Salhuana v. Diamond Foods, Inc. et al

Filing 182

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2012)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

IN RE:

9

DIAMOND FOODS, INC.,
SECURITIES LITIGATION.

No. C 11-05386 WHA
/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
This Document Relates to:

12

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS

All Actions.
/

13
INTRODUCTION

14
15

In this putative securities class action arising from allegations of false and misleading

16

statements in violation of federal securities laws, defendants move to dismiss the consolidated

17

complaint for failure to plead scienter under the PSLRA and loss causation. The company and

18

individual defendants’ motions to dismiss are DENIED. The outside auditor’s motion to dismiss

19

is GRANTED.

20
21

STATEMENT

This is a putative securities class action that arises from allegations of false and

22

misleading statements in violation of federal securities laws. After the actions were consolidated

23

into the above-captioned action, lead plaintiff Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System

24

was appointed and counsel were approved.

25

Plaintiffs are investors who purchased securities of Diamond Foods, Inc., between

26

October 5, 2010, and February 8, 2012. The consolidated complaint brings claims against

27

defendants Diamond Foods, Inc.; individuals Michael J. Mendes, Chairman of the Board and

28

President and Chief Executive Officer of Diamond Foods, Inc., and Steven M. Neil, Chief
Financial Officer of Diamond Foods, Inc; and Deloitte & Touche LLP, Diamond’s outside

1

auditor. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants deliberately understated commodity

2

costs, specifically the cost of walnuts, and improperly accounted for payments made to walnut

3

growers in order to increase apparent profits and maintain high share prices. Plaintiff alleges

4

that defendants were motivated in part to inflate share prices during a period in which Diamond

5

was seeking to use its stock to acquire Pringles, a snack chip brand owned by Proctor & Gamble

6

Co.

7
8

ANALYSIS

To state a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, plaintiffs

state of mind); (iii) connection with the purchase or sale of a security; (iv) reliance; (v) economic

11
For the Northern District of California

must plead the following: (i) a material misrepresentation or omission; (ii) scienter (a wrongful

10

United States District Court

9

loss; and (vi) loss causation (a causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the

12

loss). Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341–42 (2005). On a motion to

13

dismiss, all well-pled allegations must be taken as true. The key question is whether those

14

allegations add up to the inference required by the PSLRA. Diamond also argues that the

15

complaint fails to plead loss causation.

16

Prior to incorporation in 2005, Diamond was a member-owned agricultural cooperative

17

association that specialized in processing, marketing, and distributing nuts. In 2005, Diamond

18

converted to a Delaware corporation and completed a public offering of shares (Compl. ¶ 26).

19

Diamond’s principal executive offices are located in San Francisco. Diamond subsequently

20

acquired several snack food brands, including Pop Secret, a brand of microwave popcorn

21

products, and Kettle Foods, a premium potato chip company. Diamond also processed,

22

marketed, and distributed other nut and snack products.

23

In the spring of 2009, Diamond began discussions with P&G regarding an acquisition

24

from P&G of the Pringles brand of snack chips, held by a wholly-owned subsidiary of P&G.

25

The board of P&G authorized its management to explore a potential divestiture of Pringles in

26

February 2010. Beginning in May 2010, Diamond submitted four purchase offers to P&G, all of

27

which were rejected by P&G. Negotiations resumed again in February 2011. On April 5, 2011,

28

an agreement was reached and Diamond’s acquisition of Pringles was announced. Diamond
2

1

agreed to exchange shares of Diamond stock and pay $850 million in cash. The transaction had

2

a “cash collar,” such that if the price of Diamond stock dropped, Diamond would increase the

3

cash component up to $1.05 billion, and could reduce the cash component to only $700 million if

4

the stock price rose (id. at ¶ 49).

5

Eventually, after the machinations alleged herein, the deal cratered. The termination of

Diamond to P&G to acquire Pringles was Diamond common stock” (id. at ¶ 42). In order to

8

inflate the price of Diamond shares to effectuate the Pringles acquisition, defendants

9

manipulated Diamond’s financial statements, in particular its cost of walnuts; that is, instead of

10

matching its cost of walnuts with the revenue earned from selling them, Diamond recognized the

11
For the Northern District of California

the deal was announced in February 2012. “[T]he principal consideration of every offer made by

7

United States District Court

6

revenue part but found a way to postpone accounting for the cost part (id. at ¶ 232–38). Below is

12

a timeline of the Pringles negotiations.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

At center stage are how payments for walnuts were accounted for during this period.

20

Plaintiff alleges that, according to GAAP, the costs associated with purchasing the fall 2009 crop

21

should have been recorded in fiscal year 2010, which ran from August 1, 2009, to July 31, 2010,

22

the same fiscal year as when the revenue therefrom was recognized. Similarly, costs associated

23

with purchasing the fall 2010 crop should have been booked in fiscal year 2011. Moreover,

24

because Diamond took delivery of the walnut crop before determining the final price, Diamond

25

recorded estimates of nut costs it expected to incur over the course of the fiscal year, which were

26

reported in its interim financial statements (id. at ¶ 38). Below is a timeline diagram showing the

27

basics of when the crops were delivered in the fiscal (and calendar) year.

28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff alleges that defendants deliberately understated the payments due to walnut

to walnut growers that it attempted to disguise as payments for later crops. Diamond allegedly

11
For the Northern District of California

growers at the end of fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Diamond then provided “make-up” payments

10

United States District Court

9

did so in order to postpone the cost part of the accounting equation, while the revenue part was

12

either immediately recognized or had already been recognized, in order to report higher profits

13

and inflate its stock value. As a result of this manipulation, Diamond reported much higher

14

earnings for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, as well as in the quarterly periods reported in

15

Diamond’s Form 10-Q statements for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. The financial press began to

16

question this accounting. Then, an internal investigation by Diamond’s audit committee

17

reversed this accounting and announced that the financial statements for these fiscal years would

18

have to be restated, causing the stock price to plunge. The audit committee announced that

19

“payments to growers in September 2011 in the amount of approximately $60 million and

20

payments to growers in August 2010 of approximately $20 million” were not accounted for in

21

the correct periods (id. at ¶ 212). After the announcement, Diamond shares fell 36.9 percent (id.

22

at ¶ 438).

23

1.

24

Diamond purchased walnuts from growers pursuant to exclusive long-term contracts.

25

Under these contracts, Diamond was required to purchase the entirety of each grower’s crop.

26

Diamond had the right to unilaterally set the purchase price for walnuts, though it had to do so

27

“in good faith, taking into account market conditions, crop size, quality, and nut varieties, among

28

other relevant factors” (id. at ¶ 236). Diamond historically paid “slightly below the going rate

WALNUT PAYMENTS AND LONG-TERM GROWER CONTRACTS.

