Securities & Exchange Commission v. KPMG LLP

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that engagement partners who had \the ultimate authority to determine whether an audit opinion should be issued\ and who were responsible for \forming the audit opinion\ effectively caused an inaccurate audit opinion to be issued
• explaining that, where “the core misconduct alleged is in fact a misstatement, it would be improper to impose primary liability . . . by designating the alleged fraud a ‘manipulative device’ rather than a ‘misstatement’”
• extending the bright-line test to an SEC enforcement action because “it more clearly delineates which types of behavior will give rise to primary liability versus secondary liability”
• granting summary judgment to an auditor on a primary claim under Section 10(b) because the SEC had failed to show he was responsible for misstatements in the auditing opinion
• in an enforcement action, finding “no reason to impose a requirement that a misstatement [be] publicly attributed to a defendant for liability to attach”
• in an enforcement action, finding \no reason to impose a requirement that a misstatement [be] publicly attributed to a defendant for liability to attach\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).