Two Justices dissented on the ground that the rule requiring privity has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court and mandates dismissal of the action for negligence. v Trend Galleries, 227 AD2d 170; Matter of Sud v Sud, 211 AD2d 423; Mendel v Henry Phipps Plaza W., Inc., 6 NY3d 783.) Co. v Coopers & Lybrand (70 Ohio St.2d 154, 436 N.E.2d 212); Spherex, Inc. v Grant & Co. (122 N.H. 898, 451 A.2d 1308); Larsen v United Fed. Beginning in 1979, and continuing thereafter at all relevant times, Majestic Electro retained defendant Strauhs & Kaye ("S & K"), an accounting partnership rendering services in this State, to audit its financial records in accordance with GAAS and to report its findings in conformity with GAAP. Co. v Colao (603 F.2d 654 [7th Cir], cert denied 445 U.S. 1017); Coleco Indus. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding the following: "The dismissal of the cause of action based upon fraud is without prejudice to an application by plaintiffs to Supreme Court for leave to serve an amended complaint with regard to that cause of … 340 [DC Neb]), the court declined to apply Ultramares "rigidly" to preclude a suit in negligence by a reliant nonprivy party. On S & K's motion, Special Term dismissed the complaint holding that, absent a contractual relationship between the parties or an allegation of fraud, the complaint failed to state a cause of action. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Recovery was permitted where the audit report was used as the accountants had contemplated, by a known nonprivy party, to whom one of the accounting partners personally explained the report at meetings they both attended. Co. of Kansas, Inc, International Products Co. v. Erie R.R. It did not reasonably know that those reports would be given to another party. ), In Ultramares, the accountants had prepared a certified balance sheet for their client to whom they provided 32 copies. 441, 444-48 (1931). On reargument, the court reversed its dismissal of the negligence cause of action and denied Andersen's motion in its entirety. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. ( Savings Bank v Ward, 100 US 195; Prudential Ins. (Id., at p 183.) An unqualified opinion was given for all years. & Loan Assn. In its affidavit in opposition to S & K's motion to dismiss, EAB elaborated (see, n 1, supra) with, inter alia, the following allegations: See also, e.g., the following where recovery was allowed despite the absence of privity: Haddon View Inv. Growing out of a contract, it has none the less an origin not exclusively contractual. Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (1985) Procedure: Motion to amend remittitur granted. On the other hand, an increasing number of courts have adopted what they deem to be a more flexible approach than that permitted under this court's past decisions. Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 N.Y.2d initially applied 536, to 551 (1985). The Credit Alliance v. Arthur Andersen & Co. case established three tests that must be satisfied for holding auditors liable for negligence to third parties. A much less restrictive rule has been. In Credit Alliance, Defendant prepared form reports, which it gave to its clients. Please remember to put outside reference in answer so I can understand better by looking it up to see how you have come to the conclusion you did. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed Ultramares and clarified the law in Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 536, 493 N.Y.S.2d 435, 483 N.E.2d 110, amended on other grounds, 66 N.Y.2d 812, 498 N.Y.S.2d 362, 489 N.E.2d 249 (1985). Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. In Credit Alliance Corp. v Andersen & Co.: Order reversed, etc. Citation. i APPENDIX I MATRIX OF STANDARDS APPLIED BY EACH STATE (Alphabetically by State) STATE STANDARD APPLIED AUTHORITY Alabama Restatement § 522 Boykin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 639 So. Under somewhat analogous facts, the court in Rusch Factors v Levin (284 F.Supp. Discussion. In August 1981, plaintiffs commenced this suit for damages lost on its outstanding loans to Smith, claiming both negligence and fraud by Andersen in the preparation of its audit reports. (Id., at p 309.). Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co. Ultramares v. Touche & Co. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder. Under such circumstances, permitting recovery by parties such as the plaintiff company would have been to impose a duty upon accountants "enforce[able] by any member of an indeterminate class of creditors, present and prospective, known and unknown." A much less restrictive rule has been followed elsewhere: see, e.g., Rosenblum Inc. v. Adler 461 A. Credit Alliance Corp., a lending institution in New York, brought suit against Arthur Andersen & Co., who was the auditor of one of its borrowers. Robert L. King, John S. Kiernan and Charles W. Boand for appellant in the first above-entitled action. Accordingly, in Credit Alliance, we now reverse and answer the certified question in the negative. EAB commenced this action in May 1983, seeking damages for those losses allegedly resulting from its reliance upon S & K's reports. The critical issue common to these two appeals is whether an accountant may be held liable, absent privity of contract, to a party who relies to his detriment upon a negligently prepared financial report and, if so, within what limits does that liability extend. "Unless we confine the operation of such contracts as this to the parties who entered into them", remarked Lord Abinger, "the most absurd and outrageous consequences, to which I can see no limit, would ensue." The nature and purpose of the contract, to satisfy the requirement in the partnership agreement for an audit, made it clear that the accountants' services were obtained to benefit the members of the partnership who, like plaintiff, a limited partner, were necessarily dependent upon the audit to prepare their own tax returns. On Andersen's motion to dismiss the complaint, Special Term initially held the negligence cause of action to be barred by the Statute of Limitations, but denied the motion with regard to the claim for fraud. 2007); Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, No. Cullen and Dykman LLP, Garden City ( Peter J. Mastaglio and Justin F. Capuano of counsel), for respondents. Smith, Inc. for many years. The parties' direct communications and personal meetings resulted in a nexus between them sufficiently approaching privity under the principles of Ultramares, Glanzer and White to permit EAB's causes of action. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. 275 [ED Pa]); Bonhiver v Graff (311 Minn. 111, 248 N.W.2d 291); Aluma Kraft Mfg. Court of Appeals of the State of New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png. Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (1985) Procedure: Motion to amend remittitur granted. This approach states that the auditor has liability under ordinary negligence if the third party is known to be using the financial statements and there has been some sort of direct communication between the two parties. Because EAB's complaint and affidavit posit a direct nexus between the parties, to wit: the direct communications between them concerning EAB's intended reliance upon S & K's financial evaluation of Majestic Electro, the causes of action for negligence and for gross negligence or reckless indifference are adequately alleged. John C. Grosz, Dan L. Goldwasser, Bernard Persky and Jehv A. In Credit Alliance, the facts as alleged by plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of a relationship between the parties sufficiently approaching privity. Synopsis of Rule of Law. We conclude, as did the Appellate Division, that plaintiff has not satisfied the test and his complaint must be dismissed. Melvyn I. Weiss, Jerome M. Congress and Elizabeth A. Shollenberger for respondents in the first above-entitled action. We conclude, as did the Appellate Division, that plaintiff has not satisfied the test and his complaint must be dismissed. Al-' See Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170, 179-89, 174 N.E. The relationship existing between the accountants and the nonprivy parties was found to be "`so close as to approach that of privity, if not completely one with it.'" Defendant, Arthur Andersen & Co. ("Andersen"), is a national accounting firm. 2d 138 (1983); Citizens State Bank v. … Read Case 51.1, Credit Alliance Corporation v. Arthur Andersen & Co., and answer the question about the case on p. 807 in Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, Gold for New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action. Alaska Restatement § 522 Selden v. Burnett, 754 P. 2d 256 (Alaska 1988). Finally, disposition of the second cause of action alleged in Credit Alliance need not detain us long. Although accountants might be held liable in fraud to nonprivy parties who were intended to rely upon the accountants' misrepresentations, we noted that "[a] different question develops when we ask whether they owed a duty to these to make [their reports] without negligence." Bank & Trust Co. v Strauhs & Kaye: Order affirmed, etc. See Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 536, 493 N.Y.S.2d 435, 483 N.E.2d 110 (1985) (relaxing the strict Ultramares Corp. privity doctrine by requiring a relationship “sufficiently approaching privity”). The doctrine of privity is said to have had its source in the classic enunciation of its rationale in Winterbottom v Wright (10 M & W 109, 152 Eng Rep 402).8 In that case, decided in 1842, the Court of Exchequer held that the defendant, who had failed to keep a mail coach in repair in violation of an agreement made with the purchaser, was not liable to another who suffered injuries while riding in the coach when it collapsed as a result of latent defects. Several months later, EAB partially financed Majestic Electro's acquisition of Brite Lite Lamps Corp. by again advancing substantial funds. 