Kelly v. Electronic Arts, Inc. et al
Filing
73
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 53 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/30/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
RYAN KELLY, et al.,
Case No. 13-cv-05837-SI
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Re: Dkt. No. 53
12
13
14
15
On April 24, 2015, the Court held a hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’
Amended Consolidated Complaint (“Amended Complaint” or “ACC”). Dkt. No. 53. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to
16
amend.
17
18
19
20
BACKGROUND1
This is a securities fraud class action against defendant Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”) and
certain of its officers and executives2 under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
21
Act of 1934 and corresponding SEC Rule 10b-5. ACC ¶¶ 1, 147, 150. Lead plaintiffs Ryan Kelly
22
and Louis Mastro bring suit on behalf of all persons who purchased EA common stock between
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The following background facts are taken from the allegations in the Amended
Complaint and documents incorporated therein by reference, which for purposes of this motion,
must be taken as true.
2
The individual defendants are: Chief Executive Officer Andrew Wilson; Chief Financial
Officer and Executive Vice President Blake J. Jorgensen; Chief Operating Officer Peter Robert
Moore; and President of EA Labels Frank D. Gibeau. ACC ¶ 1. Plaintiffs no longer assert claims
against Chairman Lawrence F. Probst III or Executive Vice President of EA Studios Patrick
Söderlund. Compare Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 1, with ACC ¶ 1.
1
May 8, 2013 and December 5, 2013 (“class period”). Id. ¶¶ 1, 27.
2
3
I.
EA’s Battlefield 4 (“BF4”)
EA is a multinational developer, marketer, and distributor of video games. Id. ¶ 35. EA is
5
currently the world’s third-largest gaming company after Nintendo and Activision. Id. Since its
6
founding, EA has released a diverse portfolio of successful video games, including FIFA, Madden,
7
NBA Live, and Battlefield. Id. ¶¶ 36-37; Defendants’ Second Request for Judicial Notice (“Defs.’
8
SRJN”), Dkt. No. 55, Ex. E, at 6.3 FIFA and Battlefield are two of EA’s “blockbuster” and most
9
“lucrative” video game franchises. ACC ¶¶ 39-40. During the class period, EA planned to
10
release approximately twenty-six games, including several which would be available on next-
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
generation gaming consoles. Defs.’ SRJN Ex. B, at 7-8.4 Battlefield 4 (“BF4”), one of the video
12
games central to this action, launched in October and November 2013. ACC ¶¶ 15-16.
13
EA owns and operates several video game development studios, including DICE studios.
14
Id. ¶ 36. DICE developed Battlefield 4 using a technology platform known as Frostbite 3, which
15
the studio also developed. Id. Frostbite 3 underlies the versions of BF4 available for both existing
16
and next-generation gaming consoles. Id. ¶ 89.
17
EA expected BF4 to generate a significant portion of EA’s total revenue in 2013 and 2014.
18
Id. ¶¶ 39-41. The prior version of BF4, Battlefield 3, accounted for approximately 11 percent of
19
EA’s total revenue in fiscal year 2012. See Defs.’ SRJN Ex. U, at 5. On January 30, 2013, EA’s
20
former CEO acknowledged that FIFA and Battlefield are “vitally important” to EA. ACC ¶¶ 40.
21
3
22
23
24
25
26
Plaintiffs do not object to judicial notice of Exhibits A-R. See Pls.' Response to Request
for Judicial Notice at 2-4. The plaintiffs do, however, object to judicial notice of Exhibits S-W
(excerpts of EA's Form 10-K and several Forms 8-A filed with the SEC between January and
October of 2014) and Exhibit X (Yahoo! Finance report of EA’s stock prices between May 7,
2013, and December 5, 2014). Id. at 4-5. “In a securities fraud action, the court may take judicial
notice of public records outside the pleadings, including SEC filings.” In re Nuko Info. Sys., Inc.
Sec. Litig., 199 F.R.D. 338, 341 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court takes
judicial notice of Exhibits A-W. However, the Court will not take judicial notice of Exhibit X
because it is irrelevant to the disposition of this case.
4
27
28
Plaintiffs assert that EA planned to release only eleven games. Pl.’s Opp. to Mot. to
Dismiss (“Pls.’ Opp.”) at 8 n.11. However, EA planned to release an additional fifteen titles for
mobile devices, and thus it appears that plaintiffs refer to the eleven major titles that EA planned
to release. See Defs.’ SRJN Ex. B, at 6.
