Susan Hufnagle v. Rino International Corporation et al
Filing
258
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FRAZER FROST MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 247 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . (lc). Modified on 8/1/2013 (lc).
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
SUSAN HUFNAGLE, individually
and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18
v.
RINO INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, DEJON ZOU,
JENNY LIUE, BEN WANG, LI YU,
KENNITH C. JOHNSON, JIANPING
QIU, ZIE QUAN, and ZEJIN LI,
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 10-08695 DDP (VBKx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT
[Dkt. No. 247]
19
20
Presently before the court is Defendant Frazer Frost, LLP
21
(“Frazer Frost” or “the Auditor”)’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
22
Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”).
23
of the parties, the court is inclined to deny the motion and adopt
24
the following order.
25
I.
26
Having considered the submissions
Background
As explained in the court’s earlier orders, this case is a
27
purported class action alleging violations of the Securities
28
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78 et seq. (the "Exchange Act")
1
brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
2
who purchased publicly traded Rino International Corporation
3
(“Rino”) common stock and call options, and who sold put options of
4
Rino, between March 31, 2009 and November 17, 2010 (the "Class
5
Period").
6
fraud regarding its industrial equipment business in China.
7
¶¶ 4-5.)
8
overstated its revenue and profits, fabricated contracts with
9
nonexistent customers, understated its tax liabilities, and
The TAC alleges that RINO engaged in a wide-ranging
(TAC
Plaintiff alleges, for example, that RINO grossly
10
concealed transactions between RINO and other companies owned by
11
RINO’s CEO’s relatives.
12
agreement, Plaintiff has dismissed all claims against all
13
Defendants, with the exception of Frazer Frost.
14
(TAC ¶ 5.)
Pursuant to a settlement
(Dkt. No. 235.)
Plaintiff alleges that auditor Frazer Frost either knowingly
15
or recklessly ignored obvious signs of financial irregularities and
16
failed to follow generally accepted auditing standards in its
17
review of RINO’s financial statements.
18
204.)
19
opinions regarding RINO’s financial statements.
20
Plaintiff alleges that Frazer Frost’s audit opinion regarding
21
RINO’s 2009 annual report falsely represented that RINO’s financial
22
statements conformed with generally accepted accounting principles
23
(“GAAP”).
24
II.
25
(TAC ¶¶ 7-25, 42-51, 133-
The TAC alleges that on March 31, 2010, Frazer issued false
(TAC ¶ 134.)
Specifically,
Frazer Frost now moves to dismiss the TAC.
Legal Standard
A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss when it contains
26
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
27
relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
28
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
2
1
570 (2007)).
2
“accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe
3
those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick
4
v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).
5
need not include “detailed factual allegations,” it must offer
6
“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
7
accusation.”
8
allegations that are no more than a statement of a legal conclusion
9
“are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 679.
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Although a complaint
Conclusory allegations or
In
10
other words, a pleading that merely offers “labels and
11
conclusions,” a “formulaic recitation of the elements,” or “naked
12
assertions” will not be sufficient to state a claim upon which
13
relief can be granted.
14
quotation marks omitted).
15
Id. at 678 (citations and internal
“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should
16
assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly
17
give rise to an entitlement of relief.” Id. at 679.
18
must allege “plausible grounds to infer” that their claims rise
19
“above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
20
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
21
relief” is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing
22
court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
23
556 U.S. at 679.
24
Plaintiffs
Iqbal,
To state a claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of
25
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
26
plaintiffs must plead particularized facts demonstrating “(1) a
27
material misrepresentation or omission of fact, (2) scienter, (3) a
28
connection with the purchase or sale of a security, (4) transaction
3
1
and loss causation, and (5) economic loss.”
2
Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009).
3
alleging securities fraud under the
4
Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) must meet a heightened pleading
5
standard.
6
“[s]pecify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the
7
reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and . . . state
8
with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the
9
defendant acted with the required state of mind.”
Zucco Partners, LLC v.
A complaint
Private Securities Litigation
The PSLRA requires that any securities fraud claim
10
Section 78u-4(b)(1), (b)(2).
11
15 U.S.C.
III. Discussion
12
A.
13
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to plead
Scienter
14
particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter.
15
When analyzing a defendant’s intent, courts must view complaints
16
holistically, and should deny a motion to dismiss if the inference
17
of scienter advanced by plaintiffs is "at least as compelling as
18
any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged."