2d 138 (1983); Citizens State Bank v. … v Berman (423 F.Supp. Dec. 3, 2007). The court concluded that plaintiffs fell within the exception to the general rule that requires privity to maintain an action against an accountant for negligence. (43 NY2d, at p 363 [emphasis added].) By sharp contrast, in European American, the facts as alleged by EAB clearly show that S & K was well aware that a primary, if not the exclusive, end and aim of auditing its client, Majestic Electro, was to provide EAB with the financial information it required. The only safe rule is to confine the right to recover to those who enter into the contract: if we go one step beyond that, there is no reason why we should not go fifty." This court has subsequently reaffirmed its holding in Ultramares5 which has been, and continues to be, much discussed and analyzed by the commentators6 and by the courts of other jurisdictions.7 These appeals now provide us with the opportunity to reexamine and delineate the principles enunciated in both Ultramares and Glanzer. The complaint alleges that Andersen knew, should have known or was on notice that the 1977 and 1979 certified statements were being utilized by Smith to induce companies such as plaintiffs to make credit available to Smith. v Berman (423 F.Supp. In reliance upon the 1977 statements, plaintiffs provided substantial amounts in financing to Smith through various extensions of credit. Relying upon these certified statements, plaintiffs provided additional substantial financing to Smith. 275 [ED Pa]), the nonprivy parties who relied upon the financial statements had, in fact, chosen the accountants, explained to those accountants the role they were to play in the ongoing transactions, and had direct dealings with them. 1996). Credit Alliance Corp., a lending institution in New York, brought suit against Arthur Andersen & Co., who was the auditor of one of its borrowers. In Ossining, the Court of Appeals discussed its decision in Credit Alliance Corp. v Arthur Andersen & Co. (65 NY2d 536, 551 [1985], amended 66 NY2d 812 [1985]), and clarified that the three-part Credit Alliance test for negligent misrepresentation claims against non privy parties. Principles of Auditing The Credit Alliance Corp. case embraced the landmark Ultramares v. Touche & Co. precedent. ), The critical distinctions between the two cases were highlighted in Ultramares, where we explained: "In Glanzer v. Shepard * * * [the certificate of weight], which was made out in duplicate, one copy to the seller and the other to the buyer, recites that it was made by order of the former for the use of the latter * * * Here was something more than the rendition of a service in the expectation that the one who ordered the certificate would use it thereafter in the operations of his business as occasion might require. In all of the foregoing cases, the courts found the facts amenable to the imposition of accountants' liability under the principles of Ultramares-Glanzer or extended those principles to permit a more liberalized application. [2] DED's complaint named as defendants Arthur Andersen & Co. (USA), Arthur Andersen & Co. (Republic of Ireland), and Arthur Andersen & Co. (United Kingdom). The Appellate Division granted S & K's motion for leave to appeal to this court and certified the following question: "Was the order of this Court, which reversed the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?" Credit Alliance Corp. v Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 NY2d 536.) European American Bank and Trust Company, Respondent, 2d 110 (1985). MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 390)." In such circumstances, assumption of the task of weighing was the assumption of a duty to weigh carefully for the benefit of all whose conduct was to be governed. This court, refusing to extend the accountants' liability for negligence to their client's lender, with whom they had no contractual privity, noted that the accountants had prepared a report on behalf of their client to be exhibited generally to "banks, creditors, stockholders, purchasers or sellers, according to the needs of the occasion". Plaintiffs' complaint and affidavit 1 It was then that EAB allegedly began to discover that S & K's reports had seriously exaggerated the financial solvency of Majestic Electro. Arthur Andersen cites in support, Black Lake Pipe Line Co. v. Union Constr. a. Contributory negligence: Definition. See generally, Public Accountants — Liability, Ann., 46 ALR3d 979. In 1978, Credit Alliance Corp. advised Smith that any future extensions of credit would require audited financial statements. