Engel & Schultz, LLP - A Boston Law Firm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Partners
 Mark D. Engel
 Stephen Schultz
 Robert A. Adelson

Of Counsel
 Peter L. Koff
 Stephen M. Politi
 Michael Roitman

 

 

 

Eisenman v. Ernst & Young, Rhode Island Superior Court; Rhode Island Supreme Court

The firm represented sixteen investors who sued Ernst & Young for millions of dollars of losses suffered as the result of the alleged negligent and fraudulent preparation of financial forecasts for six limited partnerships. The sixteen investors, who resided across the country, had lost their entire investments in a series of related limited partnerships. A Principal at Arthur Young had surreptitiously taken several hundred thousand dollars of payments from the general partner of the limited partnerships as commissions for steering Arthur Young clients to invest in these partnerships. The same Principal had been responsible for preparing financial forecasts which overlooked financing difficulties for the partnerships. The case was vigorously defended by Ernst & Young, as the events being challenged were almost ten years old at the time that the complaint was filed, legal issues existed as to whose state’s statute of limitation should be applied, and the defendants potentially owed 150% interest in a case where potential damages prior to interest was close to $2 million dollars. The firm successfully defeated a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Petition to the Rhode Island Supreme Court for Certiorari to decide certain legal issues prior to trial. After four years of discovery, the case settled several weeks prior to the beginning of trial.

If you believe you are involved in a dispute which may need to be litigated, please contact Mr. Schultz directly by phone or by e-mail at sschultz@engelschultz.com.

 


Engel & Schultz, LLP
265 Franklin Street, Suite 1801 Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Telephone: (617) 951-9980 Fax: (617) 951-0048
mail@engelschultz.com

© 2006 Engel & Schultz, LLP
The material contained herein may be considered
advertising by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court