Van Horn Metz & Co Inc v. PNC Financial Services Group Inc
This text of Van Horn Metz & Co Inc v. PNC Financial Services Group Inc (Van Horn Metz & Co Inc v. PNC Financial Services Group Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 25-1840
VAN HORN, METZ & CO., INC., Appellant v.
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., properly denominated PNC BANK, N.A. _____________________________ Appeal from U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa. Judge Kai N. Scott, No. 2:23-cv-03596
Before: MATEY, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) Mar. 17, 2026 Decided April 23, 2026 _____________________________
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
MATEY, Circuit Judge. Van Horn, Metz & Co. brought an aiding-and-abetting fraud
claim against PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. arising out of an embezzlement scheme
allegedly perpetrated by Van Horn’s longtime bookkeeper and controller, Antonino Cris-
afulli.1 Aiding-and-abetting fraud requires allegations of actual knowledge of fraud by a
third party and “substantial assistance or encouragement.” Marion v. Byrn Mawr Tr. Co.,
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. 1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, and we “take as true all the factual allegations” in the complaint “and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them” while “disregard[ing] legal conclusions and ‘re- citals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.’” Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). 288 A.3d 76, 87, 89 (Pa. 2023). Allegations of mere negligence are insufficient. Id. at 91–
92. Nor will conclusory allegations of knowledge suffice. See Santiago v. Warminster
Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2010). Van Horn rests on allegations that PNC’s compli-
ance protocols demonstrate actual knowledge of Crisafulli’s scheme, but “[a]n argument
that a bank should have recognized a fraud is insufficient to meet the actual knowledge
requirement.” Marion, 288 A.3d at 89 (quoting In re TelexFree Sec. Litig., 357 F. Supp.
3d 70, 77 (D. Mass. 2019)); see also DBI Architects, P.C. v. Am. Express Travel-Related
Servs. Co., 388 F.3d 886, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is not unusual for employers to pay
the credit card debts of their employees.”). As Van Horn failed to plead facts plausibly
alleging the bank’s actual knowledge of Crisafulli’s scheme, we will affirm the dismissal
of the Amended Complaint.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Van Horn Metz & Co Inc v. PNC Financial Services Group Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-horn-metz-co-inc-v-pnc-financial-services-group-inc-ca3-2026.