Gaer v. Apollo Group Incorporated et al

Filing 135

ORDER that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint 117 is granted. Defendants' Motion regarding Non- Compliance with ER 4.2 115 is denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendants. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 6/22/12.(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE APOLLO GROUP,
SECURITIES LITIGATION,

INC.

Lead Case No. CV-10-1735-PHX-JAT
Consolidated with:
CV-10-2044-PHX-JAT
CV-10-2121-PHX – JAT

10
11

ORDER

12
13
14

Pending before the Court are: Defendants’ Motion regarding Non-Compliance

15

with ER 4.2 (Doc. 115) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Consolidated Class

16

Action Complaint (Doc. 117). The Court now rules on these motions.
BACKGROUND1

17

I.

18

This is a consolidated class action proceeding. Defendant Apollo Group, Inc.

19

(“Apollo”) is an Arizona based company that owns and operates proprietary

20

postsecondary education institutions and is one of the largest private education providers

21

in the United States. In re Apollo, 2011 WL 5101787 at *1. The remaining Defendants

22

are various individuals who served as Apollo officers and directors between May 21,

23

2007 and October 13, 2010 (the “Class Period”). Plaintiffs purchased Apollo stock

24

during the Class Period.

25

The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint,

26
27
28

1

For a more detailed description of the background and facts, see the Court’s
Order of October 27, 2011, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. CV-101735-PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 5101787 (D. Ariz. Oct. 27, 2011).

1

finding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because

2

they failed to meet the standard for pleading securities fraud. Specifically, the Court

3

found that Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead loss causation and scienter. Plaintiffs then

4

amended their Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Defendants now seek to dismiss

5

the Amended Complaint.

6

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. 114) contains allegations that, during the

7

Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements of material fact regarding

8

Apollo’s (1) enrollment and revenue growth (Count I), (2) financial condition (Count II),

9

(3) organizational values and management integrity (Count IV), and (4) business focus

10

(Count III) and/or failed to disclose material facts necessary to make the statements not

11

misleading in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the

12

“Exchange Act”) and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10(b)-5 (“Rule 10(b)-

13

5”). Plaintiffs further allege that these false and misleading statements and/or omissions

14

resulted in artificial inflation of Apollo stock that led Plaintiffs to purchase common

15

stock at artificially inflated prices.

16

In Counts V and VII, Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendants

17

John Sperling, Peter Sperling, Joseph D’Amico, and William Pepicello sold Apollo stock

18

while in possession of material, adverse, non-public information in violation of sections

19

10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)-5.

20

In Count VI, Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendants John

21

Sperling, Peter Sperling, Joseph D’Amico, Gregory Capelli, Charles Edelstein, Brian

22

Swartz, Brian Mueller, and Gregory Iverson violated section 20(a) of the Exchange Act

23

because each was a controlling person who had direct and supervisory involvement in

24

day-to-day operations of Apollo and, as such, each is jointly and severally liable for the

25

violations of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)-5.

26

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to correct the deficiencies that led the

27

Court to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and move to dismiss the

28

Amended Complaint based on Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to plead a plausible theory of
-2-

1

fraud as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), failure to state a claim upon

2

which relief can be granted as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

3

failure to plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

4

9(b), and for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Private

5

Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”).

6

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

7

A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement

8

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The

9

complaint must allege enough facts so that the claim is plausible on its face. Bell Atl.

10

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Securities fraud actions are also subject to

11

the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires

12

Plaintiffs to “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” To satisfy this

13

standard, the party alleging fraud must include an account of the “time, place, and

14

specific content” of any “false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the

15

misrepresentation.” Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004).

16

Further, when seeking to enforce federal antifraud securities laws, private

17

plaintiffs must meet the higher, more exacting pleading standards contained in the

18

PSLRA. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 313-314 (2007).

19

“The required elements of a private securities fraud action are: (1) a material

20

misrepresentation or omission of fact, (2) scienter, (3) a connection with the purchase or

21

sale of a security, (4) transaction and loss causation, and (5) economic loss.” Metzler Inv.

22

GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008). To meet the

23

pleading requirements for such an action, the PSLRA requires that “the complaint shall,

24

with respect to each act or omission . . . state with particularity facts giving rise to a

25

strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.” 15 U.S.C. §

26

78u-4(b)(2).

27

reasonable—it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of

28

nonfraudulent intent.” Metzler, 540 F.3d at 1066.

The “inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or

-3-

1

The PSLRA also requires that “the complaint shall specify each statement alleged

2

to have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an

3

allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, the

4

complaint shall state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed.” 15

5

U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1). This requirement of specificity “prevents a plaintiff from skirting

6

dismissal by filing a complaint laden with vague allegations of deception unaccompanied

7

by particularized explanation stating why the defendant’s alleged statements or omissions

8

are deceitful.” Metzler, 540 F.3d at 1061.

