History
  • No items yet
midpage
611 F. App'x 34
2d Cir.
2015
Read the full case

Background

  • MF Global Inc. (MFGI), a futures commission merchant, allegedly misused customer segregated commodity accounts in 2010–2011, violating the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations.
  • PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) audited MFGI in 2010–2011 pursuant to applicable regulations; plaintiffs allege PwC negligently failed to detect accounting/internal control deficiencies that enabled MFGI’s misconduct.
  • Plaintiffs (class representatives and assignee of MFGI’s SIPA trustee) sued PwC for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of MFGI and for professional negligence on behalf of customers.
  • District court dismissed: (1) MFGI’s claims against PwC as barred by New York’s in pari delicto doctrine; and (2) customers’ professional negligence claims for lack of privity/near-privity. Plaintiffs appealed.
  • Second Circuit affirmed, applying New York law to bar MFGI’s claims and BDO Seidman/near-privity doctrine to reject customer claims; it also held the affirmative defense could be resolved at the 12(b)(6) stage where it appears on the face of the complaint.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether MFGI’s claims against PwC are barred by in pari delicto In pari delicto should not bar MFGI’s claims because PwC performed a special regulatory function under federal rules; also audits predated some misuse so not sufficiently linked MFGI (through officers/directors) participated in the wrongdoing; New York in pari delicto forbids recovery by a wrongdoer and applies here Affirmed: MFGI’s claims barred by New York in pari delicto; federal cases cited do not preempt state defense; linkage between audit failures and later misuse is sufficient; dismissal on 12(b)(6) appropriate
Whether federal regulatory principles (Bateman Eichler / Pinter) preclude applying state in pari delicto Federal common-law limits on in pari delicto should prevent state-law defense from undermining federal regulatory scheme No federal statute preempts New York law; Bateman/Pinter addressed federal common law and do not control application of state affirmative defense here Affirmed: No preemption; New York in pari delicto governs state-law claims
Whether customers may sue PwC for professional negligence absent privity (near-privity) PwC’s audits served customers; audits were tailored to regulators but plaintiffs as customers relied as a class — linking conduct not limited to direct communications Under New York law, plaintiffs must satisfy "near-privity" (awareness of purpose, known party, linking conduct); PwC did not know particular customers or directly link to them Affirmed: Customer negligence claim dismissed for lack of privity/near-privity (BDO Seidman controls)
Whether an affirmative defense (in pari delicto) can be adjudicated on a pre-answer motion Plaintiffs contend resolution should await adjudication of D&O defendants’ liability Affirmative defenses that appear on the face of the complaint may be resolved on 12(b)(6) Affirmed: in pari delicto adjudicable at motion to dismiss where complaint shows the defense

Key Cases Cited

  • Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, 15 N.Y.3d 446 (N.Y. 2010) (New York in pari delicto bars a corporation’s suit when corporate officers participated in wrongdoing)
  • BDO Seidman, LLP v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 222 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2000) (near-privity elements and limits on accountant liability to customers)
  • Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1985) (federal common-law limits on invoking in pari delicto in federal securities context)
  • Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622 (U.S. 1988) (federal common-law considerations in precluding certain claims to preserve regulatory schemes)
  • Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 536 (N.Y. 1985) (privity/near-privity standard for accountant negligence under New York law)
  • Iowa Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. MF Global, Ltd., 620 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirmative defenses may be raised on a pre-answer motion if apparent on the complaint)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Bearing Fund LP v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date Published: May 22, 2015
Citations: 611 F. App'x 34; No. 14-1249-cv
Docket Number: No. 14-1249-cv
Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.
Log In
    Bearing Fund LP v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 611 F. App'x 34