Wozniak v. Align Technology Inc et al

Filing 43

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Granting #26 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

CHARLES WOZNIAK, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. C-09-3671 MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., THOMAS M.
PRESCOTT,

15
Defendants.
/

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Before the Court is defendants Align Technology, Inc. (“Align”) and Thomas
Prescott’s (“Prescott”) motion, filed on March 26, 2010, to dismiss plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”). Lead plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, has filed opposition, to which
defendants have replied. After reviewing the papers filed in support of and in opposition to
the motion, the Court rules as follows.1
BACKGROUND

24
25
26
27

In the FAC, plaintiff alleges that Align, a company that “designs, manufactures, and
markets” Invisalign, a series of clear, removable teeth aligners, and Prescott, Align’s Chief
Executive Officer, participated in a “fraudulent scheme and course of conduct that operated

28
1

On July 7, 2010, the Court vacated the hearing on defendants’ motion.

1

as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Align’s common stock by disseminating materially

2

false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts” between

3

January 30, 2007 and October 24, 2007 (the “Class Period”). (See FAC ¶¶ 1, 2, 40.)

4

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that, as the result of a pre-Class Period settlement with

5

a competitor, OrthoClear, “Align agreed to make Invisalign treatment available to

6

OrthoClear patients currently in treatment at no additional charge to the patients or doctors

7

under the ‘Patients First Program’ created by Align” (see FAC ¶ 4); that Align “did not have

8

enough trained ClinCheck technicians in place to handle the influx of Patients First cases

9

from the former OrthoClear patients in addition to new revenue generating Invisalign cases”

10

(see FAC ¶ 6 (emphasis omitted)); and that, as a result of the additional cases and staff

11

shortage, “Align experienced a significant backlog in its production, and all case shipments

12

(both new revenue cases and Patients First cases) were significantly delayed during the

13

Class Period” (see id. (emphasis omitted)) beyond the usual “total cycle time from patient

14

impressions to delivery [of] approximately 30 days” (see FAC ¶ 3).2

15

Plaintiff alleges Align’s failure to disclose the significant backlog rendered

16

statements in three press releases and accompanying conference calls, on January 30,

17

2007, April 26, 2007, and July 25, 2007, respectively, knowingly misleading. (See FAC

18

¶¶ 5, 8, 13, 15.) Thereafter, according to the FAC, the truth about Align’s backlog emerged

19

by way of Align’s October 24, 2007 announcement that it expected to ship in 2007

20

approximately 4000 to 5000 cases fewer than its previous expectation of 206,000 to

21

209,000 cases, due to Align's “mov[ing] [its] focus away from generating case growth” to

22

“managing backlog” (see FAC ¶ 18), resulting in Align’s stock price falling $9.63, or

23

approximately 34% (see FAC ¶ 88).

24

Based on said allegations, the FAC asserts three causes of action: (1) violation of

25
2

26
27
28

As alleged in the FAC, “total cycle time” refers to the process by which Align
produces Invisalign, beginning with the doctor’s taking impressions and X-rays of a
patient’s teeth, from which a “simulated model” is created by Align’s “ClinCheck modeling
process which takes approximately two weeks,” followed by the doctor’s approval of the
simulation, and, lastly, manufacture of the product, which, from approval to delivery, also
takes “typically two weeks.” (See FAC ¶ 3.)
2

1

§ 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5

2

promulgated thereunder, against both defendants; (2) insider trading violations of

3

§ 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against Prescott; and (3) violation of § 20(a) of the Exchange Act

4

against both defendants. (See FAC ¶¶ 128-136.)
LEGAL STANDARD

5
6

“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory

7

or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” See Balistreri v.

8

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In analyzing a motion to dismiss,

9

a district court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, and construe

10

them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792

11

F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain

12

sufficient factual material, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

13

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

14

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right

15

to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Courts “are not bound to

16

accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at

17

1950.
DISCUSSION

18
19

I.

Section 10(b)

20

To allege a § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim, a plaintiff must allege “(1) a material

21

misrepresentation (or omission), (2) scienter, i.e. a wrongful state of mind, (3) a connection

22

with the purchase or sale of a security, (4) reliance . . . (5) economic loss, and (5) ‘loss

23

causation,’ i.e., a causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the loss.”

24

See Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341-42 (2005). Claims brought under

25

§ 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 must meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal

26

Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (“In alleging fraud . . . , a party must

27

state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.”); Semegen v. Weidner, 780

28

F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1985) (applying Rule 9(b) to § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim). “In a
3

1

securities fraud action, a pleading is sufficient under Rule 9(b) if it identifies the

2

circumstances of the alleged fraud so that the defendant can prepare an adequate

3

answer.” Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 1995). To provide sufficient

4

notice, a plaintiff, in addition to alleging the “time, place and nature of the alleged fraudulent

5

activities,” must “plead evidentiary facts” sufficient to establish any allegedly false

6

statement “was untrue or misleading when made.” See id. (emphasis omitted).

7

Further, such plaintiff must meet the heightened pleading requirements of the

8

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, which

9

requires the plaintiff to “specify each statement alleged to have been misleading [and] the

10

reason or reasons why the statement is misleading.” See § 78u-4(b)(1). Additionally, the

11

complaint must “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the

12

defendant acted with the required state of mind.” § 78u-4(b)(2). To the extent an allegation

13

is based on information and belief, the plaintiff must allege “with particularity all facts on

14

which that belief is formed.” Id. In so doing, the plaintiff must “reveal the sources of [his]

15

information.” In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation

16

and citation omitted).

17

A.

Material Misrepresentations/Omissions

18

Plaintiff alleges various statements in Align’s January, April, and July 2007 press

19

releases and accompanying conference calls were misleading because, contrary to

20

defendants’ positive statements about Align’s performance, Align’s revenue growth and

21

overall progress were negatively impacted by the backlog created by the Patients First

22

Program. (See FAC ¶¶ 49-83.) As discussed below, the FAC fails to provide a sufficient

23

basis, however, to support its allegations that each identified statement is false or

24

misleading and that defendants failed to disclose the information they are alleged to have

25

omitted.

26
27
28

1.

