Fletcher Fixed Income Alpha Fund, Ltd., et al. v. Grant Thornton LLP, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-085-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 15-P-830 Appeals Court FLETCHER FIXED INCOME ALPHA FUND, LTD., & another[1] vs. GRANT THORNTON LLP & others.[2] No. 15-P-830. Suffolk. January 6, 2016. – July 14, 2016. Present: Cypher, Grainger, & Meade, JJ. Auditor. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss. Jurisdiction, Nonresident, Long-arm statute. Due Process of Law, Jurisdiction over nonresident. Negligence, Misrepresentation, Proximate cause. Proximate Cause. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 17, 2014. Motions to dismiss were heard by Janet L. Sanders, J. Rachel S. Fleishman, of New York (Philip Y. Brown with her) for the plaintiffs. Grant J. Esposito, of New York, for Grant Thornton LLP. William M. Connolly, of Pennsylvania, for EisnerAmper LLP & another. Jonathan D. Cogan, of New York, for SS&C Technologies, Inc. MEADE, J. The plaintiffs, Fletcher Fixed Income Alpha Fund, Ltd. (Alpha), and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Retirement Fund (MBTARF), Alpha’s sole shareholder, appeal from the dismissal of their claims for accounting malpractice and negligent misrepresentation against certain entities that audited and administered Alpha, for failing to discover the fund manager’s fraud. The claims against the defendants, Grant Thornton LLP (Grant Thornton), and EisnerAmper LLP and EisnerAmper (Cayman) Ltd. (collectively, EisnerAmper), who served as auditors, were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, a Superior Court judge ruling that the plaintiffs failed to show that their claims arose from the defendants’ transaction of business in Massachusetts. The claims brought by MBTARF against SS&C Technologies, Inc. (SS&C), a former Alpha administrator, were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the judge reasoning that Alpha was insolvent by the time SS&C was hired, thereby negating the element of proximate cause. Pending their appeal to this court, the plaintiffs settled with EisnerAmper. As to the remaining defendants, the plaintiffs principally argue that in deciding the issue of specific jurisdiction, the judge should have taken into account a broader range of contacts between Grant Thornton and Massachusetts, and should have considered Grant Thornton’s knowledge that the audit reports would be sent to a Massachusetts entity. MBTARF also maintains that the judge held it to an incorrect pleading standard in dismissing its claims against SS&C for failure to allege facts to support causation. We affirm. Background. We summarize the undisputed facts from the judge’s February 23, […]
In the Matter of: Fletcher, Patricia Jean (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-185-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11441 IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA JEAN FLETCHER.[1] October 31, 2013. Attorney at Law, Reinstatement, Disbarment. Board of Bar Overseers. The petitioner, Patricia Jean Fletcher, appeals from an order of a single justice of this court denying her petition for reinstatement to the bar. We affirm. In 1992, the petitioner was temporarily suspended from the practice of law in Massachusetts following her conviction in the State of New York of “serious crimes” within the meaning of S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 12 (3) (b), as appearing in 425 Mass. 1313 (1997).[2] Bar counsel thereafter filed a petition for discipline alleging, in addition to the convictions, that the petitioner violated the terms of her New York probation, failed to report the convictions to bar counsel and to cooperate in bar counsel’s investigation, and engaged in other misconduct involving deceit and misrepresentation. See S.J.C. Rule 3:07, Canon 1, DR 1‑102 (A) (4), (5), & (6), as appearing in 382 Mass. 769 (1981); S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3(1), as amended through 382 Mass. 820 (1981).[3] She was disbarred in 2000. Matter of Wallenstein, 16 Mass. Att’y Discipline Rep. 409 (2000). In 2011, she filed a petition for reinstatement. A hearing panel of the Board of Bar Overseers (board), after a hearing, recommended that the petition be denied. The petitioner appealed to the board, which accepted the hearing panel’s findings and recommendation and voted to recommend that the petition be denied. The matter proceeded in the county court. The single justice after hearing accepted the board’s recommendation and denied the petition for reinstatement. Discussion. We do not review in this proceeding the underlying criminal convictions on which the orders of temporary suspension and disbarment were based.[4] “Basic respect for the integrity and finality of a prior unreversed criminal judgment demands that it be conclusive on the issue of guilt and that an attorney not be permitted to retry the result at a much later date in [her] reinstatement proceedings.” Matter of Hiss, 368 Mass. 447, 450 (1975). Instead, what is at issue on a petition for reinstatement is whether the petitioner has demonstrated that she has “the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice law in this Commonwealth, and that . . . her resumption of the practice of law will […]