4

1

for walnuts, but the trade-off was the security and predictability of Diamond’s commitment” (id.

2

at ¶ 36). For the 2008 crop year, Diamond paid a price per pound that was competitive with or

3

higher than the market price (id. at ¶¶ 58, 179).

4
5

A.

Fall 2009 Crop.

Diamond’s practice was to send out “grower guidelines” in August of each year, prior to

6

the expected delivery of that year’s crop. The grower guidelines set forth the anticipated

7

payment schedule for the upcoming crop. The guidelines did not publish prices in advance. The

8

grower guidelines for the 2009 crop stated that payments would be made in three installments,

9

with the first payment to be made in late September 2009, the second payment by February 15,
2010, and a “Final Payment” by August 15, 2010 (Compl. Exh. 3 at 3). There was nothing

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

unusual about this. The first two payments were made as stated. The total payment was lower

12

than expected. These two payments were properly accounted for as costs of goods sold for the

13

2009 crop.

14

Next, however, came something unusual — a so-called “continuity payment.” In August

15

2010, Diamond sent a single check to each of its growers. Diamond also sent a letter to growers,

16

signed by CEO Mendes. The letter stated that the August 2010 check was meant to “represent[ ]

17

both the final payment on the fall 2009 crop and a continuity payment reflecting the value of the

18

multi-year supply arrangement with our Diamond walnut growers” (Compl. Ex. 1 at 3)

19

(emphasis added). The term “continuity payment” was invented by Diamond. It had never been

20

used before by Diamond, and had not been mentioned to growers in the guidelines or earlier.

21

GAAP does not recognize such a term. In truth, the “continuity payment” was a disguised make-

22

up payment to appease walnut growers for the shortfall in payouts to date for the 2009 crop.

23

Indeed, according to one walnut grower, even with the continuity payment, Diamond paid less

24

per pound for walnuts than the market price for the 2009 crop (Compl. ¶ 58).

25

Incongruously, however, Diamond accounted for $20 million of the payment made in

26

August 2010 as costs associated with the next fiscal year 2011 (id. at ¶ 106). In accordance with

27

GAAP, all payments for the fall 2009 crop should have been associated with the cost of sales for

28

fiscal year 2010 so as to match costs with revenues (id. at ¶¶ 237, 241). The continuity payment
5

1

was, however, “treated as a pre-harvest payment for the upcoming fall crop (i.e., paid and

2

accounted for in fiscal [year] 2011)” (Br. 5). Diamond did not record the cost in its Form 10-K

3

for fiscal year 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2010.

4

B.

Fall 2010 Crop.

substituted for the phrase “continuity payment.” For the 2010 crop, Diamond’s 2010 grower

7

guidelines stated that the first payment was planned for early October, with a second payment by

8

February 15, 2011 and a “Final Payment” in August 2011 (Compl. Exh. 4 at 2). The 2011

9

grower guidelines put out the following year, however, modified the payment schedule. The

10

2011 guidelines stated that the final payment for the 2010 crop would be made on August 31,

11
For the Northern District of California

The same pattern repeated for the next year but the phrase “momentum payment” was

6

United States District Court

5

2011, with a further “momentum payment” to be paid on September 2. According to the 2011

12

grower guidelines, “the momentum payment [was] designed to reflect the projected market

13

environment prior to the delivery of the 2011 crop” (Sauro Decl. Exh. G).

14
15
16
17
18

Diamond sent out two checks to each grower in August and September 2011. In the
accompanying letter, Diamond stated that the momentum payment:
is designed to reflect the projected market environment prior to your
delivery of the 2011 crop. . . . This payment conveys the anticipated
value added by our branded walnut retail business during the transitional
period prior to delivery and new crop availability. The momentum
payment is independent of and incremental to your upcoming delivery
payment.

19
(Compl. Exh. 2 at 2). This statement was deliberately ambiguous regarding what the momentum
20
payment was meant to cover. If, for example, the earlier August 2011 check really constituted
21
the final payment for the fall 2010 crop, then the total payment to growers would have been “so
22
far below market prices that it could not have been made in good faith” (Compl. ¶ 71). Instead,
23
in addition to the August 2011 “final payment,” Diamond then made a further payment — called
24
a “momentum payment” — to appease growers. This momentum payment was, like the
25
continuity payment, a disguised make-up payment for the fall 2010 crop, not a future payment
26
for the fall 2011 crop. Diamond did not record the cost in its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2011,
27
filed with the Commission on September 15, 2011.
28
6

1

2.

DIAMOND’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS.

2

Beginning in late September 2011, concerns were raised by analysts and the media

3

regarding the momentum payment. For example, an article published in Reuters Breakingviews

4

on September 26 discussed the prices Diamond paid to walnut growers and noted the “follow-up

5

payment by Diamond to walnut growers just two days after its Aug[ust] 31 outlay” was strange

6

(id. at ¶ 165). The article reported that “Diamond’s IR chief says the period to which the

7

September payment applies is ‘somewhat of a blur’ because the company sees it in the context of

8

its three, five and 10-year contracts with growers” (ibid.) (emphasis added). The article also

9

opined that “how the company packages its ‘momentum payment’ in financial reports surely

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

matters to P&G shareholders as they consider switching into Diamond stock.”
Another article, published in the Wall Street Journal on September 27, 2011, reported

12

that Diamond stated in an email that: “in an effort to optimize cash flow for growers,

13

particularly in light of the delayed harvest, we issued a momentum payment to growers that

14

provides additional cash flow in the fall consistent with the current market environment as we

15

enter the 2011 harvest” (id. at ¶ 166).

16

On October 3, Diamond issued a press release stating that it had made a “pre-harvest

17

momentum payment to walnut growers in early September, prior to the delivery of the fall

18

walnut crop to reflect the fiscal 2012 projected market environment.” Diamond also stated that

19

the payment was accounted for in the fiscal year 2012 cost of goods sold (id. at ¶ 168).

20

Diamond’s public statements regarding the purpose of the momentum payment were

21

contradictory and inconsistent. Statements made prior to October 3 — including the grower

22

guidelines, the August 2011 letter to growers, and Diamond’s email and statements to the press

23

— were deliberately ambiguous. Diamond’s October 3 statement then finally disclosed that the

24

momentum payment was accounted for in fiscal year 2012. According to GAAP, this would

25

mean the momentum payment could not be a payment for the fall 2010 crop. Diamond implied

26

that the “pre-harvest momentum payment” was an advance payment on the fall 2011 crop. As

27

discussed below, however, this was inconsistent with what Diamond told walnut growers, and

28

what it eventually admitted after the audit committee investigation.
7

1

3.

DIAMOND’S STATEMENTS TO GROWERS.

