Kirschner v. KPMG LLP’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Trustee alleges both that had Ref-co’s trading losses been disclosed, it would have “severely damaged Refeo’s business” and that the improper round-trip loans and misappropriation of customer assets at RCM were designed to, and did, in fact, buttress Refco’s organization. (Compl.1ffl 32, 64, 492) The illicit cash flow from RCM, in particular, was used for a “wide variety of general and specific funding purposes by various Refco affiliates who would not have been able to sustain their reported financial health and operations without using funds stolen from RCM.” (Comply 98) These benefits are plainly evident in the Trustee’s allegations that the insider’s conduct enabled the false reporting of the company’s steady growth, which in turn, attracted and retained capital from investors in the LBO and the IPO. (Compl.lffl 94-105) Indeed the gravamen of the Trustee’s allegations is not that the insiders stole assets from Refco, but rather that the insiders’ fraudulent scheme was to steal for Refco — to inflate the value of Refco’s interests on behalf of Refco itself by maintaining the illusion that Refco was “fast-growing, highly profitable, and able to satisfy its substantial working capital needs without having to borrow money.” (ComplJ 94)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kirschner v. KPMG LLP · Kirschner v. KPMG LLP

2. “that RCM, RGL, and Refco Inc. were injured by an “imprudent” LBO and IPO (Compl.lffl 352, 463), in that RCM was injured when the receivables owed to it by other Refco entities were subordinated by the receivables owed to the Investment Bank Defendants following the LBO (Comply 336), RGL was damaged when it incurred $1.4 billion in new LBO debt and was no longer able to repay the funds diverted from RCM to RGL and its affiliates (CompLIHI 452, 460, 476), and Refco, Inc. was injured when it was “saddled with hundreds of millions of dollars in liability to the purchasers of Refco stock,” and used $231 million in proceeds from the IPO to retire part of RGL’s LBO debt (Compile 136-37).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kirschner v. KPMG LLP · Kirschner v. KPMG LLP