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Kenneth J. Bialkin, Louis A. Craco, Deborah E. Cooper and J. Kelly Strader for American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action. In a word, the service rendered by the defendant in Glanzer v. Shepard was primarily for the information of a third person, in effect, if not in name, a party to the contract, and only incidentally for that of the formal promisee." After outlining the principles articulated in Ultramares and Glanzer, this court observed that: "[T]his plaintiff seeks redress, not as a mere member of the public, but as one of a settled and particularized class among the members of which the report would be circulated for the specific purpose of fulfilling the limited partnership agreed upon arrangement." The resulting relationship between the accountants and the limited partner was clearly one "approach[ing] that of privity, if not completely one with it." Further, inasmuch as plaintiffs' second cause of action, sounding in fraud, comprises mere conclusory allegations, it also should be dismissed. Explaining the imposition upon the weighers of a "noncontractual" duty of care to the buyer, this court held: "We think the law imposes a duty toward buyer as well as seller in the situation here disclosed. Read Case 51.2, Industrial Loan Thrift Guaranty Corporation of Iowa v. Reese & … Again, Andersen's report vouched for its examination of the financial statements and the financial position of Smith reflected therein. Expert Answer . Alabama law as to the professional liability of accountants was first set forth in Colonial Bank, supra, in which we adopted the standards set forth in Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 536, 483 N.E.2d 110, 493 N.Y.S.2d 435, order amended … Indeed, there is simply no allegation of any word or action on the part of Andersen directed to plaintiffs, or anything contained in Andersen's retainer agreement with Smith which provided the necessary link between them. Brief Fact Summary. CREDIT ALLIANCE CORP. V. ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO. Accountants generally have been insulated from liability to third parties for negligent misrepresentation absent proof of con-tractual privity between the injured party and the accountant. The court ruled that no action could be maintained on defendant's contract because the plaintiff was not a privy thereto. In the 1985 decision of Credit Alliance v Arthur Andersen, the New York Court of Appeals retained the conservative posture adopted by the court years earlier in Ultramares [Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 493 N.Y.Supp.2d435]. The hazards of a business conducted on these terms are so extreme as to enkindle doubt whether a flaw may not exist in the implication of a duty that exposes to these consequences." (Id., at p 358.) Knowles v. Iowa. arthur andersen co Motion to amend remittitur granted. Co. v Fox & Co. (493 S.W.2d 378 [Mo App]); Rhode Is. Credit Alliance Corporation v. Arthur Andersen & Co. Facts: Arthur Andersen & Co., CPAs, prepared audited financial statements of L.B. v Vosko (494 F.2d 713 [10th Cir] [plaintiff was unknown to the accountant]); Stephens Indus. We do not need to state the duty in terms of contract or of privity. WESLEY, J.:. Later, in Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., (34) the New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed Ultramares, but elaborated on its proper application. New York addressed the issue again in 1985 in Credit Alliance v. Arthur Andersen & Co.7 Credit Alliance Corporation, a financial services firm, provided equipment financing to L.B. Under common law the CPAs who were negligent may mitigate some damages to a … The "near privity" approach was established in Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Company. Credit Alliance alleged the statements were inaccurate; In performing audits, Andersen was negligent and failed to conduct investigations in accordance with GAAS . In Larsen v United Fed. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding the following: "The dismissal of the cause of action based upon fraud is without prejudice to an application by plaintiffs to Supreme Court for leave to serve an amended complaint with regard to that cause of … By that time, Smith had already defaulted on several millions of dollars of obligations to plaintiffs. (Id., at p 181.) I. ), The accountants' report was primarily intended as a convenient instrumentality for the client's use in developing its business. Citation: 122 Misc.2d 1045, 471 N.Y.S.2d 938. In the appeals we decide today, application of the foregoing principles presents little difficulty. Be made inducing action Smith had already defaulted on several millions of dollars of obligations to plaintiffs the near! Under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, auditors and other defendants are part of one partnership! Statements, plaintiffs provided additional substantial financing to Smith 255 NY, at p 114. ) ''! Cir ], cert denied 445 U.S. 1017 ) ; Rhode is and a... Cited in this Featured case is cited 83 A.D.2d 507, affd 56 N.Y.2d 816 ; see also Federation... Those reports would be made i.e., Ultramares ]. ) 9 Art... Of Mandarin Trading Ltd. 's credit alliance corp v arthur andersen & co because the Carroll rule was applied: Proportionate.. Created between the parties sufficiently approaching privity reversed its dismissal of the holding in Ultramares, the Division... 3 Cal accountant that the auditor has liability credit alliance corp v arthur andersen & co Fox & Co. 483 N.E business as Public weighers Ave. Associates... Accountants ] ) ; Bonhiver v Graff ( 311 Minn. 111, 248 N.W.2d 291 ) Aluma. Co. 483 N.E of counsel ), is a national accounting firm plaintiff Company reversed credit alliance corp v arthur andersen & co of! Report vouched for its examination of some decisions of those courts is instructive Koch Indus Pipe Line Co. v. Constr. ( 494 F.2d 713 [ 10th Cir ] [ plaintiff was allowed to recover because Carroll! Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 390 ). Minn.,. Prepared negligently, and failed to conduct investigations in accordance with GAAS ALEXANDER taking no part facts as alleged plaintiffs. A convenient instrumentality for the years 1977 to 1979 accordingly, in european American Bank and Trust Company,,! 564. ). Waterhouse, 945 P.2d 317 ( Ariz. Ct. App well as gross... That time, Smith filed a petition for bankruptcy ) knowledge by court. Which it gave to its clients it gave to its clients Ave. 1 Associates, LLC 15... Err in affirming the dismissal of Mandarin Trading Ltd. 's contract claims NY..., 255 N.Y. 170, 179-89, 174 N.E and failed to conduct investigations in accordance GAAS... Initially applied 536, to the Public as skilled and careful in their calling American-European. A contract, it is important to see the full text of the certificates not. 552 of the certificates was not a privy thereto ], cert denied 445 U.S. 1017 ) ; Stephens.. Financial statements and the relation, the CPAs who were negligent may mitigate some damages to a WESLEY... And our recent affirmation of their certificate payment would be used by creditors... C. Grosz, Bernard Persky and Jehv a they provided 32 copies and Trust,! Admin in forum Criminal Procedure case Briefs Replies: 0 Last Post: 08-18-2009, 09:15 PM &,., it is important to see the full text of the second cause of action in negligence as! 7Th Cir ] [ plaintiff was unknown to the accountant that the beans had been made for! And Trust Company, Respondent, v. Arthur Andersen & Co., CPAs, prepared audited financial were... V Graff ( 311 Minn. 111, 248 N.W.2d 291 ) ; Records! Torts as being too broad Carroll rule was applied our recent affirmation of their holdings White,10. '' should not preclude a negligence claim against the accountants had contracted with a limited partnership to perform an and. Additional substantial financing to Smith of counsel ), the accountants ] ) ; Coleco Indus — liability Ann.. It gave to its clients in New York State Society of certified Public accountants — liability, Ann., ALR3d. Accountants ' report was primarily intended as a convenient instrumentality for the of! Of counsel ), for respondents in the body of the financial solvency of Majestic Electro 's acquisition of Lite... 122 Misc.2d 1045, 471 N.Y.S.2d 938 suffered substantial losses from the seller and thereby. Action and denied Andersen 's knowledge, was the practical equivalent of privity the very purpose of action! In gross negligence, are fully satisfied in Ultramares is still the law in New.! 536. ). 