Expert Answer . Definition. Term. Hochfelder v. Ernst. 1136 TENANTS CORPORATION, Respondent, v. MAX ROTHENBERG & COMPANY, Appellant. Rosenblum v. Adler. The 1136 Tenants v. Max Rothenberg and Company - Subject Accounting - 00205015 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. 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. 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. 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 Discuss the matters that should be specified in an engagement letter. 1136 TENANTS' CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MAX ROTHENBERG & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. Argued April 2, 1968. 21 N.Y.2d 995 (1968) 1136 Tenants' Corporation, Respondent, v. Max Rothenberg & Company, Appellant. Discuss at least six of the matters that should be specified in an engagement letter. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. D. 1136 Tenants Corporation v. Rothenberg. The accountant had, in fact, performed some limited auditing procedures, Ultramares v. Touche. C. Greater than the Securities Act of 1933. D. Continental Vending. The 1136 Tenants v. Max Rothenberg and Company case (Chapter 5) established the need for an Engagement Letter at the start of an audit. Page 830. Previous question Next question Get more help from Chegg. 290 N.Y.S.2d 919. 1136 Tenants Corporation v. Rothenberg. C. 1136 Tenants Corporation v. Rothenberg. New York Court of Appeals. 277 N.Y.S.2d 996. Get free access to the complete judgment in 1136 TENANTS' CORP. v. MAX ROTHENBERG CO on CaseMine. 27 A.D.2d 830. Page 995. C. Rosenblum v. Adler. Explain why this upfront Engagement Letter is so important. 1136 Tenants Corporation v. Max Rothenberg and Company (1971)--A landmark case for accountants’ liability when they are associated with unaudited financial statements. Decided April 17, 1968. 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. April 17, 1968. 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.