First, in the Witness Systems case, on March 31, 2008, Judge Clarence Cooper of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with prejudice. A copy of the Order can be found here. Background regarding the case can be found here.
The complaint alleged that seven options grants in 2000 and 2001 were backdated and that four grants in 2004 were springloaded. Oddly, the plaintiff alleged that he company’s financial statements during the period April 23, 2004 to August 11, 206 were misleading because of the 2000-2001 backdating. The allegedly misleading statements allegedly began earlier and continued through the class period.
Judge Cooper found that
Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient, particularized facts to support a “cogent and compelling” inference of scienter as to Witness or as to each Individual Defendant. Although the [amended complaint] is lengthy, the details contained therein are simply insufficient to support a strong inference of scienter. Specifically, the allegations are in the nature of a theory that Defendants must have known that the 2004 and 2005 financial statements were misstated due to backdating that occurred in 2000 and 2001. The [amended complaint] never explains when, or how, any or all Defendants learned about the circumstances pertaining to any backdated option grants. (Citations omitted.)
Judge Cooper went on to observe that “nothing is alleged that would demonstrate that these individuals had any knowledge that disclosures during the class period might require further adjustments based on options grants made in 2000 and 2001.”
Judge Cooper further found that the defendants’ stock sales did not support an inference of scienter. Judge Cooper specifically found that the defendants’ “pattern of regular dispostions was inconsistent with allegations of scienter, and the two defendants who sold significant share percentages only joined the company as a result of a merger after the alleged backdating. Judge Cooper also found that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled loss causation.
In the Jabil Circuit case, on April 9, 2008, Judge Steven Merryday of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, but with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have until May 12, 2008 to file an amended complaint. A copy of the April 9 order can be found here. Background regarding the Jabil Circuit case can be found here.
The Jabil Circuit case may be of some interest because the company was one of the several companies whose option grants were reflected in the charts that accompanied the original March 18, 2006 Wall Street Journal article entitled “The Perfect Payday” (here) that launched the options backdating scandal.
The crux of Judge Merryday’s decision is his conclusion that the plaintiffs’ allegations failed to establish that any grant was backdated. Judge Merryday said:
Although the complaint specifies the offending statement and identifies when and where the defendants issued the statement, the complaint includes deficient allegations concerning the falsity of the statement. The plaintiffs purport to allege repeated instances of backdating by stating the dates of “suspiciously timed” option grants and the individual defendants who received the grants. However, the plaintiffs never allege the any specific grant of stock to any specific individual defendant was backdated. The issuance of suspiciously timed options fails to convert the [company’s compensation policy] representation into a false and misleading statement.
Having found that the complaint did not adequately allege backdating, Judge Merryday was able to dispose of plaintiffs’ allegations that the company had not properly accounted for the option grant or made misrepresentations when company officials later denied that there had been backdating.
Judge Merryday also found that the plaintiffs’ scienter allegations were insufficient because the complaints’ allegations of “knowledge of non-public information fails to raise an inference of scienter with respect to any defendant.” The insider trading allegations were insufficient because the complaint failed to allege the percentage of total shares sold or to compare the share sales to sales before and after the class period. The defendants’ alleged receipt of option grants was also found insufficient.
Judge Merryday also found that the complaint’s allegations of GAAP, IRS and SEC violations were insufficient “because the complaint fails to adequately allege a basis for the claim of backdating.” Similarly, with respect to the issue of loss causation, Judge Merryday found that “having failed to adequately allege the falsity of the backdating-related statements, the plaintiffs fail to sufficiently plead loss causation as to those statements.” Judge Merryday also rejected plaintiffs’ claims of proxy misstatements based on the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately allege backdating.
I have added these two dismissals to my table of options backdating lawsuit settlements, dismissals and denials, which can be accessed here. These two dismissals may be noteworthy because they appear to be the first options backdating securities lawsuit dismissals outside of the Ninth Circuit. They are also the first dismissals granted in an options backdating securities lawsuit in several months. But while some of these options backdating securities suits have now been resolved, many more remain pending.
As reflected on my running tally of the options backdating lawsuit filings (which can be found here), there were a total of 36 options backdating-related securities class action lawsuits filed. And as reflected in my table of options backdating lawsuit case dispositions (linked above), of these 36 cases, eight have settled, six have had their motions to dismiss denied, and five have been dismissed (albeit some with leave to amend). That leave 17 cases on which no action has yet been taken, and with the six dismissal denials, 23 cases that remain pending – not to mention the cases on which amended pleadings or appeals may give new life.
These cases appear to have a very long way to run yet. But the high degree of skepticism shown in these two opinions is striking, and would not bode well for these cases were this general view to become widespread.
Special thanks to an alert reader who prefer anonymity for providing copies of the two opinions.
Another Subprime-Related D&O Loss Estimate: On April 9, 2008, Fitch’s Ratings released a report entitled “Subprime Mortgage Exposure for Property/Casualty Insurers.” A link to the repor can be found in this Business Insurance article (here), but registration is required for access to the report.
The report repeats prior estimates of industry-wide insured subprime-related losses in the range of $3 to $4 billion (although also noting that estimates have ranged as high as $9 billion). The report states that “Fitch believes that the majority of these losses will be borne by the larges writers of primary and excess D&O.”
The report also states that “Fitch believes that the near-term impact from the subprime issues will have a stabilizing or modestly positive effect on professional liability rates, especially within the financial services sector, but are unlikely to result in broad hardening.” The report warns though that “if the credit contagion spreads into sectors not directly tied to the subprime mortgage market or if the weakening economy leads to increased bankruptcies, current loss estimates will prove to be inadequate and there could be adverse reserve development that could have a larger impact on rates going forward.”
Fitch’s estimates and comments are largely in line with prior D&O loss estimate, about which I previously commented here.