19
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 141 S. Ct. 1309, 1324
20
(2011) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551
21
U.S. 308, 324 (2007); see also New Mexico State Investment Council
22
v. Ernst & Young LLP, 641 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2011)
23
(“NMSIC”).1
24
“accounting practices were so deficient that the audit amounted to
25
no audit at all, or an egregious refusal to see the obvious, or to
In the auditing context, a plaintiff must show that
26
1
27
28
Where any individual allegation is sufficient to create a
strong inference of scienter, the court need not necessarily
conduct a “holistic” review of the allegations in their entirety.
NMSIC, 641 F.3d at 1095 (citing Zucco, 552 F.3d at 991-992).
4
1
investigate the doubtful, or that the accounting judgments which
2
were made were such that no reasonable accountant would have made
3
the same decisions . . . .”
4
marks and citation omitted).
5
intent to deceive, will not suffice.
6
7
1.
NMSCIC, 641 F.3d at 1098 (quotation
Allegations of a poor audit, absent
Id.
Tax returns and multiple sets of books
Plaintiff alleges that RINO kept two sets of corporate books,
8
and that Frazer had actual knowledge of this improper accounting.
9
Frazer approved RINO’s report that it had $192.6 million in revenue
10
and a $56.4 million profit in 2009 and $139.3 million in revenue
11
and $25.5 in profit for 2008.
12
tax returns, however, indicated 2009 revenue of $11.1 million and
13
profit of $80,000 and 2008 revenue of $15.7 million and profit of
14
$1.2 million.
15
return showed 2009 revenue of only $9 million.
16
the reports approved by Frazer listed revenues and profits between
17
ten and twenty times higher than the figures reported in RINO’s tax
18
documents.
19
documents and RINO’s financial statements indicates that RINO was
20
keeping two sets of books and providing inflated numbers to
21
investors.
22
Securities and Exchange Commission ultimately suspended trading in
23
RINO securities in part because of the existence of two separate
24
and materially different sets of corporate books and accounts.
25
(TAC ¶ 35.)
(TAC ¶ 14.)
(TAC ¶ 16.)
RINO’s Chinese income
RINO’s Chinese Value Added Tax (“VAT”)
(TAC ¶ 15.)
Thus,
Plaintiff argues that the conflict between the tax
(Reply at 10.)
Indeed, the TAC alleges that the
26
The TAC further alleges that Frazer was aware of the
27
discrepancy between RINO’s tax returns and reported revenue, and
28
therefore knew that RINO was cooking the books to mislead
5
1
investors.
2
RINO’s management highlighting several “significant deficiencies”
3
in RINO’s internal financial controls.
4
noted that RINO was not current on its issuance or receipt of VAT
5
invoices, and explicitly stated that “[w]hen the Company files the
6
tax return with the Chinese Government Tax Bureau, the reportable
7
book amount does not agree with the tax return for both the VAT tax
8
return and income tax return.”
9
consider this conflict to be a “material weakness” in RINO’s
(TAC ¶ 13.)
On March 29, 2010, Frazer sent a letter to
(Id.)
(TAC, Ex. C.)
This letter
Nevertheless, Frazer did not
10
financial report.
11
that RINO change the way it accounted for VAT on both the sales and
12
purchase sides of RINO’s business.
13
(Id.)
Frazer’s letter nevertheless suggested
(Id.)
The court must compare the both the innocent and malicious
14
inferences supported by the alleged facts.
15
1095.
16
financial statements, despite Frazer’s knowledge of the discrepancy
17
with the tax return numbers, supports the inference that Frazer
18
knew its opinion that RINO complied with GAAP to be false.
19
at 10-11.)
20
NMSIC, 641 F.3d at
Plaintiff argues that Frazer’s decision to approve RINO’s
(Replay
Frazer contends that its recognition of the deficiency in
21
RINO’s figures demonstrates Frazer’s diligence, and that Frazer’s
22
decision to label the conflicting figures a “significant
23
deficiency” rather than a “material weakness” was the result of
24
considered professional judgment.
25
argues that the difference between the Chinese tax figures and
26
RINO’s reported income and profit numbers was the result of
27
differences between Chinese tax law and SEC accounting rules, which
28
attach tax liability at different stages of a transaction.
(Opposition at 13-14.)
6
Frazer
(Opp.
1
at 13.)
2
the way it handled VAT payments and receipts to address this
3
serious, but not fundamental, issue with its VAT accounting.
4
Frazer further argues that the difference between the tax returns
5
and SEC filings does not demonstrate the existence of two sets of
6
books because the returns referenced in and attached to the
7
complaint only apply to a single RINO subsidiary.
8
however, included figures from all RINO entities.
