Legal Opinion
Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided May 12, 1987No. Civ. A. 7124PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JACOBS, Vice-Chancellor.
This stockholder’s derivative action was brought on behalf of The Chase Manhattan Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, The Chase Manhattan Bank (collectively “Chase”), against Chase’s former accountants, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (“PMM”), for damages allegedly sustained as a result of financial dealings in which PMM had acted as Chase’s independent auditor. The plaintiffs charge that PMM breached its duty of care and contractual duties owed to Chase by failing to conduct proper audits in the so-called “Drysdale” and “Penn Square” matters in which…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Hawes v. OaklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Burks v. LaskerSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Zapata Corp. v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1981
- Landy v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1988
- Pueblo v. Colón BurgosSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1996
- Winston v. MandorCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1997
- In re Consumers Power Co. Derivative LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1990
- Kurtz v. ClarkCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.