2
1
Similarly, a January 2013 report noted that “[w]ith a portfolio of strong franchises and key
2
upcoming catalysts that include next-gen consoles and Battlefield 4, we anticipate strong
3
profitable growth for [EA] in [fiscal year] 2014.” Id. ¶ 41.
4
Key to BF4’s importance was its role in facilitating EA’s transition to next-generation
5
gaming consoles. Id. ¶¶ 42, 63. On May 21, 2013, EA confirmed that BF4 would be available on
6
two next-generation gaming consoles, Sony PlayStation 4 and Microsoft Xbox One, as soon as
7
those consoles became available. Id. ¶ 71. However, EA investors were skeptical about EA’s
8
ability to launch BF4 without significant problems in light of EA’s history of “disastrous” game-
9
launch and console-transition failures. Id. ¶¶ 45, 63.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
II.
BF4’s Launch
12
Before its official launch, BF4 received positive reviews during EA’s live demonstrations
13
at video gaming conferences. Id. ¶ 74. For example, on March 26, 2013, one reviewer “lauded”
14
EA’s live demonstration of BF4 and characterized BF4 as “so important that it could make a
15
difference for EA’s valuation in the stock market.”
16
demonstration of BF4 on Microsoft’s Xbox One next-generation gaming console at the Electronic
17
Entertainment Expo (“E3”) received twenty-one awards. Id. ¶ 74. On July 23, 2013, defendant
18
Moore confirmed that preorders for BF4 had exceeded those for the game’s prior iteration. Id. ¶
19
75.
Id. ¶ 60.
In June 2013, EA’s live
20
EA officially launched BF4 in a series of three rollouts: (1) BF4 launched on three existing
21
gaming consoles on October 29, 2013 (ACC ¶ 15); (2) BF4 launched on Sony’s PlayStation 4
22
next-generation gaming console on November 15, 2013 (Id. ¶ 16); and (3) BF4 launched on
23
Microsoft’s Xbox One next-generation gaming console on November 22, 2013 (Id. ¶ 97).
BF4’s launch was met by a deluge of customer complaints regarding game-breaking
24
Id. ¶¶ 90-91.
On or about October 29, 2013, customers complained about BF4’s
25
issues.
26
performance on existing consoles, stating that the “[g]ame won’t even start” and “[t]he random
27
freezing/crashing is making [BF4] unplayable.” Id. ¶ 90. On October 30, 2013, one game
28
reviewer, who had early access to the next-generation version of BF4, published a review in which
3
1
he described a “game-crashing” error. Id. ¶ 88. Similarly, after the next-generation launches on
2
November 15, 2013 and November 22, 2013, customers described multiple defects. Id. ¶¶ 94-97.
3
For instance, customers complained that “I can’t play at all” and noted “[l]ots of crashes when
4
trying to load the game.” Id. ¶ 94. On December 4, 2013, a reporter stated that he found it “hard
5
to believe that the issues facing Battlefield 4 were a surprise to EA and DICE.” Id. ¶ 106.
6
In response, on December 4, 2013, EA announced that DICE would cease development on
7
any future projects until it had fixed BF4’s defects, which took approximately three months. Id.
8
¶¶ 103, 114.
9
Tracker,” which listed BF4’s defects as of that day. Id. ¶¶ 109-110.
On December 10, 2013, DICE publicly released its “Battlefield 4 Top Issues
Beginning in Fall 2013, EA employees discussed some of the challenges facing BF4’s
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
development. In a November 6, 2013 email, a DICE developer who worked on BF4 explained
12
that EA “always wants more and more in the game until the very end of the project which puts an
13
enormous strain on QA to test everything. . . . We do test EVERYTHING we really do. . . .” Id.
14
¶ 92; Defs.’ SRJN Ex I, at 2. He also indicated that testing for defects took a long time and
15
suggested that DICE might not test BF4 after every programming update. Defs.’ SRJN Ex I, at 2.
16
On December 20, 2013, another BF4 game developer provided further details of the development
17
challenges. ACC ¶ 111. The employee noted that EA wanted to “squeez[e] out the maximum
18
capacity” of the next-generation gaming consoles by allowing code to run on multiple processors,
19
instead of the past practice of running code on a single processor. Defs.’ SRJN Ex. J, at 2. The
20
new development technique made the code “timing-dependent,” which created a risk that the game
21
might crash. Id. at 3. The employee acknowledged that DICE tested the game on largely similar
22
machines, which made it difficult to account for variances in timing. Id. at 2-3. Although DICE
23
was “not prepared for all the issues with [BF4],” the employee stated that “no one [at] EA or
24
DICE has ever said ‘F*ck [sic] it, let's release it anyway.’” Id. at 3.
