McGann

McGann v. Ernst & Young

Good Law
102 F.3d 390·96 Daily Journal DAR 14455·1996 WL 722838·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31149·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8744
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 9, 1996Nos. 95-55925California4,411 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Plaintiff securities investors appeal the grant of judgment on the pleadings for defendant Ernst & Young (“E&Y’), an independent accounting firm. Plaintiffs alleged that E&Y incurred primary liability under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) by preparing a fraudulent audit report that it knew would be included by its chent in a Form 10-K. This case requires us to decide whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A, 511 U.S. 164 , 114 S.Ct. 1439 , 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994), overturned the traditional interpretation of § 10(b) first set forth in SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833 (2nd Cir.1968) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Coates v. SEC, 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1454 , 22 L.Ed.2d 756 (1969). We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

I. FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

At all relevant times, E&Y was the outside auditor for the Community Psychiatric Centers (“CPC”), a publicly traded corporation. Plaintiffs alleged the following facts: E&Y issued a false and misleading audit opinion regarding CPC’s financial statements for the fiscal year ending in November 1990.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.