe filed a class action lawsuit against Deloitte and company officers in federal district court alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
- The district court certified the class of investors.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Deloitte, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to establish a basis for recovery.
- The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 independent auditor's failure to mention a company's internal control deficiencies in a public audit report constitute a material omission leading to liability under securities laws when the auditor otherwise complied with professional accounting standards?
Opinions:
Majority - Schroeder
No, an auditor is not liable for material omissions regarding internal controls if they follow professional standards which dictate reporting such issues only to management. The court reasoned that Deloitte complied with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS). According to these standards (specifically AICPA standards), when an auditor finds internal control weaknesses, they must report them to management and the audit committee—which Deloitte did. Furthermore, the auditor must adjust the scope of their audit to verify financial accuracy through other means—which Deloitte also did. The court held that deficiencies in internal controls are not considered material to the audit report itself, which is a certification of the financial statements' accuracy, not the company's management procedures. Therefore, there was no material misstatement or omission under Section 11 or Section 10(b) of the Securities Acts.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'compliance with standards' defense for accountants in securities litigation. By deferring to AICPA standards (GAAP/GAAS) to define materiality, the court limits auditor liability to the accuracy of financial statements rather than the operational health of the client's internal procedures. It clarifies that an audit report is a technical certification of financial data, not a general warning label about a company's management practices or internal checks and balances. This creates a high bar for plaintiffs suing auditors, requiring them to prove that the financial numbers themselves were wrong or that the auditor consciously hid a known material fact.
