Printer Friendly

Third-party reliance on audit curtailed.

The U.S. District Court for the eastern district of North Carolina granted summary judgment in favor of Deloitte Haskins & Sells on claims brought by venture capitalists who allegedly relied on Deloitte's audit work in making investments.

During the years 1981 to 1988, the venture capitalists invested in a company called Learning Resources, Inc. (LRI), which prepared and marketed educational audiovisual tapes. LRI needed several supplemental cash infusions from the investors during this period in addition to initial capital investments. The venture capitalists refused to invest further in 1988 and LRI's assets were sold. The investors then brought action against Deloitte for their lost funds.

The investors alleged LRI's financial statements for the years 1982 to 1986 contained material misrepresentations. They specifically alleged Deloitte allowed LRI to accelerate income recognition on contingent contracts and failed to obtain management representation letters for the audit years 1985 and 1986. Deloitte moved for summary judgment.

The court noted the investors were never designated as thirdparty beneficiaries of the contracts between LRI and Deloitte. Moreover, the investors never received any annual audit reports directly from Deloitte and, with the exception of the 1982 audit, there was no evidence Deloitte knew the financial statements would be distributed to or used by investors.

Consequently, the court ruled the investors were not intended beneficiaries of the audit engagements and could not maintain an action against Deloitte. (Venturtech H v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 790 F.Supp. 576)

Editor's note: Thanks to John D. Hughes of the Hutchins & Wheeler law firm for providing the Security Pacific and Venturtech cases.
COPYRIGHT 1993 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Venturtech II v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells
Author:Baliga, Wayne
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Article Type:Brief Article
Date:Jan 1, 1993
Words:260
Previous Article:New York clarifies privity requirements.
Next Article:Criminal division to be investigated.
Topics:


Related Articles
AICPA standards not controlling at trial.
John Queenan, former AICPA president, dead.
Court rules Bily decision is retroactive.
Accountants owe a duty to some third parties.
Massachusetts court rules firm owes no duty to investors.
Third parties can rely on auditor's work.
Duty and reliance.
COMPETING FOR EMERGING CORPORATE CLIENTS: A STUDY OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR CONCENTRATION.
Competing for emerging corporate clients: a study of independent auditor concentration.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters