In Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers \& Lybrand, LLP, the Oregon Supreme Court held that Oregon's losses were a foreseeable result of Coopers' negligence since Coopers knew that Oregon intended to sell its securities at a specific and favorable time. True False All of the following are true about the Leber v. Koningsberg case, except: Koningsberg's bills indicated that he was charging the trust solely for "tax analysis" and not for any financial analysis. The court held that under circumstances like those presented in the Leber case, an accountant may be found to have assumed additional duties of care when acting as an financial advisor. The general rule under New York law is that accountants do not owe their clients a fiduciary duty. Leber's trust lost all, or most all, of its assets through its investment in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme. Marsha does accounting work for Jan Brady, Ltd., a drug company hoping to attract new investors in order to continue its research on a promising new drug. Marsha also provides accounting services to AliceCo., an investment services company courted by Jan Brady, Ltd. During the course of her work for Jan Brady, Ltd., Marsha discovered some questionable payments made to the company's CEO, Jan Brady. Marsha told Sam, an executive at AliceCo., about the suspicious payments and as a result, AliceCo. declined to invest in Jan Brady, Ltd. Once Jan Brady found out about Marsha's disclosure, she was furious and threatened to sue (it's always Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!). Which would be Jan's best theory of recovery in this situation: Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Breach of Trust. Common Law Fraud. Negligence based on the Ultramares Doctrine