9
For this reason, Frazer asserts, it suggested RINO change
Its SEC filing,
The facts alleged support the inference that Frazer approved
10
fraudulent figures.
11
Frazer’s explicit identification of the accounting weakness and
12
suggestion of a course of action to remedy it.
13
alternative explanations for the competing revenue figures,
14
particularly the limited scope of the Chinese tax returns, lend
15
further weight to the innocent inference here.
16
minimal competence would be unlikely to ignore such a blatant
17
impropriety as maintaining two sets of books, yet at the same time
18
identify and criticize that improper practice.
19
of the differing reported financial figures, therefore, is not
20
alone sufficient to support a strong inference of scienter.
21
2.
That inference, however, is at odds with
The potential
A fraudster of even
Frazer’s knowledge
Reliance Upon Nonexistent Contracts
22
RINO’s internal documents indicate that RINO earned $11.1
23
million from its contracts in 2009 and $15.75 million in 2008.
24
(TAC ¶ 98(e).)
25
in RINO’s tax forms and, like those figures, represent only a
26
fraction of the revenues stated in the financial report approved by
27
Frazer.
28
of completion” method to record revenue based on contracts that
These figures are consistent with those indicated
Plaintiff alleges that RINO improperly used a “percentage
7
1
were not finalized.2
2
Frazer not only knew that RINO improperly used percentage of
3
completion accounting, but affirmatively directed RINO to utilize
4
that method in ways that violated GAAP.
5
the TAC alleges that Frazer told RINO to include in its 2009
6
revenue contracts that were not signed or did not take effect until
7
2010, after the applicable reporting period.
(TAC ¶ 10).
The TAC further alleges that
(TAC ¶ 11.)
For example,
(Id.)
8
The TAC further alleges that many of the RINO customers listed
9
in RINO’s report either did not exist or had not purchased goods or
10
services from RINO.3
11
that Frazer failed to adequately check the status of the supposed
12
customers and contracts, even though RINO’s CEO told Frazer that
13
some customer contracts were merely incomplete “framework
14
agreements,” and that “there were (sic) some uncertainty about
15
execution of the framework agreements.”
16
acknowledges, however, that Frazer did send some sort of
17
confirmation form to RINO’s purported customers.
18
(TAC ¶¶ 123, 167-179.)
Plaintiffs contend
(TAC ¶¶ 47, 170.)
The TAC
(TAC ¶ 176.)
Plaintiff argues that auditing standards required Frazer to
19
conduct a certain type of investigation of RINO’s customers.
20
at 17; TAC ¶ 165).
21
Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) auditing standard sections AU
(Opp.
Specifically, the TAC cites to Public Company
22
23
24
25
26
2
Under the percentage of completion method, revenue on longterm projects is recognized based on the percentage of work
completed to date. In re Daou Systems, Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 101213 (9th Cir. 2005).
3
27
28
While Plaintiff argues that up to 40% of the listed
customers did not purchase anything from RINO or did not exist,
that figure appears to include listed customers that Plaintiff’s
investigator was not able to contact.
8
1
311, 319, and 326.4
2
opposition specify the subsections of those lengthy auditing
3
standards with which Frazer failed to comply.
4
opposition makes no mention of AU sections 311, 319, or 326.
5
Instead, Plaintiff’s opposition conclusorily asserts, without
6
citation, that “PCAOB auditing standards for percentage of
7
completion accounting required that Frazer obtain confirmation of
8
more information that simply the amount the customer believed it
9
currently owed RINO.”
Nowhere, however, does the TAC or Plaintiff’s
(Opp. at 17.)
Indeed, Plaintiff’s
Though Plaintiff makes some
10
limited references to the American Institute of Certified Public
11
Accountant’s Construction Contractors Audit & Accounting Guide,
12
PCAOB standards make clear that such guides are recommendations,
13
not auditing standards.
14
alleged that Frazer could have performed a different or more
15
thorough investigation of RINO’s customers, Plaintiff has not
16
alleged any specific facts related to percentage of completion
17
accounting that alone indicate that Frazer violated accounting
18
standards or support a strong inference of scienter.
19
3.
20
AU § 150.05.
Thus, while Plaintiff has
Additional “red flags” and holistic review
If no individual allegation in sufficient to support a strong
21
inference of scienter, the court must proceed to conduct a
22
“holistic” review of those same allegations.
23
1095.
24
combination, create a strong inference of recklessness or
25
intentional conduct.
NMSIC, 641 F.3d at
Allegations insufficient on their own may nevertheless, in
Id.
“[T]he more facts alleged that should
26
4
27
28
Neither party includes these auditing standards with their
pleadings. AU sections 311, 319, and 326 have all been superseded,
effective December 15, 2010, but remain available at
www.pcaobus.org.
9
1
cause a reasonable auditor to investigate further before making a
2
representation, the more cogent and compelling a scienter inference
3
becomes.”
4
Id. at 1098.
The irregularities described above, though insufficient to
5
establish scienter on their own, more readily support an inference
6
of wrongdoing when viewed as a whole, alongside other allegations.
7
Frazer Frost knew that the revenue and profit numbers reported on
8
RINO’s tax returns did not match the figures reported to investors.
9
The revenue numbers based on RINO’s purported contracts matched the
10
lower tax return numbers, not the higher figure approved by Frazer.
11
Regardless whether Frazer’s investigation of RINO customers
12
conformed to accounting standards, Frazer knew that RINO was
13
utilizing percentage of completion methods to reach its revenue
14
figures, in part because Frazer advised RINO to do just that.
15
Though Plaintiff has not identified any particular accounting
16
standard related to percentage of completion, to the extent that
17
Frazer advised RINO to count revenue from unsigned, unexecuted
18
contracts, the parties appear to agree that inclusion of such
19
revenue would be improper.
20
These are not the only allegations that might give rise to
21
suspicion.
22
exemption in 2008.
23
advanced $22 million in cash to two of its major suppliers of raw
24
materials.
25
purchases, or $79.4 million of raw materials, came from these two
26
suppliers alone.
27
by RINO’s CEO’s nephew, and had no phone number or website.
28
¶¶ 106-107.)
The TAC alleges that RINO claimed a 100% income tax
(TAC ¶ 78(f).)
(TAC ¶ 95.)
By the end of 2008, RINO had
(TAC ¶ 96.)
(TAC ¶ 104.)
In 2009, RINO 93% of RINO’s
One of the two suppliers was owned
(TAC
Neither did the larger of the two suppliers, which
10
1
did not exist before 2007, had no revenue in 2009, and was owned by
2
RINO’s CEO’s mother.
3
had advanced over $34 million to these two suppliers.5
4
112.)
5
(TAC ¶¶ 108, 110.)
By the end of 2009, RINO
(TAC ¶
RINO was generous not only to its CEO’s relatives, but also to
6
the CEO himself.
7
report, RINO gave its CEO an interest-free, unsecured loan of $3.5
8
million for the purchase of a personal residence in California.
9
(TAC ¶ 131.)
In 2009, as disclosed in the Frazer-approved
As described above, Frazer has identified reasonable
10
inferences that could be drawn from certain individual allegations.
11
Frazer’s argument that the allegations regarding millions of
12
dollars in cash advances do not establish scienter because
13
Plaintiffs have failed to allege that such advances are “contrary
14
to standard Chinese business practices or were otherwise
15
commercially unreasonable” is far less persuasive.6
16
11.)
17
(Opposition at
The question before the court at this stage is, “When the
18
allegations are accepted as true and taken collectively, would a
19
reasonable person deem the inference of scienter at least as strong
20
as any opposing inference?”
Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 326.
Viewed as a
21
whole, the totality of the allegations supports fraud.
Allegations
22
of tens millions of dollars in cash advances to a small number of
23
shadowy suppliers, a claimed 100% income tax exemption, millions of
24
25
26
27
5
Though it is unclear from the complaint whether Frazer saw
or should have seen certain Chinese filings, RINO’s Chinese filings
listed $0 in advances at the end of both 2008 and 2009. (TAC ¶¶
96, 112.)
6
28
Frazer does not directly address the personal loan to RINO’s
CEO or the improperly claimed tax credit.
11
1
dollars in unsecured loans to corporate officers, wildly divergent
2
revenue and profit figures, and the inclusion of admittedly
3
uncertain “framework agreements” as revenue provide far more
4
support to the inference that Frazer knowingly or recklessly
5
approved RINO’s fraudulent financial statements than to the
6
competing inferences that RINO’s figures were the result of China’s
7
tax rules, innocent misapplication of accounting methods, or
8
standard business practices.
9
scienter.7
10
11
12
IV.
Plaintiff’s has sufficiently alleged
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Frazer Frost’s Motion to Dismiss
is DENIED.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
Dated: August 1, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Frazer also argues that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
subjective falsity “for the same reasons that Plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate scienter.” (Mot. at 19.) Because Plaintiffs have
adequately pled scienter, their subjective falsity allegations also
suffice.
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?