In a November 26, 2008 opinion (here), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit asserting securities law violations against InVision and certain of its directors and officers based on FCPA-related disclosures. The case is noteworthy not only for its involvement of FCPA-related allegations, but also for the appellate court’s consideration of "collective scienter" issues, as well as of the significance of Sarbanes-Oxley certification issues.
On March 15, 2004, InVision announced it would be acquired by GE in a cash-for-stock transaction. That same day, the company filed its annual filing on Form 10-K to which the merger agreement was attached. On July 30, 2004, InVision announced that an internal investigation had revealed possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The company voluntarily reported the activities to the SEC and the DOJ. The company later entered negotiated arrangements with the DOJ and the SEC (refer here). GE later consummated the pending merger.
Shortly after InVision announced the FCPA concerns, shareholders initiated a securities class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its directors and officers. (Refer here for further background regarding the case). The plaintiffs based their claims on three alleged misstatements in the merger agreements, which InVision had attached to its 10-K.
The plaintiffs alleged that the merger agreement misleadingly stated that the company was "in compliance … with all applicable law"; in compliance with the "books and records" provision of the FCPA; and that that neither the company nor any of its officers, directors or employees had knowledge that the company had violated the FCPA’s antibribery provisions.
The district court dismissed the complaint and the plaintiffs appealed.
The Ninth Circuit’s Decision
The appellate court essentially assumed that the plaintiff had satisfied the requirement to plead falsity with respect to the three alleged misrepresentations stating that "even if [the plaintiff, Glazer] properly pled falsity, the district court’s dismissal would still be appropriate if Glazer failed to plead scienter adequately with respect to the three statements."
In order to satisfy the scienter requirement, the plaintiff urged the Ninth Circuit to adopt the "collective scienter" theory, following the Second Circuit’s recent decision in the Dynex Capital case (refer here) and the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in the Tellabs case (refer here). Under this theory, as articulated by the Seventh Circuit, "it is possible to draw a strong inference of corporate scienter without being able to name the individuals who concocted and disseminated the fraud."
After reviewing the case law concerning corporate securities liability, including its own prior decision in the Nordstrom v. Chubb case (a decision that will be familiar to many of this blog’s readers), the Ninth Circuit ultimately concluded that this case did not require the court to decide whether or not to adopt the theory of collective scienter.
The court concluded that because of "the limited nature and unique context of the alleged misstatements" involved in the case, the "collective scienter" issue was not before the court. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that
Glazer rests its securities fraud claim on three statements, all of which appear in a sixty-page legal document. If the doctrine of collective scienter excuses Glazer from pleading individual scienter with respect to these legal warranties, then it is difficult to imagine what statements would not qualify for an exception to individualized scienter pleadings. In fact, because the merger agreement warranted that the company was in compliance "with all laws," then under the collective scienter theory urged by Glazer, so long as any employee at InVision had knowledge of the violation of any law, scienter could be imputed to the company as a whole. This result would be plainly inconsistent with the pleading requirements of the PSLRA.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that in order to succeed on his claim, the plaintiff had to establish that individual defendants acted with scienter in making the statements in the merger agreement. The court said that "we see no way that [the defendant] could show that the corporation, but not any individual [director or officer] had the requisite intent to defraud." Only the company’s CEO and CFO had signed the merger agreement, and the plaintiff alleged scienter only with respect to the CEO, Magistri.
The court found with respect to Magistri, however, that Glazer had not pled any facts to demonstrate that "Magistri was personally aware of the illegal payments or that he was actively involved in the details of the details of InVision’s Asian sales."
The Ninth Circuit also refused to infer scienter from the CEO’s and the CFO’s signature of the Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, holding that the mere signature, without more, is insufficient to raise a strong inference of scienter.The Ninth Circuit followed prior decisions of the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits, concluding that there was no evidence that the SOX certification requirements were intended to alter the PSLRA’s pleading requirements. The Court said that "the Sarbanes-Oxley certification is only probative of scienter if the person signing the certification was severely reckless in certifying the accuracy of the financial statements.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision is noteworthy for its discussion of the "collective scienter" issue, although in the end it is of limited significance on this point given the court’s conclusion that it did not need to reach that issue. The decision is also noteworthy for its discussion of the Sarbanes-Oxley certification issue, but in that respect it also merely followed existing precedent.
