Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kirschner v. KPMG LLP

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 21, 2010No. 151, 152Published

1Dissent

Ciparick, J. (dissenting).

The majority opinion effectively precludes litigation by derivative corporate plaintiffs or litigation trustees to recover against negligent or complicit outside actors—even where the outside actor, hired to perform essential gatekeeping and monitoring functions, actively colludes with corrupt corporate insiders. In my view, the agency law principles upon which the majority rests its conclusions ignore complex assumptions and public policy that compel different conclusions than those reached by the majority. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

As an important…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Hallock v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. 511 West 232nd Owners Corp. v. Jennifer Realty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
  5. United States v. Arthur Young & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API