C. 1136 Tenants Corporation v. Rothenberg. 1136 Tenants Corporation v. Rothenberg. The 1136 Tenants v. Max Rothenberg and Company - Subject Accounting - 00205015 Argued April 2, 1968. D. 1136 Tenants Corporation v. Rothenberg. C. Greater than the Securities Act of 1933. The 1136 Tenants v. Max Rothenberg and Company case (Chapter 5) established the need for an Engagement Letter at the start of an audit. 1136 Tenants Corporation v. Max Rothenberg and Company (1971)--A landmark case for accountants’ liability when they are associated with unaudited financial statements. C. Rosenblum v. Adler. Discuss at least six of the matters that should be specified in an engagement letter. 277 N.Y.S.2d 996. Selected Case o 1136 Tenants Corporation v. Max Rothenberg and Company (1971)—A landmark case for accountants’ liability when they are associated with unaudited financial statements. New York Court of Appeals. Discuss the matters that should be specified in an engagement letter. The burden of proof that must be proven to recover losses from the auditors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is generally considered to be: 21 N.Y.2d 995 (1968) 1136 Tenants' Corporation, Respondent, v. Max Rothenberg & Company, Appellant. Definition. Term. Hochfelder v. Ernst. 1136 Tenants’ Corporation v. Max Rothenberg & Co. (1967) Despite the defendant’s claims to the contrary, the court found that he was engaged to audit and not merely write up the plaintiff’s books and records. Page 995. Rosenblum v. Adler. The case demonstrated the importance of engagement letters to clearly establish an understanding with the client regarding the nature of the services to be provided. The 1136 Tenants v. Max Rothenberg and Company case (Chapter 5) established the need for an… 1 answer below » The 1136 Tenants v. Max Rothenberg and Company case (Chapter 5) established the need for an Engagement Letter at the start of an audit. Explain why this upfront Engagement Letter is so important. D. Continental Vending. Expert Answer . 290 N.Y.S.2d 919. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Previous question Next question Get more help from Chegg. 21 N.Y.2d 995. April 17, 1968. 1136 TENANTS' CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MAX ROTHENBERG & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. The accountant had, in fact, performed some limited auditing procedures, Ultramares v. Touche. eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone Get free access to the complete judgment in 1136 TENANTS' CORP. v. MAX ROTHENBERG CO on CaseMine. Page 830. The case demonstrated the importance of engagement letters to clearly establish an understanding with the client regarding the nature of the services to be provided. Decided April 17, 1968. 27 A.D.2d 830. 1136 TENANTS CORPORATION, Respondent, v. MAX ROTHENBERG & COMPANY, Appellant.