2

At the same time that Diamond was waffling before the media about the purpose of the

3

momentum payment, Diamond was telling growers something different. Plaintiff relies on the

4

statements of several confidential witnesses, identified as walnut growers who sold to Diamond

5

during the relevant period, to establish that Diamond itself did not believe that the continuity and

6

momentum payments were meant to be advances on future crops.

7

First, a grower identified as Confidential Witness No. 1 reported that he contacted Eric

8

Heidman, senior director of field operations, on three separate occasions in August, September,

9

and October 2011. “Each time, Heidman confirmed [the momentum payment] was for the Fall
2010 crop” (id. at ¶ 77). The complaint only provides details regarding a single phone call

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

between the witness and Heidman, occurring around October 2011. In response to questions

12

regarding whether the momentum payment was for the fall 2010 crop, Heidman told the witness

13

“it was just a numbers game, don’t worry about it.” He further told the witness that “the money

14

was just ‘budgeted’ or ‘forecast’ into 2011, even though it was applied to the 2010 crop.”

15

Heidman “was adamant that [the momentum payment] was for the 2010 crop” (ibid). Second,

16

Confidential Witness No. 1 and a grower identified as Confidential Witness No. 7 recounted that

17

Diamond did not attempt to recover the momentum payments from growers who decided not to

18

sell their fall 2011 crop to Diamond. Confidential Witness No. 1 “refused to sell his whole Fall

19

2011 crop to Diamond” (id. at ¶ 78). Diamond informed the witness that his refusal to sell his

20

entire crop was a violation of his contract, but did not attempt to retrieve the momentum

21

payment. Confidential Witness No. 7 stated that she “knew at least two growers who had

22

already cancelled their contracts to sell walnuts to Diamond in Fall 2011, but still received the

23

momentum payment.” According to the witness, Diamond employee Dan Newman, an

24

employee in the Grower Services department, told the two growers that the momentum payments

25

were for 2010 and that they could keep them, even without selling their 2011 crop to Diamond

26

(id. at ¶ 79).

27
28

Our court of appeals has established a two-part test for confidential witnesses in the
context of securities fraud pleadings. First, where additional factual information, such as
8

that the witnesses in question have personal knowledge of the events they report.” Zucco

3

Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). Second, the statements

4

“must themselves be indicative of scienter.” Ibid. Confidential Witness No. 1’s statements are

5

based on his direct personal knowledge and interactions with Diamond representatives as a

6

walnut grower. His statements on these topics are sufficiently reliable, and establish that what

7

Diamond told growers was inconsistent with what it told the media. Moreover, Diamond did not

8

appear to treat the momentum payment as a true advance on the fall 2011 crop, as it did not seek

9

to recover the payment when the witness breached his contract by not selling his entire fall 2011

10

crop to Diamond. The statements of Confidential Witness No. 7, however, are hearsay-within-

11
For the Northern District of California

documentary evidence, is absent, “the complaint must provide an adequate basis for determining

2

United States District Court

1

hearsay. The witness has not established that she has adequate, reliable bases for her personal

12

knowledge regarding what Newman told the two growers. See, e.g., id. at 996.

13

4.

14

On November 1, 2011, Diamond disclosed that the previously announced Pringle’s

DISCLOSURES OF AUDIT COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION AND RESULTS.

15

acquisition from P&G was delayed and that an internal investigation would be conducted. The

16

press release stated:

17
18
19
20
21
22

Diamond and P&G have revised the expected closing date of the
acquisition following the receipt by the Chairman of the Audit
Committee of Diamond’s Board of Directors of an external
communication regarding Diamond’s accounting for certain crop
payments to walnut growers. In response to the communication,
Diamond’s Audit Committee decided to perform an investigation of this
matter.
(Compl. ¶ 171).
On December 12, Diamond disclosed that, due to the investigation, it would miss the

23

deadline for filing its Form 10-Q with the Commission. Two days later, Diamond announced

24

that it had received a formal order of investigation from the Commission. Diamond disclosed

25

that the Commission “has informed Diamond that its investigation should not be construed as an

26

indication by the [Commission] that any violations of law have occurred” (id. at ¶ 194). On

27

February 8, 2012, Diamond announced that its internal audit committee had concluded that $20

28

million of “continuity payments” in August 2010 and $60 million of “momentum payments” in
9

1

September 2011 were not properly accounted for in the correct fiscal years. The audit committee

2

also identified a “material weakness in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.”

3

Diamond reported that it would have to restate its financial statements for fiscal years 2010 and

4

2011. Diamond further stated that the audit committee’s investigation was ongoing, and that

5

more information could be discovered. Defendants Mendes and Neil were placed on

6

administrative leave. Several days later, on February 15, Diamond announced that the Pringles

7

acquisition was terminated.

8
9

As of the filing of the consolidated complaint, Diamond had not issued corrected
financial statements. The complaint includes rough calculations of what the estimated results
would have been had the continuity and momentum payments been recorded in the correct fiscal

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

years. Plaintiff contends that the obviousness and magnitude of the GAAP violations support an

12

inference that defendants acted with the requisite scienter. The complaint alleges that, if the $20

13

million continuity payment had been correctly recorded as cost of sales in fiscal year 2010,

14

rather than 2011, net income for fiscal year 2010 would drop from $26.2 million to $6.2 million.

15

Cost of sales for fiscal year 2010, reported to be $519.2 million, would have increased by 3.9

16

percent, to $539.2 million (id. at ¶ 247). Similarly, plaintiff provides simple calculations to

17

estimate what the results would have been if the $60 million momentum payments in September

18

2011 were recorded as cost of sales for fiscal year 2011. According to the complaint, if the

19

September 2010 momentum payment was applied to the fiscal year 2011 financial results, net

20

income would decrease from $50.2 million to approximately negative $9.8 million, a decrease of

21

119.5 percent. Cost of sales would increase from $714.8 million to $774.8 million, a change of

22

8.4 percent (id. at ¶ 254). Plaintiff’s calculations for fiscal year 2011 do not, however, take into

23

account the fact that the figures for that period were both overstated by $20 million and

24

understated by $60 million.
DIAMOND’S ARGUMENTS AGAINST SCIENTER.

25

5.

26

Diamond admits that “there is no dispute that, in February 2012, Diamond’s Audit

27

Committee determined that the Company’s original accounting treatment of those payments was

28

incorrect and that certain financial results would need to be restated” (Br. 1). Diamond argues,
10

1

however, that allegations of GAAP violations are not sufficient to create a “strong inference”

2

that defendants intentionally, or with deliberate recklessness, falsified financial statements.

3

Diamond contends that plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to give rise to a strong inference

4

of intentional fraud, and is instead consistent with an inference that defendants made an “honest

5

mistake.”

6

A.

Lack of stock sales.