Statements of Belief and Optimism

“‘Vague, generalized, and unspecific assertions’ of corporate optimism or statements
of ‘mere puffing’ cannot state actionable material misstatements of fact under federal
4

1

securities laws.” In re Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. Sec. Litig., 355 F. Supp. 2d

2

1069, 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Glen Holly Entm’t v. Tektronix, Inc., 352 F.3d 367,

3

379 (9th Cir. 2003)). “Although projections and general statements of optimism may trigger

4

liability under federal securities laws, statements that are so vague or amorphous that no

5

reasonable investor could rely on them are not actionable.” In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig.,

6

855 F. Supp. 1086, 1096 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (internal citation omitted), aff'd, 95 F.3d 922 (9th

7

Cir. 1996). “When valuing corporations, . . . investors do not rely on vague statements of

8

optimism like ‘good,’ ‘well-regarded,’ or other feel good monikers.” In re Cutera Sec. Litig.,

9

610 F.3d 1103, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010).

10

The “mere puffery” rule has been interpreted to include “statements projecting

11

‘excellent results,’ a ‘blowout winner’ product, ‘significant sales gains,’ and ‘10% to 30%

12

growth rate over the next several years.’” See Cornerstone, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 1087

13

(finding defendant's “claims of ‘industry leading’ growth, growth that ‘positions us

14

beautifully,’ ‘measurable progress,’ ‘continuing improvements,’ ‘accomplishments we have

15

achieved,’ expressions of pride in [our] staff, ‘outstanding retail results,’ and other similar

16

comments all constitute vague, unspecific assertions of corporate optimism”); Syntex Corp.,

17

855 F. Supp. at 1095 (holding as non-actionable puffery the phrases “‘we’re doing well and

18

I think we have a great future,’ ‘[b]usiness will be good this year . . . , [w]e expect the

19

second half of fiscal 1992 to be stronger than the first half, and the latter part of the second

20

half to be stronger than the first . . . ,’ ‘everything is clicking [for the 1990s] . . . , new

21

products are coming in a wave, not in a trickle . . . , old products are doing very well,’ and

22

that ‘I am optimistic about [our] performance during this decade’”)).

23

Here, a large portion of the statements identified by plaintiff constitute such puffery.

24

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that in the January 2007 press release and conference call,

25

defendant Prescott stated: “[w]e . . . refocused our efforts on product development,

26

customer service, and market expansion” (see FAC ¶ 49); “[o]ur vision and strategic

27

direction is clear to all employees” (see FAC ¶ 50); “[t]he volume growth in Q4 was driven

28

by a tremendous sales effort” (see FAC ¶ 52); “we are pleased with the progress” on
5

1

“help[ing] doctors and patients in OrthoClear treatment [to] get their cases registered and

2

started,” and Align’s sales team “is working with our customers to help them get the best

3

smiles for their patients as they take their practices to the next level . . . [and] are

4

positioned to generate significant top line growth in 2007” (see FAC ¶ 52); Align has “strong

5

incoming case flow . . . , we have seen very solid demand . . . [a]nd our goal is to ensure

6

that continues” (see FAC ¶ 54); and “[w]e have made very good progress I think,” and

7

“we’re trying to find our way through the need to staff up for Patients First and intersecting

8

with the expected growth in volume and receipts as the year progresses[;] . . . we think we

9

are on track to find that balance” (see FAC ¶ 55).

10

Similarly, plaintiff alleges that in the April 2007 press release and conference call,

11

Prescott stated: “[w]e are pleased that we are off to a strong start in 2007[;] . . . our solid

12

growth in volume and revenue on an increasing base of customers is very gratifying” (see

13

FAC ¶ 66); and “we are very pleased with our progress to date[;] . . . [w]e are completely

14

focused on our goals for the year” (see FAC ¶ 67).

15

The FAC further alleges that Prescott misled investors in the July 25, 2007

16

conference call by stating: “We’ve made significant progress in all areas” (see FAC ¶ 77);

17

and “[w]e continue to see expansion in our customer base . . . as well as solid demand at

18

the consumer level” (see id.).

19

The above-quoted statements are generalized statements of optimism that

20

constitute “non-actionable puffing.” See Syntex Corp., 855 F. Supp. at 1095. In particular,

21

“refocused [ ] efforts” (see FAC ¶ 49), “vision and strategic direction” (see FAC ¶ 50),

22

“tremendous sales effort,” (see FAC ¶ 52), “pleased with the progress” (see id.), “positioned

23

to generate significant top line growth” (see id.), “very solid demand” (see FAC ¶ 54), “good

24

progress” (see FAC ¶ 55), “on track to find . . . balance” (see id.), “off to a strong start in

25

2007” (see FAC ¶ 66), “solid growth in volume and revenue” (see id.), “very pleased with . .

26

. progress” (see id.), “completely focused on our goals” (see id.), “significant progress in all

27

areas” (see FAC ¶ 77), and “solid demand” (see id.) are, in essence, “feel good monikers,”

28

i.e., statements on which investors do not rely when valuing corporations. See Cutera, 610
6

1
2

F.3d at 1111. Accordingly, the above statements constitute puffery.
A projection of optimism, or puffery, may nonetheless be an “actionable, ‘factual’

3

misstatement under § 10(b) if (1) the statement is not actually believed, (2) there is no

4

reasonable basis for the belief, or (3) the speaker is aware of undisclosed facts tending

5

seriously to undermine the statement’s accuracy.” Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1375

6

(9th Cir. 1994).

7

Here, relying on information alleged to have been provided by five confidential

8

witnesses, “CW1,” “CW2,” “CW3,” “CW4,” and “CW5,” plaintiff contends Prescott did not

9

believe his optimistic projections and/or was aware of undisclosed facts that would have

10

undermined the statements’ accuracy. Confidential witnesses may be used to support

11

allegations only if such “sources are described with sufficient particularity to support the

12

probability that a person in the position occupied by the source would possess the

13

information alleged and the complaint contains adequate corroborating details.” See Daou,

14

411 F.3d at 1015.

15

In the FAC, CW1, CW2, CW3, and CW4 are alleged to have been former Align

16

Territory Account Managers and CW5 is alleged to have been a former Align Regional

17

Business Manager. (See FAC ¶¶ 31-36.) According to the FAC, CW1 reported that Align

18

was “unprepared to handle the additional OrthoClear cases and underestimated the

19

number of OrthoClear cases it would assume as part of the settlement,” and that

20

“processing delays for all cases began almost immediately after the Patients First Program

21

got under way” (see FAC ¶¶ 58, 61 (emphasis omitted)); CW2 reported that the “influx of