9

In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in a securities fraud action, the Court

10

must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 322.

11

The Court must consider the complaint in its entirety, materials incorporated into the

12

complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.2 Id. at

13

322-23.

14

III.

ANALYSIS
A.

15

FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS

16

The underlying theory pled in the Amended Complaint is that Defendants engaged

17

in unethical marketing and recruiting practices and made statements that were designed to

18

either mislead their investors or omit material information from their investors regarding

19

these unethical marketing and recruiting practices, and, as a result of this misleading

20

and/or omitted information, Plaintiffs purchased Apollo Common Stock at artificially

21

inflated prices.

22

marketing and recruiting practices would increase Apollo’s write-offs due to

23

uncollectibility of the receivables, and yet, Defendants continually failed to record

24

adequate bad debt reserve.

Further, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew that the unethical

1.

25

Enrollment and Revenue Growth (Count I)

26
27
28

2

The Court has only considered documents incorporated by reference into the
Amended Complaint and has not taken judicial notice of any other information.

-4-

a.

1

Plaintiffs allege that the following statements regarding enrollment and revenue

2
3

Statements

growth were false and/or misleading:

4

In 10-K filings for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, Apollo reported

5

enrollment and revenue growth as “significant events” and attributed the enrollment and

6

revenue growth to the quality of the educational services being offered by Apollo’s

7

schools. (Doc. 114 at ¶¶ 65-66). With the exception of the 2009 10-K, each contained

8

the following statement:

9

We believe that our track record for enrollment and revenue
growth is attributable to our offering comprehensive services
combining quality educational content, teaching resources
and customer service with formats that are accessible and
easy to use for students as well as corporate clients. We
maintain a single-minded focus on providing quality
education to serve the needs of working students.

10
11
12
13

(Id. at 67). The 2009 10-K stated:

14

We believe the enrollment growth is primarily attributable to
continued investments in enhancing and expanding [UOP]
service offerings and academic quality, which has attracted
new students and increased student retention, and to
enhancements in our marketing capabilities.

15
16
17

(Id. at 68).

18
19

During an October 28, 2008 conference call with analysts, Defendant D’Amico
stated,

20
for the fourth quarter we reported consolidated net revenue of
831 million, a 16.5% increase. The primary contributor to
this growth was our 15.4% total enrollment growth, which
was driven by very strong new enrollment growth of 19.1%
and continued improvement in student retention . . .
Academic quality is key to the success of our business and is
the foundation on which we are able to achieve the results I
just discussed.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

(Id. at 69).
In 10Q filings in 2009 and 2010, Apollo stated that it believed its enrollment
growth was primarily attributable to continued investments in enhancing and expanding

28
-5-

1

University of Phoenix service offerings and academic quality and marketing capabilities,

2

which has attracted new students and increased student retention, and that this enrollment

3

growth, in turn, was the primary or main cause of its increased revenue. (Id. at ¶¶ 69-72).

4

Plaintiffs allege that by “putting the source of Apollo’s enrollment and revenue

5

growth in issue, Defendants became obligated to disclose the truth about the source of

6

that growth” and “Defendants failed to do so.” (Id. at ¶ 73). Plaintiffs allege that the

7

“truth was that Apollo’s enrollment growth during the Class Period was not due to UOP’s

8

service offerings or purported ‘academic quality,’ but rather was the result of a plethora

9

of unsavory, unethical, and deceptive recruitment practices that the Company had

10

employed for the sake of enrolling anyone—regardless of ability—who would be eligible

11

for Title IV aid.” (Id.). Plaintiffs claim that Apollo’s revenue growth was also a result of

12

those deceptive recruitment practices and manipulative accounting practices. (Id.).3

13

Plaintiffs further allege that it was Apollo’s questionable recruiting practices and

14

not Apollo’s purportedly strong academic services and offerings that were the true source

15

of Apollo’s seemingly impressive revenue and enrollment results. (Id. at ¶ 75). Plaintiffs

16

allege that “Apollo’s business model was to get as many students as possible to enroll in

17

its institutions regardless of whether these students were suited for college, had an ability

18
19

3

26

Plaintiffs give these examples of Defendants’ allegedly false and misleading
statements and assert that “Defendants also made numerous other statements during the
Class Period attributing the Company’s enrollment and revenue growth to academic
quality.” (Doc. 114 at ¶ 69). In granting Plaintiffs leave to amend in its October 27,
2011 Order, this Court directed Plaintiffs to specifically identify the materially false and
misleading statements that Defendants made that the investors relied upon. In re Apollo,
2011 WL 5101787, at *20. Accordingly, the Court will not comb through the numerous
documents incorporated by reference in the Complaint to try to determine which
numerous other statements Plaintiffs may believe are materially false and misleading,
especially where Plaintiff has the burden of alleging specific false and misleading
statements that Defendants knew to be false, and that the market later understood to be
false. Cf. In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 386 (9th Cir. 2010) (“It
behooves litigants, particularly in a case with a record of this magnitude, to resist the
temptation to treat judges as if they were pigs sniffing for truffles.”).

