August 2007
Jose I. Rojas and Alejandro F. Hoyos, partners of Rojas Law Firm LLP in Miami, Florida, successfully won a defense summary judgment on behalf of a CPA/Defendant on July 25th. The CPA and his firm were sued by their client for alleged negligent preparation of bank reconciliations. Plaintiff's bookkeeper allegedly stole in excess of $500,000 by using erasable ink on checks he wrote for the company and then changing the names of the payees after the checks were signed. Plaintiff alleged that the fraudulent diversion of its funds by its bookkeeper should have been caught by the CPA in his preparation of the bank reconciliations. The CPA's engagement letters did not mention reconciliations but only tax services. No audit or attestation services were provided. Plaintiff argued that because reconciliations were not expressly mentioned in the engagement letters, these were a separate service and not within the disclaimer language of the engagement letters. The defense successfully argued that the disclaimer and release language in the CPA's engagement letters applied to the CPA's preparation of the bank reconciliations as incidental to the limited tax-related engagement.
June 2006
Rojas Law Firm LLP's litigation team scored a major appellate victory in upholding a case it won after a two-week jury trial. The matter involved a claim by the CEO and principal shareholder of a public company against the company's CPA audit firm where the CEO sought to blame the CPAs for the multiple millions of dollars the CEO/Shareholder invested in the failing public company. Among other things, the claimant tried to present testimony from an expert witness professing that the CPA acted as a "financial advisor" to the public company and therefore was not "independent" and should not have undertaken the engagement in the first place. The CPA had consistently issued a "going concern" qualification regarding the company's financial condition. The trial court agreed with Rojas Law Firm's position and concluded that the issue of independence was irrelevant in this claim by the CEO/principal shareholder where there was no issue about any audit work being improperly prepared or issued by the CPA as a result of any impairment of independence. Accordingly, the trial court excluded the proposed expert's testimony. After two weeks of trial, the jury found in favor of the CPA (Rojas Law Firm's client) and against the CEO/Shareholder on all claims that had been asserted against the CPA and further awarded the CPA a substantial amount of the unpaid fees the company owed the accounting firm, which had been personally guaranteed by the CEO. However, the trial court only awarded interest at the statutory rate on the sums the jury found to be due from the CEO as guarantor of the company's obligations, whereas the parties' agreements called for interest at 18%. The appellate court upheld the jury's verdict and the trial court's exclusion of the expert testimony but agreed with the Rojas Law Firm’s arguments that interest should have been awarded to the CPA at the 18% rate rather than the lower statutory rate. The appellate court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to the CPA pursuant to a $1.00 offer of judgment that had been made to the CEO early in the case. The appeal for the CPA was argued by Jose I. Rojas on briefs prepared by Juan Garcia and Teresa Gail Sosby. The case was tried before the jury by Jose Rojas and Juan Garcia.
Defense Victory and Recovery of Fees in Arbitration of Auditor Liability Claim Involving Reserves for Contingencies
In August of 2002, the firm's trial team, led by founding partner, Jose Rojas successfully defended before a three-member panel of the American Arbitration Association, a two-week arbitration trial brought by an auto casualty company against its auditors in which damages exceeding $13 million were sought. The matter ended in a complete defense award. The team succeeded in not only confirming the award in circuit court but also in collecting under the terms of the accountant's engagement agreement, the bulk of the defense attorneys fees which had been paid by the carrier.
Rojas Represents National Public Health Care Company in Three Week Federal Jury Trial
In July of 2003, Jose Rojas was one of three co-lead trial attorneys in representing a national public managed health care company in a complex, three-week jury trial in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. The case involved issues of claimed illegality of the Managed Services Agreement and alleged breach of such agreement as well as counterclaims for sums due under the agreement. After a three week trial featuring computerized exhibits and extensive testimony, the jury was unable to reach a verdict and eventually a mutually acceptable settlement was reached by the parties.
Defense Verdict and Award of Fees to Auditor Represented by Firm in an Anti-Enron Like Case
In October of 2003, the firm's trial team led by Jose Rojas and Juan Garcia successfully defended a local CPA auditor in a two-week jury trial involving the failure of a publicly traded company. Not only did the firm succeed in obtaining a complete defense verdict on the $15 million malpractice claims asserting that the auditor allegedly lacked independence and supposedly provided bad business advice to the failing company's principal shareholder, it was able to obtain an award of a good percentage of the fees due to the auditor from the company's principal shareholder as its guarantor, and further, secured a judgment for part of the attorney's fees and costs expended by the auditor in the defense of the case as a result of rejection by the other side of our offer of judgment made near the beginning of the case.
Attorney Represented by Firm Dismissed Without Liability Malpractice Case Involving a Divorce Settlement
In 2004, the Firm's defense team led by partners, Jose Rojas and Gail Sosby successfully defended a South Florida attorney accused of having allegedly misclassified a divorce settlement obligation so as to permit it to arguably be labeled as a property settlement rather than alimony which would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. (The ex-client's husband had filed for bankruptcy protection). After several depositions and motions in the case, the attorney was dismissed from the suit without having to pay anything in settlement.
Firm Obtains Groundbreaking Summary Judgment in Internet Case
In 2004, the firm's Litigation team, led by Founding Partner, Jose Rojas, obtained a Summary Judgment upholding the right of an Internet Domain Name Registry to enforce its rules relating to a "Sunrise" registration period whereby owners of nationally-recognized trademarks were permitted to register their marks on domain names prior to opening registration to the general public. The decision is one of the first dealing with these issues.
Rojas Secures Favorable Settlement for Accountants Blamed for DotCom Company's Security Failures by Company's Lawyers
In mid-2004, Jose Rojas succeeded in effecting a settlement for a small percentage of the eight-digit demand made by a technology investment company that unsuccessfully sought to go public. The matter was brought as a federal lawsuit involving both the company's law firm and its accountants. The claim involved a failed registration of securities with the SEC and complex issues of valuation of investments and legal responsibility for advice under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeal Affirms Groundbreaking Summary Judgment in Internet Case
In early 2005, the firm's Trial and Appellate Team, including Jose Rojas and Gail Sosby, obtained decision of the Appeals Court affirming the Trial Court Judgment permitting the Internet Registry to enforce its own rules. A Motion for Re-Hearing is still pending.