22

Patients First cases caused significant bottleneck and backlog in processing and

23

production,” and that Align “did not have enough trained ClinCheck technicians in place

24

during the Class Period to handle the new revenue cases and the Patients First cases”

25

(see FAC ¶ 60 (emphasis omitted)); CW3 reported that “typical ClinCheck processing time

26

for new revenue cases doubled from two weeks to four weeks or longer in 2007” (see FAC

27

¶ 61), and that as a result of Patients First cases, “Align sales representatives spent

28

between 20% - 50% of their time on Patients First cases during the Class Period” (see FAC
7

1

¶ 62); CW4 reported that Patients First cases were treated “secondary to new revenue

2

cases,” that “this led to complaints from doctors,” and that sales representatives “regularly”

3

complained about “the influx of OrthoClear cases and the significant case backlogs” (see

4

FAC ¶ 65); and, lastly, CW5 reported that “the OrthoClear settlement resulted in bad blood

5

between Align and doctors who had been using OrthoClear products” (see FAC ¶ 64).3

6

The above allegations, even assuming the confidential witnesses have sufficient

7

knowledge upon which to base them, see Daou, 411 F.3d at 1015, do not suffice to

8

demonstrate defendants’ lack of belief in or lack of a reasonable basis for what they were

9

asserting, nor do they demonstrate defendants’ knowledge of undisclosed facts seriously

10

undermining the statements’ accuracy. In particular, the confidential witnesses’ reports of

11

a processing backlog, heavier workload for sales representatives, and/or attendant

12

customer feedback (see, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 58, 60, 62, 83) do not contradict defendants’

13

generalized statements as to Align’s growth, progress, consumer demand, or physician

14

interest (see FAC ¶¶ 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 66, 67, 76, 77).

15
16

Accordingly, plaintiff's allegations as to such statements fail to meet the pleading
requirements of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA.
2.

17
18

Forward-Looking Statements

A forward-looking statement is “any statement regarding (1) financial projections,

19

(2) plans and objectives of management for future operations, (3) future economic

20

performance, or (4) the assumptions ‘underlying or related to’ any of these issues.” No. 84

21

Employer-Teamster Joint Council Pension Trust Fund v. Am. W. Holding Corp., 320 F.3d

22

920, 936 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(i)). Under the PSLRA, a person may not

23

be held liable for a forward-looking statement, provided the statement is (1) “identified as a

24

forward-looking statement and accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements

25

identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in

26
3

27
28

The FAC also refers, in conclusory fashion, to a “rapid decline in revenue case
starts during the Class Period,” which, plaintiff asserts, contradicts defendants’ claim of
“strong demand.” (See FAC ¶ 7.) Such “decline,” however, is alleged without factual
support.
8

1

the forward-looking statement” or (2) “immaterial.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A). On the

2

other hand, if such statement is not identified as forward-looking and/or is unaccompanied

3

by meaningful cautionary language, such statement falls outside the safe harbor if the

4

plaintiff can show it “was made with actual knowledge by [the speaker] that the statement

5

was false or misleading.” Id. at § 78u-5(c)(1)(B); see Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478,

6

1487 (9th Cir. 1996) (“A projection is a factual misstatement if (1) the statement is not

7

actually believed, (2) there is no reasonably basis for the belief, or (3) the speaker is aware

8

of undisclosed facts tending seriously to undermine the statement's accuracy.” (emphasis,

9

internal quotation and citation omitted)).

10

Here, plaintiff bases his claims on a number of forward looking statements. In

11

particular, the FAC alleges that during the January 30, 2007 conference call, Eldon

12

Bullington (“Bullington”), Align’s CFO, stated, “[f]or the full year of 2007, . . . [c]ase

13

shipments are expected to increase in the range of 22% to 27% to 182,700 to 190,000

14

cases” (see FAC ¶ 53); that, during the April 26, 2007 conference call, Bullington stated,

15

“[c]ase shipments are expected to increase 33% to 37% to a range of 200,000 to 206,000

16

cases” (see FAC ¶ 68); and that, during the July 25, 2007 conference call, Bullington

17

stated, “[c]ase shipments year-over-year are expected to increase 37% to 39% to 206,000

18

to 209,000 cases” (see FAC ¶ 78.)

19

Additionally, plaintiff relies on statements made by Prescott. In that regard, the FAC

20

alleges that, in the January 30, 2007 press release, Prescott stated, “[w]e expect 2007 to

21

be the year we restage growth, introduce products that meet the unique needs of the

22

Orthodontists and GPs [general practitioners] and continue our path to profitability” (see

23

FAC ¶ 49); that, during the January 30, 2007 conference call, Prescott stated, “[o]ur goals

24

in 2007 are straightforward–first, we're going to generate meaningful top line growth . . .

25

[and] we are going to continue to drive the expansion of our customer base while

26

incrementally increasing our demand creation and brand building efforts” (see FAC ¶ 50);

27

and that, during the April 27, 2007 conference call, Prescott stated the following: “[o]ur key

28

goals for 2007 and beyond are to generate strong, topline growth and now extend
9

1

profitability to continue to expand our customer base, while fine tuning our demand creation

2

and brand building efforts,” “we expect to get our cycle times back towards normal by the

3

end of Q2,” “as we reduce our cycle times, . . . we will see a benefit to case volume,

4

revenue, and most importantly, to customer satisfaction,” and “[we] will continue to execute

5

our plan for even greater impact in the future” (see FAC ¶ 67).

6

The above-listed statements qualify as forward-looking. See 15 U.S.C.

7

§ 78u-5(i)(1)(A)-(C) (defining “forward-looking statement” as, inter alia, “a statement

8

containing a projection of . . . financial items,” “a statement of [ ] plans and objectives,” and

9

“a statement of future economic performance”). Further, the statements, when made, were

10

(1) identified as forward-looking and (2) accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements.

11

See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A). For example, the January 2007 press release stated:
This news release . . . contain[s] forward-looking statements, including
Align’s anticipated financial results and certain business metrics for the
first quarter and full year of 2007, including anticipated percentage of
revenue by channel, case shipments and average selling prices, and
statements by Mr. Prescott regarding . . . anticipated return to profitability
in fiscal 2007. . . . Readers are cautioned that these forward-looking
statements are only predictions and are subject to risks, uncertainties and
assumptions that are difficult to predict. . . . [A]ctual results may differ
materially and adversely from those expressed in any forward-looking
statement. Factors that might cause such a difference include . . . risks
relating to Align’s ability to sustain or increase profitability or revenue
growth in future periods while controlling expenses, including expenses
related to the OrthoClear settlement, customer demand for Invisalign,
acceptance of Invisalign by consumers and dental professionals, [and]
Align’s third party manufacturing processes and personnel . . . .