7

Diamond argues that the fact that individual defendants Neil and Mendes did not sell

8

stock during the class period, and in fact increased their holdings, negates a finding that they

9

were involved in fraud. Rather than cashing out when shares were allegedly artificially inflated,
they purchased more shares, and “then saw the value of their collective holdings decline more

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

than $60 million from the stock’s apex to the end of the class period” (id. at 10–11). Defendants

12

rely on In re Tibco Software, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 1469654 at *20 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2006)

13

(Armstrong, J.), for the proposition that lack of stock sales by a defendant during the class period

14

negates a finding that the defendant was engaged in fraud. Here, however, plaintiff alleges that

15

Diamond and the individual defendants were motivated to inflate share prices in order to

16

complete the acquisition of Pringles, which would have presumably resulted in even higher

17

prices after the transaction was successfully completed. Moreover, our court of appeals has

18

noted that a lack of stock sales by a defendant company’s management “is not dispositive as to

19

scienter.” No. 84 Employer-Teamster Joint Council Pension Trust Fund v. America West

20

Holding Corp., 320 F.3d 920, 944 (9th Cir. 2003). This order finds that defendants’ lack of

21

stock sales neither negates scienter, nor supports plaintiff’s other scienter allegations.

22

B.

Reliance on Deloitte’s audit opinion.

23

Diamond further contends that the fact that its outside auditor, Deloitte, provided

24

unqualified audit opinions undermines a finding of scienter. A clean audit opinion may possibly

25

support the conclusion that defendants did not act with scienter, but it is not dispositive. In order

26

to know how much reasonable reliance should be accorded the audit opinion, we will eventually

27

have to evaluate what communications passed between the company and the auditor as well as

28

what, if anything, was hidden from the auditor.
11

1

Senior management at Diamond had an independent duty to ensure compliance with

2

GAAP and maintain effective internal controls. This duty cannot be delegated to Deloitte.

3

Additionally, as discussed below, plaintiff has alleged that Diamond engaged in pre-audit

4

reviews where the financial statements were “scrubbed” prior to providing them to Deloitte. On

5

these facts, this order finds that Deloitte’s unqualified audit opinion does not negate an inference

6

of scienter.

7

C.

P&G due diligence.

8

Diamond contends that the upcoming acquisition of Pringles weighs against an inference

9

of scienter, because it was aware that P&G would be scrutinizing Diamond’s books in the course
of conducting due diligence. P&G employed professional advisors including Morgan Stanley,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The Blackstone Group, and Deloitte to assist in the acquisition discussions (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 179,

12

360). Plaintiff contends that the Pringles acquisition was the driving motivation for the fraud

13

because, without keeping share prices high, the deal would have fallen apart. Defendants took

14

steps to hide the fraudulent accounting of the $60 million momentum payment. On September

15

16, 2011, soon after the momentum payment had been made, Diamond announced an increase of

16

$50 million in the estimated transaction and integration costs of the Pringles acquisition, raising

17

the figure from $100 million to $150 million (id. at ¶¶ 252, 316). The facts alleged do not

18

indicate what diligence, if any, P&G conducted of Diamond’s financial statements and

19

accounting practices prior to the November 1 announcement of the internal investigation. That

20

P&G would or did conduct due diligence in connection with the Pringles acquisition does not per

21

se negate an inference of scienter. An equally plausible inference is that defendants were

22

motivated to push through the deal, and planned to hide the fraud in the costs of acquiring and

23

integrating Pringles into Diamond’s business.
THE COMPLAINT RAISES A STRONG INFERENCE OF SCIENTER.

24

6.

25

This order finds that, viewing the complaint in its entirety, including “plausible opposing

26

inferences,” the allegations give rise to a strong inference of scienter on the part of Diamond.

27

See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 323 (2007). The magnitude of

28

the wrongful accounting, the fact that the GAAP violations were basic and fundamental, and
12

1

Diamond’s inconsistent and deliberately ambiguous statements regarding the nature and purpose

2

of the payments all contribute to a strong inference of intentional misconduct. Diamond knew

3

that the “continuity payment” and “momentum payment” were unprecedented, and departed

4

from the company’s prior practice and stated policy. Diamond attempted to disguise the

5

payments as something other than “make-up” payments to growers in order to allow it to defer

6

recording the costs. This allowed Diamond to meet analyst expectations and maintain inflated

7

stock prices. Plaintiff has sufficiently pled scienter under the heightened pleading standards set

8

forth by the PSLRA.

9

7.

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS NEIL AND MENDES.

Defendant Steven M. Neil was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Administrative Officer of Diamond from March 2008 to February 8, 2012, when he was placed

12

on administrative leave. Neil served on the Board of Directors from 2005 until his resignation in

13

March 2012. Defendant Michael J. Mendes was President and Chief Executive Officer of

14

Diamond from 1997 until February 8, when he was placed on administrative leave. Mendes first

15

joined Diamond in 1991 as Vice President of International Sales and Marketing. Like Neil,

16

Mendes had been on Diamond’s Board of Directors since 2005, and resigned in March 2012.

17

“Allegations regarding management’s role in a corporate structure and the importance of

18

the corporate information about which management made false or misleading statements may

19

also create a strong inference of scienter when made in conjunction with detailed and specific

20

allegations about management’s exposure to factual information within the company.” S. Ferry

21

LP, No. 2 v. Killinger, 542 F.3d 776, 785 (9th Cir. 2008). Specific and particular allegations that

22

defendants were actually aware of the data that was the subject of the allegedly false statements

23

can be sufficient to establish scienter under the PSLRA. See In re Daou Systems, Inc., 411 F.3d

24

1006, 1022–23 (9th Cir. 2005). Allegations that “go beyond a mere inference of management

25

knowledge of all ‘core operations’” and include details about defendants’ access to information

26

within the company can be sufficient to create a strong inference of scienter. S. Ferry, 542 F.3d

27

at 785. Our court of appeals has noted that “[w]here a complaint relies on allegations that

28

management had an important role in the company but does not contain additional detailed
13

1

allegations about the defendants’ actual exposure to information, it will usually fall short of the

2

PSLRA standard.” id. at 784.

3
4

A.

Scienter allegations against Neil.

Plaintiff relies on the statements of several former Diamond employees to establish that

5

Neil had actual knowledge of and access to walnut pricing and payment information, and that he

6

was aware of the nature and purpose of the continuity and momentum payments. Neil was

7

involved in making accounting decisions and directed and oversaw the manipulation of

8

accounting for commodity costs such as walnuts.

