H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler

Decision Date09 June 1983
Citation93 N.J. 324,461 A.2d 138
Parties, 35 A.L.R.4th 199 H. ROSENBLUM, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Summit Gift Galleries, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (formerly known as Summit Productions, Inc.), Harry Rosenblum and Barry Rosenblum, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jack F. ADLER ... , individually and as partners trading as Touche Ross & Co., severally and in the alternative, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Bradley R. Brewer, New York City, a member of the New York bar, for H. Rosenblum, Inc., etc., et al. (Cummins, Dunn & Pashman, Hillsdale, attorneys; Donald Horowitz, Hillsdale, of counsel).

Leon P. Gold, New York City, a member of the New York bar, for Jack F. Adler, et al. (Schneider, Schneider & Balt, Teaneck, attorneys).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

SCHREIBER, J.

This case focuses upon the issue of whether accountants should be responsible for their negligence in auditing financial statements. If so, we must decide whether a duty is owed to those with whom the auditor is in privity, to third persons known and intended by the auditor to be the recipients of the audit, and to those who foreseeably might rely on the audit. Subsumed within these questions is a more fundamental one: to what extent does public policy justify imposition of a duty to any of these classes?

I

The issues herein arose on defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. The facts that follow were, therefore, adduced from the record in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs Harry and Barry Rosenblum brought this action against Touche Ross & Co. (Touche), a partnership, and the individual partners. Touche, a prominent accounting firm, had audited the financial statements of Giant Stores Corporation (Giant). These plaintiffs, allegedly relying on the correctness of the audits, acquired Giant common stock in conjunction with the sale of their business to Giant. That stock subsequently proved to be worthless, after the financial statements were found to be fraudulent. Plaintiffs claim that Touche negligently conducted the audits and that Touche's negligence was a proximate cause of their loss.

Giant, a Massachusetts corporation, operated discount department stores, retail catalog showrooms and art and gift shops. Its common stock was publicly traded, its initial public offering having been made pursuant to a registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1969. Giant was required to file audited financial statements with the SEC as part of its annual report to stockholders and Touche conducted those audit examinations during the fiscal years 1969 through 1972. Giant's fiscal year was the twelve months ending January 30.

In November 1971 Giant commenced negotiations with the plaintiffs for the acquisition of their businesses in New Jersey (H. Rosenblum, Inc. and Summit Promotions, Inc.). These enterprises had retail catalog showrooms in Summit and Wayne. The merger negotiations culminated in an agreement executed on March 9, 1972. During the discussions two significant events occurred. First, on December 14, 1971, Giant made a public offering of 360,000 shares of its common stock. The financial statements included in the prospectus of that offering contained statements of annual earnings for four years ending January 30, 1971, as well as balance sheets as of January 30 for each of those years, which had been audited by Touche. Touche's opinion affixed to those financials stated that it had examined the statements of earnings and balance sheets "in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards" and that the financial statements "present[ed] fairly" Giant's financial position. Similar data had been incorporated in Giant's annual report for the year ending January 30, 1971. Second, Touche began its audit of Giant's financials for the year ending January 29, 1972. This audit was completed on April 18, 1972. The attached Touche opinion bore the same language affixed to the 1971 statements.

One of the Touche partners, Armin Frankel, was present at some of the merger discussions. It does not appear that he participated in the negotiations, though the plaintiffs assert that they received the January 1971 audited statements during a meeting at which Frankel was present. Although he denies making the projection, Frankel is also alleged to have stated during one meeting that the preliminary figures of the 1972 audit then under way indicated it was going to be "a very strong year for Giant Stores, it is probably going to be the best in history ...."

The merger agreement provided that the Rosenblums would receive an amount of Giant stock, up to a maximum of 86,075 shares, depending upon the net income of their enterprises for their fiscal year ending December 31, 1971. The closing was to be scheduled between May 15 and May 31, 1972. Giant agreed that as of the closing it would represent and warrant that there had "been no material adverse change in the business, properties or assets of Giant and its Subsidiaries since July 31, 1971." The plaintiffs claim they relied upon the 1972 audited statements before closing the transaction on June 12, 1972. The Rosenblums received Giant common stock, which had been listed on the American Stock Exchange in February 1972 and was being traded on that Exchange when the merger was effected. After the Rosenblum closing, Giant made another public offering of common stock in August 1972. Touche furnished for this Giant registration statement the audited financial statements for each of the five fiscal years ending January 29, 1972, to which was affixed Touche's unqualified opinion.

Giant had manipulated its books by falsely recording assets that it did not own and omitting substantial amounts of accounts payable so that the financial information that Touche had certified in the 1971 and 1972 statements was incorrect. 1 The fraud was uncovered in the early months of 1973. Trading in Giant stock on the American Stock Exchange was suspended in April 1973 and never resumed. On May 22, 1973, Touche withdrew its audit for the year ending January 29, 1972. Giant filed a bankruptcy petition in September 1973. The Giant stock received by the plaintiffs in the merger had become worthless.