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

(See Arico Decl. Ex. 6 at 4; see also id. Ex. 4 (Apr. 2007 press release), Ex. 5 (Jul. 2007

21

press release), Ex. 12 (Jan. 2007 call tr.), Ex. 13 (Apr. 2007 call tr.), Ex. 14 (Jul. 2007 call

22

tr.).)4 The January 2007 press release also incorporated by reference Align’s Form 10-Q

23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of the above-referenced exhibits
to the Declaration of Molly Arico. Plaintiff does not object to the Court’s taking judicial notice
of Exhibits 12, 13, and 14, but does object to the Court’s taking judicial notice of exhibits 4,
5, and 6. As plaintiff refers to the challenged exhibits throughout the FAC, however, (see
FAC ¶ 5, 7, 8, 13, 49, 66, 76), those exhibits likewise are subject to judicial notice, see U.S.
v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding court may consider “documents
incorporated by reference in the complaint”). In considering said exhibits for the limited
purpose of determining the context in which the allegedly misleading statements were
made, however, the Court has not accepted, for the truth of the matters asserted, any noncautionary statements of fact contained therein.
10

1

for the period ending September 30, 2006, which filing cautioned:
As a result [of the OrthoClear settlement], we will receive no revenue for
any additional cases we start under [the Patients First] program while
incurring significant expenses as well as increased demands on our sales
and customer service representatives and our manufacturing processes. .
. . We may have difficulty managing the deployment of this program,
including the internal allocation of personnel and resources potentially
resulting in production delays. Any such difficulty could cause us to lose
existing customers, face potential customer disputes or limit the number of
new customers who purchase our products or services . . . .

2
3
4
5
6
7

(See Arico Decl. Ex. 1, at 39)5; No. C 05-2146 SBA, In re Tibco Software, Inc., No. C 05-

8

2146 SBA, 2006 WL 1469654, at *27 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2006) (considering, as part of

9

cautionary statements, Form 10-Q incorporated by reference in press release). These

10

cautionary statements identified the risks plaintiff alleges ultimately materialized,

11

specifically, the risk of a backlog created by the OrthoClear settlement and resulting effects

12

on sales.

13
14

Consequently, defendants’ projections and other forward-looking statements fall
within the PSLRA’s safe harbor.
3.

15
16

Omissions

Plaintiff alleges the remainder of the statements in the three press releases and the

17

accompanying conference calls were misleading because defendants failed to disclose that

18

“Align was experiencing a significant backlog in its production and significantly increased

19

production and delivery times for all of its cases almost immediately after the Patients First

20

Program began” (see FAC ¶ 58 (emphasis omitted); see also FAC ¶¶ 73, 83(a)), that

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

Plaintiff objects to the Court’s taking judicial notice of Exhibit 1, Align’s Form 10-Q
signed November 7, 2006, as it is not referenced in the FAC. Plaintiff, however, does not
challenge the authenticity of the document, nor does plaintiff dispute that it was filed with
the SEC or that its contents were made public. The Court may take judicial notice of SEC
filings “for the fact that these documents . . . were publicly-filed and for the fact that the
statements made were made to the public on the dates specified.” See Shurkin v, Golden
State Vintners Inc., 471 F. Supp. 2d 998, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2006), aff’d, 303 F. App’x 431
(9th Cir. 2008). Moreover, while Exhibit 1 was filed two months prior to the beginning of the
Class Period, it constitutes part of the “total mix of information” available to investors,
see TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976), and, as noted-above,
was incorporated in class-period statements; consequently, the exhibit is relevant to the
Court’s analysis herein, see Tibco, 2006 WL 1469654, at *27 (considering pre-class period
Form 10-Q cautionary statements incorporated in class-period Form 8-K).
11

1

“Align’s sales force continued to be focused on managing the backlog . . . , [and] [t]he

2

breakdown in relationships between doctors and Align’s sales force was hampering Align’s

3

ability to generate new revenue case growth” (see FAC ¶ 83(b), (c)). In support thereof,

4

plaintiff alleges: “[a]ccording to CW2, . . . [Align] did not have enough trained ClinCheck

5

technicians in place,” (see FAC ¶ 60 (emphasis omitted); “CW3 reported that the typical

6

ClinCheck processing time for new revenue cases doubled from two weeks to four weeks

7

or longer in 2007” and “ClinCheck processing time for [Patients First] cases was even

8

longer, anywhere from six weeks to several months” (see FAC ¶ 61 (emphasis omitted));

9

“CW1 confirmed that processing delays for all cases began almost immediately after the

10

Patients First Program got under way” (see id. (emphasis omitted)); “[t]he Patients First

11

Program required existing OrthoClear patients to go back to their doctors to get all new

12

records . . . , no matter where they were in their course of treatment” and “CW3 reported

13

that this led to a lot of explaining and hand-holding with Patients First doctors on the part of

14

Align’s sales force,” requiring “Align’s sales representatives [to] spen[d] between 20% to

15

50% of their time on Patients First cases during the Class Period” (see FAC ¶ 62);

16

“[a]ccording to . . . CW5, the OrthoClear settlement resulted in some bad blood between

17

Align and the doctors who had been using OrthoClear products” (see FAC ¶ 64); and “CW4

18

reported that numerous Territory Account Managers complained about the influx of

19

OrthoClear cases and the significant case backlogs to their Regional Business Managers

20

regularly throughout 2007; complaints that were generated from doctors Align was relying

21

on for new case growth” (see FAC ¶ 65).

22

“To be actionable under the securities laws, an omission must be misleading.”

23

Brody v. Transitional Hospitals Corp., 280 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002). “[I]n other words

24

it must affirmatively create an impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way

25

from the one that actually exists.” Id. “Silence, absent a duty to disclose, is not

26

misleading.” Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 239 n.17 (1988).

