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.

Professional Malpractice
Negligence
Shareholder Derivative Action

Isco, et al. v. Arthur Andersen, LLP and Jack Henry

Published: Jan. 1, 2000 | Result Date: May 10, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV9508941 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Brian R. Hauser

Court

Maricopa Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Leo R. Beus

Frank Lewis

Robert S. Green
(Green & Noblin PC)


Defendant

Michael L. Cypers
(Glaser Weil LLP)

Marshall B. Grossman

Gwyn D. Quillen

Floyd P. Beinstock

Frank John Burke Jr.
(ADR Services)


Facts

The plaintiffs were a class of former shareholders of UDC Homes Inc. who bought stock in UDC three years before the company filed for bankruptcy. During those three years, the defendant Arthur Anderson LLP, an accounting firm, audited UDCÆs financial statements. The plaintiffs sued Arthur Anderson and Jack Henry, the Managing Partner of defendantÆs Phoenix office, seeking $95 million in compensatory and $1.3 billion in punitive damages for alleged negligence in the audits. The defendants claimed that the audits were performed to generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS), and that the UDC financial statements Arthur Anderson audited were fairly presented in accordance with generally acceted accounting principles. The defendants also asserted that UDCÆs failure was due to its capital structure which predated defendantÆs audit work, that UDC was mismanaged, and that UDCÆs decision to declare bankruptcy was due to a self-interested decision made by the former directors and officers.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs demanded $55 million. The defendants made an offer of $7 million to $12 million with high-low binding arbitration.

Deliberation

9½ hours

Poll

7-2

Length

66 days


#88423

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

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390