27

Accordingly, the Court will only address the alleged materially false and
misleading statements that Plaintiff has identified.

20
21
22
23
24
25

28
-6-

1

to pay for an education, or indeed had any probability of obtaining a degree.” (Id. at 74).

2

Plaintiffs allege that Apollo carried out this business model through well-honed,

3

aggressive marketing tactics that pressured students to sign up for classes and misled

4

those students about the cost of obtaining an education and their financial obligation to

5

repay loans borrowed through Title IV programs. (Id. at 75).4

6

Defendants argue that these statements are puffery and/or statements of opinion

7

that were not both objectively and subjective false and cannot be a basis for a securities

8

fraud claim. Statements that are inherently subjective would not induce the reliance of a

9

reasonable investor. See In re Action Performance Companies Inc. Securities Litigation,

10

No. C-97-20609 RMW, 2007 WL 496770, at *8 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2007) (“Vague

11

statements of opinion are not actionable under the federal securities laws because they are

12

considered immaterial and discounted by the market as mere ‘puffing.’ No matter how

13

untrue a statement may be, it is not actionable if it is not the type of statement that would

14
4

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court notes that Plaintiffs include various allegations concerning Apollo’s
unethical treatment of its employees and its students. The Court assumes these
allegations are true for the purposes of this Motion to Dismiss. Nonetheless, the Court
notes that it is the obligation of this Court to determine whether or not Plaintiff has
sufficiently stated a claim for securities fraud. Plaintiffs include various allegations
relating to the type of marketing and recruiting that Apollo should have engaged in and
sharply criticize Apollo’s marketing and recruiting practices. It is not before the Court in
this case to determine how Apollo should have handled its marketing and recruiting
practices – rather, the issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs adequately alleged that
Defendants statements to investors about marketing and recruiting were either materially
false or raised a duty on Defendants’ part to elaborate on those statements because they
were materially misleading.
If so, the Court must determine if Defendants knew that their statements about
marketing and recruiting were materially false and/or misleading, and whether the market
reacted to disclosures that revealed these statements were materially false and misleading.
The Court makes this clarification because, in the Complaint and the Response to the
Motion to Dismiss, it appears that, at times, Plaintiffs miss the forest for the trees by
focusing on allegations concerning Apollo’s past bad behavior that is not at all relevant to
the facts of this case and allegations of unethical treatment of students and employees,
which are only relevant inasmuch as they state a claim for securities fraud, but are not
themselves instances of securities fraud. Plaintiffs also make numerous allegations about
events occurring after the Class Period, but fail to connect such allegations to their
claims. Such pleading style tends to convolute the arguments and leave the Court
searching to connect allegations that may or may not be related to each other or to the
case at hand. It was this type of pleading that led the Court to advise Plaintiffs to delete
duplicate and irrelevant allegations and to streamline their arguments in their Amended
Complaint.
-7-

1

significantly alter the total mix of information available to investors. Vague, amorphous

2

statements are not actionable because reasonable investors do not consider ‘soft’

3

statements or loose predictions important in making investment decisions. Such general

4

statements about business models are seen in virtually every public statement companies

5

make.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

6

The Court agrees that these statements are inherently subjective and would not

7

induce the reliance of a reasonable investor. See Plevy v. Haggerty, 38 F.Supp.2d 816,

8

827-828 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (Court held that statements that company’s success was due to

9

“crisp execution on the time, performance, reliability and quality of its products,” that

10

company expected growth and huge opportunity in the future, that products “have a

11

tradition of technological leadership, with innovative features and significant

12

performance advantages, that results “clearly demonstrate the inherent advantages of its

13

business model and that there “was a strong demand for its products” were “best

14

described as hyperbole or corporate puffery” where Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead

15

that such statements were used to emphasis or induce reliance on a material

16

misrepresentation.).

17

Plaintiffs argue that these statements are not puffery because by attributing the

18

reason for Apollo’s revenue growth to marketing and enrollment, but without disclosing

19

that unethical practices were being used in marketing and enrollment, investors were

20

prevented from fairly assessing the company’s future. In Response, Defendants argue

21

that they did disclose relevant facts relating to Apollo’s marketing and enrollment

22

practices, including enrollment numbers, retention number, graduation rates, and the fact

23

that many of the students who attended Apollo’s schools came from historically

24

underserviced populations that might have been denied access at other institutions, and

25

thus, Plaintiffs cannot show that the market was misled about facts regarding Apollo’s

26

marketing and enrollment practices.