27
28

Here, plaintiff alleges, omission of the above-described circumstances rendered the
following statements by Prescott in the January 30, 2007 conference call misleading: “we
12

1

will recover the one week delay currently impacting our normal cycle times” (see FAC

2

¶ 51); “[o]ur bottleneck was strictly in Costa Rica . . . [a]nd it was with the available capacity

3

of treatment technicians, dental technicians that have to be trained for about three months

4

or so before we can have them working on cases unsupervised or in normal supervision”

5

(see FAC ¶ 55); “[w]e have more than adequate capacity through the rest of the system”

6

(see id.); “we’re trying to find our way through the need to staff up for Patients First and

7

intersecting with the expected growth in volume and receipts as the year progresses . . .

8

but we think we are on track to find that balance (see id.). Plaintiff further alleges that

9

during the January 30, 2007 conference call, in response to an analyst’s request for “a

10

reminder of what the leadtimes [sic] realizing revenues from those numbers have been

11

historically,” Bullington’s statement that “on average—case cycle time in our business has

12

been 30 or so days,” and Prescott’s statement that “the biggest part of that 30 days has

13

typically been the time for the doctor to approve ClinCheck[;] [t]he rest of the cycle for us

14

has roughly been two weeks,” likewise were misleading in light of the alleged omissions.

15

(See FAC ¶ 56.)

16

Similarly, plaintiff alleges the following statements by Prescott during the April 26,

17

2007 conference call were misleading in light of the alleged omissions: “[d]uring the first

18

quarter, our operations team did an outstanding job of ramping up capacity to address the

19

volume of Patients First cases as well as strong demand for new revenue cases” (see FAC

20

¶ 67); “[a]s a result of the Patients First cases and stronger than anticipated incoming case

21

receipts in Q4 and Q1, manufacturing capacity was constrained in our treatment facility in

22

Costa Rica[;] . . . we have brought additional capacity online and the majority of Patients

23

First cases have shipped” (see id.); “[a]s we speak today, our head count has expanded[;]

24

[i]t's stable and they’re cranking, . . . [a]nd so, we have no issues there and that bottleneck

25

no longer exists” (see FAC ¶ 70); and, in response to an analyst’s question about whether

26

Align’s “sales people . . . are . . . spending more of their time with your current contract

27

than getting new accounts,” Prescott’s answer, “[n]o, it’s a very consistent approach[;] [w]e

28

haven't changed[;] [w]e’ve optimized coverage as we look at in 2007, but . . . they have a
13

1

very specific game plan about how they are to go about covering their territory and taking

2

care of their existing accounts and building new practices[;] [s]o nothing really has changed

3

there[;] [i]t’s just things are settling down[;] [w]e’re getting back to business and good

4

execution is occurring” (see FAC ¶ 69).

5

Lastly, plaintiff alleges that the following statements by Prescott on July 25, 2007

6

were misleading in light of the alleged omissions: in Align’s press release, “[c]onsumer

7

demand and physician interest in the Invisalign system continue to expand, enabling case

8

and revenue growth and increased profitability” (see FAC ¶ 76); and, in the accompanying

9

conference call, “[w]e continue to see expansion in our customer base . . . as well as solid

10

demand at the consumer level” (see FAC ¶ 77), “our backlog is rebalanced” (see FAC

11

¶ 79), and “[w]e typically are back to our published delivery times and we typically say it’s

12

about a month[;] . . . [l]iterally, we’ve been able to turn around cases within a week[;] [s]o

13

we’re back to our normal availability and when we need to, for our customer situation, we

14

can move heaven and earth to get something done very quickly” (see FAC ¶ 80).

15

Again, the Court will assume, arguendo, a sufficient basis for the information

16

provided by the confidential witnesses. Plaintiff, however, fails to show how the above

17

statements were misleading in light of the alleged omissions. See Fecht, 70 F.3d at 1083

18

(noting plaintiff must show “how and why the statement was misleading when made”). For

19

example, none of the confidential witnesses’ allegations contradicts defendants’ statement

20

that the “bottleneck was strictly in Costa Rica” or that it resulted from a lack of technicians

21

and not a lack of “adequate capacity through the rest of [Align’s] system.” (See FAC ¶ 55.)

22

Similarly, CW2’s assertion that Align “did not have enough trained ClinCheck technicians”

23

(see FAC ¶ 60) does not contradict the statement that, by April 26, 2007, Align had hired

24

and trained sufficient technicians to remove the bottleneck (see FAC ¶ 70). Nor does

25

CW1's assertion that Align was experiencing delays in its ClinCheck processing time

26

“almost immediately after the Patients First Program got under way” (see FAC ¶ 61)

27

contradict defendants’ statement that Align’s past “cycle times,” prior to the Patients First

28

Program, were typically about 30 days (see FAC ¶ 56). CW3’s assertion that Align’s
14

1

processing time “doubled from two weeks to four weeks or longer in 2007” (see FAC ¶ 61)

2

is ambiguous as to when in 2007 the alleged increases occurred, and thus does not

3

contradict Prescott’s statement that, as of January 30, 2007, Align’s processing delay was

4

“one week” (see FAC ¶ 51), that, by April 26, 2007, the bottleneck was removed (see FAC

5

¶ 70), or that, by July 25, 2007, Align was “typically [ ] back to [its] published delivery times”

6

of “about a month” (see FAC ¶ 80). Nor, in the absence of any assertion by a confidential

7

witness as to the effect of customer complaints on sales and/or customer demand, does

8

any omitted reference thereto create a false impression.

9

In sum, plaintiff fails to show the alleged omissions “affirmatively create[d] an

10

impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way from the one that actually

11

exist[ed],” see Brody, 280 F.3d at 1006, and, consequently, plaintiff fails to state a claim

12

under the PSLRA based on any such alleged omission.

