Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.
552 F.3d 981, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 583, 2009 WL 57081 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a strong inference of scienter under the PSLRA, a plaintiff's allegations, when viewed holistically, must render the inference of fraudulent intent or deliberate recklessness at least as cogent and compelling as any opposing, innocent inference. A collection of individually insufficient allegations does not automatically combine to meet this standard if a more plausible, non-culpable explanation for the defendants' conduct exists.
Facts:
- Digimarc Corporation's business centered on providing secure personal identification documents.
- Between April 2003 and July 2004, Digimarc allegedly manipulated its financial reports to appear more profitable than it was.
- The primary accounting manipulation involved improperly capitalizing internal software development costs that, under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), should have been expensed, thereby artificially inflating short-term profits.
- Digimarc also allegedly manipulated inventory values by using an improperly low 'scrap rate,' failing to write down obsolete inventory, and tracking inventory in separate, manipulable databases.
- During this period, CFO E.K. Ranjit and two company controllers resigned.
- Company officers Bruce Davis and E.K. Ranjit received bonuses tied to financial performance and sold significant amounts of their personal Digimarc stock.
- On September 13, 2004, Digimarc announced it had erroneously accounted for internal software expenditures and would likely need to restate its earnings for the previous six quarters.
- On April 5, 2005, Digimarc issued a formal restatement acknowledging approximately $2.7 million in overstated earnings.
Procedural Posture:
- Zueco Partners, LLC, representing a class of investors, sued Digimarc Corporation and its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon for securities fraud.
- The plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court granted the motion, finding the complaint failed to adequately plead scienter, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend.
- The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.
- The defendants again moved to dismiss for failure to plead scienter under the PSLRA's heightened standards.
- The district court granted the motion and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
- Zueco Partners (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Digimarc (appellee) as the responding party.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a securities fraud complaint that relies on numerous allegations, including statements from confidential witnesses, a major financial restatement, executive resignations, and stock sales, allege facts sufficient to create a strong inference of scienter that is at least as compelling as an opposing innocent inference, as required by the PSLRA and Tellabs?
Opinions:
Majority - Bybee, Circuit Judge
No. The complaint fails to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter because the collective allegations do not make the inference of fraudulent intent as compelling as the opposing inference of corporate mismanagement. The Supreme Court's decision in Tellabs requires a court to conduct a dual inquiry: first, to assess if any individual allegation creates a strong inference of scienter, and second, to conduct a 'holistic' review of all allegations to see if they combine to do so. Here, the confidential witness statements were insufficient because they were based on unreliable multi-level hearsay, came from individuals not employed during the relevant period, or offered only conclusory allegations. The financial restatement itself did not prove scienter, as the underlying accounting rules were complex and their misapplication did not suggest an 'absurd' or obvious error that management must have known about. The executive resignations, stock sales, and boilerplate Sarbanes-Oxley certifications were not inherently suspicious without more particularized allegations showing they were abnormal or outside of regular business practices. Holistically, a more plausible and compelling inference is that Digimarc, a young company, was simply overwhelmed by the challenge of integrating a large new business unit and its accounting systems, leading to mistakes and a lack of control rather than a deliberate scheme to defraud investors.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the Supreme Court's Tellabs standard in the Ninth Circuit, establishing that Tellabs adds a 'holistic' review to the circuit's existing securities fraud pleading framework without fundamentally lowering the high bar set by the PSLRA. The court's detailed dismissal of numerous types of circumstantial evidence—from confidential witnesses to executive compensation—underscores the difficulty plaintiffs face in pleading scienter. The decision reinforces that quantity of allegations cannot substitute for quality and that plaintiffs must overcome plausible, innocent explanations for a defendant's conduct for their case to survive a motion to dismiss.