27

Plaintiffs’ essential theory is that Defendants were required to disclose that, in

28

marketing to prospective students, Defendants used harassing and aggressive practices
-8-

1

that would convince unqualified students to enroll, thus increasing Apollo’s revenue at

2

the time, but would not be allowed to continue because of future regulation of the

3

industry. The Court need not decide whether omission of these specific marketing and

4

enrollment tactics in their statements could serve as a basis for a securities fraud claim

5

because Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege Defendants knew of such tactics as

6

discussed more fully below.

7

b.

Scienter

8

When proceeding under the PSLRA, Plaintiffs “can no longer aver intent in

9

general terms of mere motive and opportunity or recklessness, but rather, must state

10

specific facts indicating no less than a degree of recklessness that strongly suggests actual

11

intent.” Metzler, 540 F.3d at 1066 (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiffs must state with

12

particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that Defendants acted with the required

13

state of mind. Id. For such an inference to qualify as “strong,” it “must be more than

14

merely plausible or reasonable—it must be cogent and at least as compelling as an

15

opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent.” Id. (quoting Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 324).

16

The Court “must engage in a comparative evaluation; it must consider, not only

17

inferences urged by plaintiff . . . but also competing inferences rationally drawn from the

18

facts alleged.” Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 314. Under this standard, “the Court must consider

19

all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the allegations, including references

20

unfavorable to the plaintiffs.” Metzler, 540 F.3d at 1061 (quoting Gompper v. VISX, Inc.,

21

298 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original)). Where pleadings are not

22

sufficiently particularized or where, taken as a whole, they do not raise a strong inference

23

that misleading statements were made to investors knowingly or with deliberate

24

recklessness, a private securities fraud complaint is properly dismissed under Rule

25

12(b)(6).” Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423, 429 (9th Cir. 2001).

26

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew the true nature and source of the

27

Company’s enrollment and revenue growth “[g]iven their senior-level positions within

28

Apollo and the fact that enrollment represented the core of Apollo’s revenue base.” (Id.
-9-

1

at ¶ 101). To adequately plead scienter, Plaintiff must plead more than Defendants must

2

have known of fraud based on their positions within the company. See Zucco Partners,

3

LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 998 (9th Cir. 2009) (“generalized claims about

4

corporate knowledge are not sufficient to create a strong inference of scienter.”); Metzler,

5

540 F.3d at 1068 (“corporate management's general awareness of the day-to-day

6

workings of the company’s business does not establish scienter—at least absent some

7

additional allegation of specific information conveyed to management and related to the

8

fraud.”) (internal citation omitted).

9

alleged recruiting, marketing, and enrollment practices were such that an individual in a

10

senior level position must have known about them, nor have Plaintiffs sufficiently

11

pleaded that these practices were so pervasive at the time Defendants made their

12

statements that Defendants must have known their statements were false.

Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded that the

13

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant D’Amico knew his statements about marketing

14

and revenue were false and/or misleading because, on March 28, 2008, he met with

15

executives of Apollo to discuss complaints the Department of Education (“DOE”) had

16

received from students that counselors were not adequately informing students of their

17

financial obligations. (Id. at ¶ 103).

18

Plaintiffs next allege that Confidential Witness (“CW”) 125 claims that Defendants

19

Mueller, D’Amico, Capelli, Edelstein, Swartz, and Iverson knew their statements about

20

marketing and revenue were false and/or misleading because during several meetings (the

21

time, place, date or other details of such meetings are not alleged), concerns were raised

22

about the fact that the University of Phoenix was marketing to unfit students. (Id. at ¶¶

23

105-107).

24
5

25
26
27

A complaint relying on statements from confidential witnesses to establish
scienter must meet two elements: (1) the complaint must describe the confidential
witnesses with sufficiency and particularity to establish their reliability and knowledge,
and (2) the statements, which are reported by confidential witnesses with sufficient
reliability and personal knowledge, must themselves be indicative of scienter. Zucco
Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 995 (9th Cir. 2009).

28
- 10 -

1

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants must have known of unethical recruiting and

2

marketing practices (rendering their statements about such false) because they were

3

compensated, in part, based on enrollment, making deceptive and unethical recruitment

4

tactics “virtually inevitable.” (Id. at ¶ 108). The Court notes that this allegation says

5

nothing about Defendants’ scienter, but is rather a conclusory assertion based on

6

unwarranted inferences made by Plaintiffs. In fact, nearly all of Plaintiffs’ allegations

7

regarding scienter are conclusory and based on general assertions that Defendants knew

8

about unethical recruiting and marketing practices and, thus, must have known that their

9

statements about Apollo’s growth being linked to marketing and enrollment were false.