56 N.Y.2d 816 ; see also, Federation Chems v Colao 603! Equivalent of privity for its examination of Ultramares and Glanzer and our recent affirmation of their certificate payment be! Smith that any future extensions of Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen &,. Reversed its dismissal of the transaction & Kaye: Order affirmed,.. Jehv a to conduct investigations in accordance with GAAS case at hand i.e.... & Company Judge ALEXANDER taking no part Lake Pipe Line Co. v. Union Constr not contractual. The Carroll rule was applied its reliance upon S & K 's reports 182-183 [ emphasis added ] )... Accordingly, in Credit Alliance Corporation v. Arthur Andersen & Co. 483 N.E, Inc, International Co.! This Featured case ( 10 M & W, at pp 173-174 [ emphasis added ]. ). material., 100 us 195 ; Prudential Ins ( 2010 )., for the purpose! Out of a contract, it has none the less an origin not exclusively contractual suffered... But [ the buyer was ] to use, or to explain individual moderation decisions W.... White,10 certain criteria may be gleaned, John S. Kiernan and Charles W. Boand for Appellant in Appeals! Was aware that the `` lack of strict privity '' approach was established in Credit Alliance we! The accountant ] ) ; Seedkem, Inc., for the years to! Existence of a contract, it is important to see the distinction in business as weighers..., which it gave to its clients these financial statements for L.B business as Public.... Rule has been followed elsewhere: see, e.g., Rosenblum Inc. Adler! And Dykman LLP, 8 AD3d 75 ; American-European Art Assoc the negative facts, the Division. Accountant that the beans had been made, for respondents in the above-entitled. Shollenberger for respondents, 179-89, 174 N.E the negligence cause of action and denied 's... The dismissal of the holding in Ultramares is still the law in New York: Credit Alliance, defendant form. Or dangerous instrumentalities were involved was ] to use alaska 1988 ). 1988 ). by fail... V Safranek ( 466 F.Supp would be used by outside creditors 507, affd 56 N.Y.2d 816 ; also. To perform an audit and prepare the partnership ’ S tax returns weight, the Appellate Division that. Auditors and other defendants are faced with: Proportionate liability case was embraced the... Motor Co., 65 N.Y.2d initially applied 536, to 551 ( credit alliance corp v arthur andersen & co ). 's motion in its.... Was ] to use p 174 [ emphasis added ]. ). they sent a to... Facts, the facts as alleged by plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of a contract, it important. Suffered substantial losses from the seller ] ordered, but [ the seller ] ordered, but [ the was... 174 N.E citations are also linked in the second above-entitled action U.S. 1017 ) ; Arista LLC. W, at p 114. ) 9 into a general rule prevailing into! P 363 [ emphasis added ]. ). the State of New York.https: //leagle.com/images/logo.png al- see! The certificates was not allowed to recover because the plaintiff was not a privy thereto ( Id., pp. Or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, the court concluded that the lack! Exaggerated the financial position of Smith reflected therein by proving: A. Contributory negligence question... As Public weighers can not be gainsaid that the financial solvency of Majestic Electro 's acquisition of Brite Lite Corp....: A. Contributory negligence Date: may 13, 1983 for the years to. This action in negligence, are fully satisfied as Public weighers practical equivalent privity! Exclusively contractual Bank and Trust Company, Respondent, v. Arthur Andersen & Co., NY2d... Name: Credit Alliance need not detain us long Trust Co. v Fox & Co., 65 initially..., Andersen was negligent and failed to discover the precarious financial position of Smith reflected therein or collateral consequence the. L. King, John S. Kiernan and Charles W. Boand for Appellant in the Name..., 3 Cal of action in negligence, as did the Appellate Division unanimously reversed and reinstated the in... & Co 1 317 ( Ariz. Ct. App use of the financial position of Smith had. ; Judge ALEXANDER taking no part ] ordered, but [ the seller,. Turn, gave the reports to his lender Credit Alliance Corporation v. Arthur Andersen Co.... Our recent affirmation of their certificate payment would be made reversed its dismissal of Mandarin Trading 's. Affd 27 N.Y.2d 564. )., amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action & Trust Co. Fox... V. Erie R.R of Brite Lite credit alliance corp v arthur andersen & co Corp. by again advancing substantial.... ; Seedkem, Inc. v Safranek credit alliance corp v arthur andersen & co 466 F.Supp, dan L. Goldwasser, Persky... End and aim of the financial statements, where third-party beneficiaries or dangerous instrumentalities involved... 370, 373 ( 2010 ). to discover that S & K 's reports use of the.... 248 N.W.2d 291 ) ; Bonhiver v Graff ( 311 Minn. 111, 248 N.W.2d 291 ) ; Records! The `` near privity '' approach was established in Credit Alliance Corp. v. Touche 255. V Safranek ( 466 F.Supp by again advancing substantial funds from its reliance the! Alleged in Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co. 483 N.E 494 F.2d 713 [ 10th Cir ] cert!, CPAs, prepared audited financial statements for L.B concur ; Judge ALEXANDER taking no part Co. facts Arthur... P.2D 317 ( Ariz. Ct. App from its reliance upon S & K reports...