13

Moreover, rather than omitting any reference to the backlog resulting from the

14

Patients First cases, defendants made numerous disclosures in that regard, both prior to

15

and during the Class Period. Just one month before the January 30, 2007 statements on

16

which plaintiff relies, defendants, in a December 21, 2006 press release, made the

17

following disclosures: “preparation time for some new cases may be extended

18

approximately 10 days” and “[p]rocessing time for Patients First program cases may take

19

12 to 16 weeks due to manufacturing constraints”; “[b]ased on higher than anticipated

20

demand from the Patients First Program and from regular new patients, we have to re-set

21

expectations going forward”; and “Invisalign customers may see longer customer service

22

hold times and slight delays in ClinCheck processing time for the next few months.” (See

23

Arico Decl. Ex. 2.)6 Indeed, as noted above, Align disclosed the potential risks of a backlog

24

from Patients First cases as early as November 2006. (See id. Ex. 1 at 24, 39.) Similarly,

25

just one month before defendants’ April 26, 2007 press release and conference call,

26

defendants, in Align’s 2006 10-K filed March 12, 2007, disclosed the following:

27
28

6

Plaintiff does not object to the Court’s taking judicial notice of Exhibit 2.
15

In implementing this program, we experienced higher than anticipated
demand from the Patients First Program as well as regular new patients.
As a result, many of our customers experienced . . . slight delays in
ClinCheck processing times during the fourth quarter of 2006 which we
anticipate will continue during the first and second quarter of 2007.
Although we believe these delays are temporary in nature, these
difficulties could cause us to lose existing customers, face potential
customer disputes or limit the number of new customers who purchase
our products or services. This could cause a decline in our revenues,
gross margins and net profits, and could adversely affect our operating
results.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

(See Arico Decl. Ex. 3 at 19.)7 The March 2007 10-K further disclosed that “the influx of

8

Patients First Program cases, as well as a higher than expected number of paid Invisalign

9

case submissions in the fourth quarter, caused a delay in ClinCheck preparation time for

10
11

some new cases by approximately 10 days.” (See id. at 43.)
Thereafter, during the April 26, 2007 conference call, Prescott stated: “it’s important

12

to note that some of our expected Q2 revenue will result from a conversion of our case

13

backlog and not solely from natural or organic growth” and “[o]ur projected revenue for the

14

second half of 2007 reflects a return to more normal business patterns and may look a little

15

less extraordinary than the first half of the year.” (See Arico Decl. Ex. 13 at 2.) Indeed, in

16

the FAC, plaintiff sets forth without challenge the following additional disclosures by

17

Prescott during that conference call: “[i]ncreased demand . . . is a problem that has

18

stretched our cycle times over the past five months, and as we predicted at the end of

19

2006, created a backlog of cases” (see FAC ¶ 67), and “we’re still chipping away at the

20

roughly 8,000 cases that remained of the [P]atients [F]irst cases, along with compression of

21

backlog–reducing that and getting our cycle times reduced[;] [t]hat’s going to take us the

22

better part of Q2” (see FAC ¶ 70 (alteration in original)).

23

The above-referenced disclosures, made both prior to the Class Period and

24

reiterated during it, revealed the very backlog, understaffing, and customer complaints

25

plaintiff alleges were omitted. Consequently, for that additional reason, the FAC fails to

26

state a cause of action for securities fraud based on a theory of omission. See Heliotrope

27
28

7

Plaintiff does not object to the Court’s taking judicial notice of Exhibit 3.
16

1

Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding where allegedly

2

omitted information was part of the “total mix of information” available, plaintiff could not

3

state a claim under § 10b).

4

B.

Scienter

5

Plaintiff alleges scienter based on five grounds: (1) defendants’ knowledge of

6

internal reports (see FAC ¶¶ 94-98); (2) management’s attendance and knowledge of

7

corporate meetings (see FAC ¶¶ 99-104); (3) a presumption that, as Align’s CEO, Prescott

8

had knowledge of adverse facts affecting Align’s core business (see FAC ¶ 107);

9

(4) Prescott’s “admission” in the October 24, 2007 press release and conference call (see

10

FAC ¶¶ 84-87, 105-106); and (5) “[i]nsider [s]ales” during the Class Period by Prescott and

11

other executives (see FAC ¶¶ 108-113).

12

To plead scienter under the PSLRA, a plaintiff must plead with particularity facts that

13

“constitute strong circumstantial evidence of deliberately reckless or conscious

14

misconduct.” DSAM Global Value Fund v. Altris Software, Inc., 288 F.3d 385, 388-89 (9th

15

Cir. 2002); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2). For a plaintiff to allege a strong inference of deliberate

16

recklessness, such plaintiff “must state facts that come closer to demonstrating intent, as

17

opposed to mere motive and opportunity.” In re Silicon Graphics, Inc. Sec Litig., 183 F.3d

18

970, 974 (9th Cir. 1999) (rev’d on other grounds, South Ferry No. 2 v. Kinninger, 542 F.3d

19

776, 784 (9th Cir. 2008)). “To qualify as ‘strong’ . . . an inference of scienter must be more

20

than merely plausible or reasonable–it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any

21

opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, 551

22

U.S. 308, 314 (2007). Although the plaintiff need not allege facts giving rise to an

23

“irrefutable” inference of scienter, and although the complaint must be viewed “holistically,”

24

the plaintiff “must plead facts rendering an inference of scienter at least as likely as any

25

plausible opposing inference.” Id. at 324, 326, 328 (emphasis in original). For the reasons

26

stated below, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support an inference of scienter on

27

the part of either Align or Prescott.

28
17

1.

1

Internal Reports

2

The FAC alleges defendants “should have known of the revenues, new case starts

3

and case shipments on a regular basis throughout the Class Period.” (See FAC ¶ 96.) In

4

support thereof, plaintiff points to a salesforce.com report that allegedly tracked the number

5

of new case sales on a daily basis, and alleges “CW3 indicated that this report was

6

available to everyone within the sales organization, to varying degrees, at all times.” (See

7

FAC ¶ 95 (emphasis omitted).) Plaintiff further alleges that “Align also created numerous

8

other sales reports . . . to track data such as the number of new cases or revenue by

9

geographic region”; that “[a]ccording to a former Senior Manager of Business Intelligence at

10

Align, CW8, these sales reports . . . were made available to the sales department through

11

an intranet”; and that CW8 “received special requests or requests for customized reports”

12

that were “usually focused on sales or marketing data” and “believed the data was

13

presented to Align’s executives, including defendant Prescott.” (See FAC ¶ 96.) Lastly,

14

plaintiff alleges that, according to another confidential witness, “a former Cost Accounting

15

Manager at Align, CW6,” Align’s “MES [manufacturing execution system] program . . .

16

generated daily metrics that included the number of cases shipped by product . . . [and]

17

then automatically sent an e-mail with the metrics on a daily basis to the Company’s chief

18

executives, directors, and managers, including CW6, and defendant Prescott and CFO

19

Bullington,” and that, “[p]ursuant to these daily metrics, CW6 stated that defendant Prescott

20

and other high level managers would have known before October 24, 2007 that the

21

Company would not be able to meet its forecasts for new case shipments” (see FAC

22

¶ 97).