10

Plaintiffs allege that John Sperling must have known that Apollo’s compensation

11

practices led recruiters to market to and enroll students who were “unfit” for UOP’s

12

programs because of complaints and lawsuits in 2003 and 2004. (Id. at 120). Plaintiffs

13

allege that CW11 claims John Sperling hired Defendants D’Amico, Capelli, and

14

Edelstein to make changes, but the “evidence is overwhelming that changes were never

15

made.” (Id. at ¶ 120).

16

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Mueller and D’Amico must have known that

17

statements attributing Apollo’s enrollment and revenue growth to academic quality were

18

false because they approved the Company’s compensation structures and knew that

19

compensation was based solely on enrollment and other criteria in the performance

20

matrices “were just window dressing,” and, thus, were at least reckless in not attributing

21

Apollo’s growth to the “enrollment at all costs” approach. (Id. at 121).

22

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants violated federal regulations, because

23

although they claimed to use a performance matrix in determining bonuses or incentive

24

compensation for employees, the use of the performance matrix was just a charade

25

because incentive compensation was really the sole factor in determining salary

26

adjustments.

27

As with Plaintiffs’ original complaint, these allegations are generally conclusory

28

in that they rely on the assertion of what Defendants “must have known.” This is not
- 11 -

1

enough to establish a strong inference of scienter or to link such an inference to

2

Defendants’ knowledge at the time the allegedly false or misleading statements were

3

made. See In re Apollo, 2011 WL 5101787, at *10 (“Plaintiffs have listed fraudulent

4

practices engaged in by Defendants and have generally averred Defendants’ knowledge.

5

Plaintiffs have made little attempt to link facts indicating actual knowledge on the part of

6

each Defendant to actual fraudulent practices of Defendants . . . It is Plaintiffs’ burden to

7

establish a strong inference of scienter.”).
c.

8

Loss Causation and Corrective Disclosures

9

“To prove loss causation, the plaintiff must demonstrate a causal connection

10

between the deceptive acts that form the basis for the claim of securities fraud and the

11

injury suffered by the plaintiff.” Ambassador Hotel Co., Ltd. v. Wei–Chuan Inv., 189

12

F.3d 1017, 1027 (9th Cir. 1999). “The complaint must allege that the practices that the

13

plaintiff contends are fraudulent were revealed to the market and caused the resulting

14

losses.” Metzler, 540 F.3d at 1063.

15

Plaintiffs allege that disclosures in an earnings press release and Form 10-Q on

16

January 7, 2010 revealed that Apollo was providing inadequate information to students

17

about financial aid at the time of enrollment. (Id. at ¶ 123). Plaintiffs do not allege, and

18

it is not clear to the Court which of the alleged statements made by Defendants were

19

rendered false by this disclosure. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead

20

loss causation related to false statements regarding marketing and enrollment made by

21

Defendants for the January 7, 2010 disclosure.

22

Plaintiffs next allege that on August 3, 2010, a Bloomberg article speculated that a

23

Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) Report would reveal that Apollo had

24

engaged in misleading marketing and the marketplace “correctly anticipated that the

25

GAO findings included conduct by Apollo schools.”6

26

6

27
28

As the Court held in its previous Order regarding these allegedly corrective disclosures,
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged facts showing how the fact that for-profit schools
were being investigated was understood by the market as realization of widespread fraud
being conducted by Defendants at Apollo. See In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 2011 WL 5101787 at *18; Metzler, 540 F.3d 1064 (where Plaintiffs asserted
- 12 -

1

Thereafter, on August 4, 2010, the GAO Report was presented during a Senate

2

HELP Committee hearing and described how “admissions representatives at the two

3

UOP campuses had: stated that a degree would take four years to complete, but provided

4

a one-year cost estimate of only 1/5 the required credit hours (thereby understating the

5

total cost); either overstated or failed to disclose the school’s graduation rate; encouraged

6

the applicant to pursue a Master’s degree after completing the Bachelor’s degree,

7

purportedly because some countries pay teachers more money than doctors or lawyers;

8

encouraged the applicants to take out the full amount of student loans for which they

9

qualified, even though the applicants did not need the money; suggested that unneeded

10

loan money could be placed in a high-interest savings account, without explaining to the

11

applicant that unsubsidized loans would be accruing interest during the time it was placed

12

in the savings account; and suggested that the applicant’s $250,000 in savings might not

13

need to be reported on the financial aid application.” (Id. at 114).

14

While Plaintiffs theorize that “these revelations . . . began to reveal to the public

15

that Apollo’s business was built on deceptive recruitment and enrollment practices,” (Id.

16

at ¶ 127), it is again unclear to the Court which of the alleged statements made by

17

Defendants were rendered false by this disclosure or how Plaintiffs’ allegations of

18

Defendants’ scienter can be linked to such false statements. Accordingly, Plaintiff has

19

failed to allege how this was a corrective disclosure revealing Defendants’ fraud to the

20

market.

