Middle District of Florida Dismisses Putative Class Action Lawsuit Against Recycling Company for Failure to Adequately Allege Misrepresentation or Scienter | Shearman & Sterling LLP
On August 4, 2022, the United States District Court for the Intermediate District of Florida dismissed without prejudice a putative class action lawsuit asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a recycling services company, some of its officers and directors, and the former CEO of a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that acquired the company. Theodore versus PureCycle Tech. Inc., no. 6:21-cv-809-PGB-GJK, op. (MD Fla. Aug. 4, 2022), ECF No. 112. Plaintiffs alleged that the company misrepresented the experience of its management team, the value of its patented recycling process, and its future production and financial projections, which would have been revealed in a short seller’s report. The Court held that the complaint, as worded, did not specifically state what statements or omissions were at issue and where they were made, that the plaintiffs had correctly alleged some misrepresentations but not others, and that the plaintiffs had correctly alleged the causation of the losses but not scient.
First, the Court observed that the plaintiffs’ complaint was “not the picture of clarity” and that it was “not easy to determine which statements are at issue, who made these statements and sometimes what is the appropriate source of the statement.” Identifier. at 8. In particular, the Court singled out the complaint’s use of “bulk overquotes and its intermittent incorrect identification of where the statements were made”, finding that this did not meet the standard of pleading enhanced for a securities fraud claim under Rule 9(b). ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Identifier. at 9. However, the Court explained that it would nevertheless “continue its analysis” of the claims. Identifier.
With respect to whether the Complaint adequately alleges inaccuracies or omissions, the Court first determined that the Complaint sufficiently alleges that the individual Defendants “made or caused to be made false statements” and that “because of their positions within the [c]company, [they] possessed the power and authority to control the content” of “press releases, presentations and documents filed with the SEC”. Identifier. at 17. The Court went on to identify certain statements as mere buffooneries, while also reviewing the impugned statements “holistically to determine whether there are ‘tangible and verifiable’ facts included in the statements despite the use of a flowery language.” Identifier. at 19. For example, the Court found the company’s statement that its recycling process was “revolutionary” and “cost effective” to be inflated, while its related claims that the process used “approximately 75% less ‘energy’ than ‘the traditional manufacturing process’ was an ‘objective and verifiable fact and cannot be regarded as inflation’. Identifier. at 20-21.
Further, the Court rejected defendants’ argument that a short sale report relied upon by plaintiffs could not be relied upon to demonstrate falsity because it in turn depended on anonymous witnesses. Identifier. at 22-23. The Court noted that the veracity of the report was not ripe for resolution on the pleadings. Identifier. Next, the Court found that certain statements were forward-looking and accompanied by significant caveats and were therefore not actionable under the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). In particular, the Court determined that the company’s statements regarding future production and profit plans were forward-looking, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ claim that the scarcity of raw materials needed for production meant that the company would not be in able to achieve its goal. Identifier. at 25-26. The Court emphasized that, even if the plaintiffs’ claims were true, it was not decisive as to whether the company’s forward-looking statements were true, particularly in light of the “extensive and significant cautionary language” of the society. Identifier. at 26 years old.
Finally, the Court determined that the plaintiffs had correctly alleged that the company had an obligation to faithfully disclose all material information about the past business failures of its management team, since the company had “all[ed]and “voluntarily display[ed]» the experience claimed by the management team. Identifier. at 28-29. Similarly, the Court found that because the company advertised its recycling method as “more cost effective and environmentally sustainable than the traditional manufacturing process” and stated that it had been “validated by technical consultants”, the company had an obligation to disclose the negative elements. information about alleged issues with how the recycling method actually worked at the lab scale, which “[a] a reasonable investor would be interested to know…before the method can be scaled up for profitable production. Identifier. at 29-30.
With respect to the scientist requirement, the Court ruled that the complaint “falls short of the high pleading standard for the scientist.” Identifier. at 30. The Court noted that the plaintiffs simply asserted conclusively that the defendants had “control or access to information that would contradict their public statements”, and relied on the defendants’ “management positions”. to substantiate this claim – which was insufficient without specifically alleging information they actually received. Identifier. at 31-32. For the same reasons, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument – based on the “main operations” doctrine – that the knowledge could be attributed to the managers of the company because the company “has only one sole business purpose. Identifier. at 32-34. Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that scienter could be inferred for the CEO of SPAC based on his so-called “checkered track record.” The Court explained that, while such evidence could form part of the scientific analysis of a claim based on regime liability, the Court was not convinced that it was sufficient to support a strong scientific inference for a case based on allegedly false or misleading statements. Identifier. at 34-35.
With respect to the causation of the losses, the Court explained that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged the causation of the losses based on a “market fraud” theory and had sufficiently alleged that a short seller report that would have triggered a 40% drop in the company’s stock in one day was a corrective disclosure. Identifier. at 36-39. The Court also rejected defendants’ argument that the short seller’s report merely “repackaged[d]information that was already public, noting that quotes from the report of some interviews were not previously publicly available. Identifier. at 39-40.
Links & Downloads –