23

To establish a strong inference of scienter, “a proper complaint which purports to

24

rely on the existence of internal reports would contain at least some specifics from those

25

reports as well as such facts as may indicate their reliability.” Nursing Home Pension Fund,

26

Local 144 v. Oracle Corporation, 380 F.3d 1226, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding internal

27

report allegations sufficient to support strong inference of scienter where plaintiff alleged

28

“hard numbers and ma[de] specific allegations regarding large portions of [defendant’s]
18

1

sales data”). Here, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to plead scienter under the PSLRA.

2

Although plaintiff refers to the existence of sales and shipment data and makes a general

3

assertion about what the data showed,’ plaintiff alleges no hard numbers or other specific

4

information. See Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2002)

5

(holding plaintiffs failed to plead claim under PSLRA where plaintiffs alleged defendant

6

pharmaceutical corporation “could regularly track its sales data,” which “indicated that test

7

patient demand was flat,” but failed to “plead, in any detail, the contents of such report or

8

the purported data”).8
2.

9

Corporate Meetings

10

Plaintiff next points to sales conference calls, sales meetings, financial reviews,

11

manufacturing meetings, and executive management committee meetings. (See FAC

12

¶¶ 99-104.) In particular, the FAC alleges that, “[a]ccording to CW1, CW2, CW3, and CW4,

13

Territory Account Managers submitted weekly field reports to their Regional Business

14

Managers and attended weekly conference calls” with them (see FAC ¶ 99), that

15

“[a]ccording to CW5, the Regional Business Managers [ ] held weekly conference calls, as

16

well as monthly and quarterly meetings . . . [and] VP of Sales Ellis–who reported directly to

17

defendant Prescott and was a member of Align’s executive team–attended these monthly

18

and quarterly meetings” (see FAC ¶ 100). The FAC further alleges that CW6 attended

19

“monthly financial reviews and monthly manufacturing meetings” that were “conducted by

20

Align CFO Bullington,” and “understood that CFO Bullington reported the substance of

21

these meetings to defendant Prescott.” (See FAC ¶ 101.) The FAC also alleges,

22

“[a]ccording to CW6, Align held monthly Executive Management Committee Meetings . . .

23

to discuss sales data and forecasts,” and “[t]he meetings were conducted by defendant

24
25
26
27
28

8

Plaintiff submits as an exhibit to the FAC a page showing monthly orders and
shipments for Patients First cases (see FAC ¶¶ 73, 98, & Ex. A), but does not expressly
identify the exhibit as part of any distributed report, and, in any event, fails to allege how
such data is inconsistent with any statement made by a defendant or otherwise would
support a finding of scienter, see Oracle, 380 F.3d at 1230 (noting party may show scienter
“via contemporaneous reports or data, available to the party, which contradict the
statement”).
19

1

Prescott and attendees included Align’s top executives and VPs from across the

2

Company.” (See FAC ¶ 103.) Lastly, the FAC alleges that, “[a]ccording to a former

3

Controller at Align, CW7, the Company held a monthly meeting . . . to preview the financials

4

from the previous month,” that “CW7 attended . . . , along with CFO Bullington,” and that

5

“CW7 understood that CFO Bullington informed defendant Prescott about the content of

6

these meetings.” (See FAC ¶ 104.)

7

Once again, assuming the confidential witnesses have sufficient knowledge to

8

support plaintiff’s reliance thereon, the FAC’s allegations are not sufficient to plead scienter.

9

There is no allegation as to any “hard numbers,” see Oracle, 380 F.3d at 1231, discussed

10

with Prescott at any meeting, let alone numbers that would serve to contradict Prescott’s

11

statements. Plaintiff alleges only the existence of the meetings, and the general topics

12

discussed; none of the confidential witnesses describes the contents of any of the

13

meetings. Such vague and conclusory allegations do not give rise to an inference, let

14

alone a strong inference, that defendants acted with deliberate recklessness. See 15

15

U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2); In re Daou, 411 F.3d at 1022 (“General allegations of defendants’

16

‘hands-on’ management style, their interaction with other officers and employees, their

17

attendance at meetings, and their receipt of unspecified weekly or monthly reports are

18

insufficient.”). Moreover, plaintiff only alleges that confidential witnesses “understood” that

19

the information covered at these meetings was reported to Prescott, not that the

20

information from the meetings actually was reported. (See FAC ¶¶ 101, 104); Zucco

21

Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding allegation

22

CFO attended various meetings and “had to have known what was going on with respect to

23

the Company’s inventory accounting manipulation” insufficient to support strong inference

24

of scienter).

25
26

3.

Core Operations

Plaintiff alleges that “Prescott, the CEO of Align, can be presumed to have

27

knowledge of adverse facts affecting the Company’s core business” which is “the sale and

28

shipment of new revenue cases.” (See FAC ¶ 107.)
20

1

“Where a complaint relies on allegations that management had an important role in

2

the company but does not contain additional detailed allegations about the defendants’

3

actual exposure to information, it will usually fall short of the PSLRA standard.” South

4

Ferry, 542 F.3d at 784. “[C]orporate management’s general awareness of the day-to-day

5

workings of the company’s business do not establish scienter absent some additional

6

allegations of specific information.” Id. at 784-85 (noting, in “some unusual circumstances,”

7

“core operations inference” will suffice to raise requisite “strong inference”). Here, plaintiff

8

fails to allege any facts about Prescott’s actual exposure to “adverse facts affecting [Align's]

9

core business” (see FAC ¶ 107), nor circumstances cognizable as “unusual” for purposes

10

of the “core operations inference,” see South Ferry, 542 F.3d at 784 (citing, as example of

11

unusual circumstances, case where defendant allegedly failed to disclose loss of two

12

largest customers, comprising 80% of company’s revenue).
4.

13

Later “Admissions”

14

Plaintiff alleges that, during the October 24, 2007 conference call, Prescott

15

“admitted,” contrary to his previous assurances, that “Align’s sales force had ‘moved their

16

focus away from generating case growth’ during the Class Period in order to focus on

17

‘managing backlog and turnaround and expediting of cases.’” (See FAC ¶ 116) The FAC

18

further alleges that Prescott admitted “the sales teams ‘weren’t pushing as hard to get new

19

case starts’ and ‘did not focus enough effort on filling the pipeline for new case starts.’”

20

(See id.)