The plaintiffs' four-count complaint, predicated on the audited financials for the years ending January 30, 1971 and January 29, 1972, charged fraudulent misrepresentation, gross negligence, negligence and breach of warranty. Touche moved for partial summary judgment. It sought to have the court dismiss the claims based on alleged negligence in making the audit for the year ending January 30, 1971 and on alleged negligence, gross negligence and fraud in making the audit for the year ending January 29, 1972. The trial court granted the motion with respect to the 1971 financials and denied it as to the 1972 financials.

The Appellate Division granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal, but affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the negligence claim based on the 1971 audit. 183 N.J.Super. 417, 444 A.2d 66 (1982). We granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. 91 N.J. 191, 450 A.2d 527 (1982). The defendants had also moved for leave to appeal from the denial of their motion for partial summary judgment addressed to claims predicated on the 1972 financials. The Appellate Division had denied that motion. The defendants subsequently moved before us for leave to appeal from the Appellate Division's denial. We acceded to that motion after we had granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. Thus the propriety of the trial court's disposition of Touche's entire motion for partial summary judgment is now before us.

II

An independent auditor is engaged to review and examine a company's financial statements and then to issue an opinion with respect to the fairness of that presentation. That report is customarily attached to the financial statements and then distributed by the company for various purposes. Recipients may be stockholders, potential investors, creditors and potential creditors. When these parties rely upon a negligently prepared auditor's report and suffer damages as a result, the question arises whether they may look to the auditor for compensation. In other words, to whom does the auditor owe a duty? The traditional rule is that the auditor's duty is owed only to those with whom he is in privity or to those who are known beneficiaries at the time of the auditor's undertaking. This rule is commonly attributed to an opinion of Chief Judge Cardozo in Ultramares v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170, 174 N.E. 441 (1931). A second rule has been expressed in Section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Under the Restatement, liability is extended to a known and intended class of beneficiaries. For example, if the auditor knows that the report is to be prepared for bank borrowing, then his duty would run to the bank to whom the company delivered the opinion. A third rule is that the auditor's duty is owed to those whom the auditor should reasonably foresee as recipients from the company of the financial statements for authorized business purposes. See JEB Fasteners v. Marks, Bloom & Co. [1981] 3 All E.R. 289, 296.

A claim against the auditor is realistically one predicated upon his representations. Though the theory advanced here by the plaintiffs is directed to the service performed by accountants and thus is in the nature of malpractice,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
213 cases
  • Snyder v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1996
    ...building contractor and third persons does not bar recovery for those injured by defendant's negligence); H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, 93 N.J. 324, 338-39, 461 A.2d 138 (1983) (holding that reasonably foreseeable consequences of auditor's negligent opinion about corporation's finances, not ......
  • Levine v. Wiss & Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 31, 1984
    ...may be held responsible to those to whom a duty is owed, for failure to adhere to the standards of the profession. See Rosenblum v. Adler, 93 N.J. 324, 461 A.2d 138 (1983). "Accounting is the act of identifying, measuring, recording and communicating financial information about an economic ......
  • Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 20, 1990
    ...challenges here. New Jersey and Wisconsin had previously adopted a foreseeability rule for accountant liability (Rosenblum v. Adler (1983) 93 N.J. 324, 461 A.2d 138, 145, 153; Citizens State Bank v. Timm, Schmidt & Co. (1983) 113 Wis.2d 376, 335 [7 Cal.App.4th 1651] N.W.2d 361, 366); Missis......
  • Rena, Inc. v. Brien
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 17, 1998
    ...estate owed duty to purchaser not to provide misleading information upon which purchaser foreseeably relied); H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, 93 N.J. 324, 461 A.2d 138 (1983) (accounting firm that furnished audit report of publicly traded corporation owes duty to all foreseeable recipients who......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Fasb - the Irs's New Best Friend: How Fin 48 Affects the Taxpayer-irs Relationship and Potential Taxpayer Challenges
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 25-3, March 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...auditors" are hired by a taxpayer to attest to the accuracy of the taxpayer's financial statements. See H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, 461 A.2d 138, 148 (N.J. 1983) (overruled on other grounds). An "independent audit" may be needed for many different reasons, such as to comply with the Securi......
  • Section 10 Duty
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Professional Liability Deskbook Chapter 3 Accountants
    • Invalid date
    ...most liberal approach, followed in a few jurisdictions, includes all users that are reasonably foreseeable. H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, 461 A.2d 138 (N.J. 1983). This expanded theory of liability has set most accountants back on their heels because the number of potential plaintiffs is unl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT