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.