Alert > Securities / Accountant Defense / Securities Litigation
Banco Espirito International Ltd. v. BDO Seidman LLP
On June 18, 2009, a jury in the 11th Circuit Court of Florida reached a verdict that BDO International (“International”) did not control U.S. member firm BDO Seidman, thereby exonerating International from liability for part of a $521 million verdict against the U.S. firm for accounting malpractice. See Erik Larson & Sophia Pearson, BDO Cleared of Responsibility for Seidman Verdict (Update 2) (June 18, 2009), (last visited June 30, 2009).
Plaintiffs in this suit, Banco Espirito Santo International Ltd., Banco Espirito Santo S.A., and ESB Finance (collectively “the Banco Plaintiffs”) invested in E.S. Bankest L.C. (“Bankest”), a factoring company. See Banco Espirito Santo International, Ltd. v. BDO Int’l, B.V., 979 So. 2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2008). Bankest committed massive fraud, fabricating financial records in order to conceal hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. See Id.
From 1998 to 2002, Bankest retained BDO Seidman to audit Bankest’s financial statements. See Id. Those financial statements included various accounts receivable which turned out to be false. When the Banco Plaintiffs discovered the fraud in 2004, they brought suit against the two BDO defendants alleging accounting malpractice and gross negligence, as well as asserting “that BDO International was vicariously liable as principal for the acts and omissions of BDO Seidman as agent.” BDO Int’l, 979 So. 2d at 1031.
International initially moved to dismiss, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction. See Id. A Netherlands corporation with its principal place of business in Brussels, Belgium, International claimed that it did not have sufficient contacts with Florida to be sued in that state. See Id. The court denied the motion, finding that International utilized BDO Seidman to conduct business in Florida and that there was an “expectation that BDO [International] could be hailed into the State of Florida to answer for the allegations against its underlings.” See Id. (citing BDO Int’l B.V. v. Banco Espirito Santo Int’l, Ltd., 911 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)).
International responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint, and again the motion was denied. See Id. The court did, however, limit the claims against International to a “theory of actual agency.” See Id. To establish agency, the Banco Plaintiffs had to show “(1) acknowledgement by the principal that the agent will act for him, (2) the agent’s acceptance of the undertaking, and (3) control by the principal over the actions of the agent.” See Id. (citing Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So. 2d 422, 424 (Fla. 1990)).
In August 2007 the jury concluded that BDO Seidman was liable to the Banco Plaintiffs for $170 million actual damages and $351.7 million punitive damages. See Larson & Pearson, supra.1 The court granted a motion for a directed verdict with regard to International, finding “that the Banco Plaintiffs failed to present evidence to show that an actual agency relationship existed between BDO International and BDO Seidman.” BDO Int’l, 979 So. 2d at 1031-32.
The Banco Plaintiffs appealed the directed verdict and in May 2008 the Florida Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that plaintiffs had presented enough evidence to create a triable issue on the question of agency. BDO Int’l, 979 So. 2d 1030.
Upon remand, the trial court ruled on June 16, 2009, that the Banco Plaintiffs were limited to seeking compensatory damages from International. See Larson & Pearson, supra. Two days later, on June 18, 2009, the jury concluded that International did not exercise sufficient control over BDO Seidman to establish the existence of a principal-agent relationship. See Id. In U.S. practice, a jury (unlike a judge) does not explain or give reasons for its verdict. Because U.S. juries do not explain their verdicts, it can be difficult to determine exactly how they reached their decisions, but the jury instructions given by the court may be instructive as to factors the jury considered.
The jury was instructed to make three findings by a preponderance of the evidence before concluding that an agency relationship existed between International and BDO Seidman:
“BDO Seidman was the actual agent of Defendant BDO International B.V. if you find by the greater weight of the evidence: First, that BDO International B.V. acknowledged that BDO Seidman would act on its behalf; Second, that BDO Seidman accepted the undertaking to act on BDO International B.V.’s behalf, and; Third, that BDO International B.V. had a right of control over the actions of BDO Seidman.”
After deliberation, the jury responded “no” to the question, “Was BDO Seidman an actual agent of BDO International, B.V.?” and must therefore have concluded that the preponderance of the evidence did not support one or more of the three factors.
While it is too early to know if the Banco Plaintiffs have appealed the jury verdict exonerating International, there are two layers of state appellate review available: the Florida Court of Appeals and the Florida Supreme Court. In short, the question of International’s liability for the actions of BDO Seidman may not be finally resolved.
This alert was authored by Joseph T. McLaughlin, Dale E. Barnes Jr. and summer associate Grant M. Cofer. For assistance, please contact the following lawyers:
Joseph T. McLaughlin, Of Counsel, Broker-Dealer
joseph.mclaughlin@bingham.com, 212.705.7678
Dale E. Barnes, Co-chair, Securities Litigation
dale.barnes@bingham.com, 415.393.2522
Jordan D. Hershman, Co-chair, Securities Litigation
jordan.hershman@bingham.com, 617.951.8455
1 BDO Seidman is currently appealing the August 2007 verdict as to its liability. Id.
Circular 230 Disclosure: Internal Revenue Service regulations provide that, for the purpose of avoiding certain penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, taxpayers may rely only on opinions of counsel that meet specific requirements set forth in the regulations, including a requirement that such opinions contain extensive factual and legal discussion and analysis. Any tax advice that may be contained herein does not constitute an opinion that meets the requirements of the regulations. Any such tax advice therefore cannot be used, and was not intended or written to be used, for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalties that the Internal Revenue Service may attempt to impose.
© 2009 Bingham McCutchen LLP
To communicate with us regarding protection of your personal information or if you would like to subscribe or unsubscribe to some or all of Bingham McCutchen LLP’s electronic and email notifications, please notify our Privacy Administrator at privacyUS@bingham.com or privacyUK@bingham.com. Our privacy policy is available at www.bingham.com. We can also be reached by mail in the U.S. at One Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110-1726, ATTN: Privacy Administrator, or in the U.K. at 41 Lothbury, London, England EC2R 7HF, ATT: Privacy Administrator.
This communication is being circulated to Bingham McCutchen LLP’s clients and friends and may be considered advertising. It is not intended to provide legal advice addressed to a particular situation.