|
4070 REVIEW DENIED Accountants hired by a partnership to calculate its profits using a method specified by the partnership did not owe individual partners a duty to calculate it in a different way; an arbitrator's finding that a party to the arbitration did not commit a tort has the effect of issue preclusion (i.e., res judicata; collateral estoppel) in subsequent litigation against a non-party to the arbitration the liability of whom would be wholly derivative of the liability of parties to the arbitration, such as for conspiracy or aiding and abetting.CitationLEVINE v HIGASHI (Partnership's Accountants) 131 CA4 566 [See: Bily v Arthur Young 3 C4 370, T/AT 11/92; Biakanja v Irving 49 C2 647; Applied Equipment v Litton 7 C4 503, T/AT 5/94; Fiol v Doellstedt 50 CA4 1318, T/AT 1/97; Vandenberg v Superior Court 21 C4 815, T/AT 10/99; Brinton v Bankers 76 CA4 550, T/AT 12/99]
|
|
