The New York District Court last week dismissed an attempt by Deloitte to
have a class action thrown out.
Shareholders claim the global network should be held responsible for Deloitte
Italy’s alleged fraudulent activities as auditor of the collapsed Italian dairy
One legal expert said the US ruling might ‘act as a break’ to efforts by
leading firms to market themselves as global organisations and lead to a rise in
Parmalat said: ‘Obviously we are disappointed in the judge’s decision but we
are confident of victory at any trial of this matter. As the court pointed out,
the evidence presented by the Deloitte defendents would support a jury verdict
in their favour.’
Parmalat collapsed in 2003 after reportedly understating its debt by nearly
$10bn and overstating its net assets by $16.4bn.
The plaintiffs, purchasers of Parmalat securities between January 5, 1999 and
December 18, 2003, are looking to hold the firm liable on a global basis, which
has lead to DTT efforts to distance itself from claims levelled at its Italian
But Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Deloitte was not exempt from rules
governing a superior’s liability for the action of a subordinate, known as
vicarious liability. ‘The legislative history indicates no intent to alter
traditional principles of vicarious liability… The court thus concludes the
Deloitte defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on this claim,’ Kaplan
Deloitte is headquartered in New York but it also set up in Switzerland as an
association – or ‘verein’.
Deloitte claims this is a separate legal entity, which only provides an
umbrella for its global network.
Does Darwin's theory apply to taxation? Colin ponders...
Two new audit partners have been appointed at the firm BDO in its audit practice following continued growth and investment
Investment in people, tech and businesses impacts on EY's profit per partner figure
If businesses do not take cyber security seriously in their business planning regulators may do it for them, the ICAEW has warned