21

Plaintiffs next allege that, in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 6, 2010,

22

Apollo announced that it had received a request from the HELP Committee for

23

information in connection with hearings relating to for-profit universities receiving Title

24

IV student financial aid. Apollo then stated that it would cooperate and comply with the

25

request, commence its own internal investigation and acknowledged that it was going to

26

that a disclosure made investors realize that there were fraudulent practices at one of
Defendants’ schools, the Court held Plaintiffs had failed to assert enough facts showing
that the market was alerted to Defendants’ widespread fraud). This is especially
necessary in this case where the allegedly corrective disclosure was “speculation” that
some of the campuses discussed in the report “may have” been Apollo campuses.

27
28

- 13 -

1

significantly tighten its enrollment practices.

Again, Plaintiffs fail to connect this

2

allegedly corrective disclosure to statements made by Defendants. The fact that, in

3

response to an investigation, a company would implement corrective measures to fix

4

future problems does not result in the inference that the company or the company’s

5

officers and directors knew that earlier statements made about the company’s practices

6

were knowingly false at the time they were made. Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegation that

7

“Apollo’s acknowledgement that it would tighten its enrollment practices was a signal to

8

investors that Apollo was guilty of the types of recruitment misconduct discussed in the

9

GAO report” does not add to the securities fraud analysis – because it does not show that

10

a corrective disclosure revealed that a past statement made by specific Defendants was

11

knowingly false.

12

Plaintiffs next allege that, on October 13, 2010, Apollo issued a press release

13

reporting declining enrollment and slowing revenue growth and withdrew its fiscal

14

forecast for 2011, citing increased regulatory scrutiny and implementation of new

15

initiatives that would result in further declining enrollment of new students. In that Press

16

Release, Apollo stated that its goals were “expanding student protections,” and “shifting

17

the mix of enrollment to more experienced students who have a greater likelihood of

18

succeeding in the Company’s programs.” (Id. at ¶ 130). Plaintiffs allege that all of these

19

remedial measures were taken as a direct result of the public revelation of previously-

20

undisclosed fraudulent and deceptive practices by Apollo and its peers in the for-profit

21

education industry and the increased regulatory scrutiny engendered by those revelations.

22

Again, Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing how this allegedly corrective

23

disclosure relates to a securities fraud analysis—because it does not show that a

24

corrective disclosure revealed that a past statement made by specific Defendants was

25

knowingly false. This is an important distinction in securities fraud cases because if a

26

company could be sued for securities fraud every time it corrected problems discovered

27

within the company, without showing that Defendants were previously aware of those

28

problems and purposefully misrepresented the nature of the problems to investors, then
- 14 -

1

every time a company tried to improve its business, it would potentially be liable for

2

securities fraud.

3

unwarranted.

Such a broad application of the Securities and Exchange Act is

2.

4

Financial Condition (Count II)

5

Plaintiffs allege that Apollo misrepresented its financial condition to investors

6

because it failed to record adequate bad debt reserves in connection with accounts

7

receivable from students who withdrew. (Id. at 138). Plaintiffs also allege that Apollo

8

recorded tuition revenues for students that were earned prior to the students’ withdrawal,

9

but were not realized or realizable given the “likely uncollectibility” directly from

10

students after withdrawal, when Title IV funds were returned. (Id. at ¶¶ 139-148).

11

Plaintiffs allege that “because the collectability of these pre-withdrawal tuition charges

12

was . . . highly doubtful, . . . they should not have been recorded as revenue under GAAP,

13

and Apollo should have recorded higher reserves and write-offs” in accordance with

14

GAAP. (Id. at 148).

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Understatements of bad debt reserves can support a securities
fraud claim because companies are obliged to make
reasonable predictions about the collectability of their
accounts receivable. Underestimates of bad debt reserves lead
to overstatement of income, and ultimately inflation of stock
price. However, allegations that bad debt reserves are
inadequate are insufficient; plaintiffs must allege with
particularity facts that show the initial prediction was ‘a
falsehood. Even a delinquent write-down of the impaired
assets, without anything more, does not state a claim of
securities fraud, stating at best a bad business decision. To
meet the PSLRA’s pleading standard, Plaintiffs must allege
facts demonstrating that the decision not to write off bad
receivables . . . was such that no reasonable accountant would
have made the same decision if confronted with the same
facts.
Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Adecco S.A., 371 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1213 -1215 (S.D. Cal.
2005) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs make numerous allegations that collection of tuition from students
was highly doubtful and not reasonably assured, but fail to make specific allegations

27
28
- 15 -

1

showing that Defendants (individually or as a group)7 knew (aside from the assertion that

2

Apollo knew from its historic collections experience that these amounts would not be

3

collected) that such collection was highly doubtful and not reasonably assured. Without

4

such allegations, there is no inference that Defendants knew their predictions regarding

5

bad debt reserve would turn out to be wrong. See In re Am. Apparel, Inc. S’holder Litig.,

6

No. CV 10-06352 MMM(RCx), __F.Supp.2d __, 2012 WL 1131684, at *27 -28 (C.D.

