This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Frame v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Triable issue of material fact existed as to investors' claims that accounting firm aided corporation's illegal activities.





Cite as

2005 DJDAR 14926

Published

Oct. 24, 2006

Filing Date

Dec. 28, 2005


TOM FRAME et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, Defendant and Respondent.
No. A106383 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 2002056106) First Appellate District Division Five Filed December 28, 2005
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:

        It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 28, 2005, be modified as follows:

        1.        On page 19, the first full paragraph, beginning "The issue" is deleted and replaced with the following paragraph:

        "The issue, in this context, is therefore the standard of care-a factual matter. As a regulatory standard, GAAS is relevant to PwC's standard of care, but the provisions on which PwC relies do not necessarily control given the factual disputes in this case. The application of the GAAS provisions in the matter before us is a matter of some debate, since the GAAS sections cited by PwC do not refer specifically to limited partnerships-whose owners have the right to receive copies of financial statements and auditor's reports, the right to inspect the partnership's books and records, and the power to remove the general partner. (Corp. Code, § 15636, subd. (f)(2).)"

        2.        On page 31, the last sentence in the first full paragraph, beginning "This has no merit" is deleted and replaced with the following two sentences:

        "In the matter before us, however, the engagement agreement explicitly and unambiguously stated that the audits would not be conducted or planned in contemplation of reliance by any third party. In deciding whether there are intended third party beneficiaries to the contract, we cannot imply a term that would be contrary to this express term and the parties' manifested intent on this subject."
        There is no change in the judgment.
        All petitions for rehearing are denied.



*        Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part D.


#226046

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424