21

Although “[a] later statement may suggest that a defendant had contemporaneous

22

knowledge of the falsity of his statement, if the later statement directly contradicts or is

23

inconsistent with the earlier statement,” In re Read-Rite Corp., 335 F.3d 843, 846 (9th Cir.

24

2003), “[i]t is clearly insufficient for plaintiffs to say that a later, sobering revelation makes

25

an earlier, cheerier statement a falsehood,” id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).

26

Here, although Prescott’s October 2007 statements may show defendants did not

27

accurately foresee the impact of the Patients First Program on Align’s new cases,

28

defendants did not make “admissions” that were contradictory to or necessarily inconsistent
21

1

with any statements made in the January, April, and July 2007 press releases and/or

2

conference calls.9
5.

3
4

Stock Sales

Lastly, plaintiff relies on the FAC’s allegations regarding stock sales by Prescott and

5

other insiders during the Class Period. (See FAC ¶¶ 108-110) “[U]nusual or suspicious

6

stock sales by corporate insiders may constitute circumstantial evidence of scienter.”

7

Silicon Graphics, 183 F.3d at 986 (internal quotation and citation omitted). In evaluating

8

stock sales by corporate insiders, courts consider “(1) the amount and percentage of

9

shares sold by insiders; (2) the timing of the sales; and (3) whether the sales were

10
11

consistent with the insider’s prior trading history.” Id.
“When evaluating stock sales, . . . the proportion of shares actually sold by an

12

insider to the volume of shares he could have sold is probative of whether the sale was

13

unusual or suspicious.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has held that typically “larger sales amounts”

14

than 37% of a defendant’s holdings are necessary to support scienter. Metzler Inv. GMBH

15

v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1067 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding allegation

16

defendant sold 37% of total stock holdings insufficient; noting “[w]e typically require larger

17

sales amounts–and corroborative sales by other defendants–to allow insider trading to

18

support scienter”). Further, as the Ninth Circuit has recognized, “[a]ctual stock shares plus

19

exercisable stock options represent the owner’s trading potential more accurately than the

20

stock shares alone.” Silicon Graphics,183 F.3d at 986-87.10 Here, plaintiff alleges Prescott

21

sold only 29% of his aggregate holdings, comprising stock shares and stock options. (See

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9

The only statement to which the October 2007 “admission” appears relevant is
Prescott’s response, to an analyst during the April 27, 2007 conference call, that Align’s
sales teams “[had] a specific game plan about how they [were] going to go about covering
their territory and taking care of their existing accounts and building new practices.” (See
FAC ¶ 69). Prescott did not say, however, that the sales team was not also focusing on
“managing backlog” (see FAC ¶ 116), nor does the October 2007 press release state
Align’s sales team had no such plan.
10

Plaintiff opposes any consideration of Prescott’s stock options, but cites no
authority contrary to Silicon Graphics, nor facts distinguishing the instant options from those
considered therein.
22

1

FAC Ex. B.)

2

Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to Prescott’s stock sales, the sales of other “Align

3

insiders” were suspicious in timing and amount. (See FAC ¶ 110.) Sales by insiders not

4

named as defendants, however, are irrelevant to the determination of the named

5

defendant’s scienter. See In re Splash Tech. Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d

6

1059, 1081 n.22 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“[T]he Court finds no reason to consider the

7

[non-defendants’] sales in determining the scienter of the named defendants.”); Plevy v.

8

Haggerty, 38 F. Supp. 2d 816, 834 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (noting PSLRA requires court to

9

consider “each defendant’s sales separately”). Consequently, plaintiff’s reliance thereon is

10
11
12

unavailing.
6.

Plaintiff’s Scienter Allegations as a Whole

In assessing a pleading, the Court must “consider the complaint in its entirety” to

13

determine whether “all of the facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference

14

of scienter.” Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 310. “Vague or ambiguous allegations are . . . properly

15

considered as part of a holistic review when considering whether the complaint raises a

16

strong inference of scienter.” South Ferry, 542 F.3d at 784. “When conducting this holistic

17

review, however, [the court] must also ‘take into account plausible opposing inferences’ that

18

could weigh against a finding of scienter.” Zucco Partners, 552 F.3d at 1006 (quoting

19

Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 323).

20

Here, plaintiff’s allegations, whether viewed separately or holistically, are insufficient

21

to raise an inference of scienter that is as “cogent and at least as compelling as any

22

opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent.” See Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 314. In particular,

23

the FAC fails to raise an inference that is as compelling as the opposing inference that

24

Align, without any intent to defraud, simply failed to accurately predict the magnitude of the

25

effect of the Patients First Program on Align’s ability to produce new revenue cases,

26

resulting in a modest, approximately 2%, reduction in Align’s anticipated case shipments for

27
28
23

1

2007.11
In sum, the FAC fails to sufficiently allege scienter under the PSLRA.

2
3

II.

Insider Trading
The FAC alleges that Prescott engaged in insider trading, in violation of § 10(b) of

4
5

the Exchange Act. (See FAC ¶¶ 133-134.) Plaintiff’s insider trading allegations are

6

duplicative of those described above, and, accordingly, likewise fail to state a claim. See

7

U.S. v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1063 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting plaintiff, in alleging insider

8

trading, must allege “a (1) misleading (2) statement or omission (3) of a ‘material’ fact

9

(4) made with scienter”).

10
11

III.

Section 20(a)
Plaintiff alleges, as against all defendants, a violation of § 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

12

(See FAC ¶ 135-36.) Under § 20(a) of the Exchange Act, any person who controls a

13

person liable for violating § 10(b) is jointly and severally liable for the violation. See 15

14

U.S.C. § 78t(a). “To establish ‘controlling person’ liability, the plaintiff must show that a

15

primary violation was committed and that the defendant ‘directly or indirectly’ controlled the

16

violator.” Paracor Finance, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 96 F.3d 1151, 1161 (9th Cir.

17

1996). Here, plaintiff’s failure to state a primary violation under § 10(b) precludes plaintiff

18

from stating a claim under § 20(a).
CONCLUSION

19
20

For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC is hereby

21

GRANTED, and the FAC is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. The Second

22

Amended Complaint, if any, shall be filed no later than July 22, 2011.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 8, 2011
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

11

In July 2007, Align, as discussed above, predicated shipments of 206,000 to
209,000 cases and, in October 2007, announced a lowered expectation of 202,000 to
204,000 cases.
24