7

Cal. Jan. 13, 2012) (where “complaint fail[ed] to allege what statements violated GAAP,

8

why the statements were false, the amount by which they were misstated, what provisions

9

of GAAP were violated, how those provisions were violated, and who was involved in

10

the alleged GAAP violations,” court held “[w]ithout allegations detailing the inaccuracies

11

in the financial statements, the types of information that defendants purportedly withheld,

12

and the knowledge or participation of the individual defendants in the withholding,

13

plaintiffs fail to plead scienter.”) (internal quotation omitted); In re Downey Sec. Litig.,

14

No. CV 08-3261-JFW (RZx), 2009 WL 2767670, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2009)

15

(holding “[m]erely alleging that bad debt reserves were inadequate is insufficient because

16

even reasonable predictions turn out to be wrong. Instead, plaintiffs must allege with

17

particularity facts that show the initial prediction was a falsehood.”).8

18

Plaintiffs allege that various individual Defendants made statements in 2006 and

19

2007 that Apollo made significant progress in remediating financial control deficiencies

20

after having to issue restatements in 2004, 2005, and 2006. (Id. at ¶¶ 184-189). Plaintiffs

21
7

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Although Plaintiffs rely on Defendant D’Amico’s statements during conference
calls during the class period that “[w]e continue to believe our allowance for doubtful
accounts is adequate” (Id. at ¶ 177) to show that Defendants knowingly made materially
misleading statements to investors, as noted above, Plaintiffs have failed make
allegations showing how Defendant D’Amico knew these statements were materially
misleading.
8

Many of Plaintiffs’ allegations relating to improper accounting practices are
dependent on their claims that Defendants were misrepresenting its enrollment and
marketing practices and knew, based upon these misrepresentations, that it was failing to
adequately record bad debt reserves and improperly recognizing revenue. Because
Plaintiffs have failed to plead that Defendants were knowingly making materially false
statements regarding marketing and enrollment, Plaintiffs accounting claims based on
this theory necessarily fail.
- 16 -

1

allege that these statements “were materially false and misleading because they indicated

2

that Defendants had actually changed and improved Apollo’s internal control over

3

financial reporting and remediated the control deficiencies that gave rise to the material

4

weaknesses when, in fact the same material weaknesses that plagued its 2004 and 2005

5

financial reporting continued to exist through the Class Period as the Company continued

6

to improperly record the allowance for doubtful accounts and bad debt reserves in

7

violation of GAAP.” (Id. at 190). Plaintiffs allege that, although Defendants disclosed

8

that significant risks could occur regarding internal controls, such risk statements were

9

inadequate and materially misleading because they failed to disclose that Apollo was not

10

maintaining sufficient internal controls at the time of the risk disclosures. (Id. at ¶¶ 191-

11

192).

12

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs only support for their accounting allegations is

13

Plaintiffs’ analysis of trends they purport to see in Apollo’s publicly reported financial

14

data, which was available to Apollo’s investors in the public domain and thus cannot

15

support a securities fraud claim. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have failed to

16

adequately plead scienter because Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants had actual

17

access to information that their internal controls were deficient and Plaintiffs completely

18

ignore the fact that internal controls must have improved during the Class Period, because

19

although having to issue restatements in 2004, 2005, and 2006, Apollo did not have to

20

issue any restatements during or after the Class Period.

21

irrelevant that Defendants did not issue a restatement during or after the Class Period,

22

because Courts have held that the absence of a restatement does not end a plaintiff’s case

23

when he has otherwise met the pleading requirements.

Plaintiffs argue that it is

24

While it may be true that the absence of a restatement does not automatically end

25

Plaintiffs’ case, where, as here, Plaintiffs rely on prior restatements to prove that

26

Defendants knew that there were inadequacies in their internal financial controls and

27

falsely made statements that they had improved such financial controls, the absence of

28

any restatement after Defendants claimed to have improved the financial controls actually
- 17 -

1

suggests that Defendants did improve the financial controls and, thus, raises the inference

2

that their statements that the financial controls were improved were not materially false.

3

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ reliance on allegations of past financial control inadequacy do

4

not support a strong inference of scienter and Plaintiffs have otherwise failed to plead a

5

strong inference of scienter with regard to the financial condition statements.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

3.