9

First, Confidential Witness No. 5 was employed at Diamond as a financial accountant
from April 2008 to May 2011. The witness reported that he, along with others in the accounting

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

department, was asked by Diamond management to change commodity costs “without any

12

business justification for doing so” (Compl. ¶ 53). The witness recounted that Senior Director

13

Debra Donaghy and Senior Vice President and Controller Jim Tropp would request that the

14

witness prepare financial reports to determine earnings “if we dropped commodity prices half a

15

penny or one penny.” If the executives approved, the change would be accepted and recorded in

16

a journal entry. According to the witness, it “seemed like every quarter they dropped commodity

17

costs” (id. at ¶ 54). In the view of the witness, changing the “commodity costs were how they

18

were able to beat their numbers” (id. at ¶ 55). The witness also described Diamond’s practice of

19

performing quarter-end reviews and pre-audit reviews of the financial results. He stated that he

20

was directed by Neil, Donaghy, and Tropp to change financials by shuffling costs and expenses

21

on the financial statements. The witness recounted that typically he would run profitability

22

numbers. If Diamond was losing money or was “not where we want to be at,” Donaghy, Tropp,

23

and Neil would review the financial information “to see any big ticket items they could shuffle

24

into next quarter” (ibid.). “Or if we were making too much money they would push more costs

25

in. Whenever we couldn’t hit our numbers, [or] if they needed extra money, it was always

26

commodity costs that got changed” (ibid.). “The process was to look at all possible expenses

27

and ‘scrub’” through the numbers. The witness further stated that Neil was “intimately involved

28

in the quarter end review of Diamond’s financial results” and was involved in pre-audit reviews.
14

“Neil definitely knew what was going on. He was involved in pre-audit reviews. He was in
1

charge of treasury, too” (id. at ¶ 389). The complaint provides sufficient detail to establish that

2

Confidential Witness No. 5 has personal knowledge of the events he reported, as his statements

3

are based on his first-hand accounts from his work as a financial accountant. The witness

4

described specific incidents involving management, including Neil, in which the witness was

5

directed to change accounting information in relation to meeting earnings goals.

6

Second, Confidential Witness No. 3 was an assistant treasurer from 1999 through May

“where accounting decisions were discussed in the context of the impact the decision would have

9

on the share price.” The witness recounted that, in these meetings, Neil and other executives

10

decided “on numerous occasions” to accelerate payments or delay recognizing an expense in

11
For the Northern District of California

2011. He similarly stated that he was involved in meetings with Neil and other executives

8

United States District Court

7

order to make their earnings look better. The witness also recounted an incident regarding two

12

payments that were made to growers in February and March 2011. Due to a lack of cash,

13

Diamond could not make the expected February 2011 payment to growers. Confidential Witness

14

No. 3 raised this issue with management. After discussions with Diamond officers, including

15

Neil, it was decided that the payment would be divided into two payments, with one payment

16

sent in February and the remainder sent in March 2011. The officers told the witness that this

17

solution would avoid the problem of tapping into Diamond’s line of credit and potentially

18

attracting attention from investors. Neil told the witness that Mendes’ approval was needed in

19

order to send out the two payments. After Mendes provided approval, the payments were sent

20

out. The witness’s statements are based on first-hand accounts of his work, including meetings

21

and discussions with Neil. Standing alone, these statements are not sufficient to establish that

22

Neil was aware of or directed accounting fraud for the continuity and momentum payments to

23

walnut growers. For example, the witness provided no specific details regarding the meetings he

24

described, or the types of expenses and costs discussed therein. The statements do, however,

25

establish that Neil was involved in and aware of how accounting decisions would affect earnings

26

numbers. Neil was also involved in and aware of how and when walnut payments were made.

27

Third, Neil made statements to analysts in earnings conference calls that evidence Neil’s

28

involvement in and awareness of how Diamond accounted for walnut payments. In an earnings
15

conference call held on March 8, 2011, Neil responded in detail to questions regarding
1

accounting for walnut costs in relation to Diamond’s Q-2 fiscal year 2011 results. For example,

2

in response to an analyst’s question regarding a disclosure that there was “about a $1.2 million

3

catch-up accrual on walnut costs,” Neil explained the adjustment in detail, stating:

4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[T]hat $1 million represents the impact in the second quarter of a very
small increase in estimated costs that we estimated for the walnuts. So
that’s a little bit of a — and the reason we highlight it, it’s a little bit of
out-of-period for the pure second quarter results; but a small amount.
(id. at ¶ 114). Neil responded to another analyst’s question regarding Diamond’s estimates for
walnuts and whether there was a “risk of further catch-ups in the back half of the year.” Neil
explained: “[w]hat we need to do from an accounting perspective is each quarter provide our
best estimate of the cost associated with the sellthrough of the entire crop. . . . So that’s how we
approach it — that’s how GAAP says to approach it” (id. at ¶ 115). Similarly, during a
conference call with analysts regarding financial statements for the third quarter of fiscal year
2011, Neil was asked directly about walnut cost accrual. Neil spoke in detail about a “small
adjustment” of around $300,000 of estimated walnut cost accrual in the second and third quarters
of that year (id. at ¶ 139).
Fourth, plaintiff contends that scienter can be inferred based on Neil’s position in the
company and his hands-on approach to management. In an interview published by Executive
Briefing on May 25, 2010, Neil said he was a “hands-on” type of CFO, who was “also
responsible for operations, logistics, IT, treasury, grower relations, and purchasing” (id. at ¶
386). Neil characterized himself as “the type of finance guy that looks at a financial report and
sees it as just numbers on a piece of paper unless I’m out in the plant and can see how the
product flows, how we can reduce our unit costs, and how we can improve our logistics.” Neil
stated that he visited walnut growers in the field at least twice a year, “usually once during
harvest and once during some stage of the bloom, either at the beginning or during the middle of
the summer” (ibid.).
Taken as a whole, the allegations establish that Neil was directly involved in making
accounting decisions and was intimately aware of accounting as related to Diamond’s walnut
business. This likewise reinforces the inference of scienter of the company.

16

B.
1

Scienter allegations against Mendes.

CEO Mendes signed the August 2010 letter that informed growers that they would

2

receive a single check that constituted both the final payment for the fall 2009 crop and a

3

continuity payment. Plaintiff alleges that Mendes would also have known about the August

4

2011 letter describing the momentum payment, even if he did not sign the letter himself. CEO

5

Mendes does not dispute that he knew of the fact of the payments. He argues, however, that

6

plaintiff has failed to establish that Mendes knew of the incorrect accounting for the continuity

7

and momentum payments. That is, CEO Mendes contends that he was ignorant of the nature and

8

purpose of the payments, which were allegedly intended as “make-up” payments to growers. As

9

discussed below, however, this argument is unpersuasive given Mendes’ role in the walnut
business at Diamond and his own statements.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff alleges that CEO Mendes was deeply involved in the day-to-day operations of

12

Diamond, including its finances, and that he was particularly involved in and aware of walnut

13

payments. Confidential Witness No. 3 stated that information regarding walnut payments and

14

prices was carefully guarded and “maintained within a very small circle of people” including

15

Tropp, Neil, Mendes, and Heidman (id. at ¶ 39). As described above, according to Confidential

16

Witness No. 3, Mendes’ approval was required to split up a payment to walnut growers in

17

February and March 2011. The witness also stated that both Neil and Mendes “received the

18

daily forecasts, which detailed all the money going out and coming in that particular day as well

19

as how much cash and borrowing capacity the Company had available under its revolving line of

20

credit” (id. at ¶ 387). The complaint does not provide any specific detail regarding whether

21

these reports would contain information related to revenue, liabilities, or cost of sales in general,

22

or of walnuts in particular.

