Semi-Tech Litigation. We represented Ernst & Young International in action by note holders claiming $800 million in losses. See Semi-Tech Litig. LLC v. Ting, No. 604664/02 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
HCL Partners Ltd. P'ship v. Leap Wireless Int'l, Inc. Orrick obtained dismissal of purported class action claims alleged against PwC in connection with its audits of cellular provider Leap Wireless.
In re Acterna Corp. Orrick obtained the dismissal of all claims against PwC in consolidated securities fraud class actions brought in U.S. District Court in Maryland. The Acterna case was one of the first to apply the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, holding that securities fraud plaintiffs cannot adequately allege loss causation simply by alleging that they purchased securities at an inflated price. See In re Acterna Corp. Sec. Litig., 378 F. Supp. 2d 561 (D. Md. 2005).
In re Agway, Inc. Orrick obained the dismissal of securities class action claims and common law fraud claims brought against PwC in federal court in New York arising out of the failure and bankruptcy of Agway, Inc., a large agricultural cooperative. The court found that PwC was not liable, and this result was summarily affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
In re BISYS. Orrick obtained the dismissal of a securities fraud claim brought against PwC in New York federal court arising out of the restatement of three years of financial statements by The BISYS Group, Inc. The court found the allegations of scienter to be deficient as to PwC, specifically rejecting plaintiffs' arguments based on the magnitude of the restatement (more than $100 million in overstated revenue) and so-called "red flags," which plaintiffs alleged should have alerted PwC to the fraud. See In re BISYS Sec. Litig., 397 F. Supp. 2d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
Coeur d'Alene Mines. Our lawyers represented Ernst & Young LLP in a federal securities fraud class action arising out of alleged accounting irregularities relating to ore reserves. We obtained a with-prejudice dismissal of our client in the first round of motions to dismiss. See Queen Uno Ltd. P'shp v. Coeur d'Alene Mines Corp., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (D. Colo. 1998).
Computer Associates. Orrick represents Ernst & Young LLP in connection with the Computer Associates securities and derivative litigation arising out of the alleged revenue recognition fraud at the company and alleged obstruction by company insiders. Our lawyers successfully defended Ernst & Young LLP in a shareholder class action, establishing in a case of first impression that Sarbanes-Oxley's statute of limitations is not retroactive, (See McBride v. Ernst & Young LLP, No. 02-CV-126, Mem. & Order (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2003)); aff'd, In re Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2005), and continue to represent E&Y in connection with the pending derivative litigation. See In re Computer Assoc. Int'l Deriv. Litig., Case No. 04 Civ. 2697 (E.D.N.Y.).
Credit Union Financial Services. We represented Grant Thornton in a professional malpractice action in which we obtained a complete jury verdict in favor of our client following a seven-week trial. Plaintiff also paid Grant Thornton's lawyer's fees.
Cromer Finance/Manhattan Investment Fund. Orrick successfully represented Ernst & Young International in obtaining dismissal of all claims asserted by hedge fund investors. See Cromer Finance, Ltd. v. Berger, 137 F. Supp. 2d 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
In re Doral Financial Corp. We obtained dismissal of securities fraud claims brought against PwC in the Southern District of New York in connection with PwC's audits of Doral Financial Corp. following the company's announcement that it had overstated its pre-tax income by approximately $920 million and understated its debt by approximately $3.3 billion with respect to a four-year period. The district court dismissed on the basis that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter. See In re Doral Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 563 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
In re Metropolitan Securities Litigation. Our lawyers represented PwC in securities litigation in the Eastern District of Washington relating to Metropolitan Mortgage & Securities Co., a bankrupt commercial lender. Lawyers who represented Ernst & Young LLP in that matter are also now with Orrick.
In re Parmalat. We represented Deloitte in connection with consolidated multidistrict securities litigation in the Southern District of New York arising out of the collapse of the Italian dairy giant. In one of the key rulings in the various actions, we successfully defended against a remand motion filed by the Italian receiver of Parmalat, establishing in a case of first impression the existence of federal bankruptcy jurisdiction "related to" the receiver's Section 304 bankruptcy case. See Bondi v. Grant Thornton Int'l, Inc., 322 B.R. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). After extensive international discovery, we resolved the primary exposure for Deloitte on favorable terms and obtained the dismissal of other related actions, on loss causation grounds. That discussion was affirmed by the Second Circuit. See Papus v. Bank of America, 309 Fed. Appx. 536 (2d Cir. 2009).
SmarTalk Teleservices. Represented PwC in multidistrict litigation involving federal and state securities claims and professional liability claims arising out of alleged accounting errors relating to revenue recognition for prepaid telephone services. We obtained dismissal of the class claims on a motion to dismiss. See In re SmarTalk Teleservices, Inc. Sec. Litig., 124 F. Supp. 2d 505 (S.D. Ohio 2000). Our lawyers also represented PwC in connection with related SEC enforcement matters.
Madoff Litigation. We are representing Ernst & Young Luxembourg ("EY Luxembourg") in litigation in the Southern District of New York arising out of EY Luxembourg's involvement in the audits of certain feeder funds that invested in Bernard Madoff securities. This litigation is in the preliminary stages.
Stewardship Funds Litigation. Orrick successfully defended Ernst & Young Bermuda ("EY Bermuda") in litigation arising out of the Stewardship Fund's investment with a group of companies run by Thomas E. Petters, who was recently found guilty of running a $3 billion Ponzi scheme. In response to investors' initial filing in Connecticut state court, EY Bermuda successfully compelled arbitration in Connecticut federal court under the Federal Arbitration Act, by convincing a Connecticut Federal court, arguing that the investors' claims were derivative, rather than direct, because the investors sought to recover for the fund's losses, rather than the investors' individual losses, and, therefore, the investors were bound by the arbitration clause in the fund's engagement letter. See Ernst & Young Ltd. Bermuda v. Quinn, 3:09-CV-1164 (JCH) (D. Conn.).