Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Auditor’s Communications with AICPA Unprotected

In the securities class action In re Winstar Commc’ns Secs. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85134 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2007), the shareholders sued Grant Thornton for its alleged participation in an accounting fraud that allegedly led to Winstar’s demise. Grant Thornton withheld post-litigation communications with the Quality Control Inquiry Committee (“QCIC”) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") -- documents that, it contended, were generated pursuant to AICPA requirements that accounting firms provide information about litigation filed against them. District Judge George B. Daniels ordered disclosure over claims of “self-critical analysis” privilege and Grant Thornton requested a certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) permitting interlocutory review in the Second Circuit. Grant Thornton did not claim either attorney-client privilege or work product protection, both of which the District Court held were effectively precluded by § 7000.16 of the AICPA SEC Practice Section Reference Manual (2001), which provides that an accounting "firm is not required to provide the QCIC, or its representatives with information that would invade the attorney-client privilege, or with the litigation work product of the firm or any of its partners or employees." The Court held that interlocutory review, which is generally inapt for non-dispositive discovery orders, “is especially inappropriate here because the self-critical analysis privilege is not a traditionally recognized privilege. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that such a privilege exists as a matter of federal law.” Certification denied.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

Archives