23

Another former employee, identified as a financial accountant from 2005 through

24

November 2010, stated that he attended frequent meetings with Mendes. The witness opined

25

that Mendes’ knowledge of what was happening at Diamond was “the best of anyone in the

26

Company” (id. at ¶ 32). “[Mendes] gave you the impression he was involved in everything and

27

he made that known.” The witness further recounted that “about grower payments, in my

28

opinion, [Mendes] knew every detail” (ibid.).
17

Plaintiff also points to statements Mendes made to analysts at an earnings call on October
1

5, 2010, during which Mendes discussed the potential impact the late harvest of the walnut crop

2

might have on Diamond’s financial position in great detail. CEO Mendes stated “[t]here’s a later

3

walnut crop this year, probably about two weeks later than normal. Last year was a little bit late

4

but this year is quite a bit later. That’s one factor. The second thing is we’re evaluating the

5

optimal market mix for that non-retail walnut business.” Mendes went on to discuss potential

6

plans to shift from international bulk in-shell business to a higher proportion of shelled walnut

7

business, noting that “when you go more domestic versus international the product changes

8

position at our Ford warehouse so that would be a Q2 sale versus Q1 sale. And then just the

9

fundamental fact that the crop’s later and you can only process so much product per day, is just
going to shift about 10 days worth of production to the next quarter” (id. at ¶ 90). These

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

statements indicate that Mendes had actual knowledge of Diamond’s walnut business, and was

12

aware of how that business would impact the company’s financial statements.

13
14

C.

“Core operations” theory.

Defendants Neil and Mendes argue that general allegations that executives are closely

15

involved in the day-to-day operations of a company are insufficient to establish scienter. Here,

16

however, the allegations establish that Neil and Mendes were heavily involved in walnut pricing

17

and payments, and were acutely aware of how the walnut business affected the company’s

18

financial statements. CFO Neil oversaw and directed accounting, and repeatedly demonstrated

19

intimate knowledge of walnut accounting in particular. CEO Mendes approved how and when

20

walnut payments were made. Given his long history at the company and close involvement in

21

the walnut business, it can readily be inferred that Mendes was aware that the “continuity” and

22

“momentum” payments were an unprecedented departure from Diamond’s prior practices and

23

the stated policy set forth in the grower guidelines, all the more so given the dominant role of

24

walnuts and their pricing in Diamond’s business. Mendes himself signed the August 2010 letter

25

to growers accompanying the continuity payment The complaint contains detailed and specific

26

allegations about defendants’ awareness and involvement in all aspects of Diamond’s walnut

27

business. Combined with defendants’ role in the company, and the magnitude and obviousness

28

of the accounting violations at issue, this order finds that the allegations give rise to a strong
18

inference of scienter. See S. Ferry, 542 F.3d at 785. Unlike the defendant in Zucco, CFO Neil
1

and CEO Mendes were exposed to and aware of the underlying facts — namely, walnut pricing

2

and payment practices and the two unusual walnut payments at issue. Both defendants were

3

acutely aware of the walnut business’s affect on Diamond’s financial statements, as indicated

4

both by the confidential witness statements as well as by defendants’ own statements to analysts

5

and investors. Moreover, the accounting violations at issue here are basic and fundamental

6

principles of accounting, not detailed and “largely definitional,” as in Zucco. See, Zucco, 552

7

F.3d at 1001.

8

D.

Section 20(a) Claim.

violations of Section 10(b) and its underlying regulations. “In order to prove a prima facie case

11
For the Northern District of California

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act makes certain “controlling” individuals also liable for

10

United States District Court

9

under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must prove: (1) a primary violation of federal securities law and

12

(2) that the defendant exercised actual power or control over the primary violator.” No. 84

13

Employer-Teamster, 320 F.3d at 945 (internal quotations omitted). “Control” is defined as “the

14

possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management

15

and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or

16

otherwise.” 17 C.F.R. 230.405. As discussed above, the complaint adequately alleges that

17

defendants were control persons within the meaning of the statute, as they were actively

18

involved in the day-to-day operations of Diamond, were senior executives, and sat on Diamond’s

19

Board of Directors. See Paracor Fin. Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 96 F.3d 1151, 1162 (9th

20

Cir. 1996). At the pleading stage, this is sufficient, although it will, like other claims, be subject

21

to later proof.

22

8.

23

Deloitte was the independent auditor for both Diamond and P&G. Deloitte provided an

DELOITTE.

24

unqualified audit opinion along with Diamond’s 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010

25

(fiscal year 2010). The 10-K was filed with the Commission on October 5, 2010, and the audit

26

opinion was signed by Deloitte on the same date. Deloitte also provided an unqualified audit

27

opinion for Diamond’s 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2011 (fiscal year 2011). That

28

audit opinion was signed by Deloitte on September 15, 2011, for the 10-K filed with the
19

Commission on the same date. Deloitte’s opinions stated that Diamond had complied with
1

GAAP principles and maintained effective internal control over financial reporting for the time

2

periods reviewed (Sauro Decl. Exh. E at 5).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

With regard to pleading scienter of an outside auditor, our court of appeals has stated
that:
[S]cienter requires more than a misapplication of accounting principles.
The plaintiff must prove that the accounting practices were so deficient
that the audit amounted to no audit at all, or an egregious refusal to see
the obvious, or to investigate the doubtful, or that the accounting
judgments which were made were such that no reasonable accountant
would have made the same decisions if confronted with the same facts.
DSAM Global Value Fund v. Altris Software, Inc., 288 F.3d 385, 390 (9th Cir. 2002). The
allegations against Deloitte consist largely of recitations of generally accepted auditing standards
and allegations that, because the accounting manipulations were so pervasive and obvious,
Deloitte must have known about them. Deloitte ignored red flags and failed to investigate
further. Had it done so, Deloitte would have uncovered the accounting violations. Plaintiff
alleges that Deloitte had actual knowledge of the continuity payment; as to the momentum
payment, however, the complaint alleges only that Deloitte likely knew or should have known
about the payment and accounting therefor.
Deloitte was allegedly involved in a fraudulent scheme with Diamond, whereby Deloitte
deliberately ignored red flags that should have alerted it to accounting irregularities. Deloitte
was motivated to disregard Diamond’s GAAP violations in order to gain fees from both Deloitte
and P&G. Moreover, because P&G was “eager to divest itself of Pringles,” Deloitte was
motivated to help push through the Pringles acquisition in order to benefit both its clients.
Plaintiff contends that P&G would not be injured by any inflation in Diamond shares because
“stock in the combined Pringles/Diamond entity was to be spun off directly to that company’s
shareholders” (Opp. 3). Plaintiff’s argument that P&G would be willing to accept artificially
inflated Diamond stock makes little sense and is contradicted by the facts. Indeed, the deal was
terminated soon after the audit committee results were announced. Several days later, P&G
announced the sale of Pringles to Kellogg for $2.7 billion in cash. Additionally, as Deloitte
argues, it is somewhat unlikely that Deloitte would have knowingly participated in fraud on
behalf of Diamond in order to swindle its much larger client, P&G.
20

A.
1

Deloitte was aware of the continuity payment.