But perhaps the greatest significance about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion may be what it suggests about securities cases based on FCPA-related disclosures. The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to allow the claim to proceed in the absence of allegations that senior officials were aware of the improper conduct could present a significant hurdle for FCPA-related securities claims, at least in the circuits that have not adopted the "collective scienter" theory.
As the Ninth Circuit noted in the InVision case, "the surreptitious nature of the transactions creates an equally strong inference that the payments would have deliberately kept secret – even within the company." Obviously, payments of this kind invariably are of a surreptitious nature and of a kind that would be kept secret, even within the company. The implication is that in order for a securities claim alleging FCPA-related disclosures to survive the initial pleadings stage, the claimants may have to plead that the company officials who prepared the company’s public disclosures were aware of the improper activities.
In prior posts (most recently here), I have noted the increasing prevalence of follow-on civil litigation accompanying FCPA investigations, including the increasing frequency of follow-on securities litigation alleging misrepresentations in the FCPA-related disclosures. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in the InVision case suggests that, at least in jurisdictions that have not recognized the collective scienter theory, the ability of these follow-on securities lawsuits to get past the pleading stage may depend on the existence of allegations that senior company officials were aware of the improper payments. Given the invariably "surreptitious nature" of these payments, claimants may find this a challenging requirement to satisfy.
The SEC Actions blog has a thorough analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s discussion of the pleading issues in the InVision case, here. The FCPA Blog also has a good discussion of the case, here.
Special thanks to Neil McCarthy of Lawyerlinks.com for providing me with a copy of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.
Another New Wave Securities Lawsuit: In a recent post (here), I noted that there have been several recent securities class action lawsuits in which the companies involved have been hit with significant losses due to wrong way bets on commodities or currencies.
The latest example of this type of securities litigation involves a case filed on November 26, 2008 in the Southern District of Florida against Brazilian forest products manufacturer Aracruz Cellulose S.A. and certain of its directors and officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company’s American Depositary Receipts on the NYSE., as well as purchasers of the company’s common stock, which trades on the Sao Paulo Bovespa.
According to the plaintiffs’ lawyer November 26 press release (here), the complaint alleges that
During the Class Period, Aracruz entered into undisclosed currency derivative contracts to purportedly hedge against the Company’s U.S. dollar exposure. The Company characterized the use of these contracts as protection against foreign interest rate volatility and assured investors that this type of trading did not represent "a risk from an economic and financial standpoint." However, these contracts violated Company policy in that they were far larger than necessary to hedge normal business operations. As a result of Aracruz’s clandestine and speculative currency wagers, credit rating agencies downgraded Aracruz, the Company’s CFO resigned, and Aracruz’s stock suffered a severe decline, plummeting to the lowest levels in 14 years.
As I noted in my prior post, many companies were also exposed to sudden and unexpected losses by dramatic changes in the commodities and currencies markets earlier this year. For example, the November 29, 2008 Wall Street Journal reported (here) on several airlines that have recently reported the negative impact from fuel cost hedges that generated huge losses. These kinds of developments and other unexpected fallout from the crisis roiling global financial markets are likely to affect a wide variety of companies, some of which may be subject to securities litigation.
It is interesting to note that the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the Aracruz case appear to have made a conscious decision to include within the class the Brazilian company’s common shareholders. Within this group are likely to be a number of shareholders domiciled outside the U.S. that bought their shares against the foreign company on a foreign exchange. The presence of these so-called "foreign-cubed" litigants could pose subject matter jurisdiction issues, at least as to those claimants.
My recent post discussing the Second Circuit’s recent "foreign-cubed" litigant ruling in the National Australia Bank case can be found here. The November 24, 2008 Southern District of New York decision granting the motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against Vodafone for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, in reliance upon the National Australia Bank decision, can be found here. (Note: Special thanks to the reader who pointed out that I had incorrectly referred to the Vodafone case as the Vivendi case. My apologies for any confusion.)