« SocGen and the true and fair opt-out | Main | Blaming fair value - is it a fair cop? »
Newman's awkward first job at BDO International
You've got to feel for Jeremy Newman. No sooner has he got the top job running BDO International than someone throws a spanner in the works and says that it might have to stump up $500 to settle a legal dispute.
It was US branch BDO Seidman that lost the case against Banco Espirito Santo, but BDO International assumed that it was clear of the damage after a judge ruled them out of the equation.
This week we learn however that International will now have to go back before an appeals to court to explain why it should not be considered jointly liable for the damages.
Thing is, Newman is due to take over running International later this year and it looks very much like one of his first jobs could be sorting out the debacle. International is unlikely to have that kind of money in its own coffers, which could mean asking around the member firms. Not a pleasant task at all as your first agenda item in a new job.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs-1.gos.vnu.net/mt-tb.cgi/84146
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Newman's awkward first job at BDO International.
Gavin
I appreciate your sympathy but think you may have overstated the cause for concern. I can do no better than quote from the BDO International Press Release which stated:
"The Court’s ruling merely states that the evidence presented by Banco Espirito Santo was sufficient to create a jury issue and that the trial judge should not have granted a directed verdict. The entire case will therefore need to be tried again before a jury in order that BDO Global Coordination B.V. can contest the evidence.
The current press reporting is quoting the Banco Espirito Santo attorney as saying that this ‘…means that ultimately BDO International, along with all the BDO member firms and offices worldwide, will be jointly liable for the US$521m judgement against BDO Seidman’.
This is not the case. The appellate court simply said the matter should have been presented to a jury. There is no finding of liability in this order whatsoever and any claim to the contrary is an untruth."
Posted by :J S Newman | March 16, 2008 1:20 PM