Deloitte had “broad and unfettered access to Diamond’s accounting records and

2

information” (Compl. ¶ 359). Deloitte conducted quarterly reviews, during which time it should

3

have been aware of the accounting irregularities. According to plaintiff, the fact that the

4

inventory and payable to growers for walnuts for Q-1 through Q-3 of fiscal year 2010 were

5

lower than estimates recorded for the same quarters in prior years should have alerted Deloitte to

6

investigate further (id. at ¶¶ 273, 287). For example, Diamond’s recorded payable to growers for

7

Q-1 of fiscal year 2010 was $114.6 million as compared to $135.7 million for the same quarter

8

of the prior fiscal year. The amount was approximately $21.1 million, or 16 percent, lower.

9

Deloitte also should have known that the inventory and payable to growers were below the
market price, which should have caused it to investigate further.1 Moreover, “given the clear

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

language in the grower contracts that the first payment to growers would not be made until after

12

the crop was delivered to Diamond,” Deloitte knew or should have known that any payment that

13

deviated from this schedule was suspicious (id. at ¶ 273).

14

If the foregoing “red flags” had not yet alerted Deloitte of the accounting irregularities,

15

Deloitte became aware of the $20 million continuity payment “while performing its audit

16

procedures related to Diamond’s financial statements for Fiscal Year 2010” (id. at ¶ 288).

17

According to the statement of audit committee and board committee member Dennis Mussell,

18

reported in a Reuters article dated March 19, 2012, Deloitte inquired about the continuity

19

payment. Plaintiff alleges, however, that “[t]o resolve the $20 million payment in the audit

20

workpapers, Deloitte necessarily had to rely on management’s representation that the payments

21

related to the Fall 2010 crop and were properly recorded in Diamond’s Fiscal Year 2011

22

financial results” (id. at ¶ 300). Deloitte contends that the complaint itself alleges that Deloitte

23

did more than rely on the representations of management. According to the complaint, Deloitte

24

approached Diamond’s independent audit committee to discuss the payment. The committee

25

“included no members of management and was responsible for independent oversight of

26
27
28

1
Plaintiff contends that Deloitte should have known that California walnut prices
were higher for the fall 2009 crop than in 2008. The sole evidence cited for this alleged fact
is a United States Department of Agriculture report published on October 7, 2011, after the
date the quarterly financial statements were created and reviewed.

21

management with respect to Diamond’s financial statements” (Reply Br. 1). No further details
1

are provided regarding the content of any discussions Deloitte may have had with the audit

2

committee. At most, the complaint alleges that Board Member Mussell recalled the continuity

3

payment issue was “resolved” (Sauro Decl. Exh. H at 2; Compl. ¶ 222).

4
5

B.

Deloitte may have been aware of the momentum payment.

The complaint does not allege that Deloitte was actually aware of the momentum

flags” should have alerted Deloitte to inquire further, such that it necessarily would have become

8

aware of the momentum payment. Among the “red flags” that should have put Deloitte on

9

notice were that (1) the “payable to growers” figure on the balance sheet for July 31, 2011, was

10

lower than that recorded on the same date for 2008, (2) Deloitte was aware that Diamond’s “pre-

11
For the Northern District of California

payment Diamond made in early September 2011. Plaintiff contends that a number of “red

7

United States District Court

6

determined payment schedule mandated the final payment associated with the Fall 2010 crop be

12

made in August 2011,” (3) Diamond filed its fiscal year 2011 financial results ten days before it

13

had ever filed in its short history as a public company (id. at ¶ 308), and (4) the momentum

14

payment was large.

15

The complaint alleges that Deloitte either disregarded its accounting procedures or

16

improperly relied on representations from management without requiring further assurances.

17

Deloitte’s “typical audit approach for accounts payable is to test the outstanding balance as of

18

the end of the year via subsequent disbursements” (id. at ¶ 289). With respect to the momentum

19

payment, “[i]t appears that Deloitte did not employ . . . any adequate subsequent disbursement

20

testing.” If Deloitte had properly performed the testing, it would allegedly have uncovered the

21

fraud. Furthermore, “if Deloitte knew of the $60 million payment,” it improperly relied upon an

22

unsubstantiated management representation when it issued an unqualified audit opinion (id. at ¶

23

309) (emphasis added).

24
25

C.

No strong inference of scienter as to Deloitte.

The allegations against Deloitte are based on assumptions of what might have or could

26

have occurred. Very few facts are alleged regarding what Deloitte actually did, the procedures it

27

used in its audits of Diamond, or what documents or information were considered or reviewed.

28

The allegations in the current complaint are insufficient to establish even that Deloitte
22

disregarded its own auditing procedures, much less that it performed no audit procedures at all.
1

Plaintiff essentially argues that the accounting errors were so obvious and of such magnitude that

2

no reasonable accountant would have made the same decisions. In support of this contention,

3

plaintiff points to news articles and statements by analysts raising questions about the walnut

4

payments. A number of articles , however, reported that other analysts opined that Diamond’s

5

accounting of the momentum payment was proper (id. at ¶¶ 174, 191).

6

While the facts currently alleged may establish that Deloitte was negligent in providing

7

unqualified audit opinions for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the complaint does not give rise to a

8

strong inference that Deloitte was deliberately reckless or intentionally fraudulent under the

9

PSLRA’s heightened pleading standard. Plaintiff does not allege that Deloitte was actually
aware of the momentum payment, or was aware that the payment was improperly accounted for

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

in fiscal year 2012. Moreover, the complaint alleges that Diamond’s practice was to conduct

12

pre-audit quarterly reviews of the financial statements, at which Diamond’s management

13

instructed accountants to “scrub” the statements to disguise or shift costs. Plaintiff does not

14

allege that Deloitte was aware of these pre-audit reviews. Viewing the complaint as a whole, the

15

allegations against Deloitte are insufficient to raise a strong inference of scienter.

