X hits on this document

214 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

81 / 90

others of intentionally wrongful behavior, their skins should be thick enough to realize

that these portions of the complaint wasted the court’s time and the defendants’

resources. They are frivolous and reflect professionally unacceptable pleading practice.

Once these improper references are put to the side, little remains. The sued

defendant advisors consist of Ernst & Young, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Baker &

MacKenzie, and Milliman.

Defendant PriceWaterhouseCoopers is alleged to have acted as the auditor for

Trenwick in connection with the LaSalle merger and the creation of a new public holding

company in 2000. Ernst & Young is alleged to have given accounting advice in

connection with the reorganization of Trenwick’s subsidiaries, allegedly to the effect that

certain companies transferred to a Chartwell subsidiary in September 2000, had enough

value to offset liabilities transferred to the same subsidiary.137 In connection with the

same reorganization, defendant Baker & MacKenzie allegedly advised Trenwick that the

transfers involved complied with certain indentures requiring Trenwick to transfer

substantially all of its assets to any company that would assume the obligations under the

indentures.138 Finally, defendant Milliman is alleged to have provided actuarial estimates

to Trenwick in connection with the LaSalle transaction and the reorganization, as well in

connection with the prior Chartwell merger.139

There is little in the complaint that addresses exactly what these advisors did that

was professionally deficient. Rather, the complaint alleges in a conclusory way that the

137 138 139

. ¶ 80.

79

Document info
Document views214
Page views214
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 13:37:37 UTC 2016
Pages90
Paragraphs2147
Words26791

Comments