Organizational Values and Management Integrity (Count
IV)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made a series of statements during the Class
Period regarding Apollo’s commitment to integrity and business ethics. (Id. at ¶¶ 226231). Plaintiffs allege that these statements about Apollo’s commitment to integrity and
business ethics are plainly materially false because of Apollo’s student recruitment
practices. (Id. at 233). To allege scienter, Plaintiffs’ rely on the same allegations
regarding Defendants’ knowledge that they alleged to demonstrate that statements
regarding enrollment and marketing practices (Count I) were false. For the same reasons
the Court noted with regard to Count I, Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead scienter
with respect to Defendants’ knowledge that the statements they made regarding Apollo’s
integrity and business ethics were materially false.
4.

Business Focus (Count III)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding Apollo’s business focus, such as:
 “Our primary focus is providing the highest-quality educational product and
services for our students in order for them to maximize the benefits through our
educational experience.” (Id. at ¶¶ 238, 240).
 “Retention continues to be the number one focus at Apollo as it impacts so many
aspects of our results including enrollment, revenue, profit levels, bad debt, and
student default rates.” (Id. at ¶ 239).
 “we are intensely focused on student success and better identifying and enrolling
students who have a reasonable chance to succeed in our rigorous program.” (Id.
at ¶ 245).
Plaintiffs alleges that these and similar statements “were materially false and
misleading because Apollo’s principal focus was on enrolling students in its institutions,

28
- 18 -

1

regardless of their suitability for college or their likelihood of success, and not on

2

providing high quality educational products and services to its students in order for them

3

to maximize the benefit of their educational experience or on changing lives through

4

education.

5

student body the majority of which would never earn a degree.” (Id. at ¶ 248).

To the contrary, Apollo’s recruiting practices led to the enrollment of a

6

To allege scienter, Plaintiffs’ rely on the same allegations regarding Defendants’

7

knowledge that statements regarding enrollment and marketing practices (Count I) were

8

false. For the same reasons the Court noted with regard to Count I, Plaintiffs have failed

9

to adequately plead scienter with respect to Defendants’ knowledge that the statements

10

they made regarding Apollo’s business focus were materially false.

11

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the pleading requirements to

12

adequately plead securities fraud based on allegedly false and misleading statements

13

made by Defendants and Counts I (enrollment and revenue growth), II (financial

14

condition), IV (business focus), and III (organizational values and management integrity)

15

of Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint must be dismissed.

16

B.

17

In Counts V and VII, Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendants

18

John Sperling, Peter Sperling, Joseph D’Amico, and William Pepicello sold Apollo stock

19

while in possession of material, adverse, non-public information in violation of sections

20

10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule

21

10(b)-5.
20A of the Exchange Act provides,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INSIDER TRADING (Counts I and VII)

(a) Private rights of action based on contemporaneous trading
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or the
rules or regulations thereunder by purchasing or selling a
security while in possession of material, nonpublic
information shall be liable in an action in any court of
competent jurisdiction to any person who, contemporaneously
with the purchase or sale of securities that is the subject of
such violation, has purchased (where such violation is based
on a sale of securities) or sold (where such violation is based
on a purchase of securities) securities of the same class.
15 U.S.C.A. § 78t-1(a).
- 19 -

1

Plaintiffs’ insider trading allegations are based on Defendants knowledge that the

2

statements alleged in Counts I-IV of the Amended Consolidated Class Action were

3

materially false and misleading. Because Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege

4

scienter with regard to those statements, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that

5

Defendants were in possession of material, nonpublic information and thus, Counts V and

6

VII must be dismissed.

7

C.

8

In Count VI, Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendants John

9

Sperling, Peter Sperling, Joseph D’Amico, Gregory Capelli, Charles Edelstein, Brian

10

Swartz, Brian Mueller, and Gregory Iverson violated section 20(a) of the Exchange Act

11

because each was a controlling person who had direct and supervisory involvement in

12

day-to-day operations of Apollo and, as such, each is jointly and severally liable for the

13

violations of section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5 of the Exchange Act described in Count I.

14

CONTROL PERSON LIABILITY (Count VI)

Pursuant to § 20(a) of the Exchange Act:

15

(a) Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any
person liable under any provision of this title or of any rule or
regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally
with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any
person to whom such controlled person is liable (including to
the Commission in any action brought under paragraph (1) or
(3) of section 21(d)), unless the controlling person acted in
good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or
acts constituting the violation or cause of action.

16
17
18
19
20

Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege

21

violations of 10(b) and § 10(b)-5, Plaintiffs have necessarily failed to establish a violation

22

of § 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Accordingly, Count IV must be dismissed.

23

IV.

24

Based on the foregoing,

25

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Consolidated

26
27
28

CONCLUSION

Class Action Complaint (Doc. 117) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion regarding NonCompliance with ER 4.2 (Doc. 115) is denied as moot.
- 20 -

1

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendants.

2

Dated this 22nd day of June, 2012.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 21 -