16

9.

17

In order to state a securities fraud claim, a plaintiff must also allege “loss causation,”

LOSS CAUSATION.

18

which is “a causal connection between the material [omission] and the loss.” Dura

19

Pharmaceuticals, 544 U.S. at 342; 15 U.S.C. 78u–4(b)(4). “A plaintiff is not required to show

20

‘that a misrepresentation was the sole reason for the investment’s decline in value’ in order to

21

establish loss causation. ‘[A]s long as the misrepresentation is one substantial cause of the

22

investment’s decline in value, other contributing forces will not bar recovery under the loss

23

causation requirement’ but will play a role ‘in determining recoverable damages.’” In re Daou,

24

411 F.3d at 1025 (internal citations omitted).

25

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that fraud occurred, in the form of improper accounting

26

for walnut payments in violation of GAAP, which resulted in an inflated stock price. When the

27

truth came out, the stock price plummeted. On February 8, 2012, Diamond disclosed the

28

findings of the audit committee’s investigation. Diamond stated that:
23

The investigation focused primarily on whether payments to growers in
September 2011 in the amount of approximately $60 million and
payments to growers in August 2010 of approximately $20 million were
accounted for in the correct periods. On February 7, 2012, the Audit
Committee concluded that such crop payments were not accounted for in
the correct periods and that Diamond’s previously issued consolidated
financial statements for the fiscal years ended July 31, 2011 and July 31,
2010, the accompanying reports of Diamond’s independent registered
public accounting firm, and the previously issued unaudited condensed
financial statements for the interim quarterly periods for the fiscal year
ended July 31, 2011 and the quarter ended July 31, 2010, should no
longer be relied upon.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(Diamond RJN Exh. D). Diamond further stated that the audit committee’s investigation was
ongoing, and that more information could be discovered. Following the announcement, the
stock dropped $13.53, a decrease of 36.9 percent (Compl. ¶ 438). Plaintiff has alleged loss
causation with sufficient detail to give defendants ample notice of its loss causation theory, and
give some assurance that the theory has a basis in fact. WPP Luxembourg Gamma Three Sarl v.
Spot Runner, Inc., 655 F.3d 1039, 1053–54 (9th Cir. 2011).
It was not until February 8, 2012, that the truth was sufficiently disclosed to the market,
or so a jury could reasonably find. To be sure, a question may arise concerning how the class
period should be defined, including whether there should be a subclass after November 1, 2011,
or subclasses, and whether lead plaintiff is a proper representative for the subclass, or subclasses.
This order need not address those issues at this juncture.
10.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE.

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 allows a court to take judicial notice of a fact “not subject
to reasonable dispute in that it is . . . capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Commission filings are appropriate
for judicial notice, even where filed outside the class period. In re Hansen Natural Corp. Sec.
Litig., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1149 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (Walter, J.). Under the incorporation by
reference doctrine, a court may also consider documents submitted by defendants “that were
referenced in the complaint and whose authenticity has not been questioned.” No. 84 Employer-

25
Teamster, 320 F.3d at 925 n. 2.
26
Defendants’ request for judicial notice of filings with the Commission is granted
27
(Diamond’s RJN; Sauro Decl. Exhs. B, C, D, E, F, I, K, L, and N). Deloitte further requests
28
judicial notice be taken of the following documents: print-outs of Diamond’s website (Exh. A),
24

a print-out from the Commission’s website (Exh. O), a “timeline” of relevant dates allegedly
1

compiled from the allegations in the complaint (Exh. P), publicly available news articles

2

referenced and cited in the complaint (Exhs. H and J), excerpts from Public Company

3

Accounting Board (“PCAOB”) Interim Standards (Exh. M), and a document entitled

4

“Diamond’s Harvest 2011 Grower Guidelines for Delivery, Grading & Payment” (Exh. G).

5

Judicial notice will be taken of the accounting standards and 2011 Grower Guidelines document

6

referenced in the complaint (Sauro Decl. Exhs. G and M). The request for judicial notice is also

7

granted as to the news articles referenced in the complaint, but not for the truth of their contents

8

(id. Exhs. H and J). The request for judicial notice is denied as moot as to the website print-outs

9

and and the “timeline,” as they are unnecessary to this order (id. Exhs. A, O, and P). Diamond’s
supplemental request for judicial notice is denied as moot, as the exhibit appears identical to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Exhibit G of the Sauro Declaration. Deloitte’s supplemental request for judicial notice is denied

12

as unnecessary to this order.

13

Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice of Diamond’s Form 10-Q, filed with the

14

Commission on June 3, 2008 and PCAOB accounting standards are granted. Plaintiff also filed

15

two supplemental requests for judicial notice of two documents Diamond filed with the

16

Commission on October 25, 2012, and November 14, 2012, well after the filing of the complaint.

17

While “facts raised for the first time in plaintiff’s opposition papers should be considered by the

18

court in determining whether to grant leave to amend or to dismiss the complaint with or without

19

prejudice,” on a motion to dismiss, “a court may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff’s

20

moving papers.” Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1026 n2 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff’s request

21

for judicial notice of the October 25 and November 14 documents are therefore denied.

22
23

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, this order finds that the consolidated complaint has

24

sufficiently pled scienter and loss causation under the PSLRA as to Diamond and individual

25

defendants Mendes and Neil. Those defendants must file an answer WITHIN 21 CALENDAR DAYS

26

of the date of this order. The discovery stay is now lifted as to them, effective immediately. All

27

initial disclosures under Rule 26 must be made within FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS of this order.

28

Please do not ask for extensions.
25

As to Deloitte, however, the claims shall be DISMISSED. The case management order
1

(Dkt. No. 139) shall be modified as follows: leave to add any new parties or pleading

2

amendments must be sought by APRIL 30, 2013, or within 28 days after any interlocutory

3

appellate review is ended as to any aspect of this order, whichever is later. Any motions for

4

leave to file an amended complaint must be noticed on the normal 35-day track. A proposed

5

amended complaint must be appended to the motion and plaintiff must plead its best case. Any

6

such motion should clearly explain how the amendments to the complaint cure the deficiencies

7

identified herein. The opposition shall respond on the merits of plaintiff’s motion so that, if the

8

amendment is allowed, no more motions to dismiss may be filed. All other deadlines set by the

9

case management order shall remain in place.
For now, no discovery may be taken from Deloitte save and except for discovery that is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

proper as to the three defendants held to answer. Put differently, even if Deloitte had never been

12

a target in this proceeding, given its role as a key percipient witness, Deloitte would have still

13

had to stand for depositions and to respond to subpoenas for documents as a third party witness,

14

at least as to reasonable requests proper in aid of the claims and defenses as to the three now held

15

to answer. This same degree of discovery will be appropriate, effective immediately.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: November 30, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26