25
On June 20, 2014, defendant Wilson discussed BF4’s problematic launch during an
26
interview with Eurogamer magazine. Id. ¶ 117. Wilson denied that DICE had insufficient time to
27
test the game prior to launch, and instead pointed to the challenges of developing a game for the
28
launch of a next-generation gaming console. Defs.’ SRJN Ex. P, at 3. Wilson explained, “Not to
4
1
abdicate responsibility whatsoever . . . but when you are building a game on an unfinished
2
platform with unfinished software, there are some things that can’t get done until the very last
3
minute because the platform wasn't ready to get done.” Id.; ACC ¶ 117.
4
5
6
7
III.
Purported Misstatements
The Amended Complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants Gibeau, Moore,
and Wilson made the following five5 materially false or misleading statements:
8
(1) During a May 7, 2013 earnings conference call with analysts and
investors, defendant Gibeau responded to a question about EA’s
prior gaming console transitions by stating: “. . . in comparison to
last transition, we’re in a much better state as a company in terms of
our development. . . . [O]ur investment in Frostbite and EA
SPORTS over the last year has really put us in a position where the
technology side or the engine side of this transition has largely been
de-risked.” ACC ¶ 64, 66.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
(2) During a June 12, 2013 investor breakfast, defendant Moore
responded to a question about EA’s prior gaming console transitions
by stating: “. . . we learned from [the last transition], and for this
cycle, we have started early on Ignite and on Frostbite 3, and derisk
[sic] the technology engine component of making the transition. So
from the standpoint of picking the wrong platforms, I think we did a
good job there but we’ve mismanaged the technology. That’s not
happening this time around.” Id. ¶ 73.6
14
15
16
17
(3) In an interview published on July 23, 2013, defendant Gibeau
responded to a question about Frostbite by stating: “We created two
technology paths [Frostbite and Ignite] and invested early and got
them to the point where we were able to ship games on them. We
weren’t fighting the engines as we were developing. . . . [W]e
wanted to de-risk the technology piece as much as possible. That
was the key learning. . . . I was not going to repeat that mistake. . . .
Frostbite has been the core difference. . . . [I]it makes for efficient
and low-risk development.” Id. ¶¶ 76-77.
18
19
20
21
22
(4) During an October 29, 2013 earnings conference call, defendant
Wilson responded to a question about the impact of next-generation
gaming consoles on EA’s vision for the future by stating: “. . .
coming out of the last transition, we were resolute in our desire to
23
24
25
5
26
27
The Court previously held these five purported misstatements, in addition to three others
that have been omitted from the Amended Complaint, inactionable as a matter of law. See First
Dismissal Order, Dkt. No. 45, at 5-6.
6
28
The transcript of the investor breakfast attributes this statement to defendant Gibeau,
rather than Moore. Defs.’ SRJN Ex. C, at 11-12.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ensure we didn’t have that kind of challenge again. So as we
approach this transition, I would say we started work earlier than we
ever had done before, and we worked more closely with both
Microsoft and Sony throughout the entire process, and the end result
is, we have a launch slate of games that are the best transition games
that I’ve ever seen come out of this Company. . . .” Id. ¶¶ 84-85.
(5) During the same October 29, 2013 earnings conference call,
defendant Wilson responded to a question about the impact of nextgeneration gaming consoles on upcoming EA games by stating:
“[W]hen you look at the success of a console generation, it’s the
combination of two things. Great consoles and great software. And
as I talked about earlier, I think that our launch software this time is
head and shoulders above where we were last time . . . . [W]e are
certainly bullish as we come into this platform generation,
particularly as well as we have executed.” Id. ¶¶ 84, 86.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the May 7, 2013, June 12, 2013, and July 23, 2013
10
statements “perpetuat[ed] the false impression that EA had successfully addressed the issues that
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
plagued the launch of games like Medal of Honor, The Simpson and SimCity by de-risking [BF4’s]
12
development platform.” Id. ¶ 82. In fact, according to the Amended Complaint, “neither [BF4]
13
nor its technology platform Frostbite 3 were de-risked, largely or at all, and . . . the game's
14
development was high, not low, risk.” Id. The Amended Complaint further alleges that the
15
October 29, 2013 statements created the false impression that “EA’s close work with Microsoft
16
and Sony had ensured the success of [BF4] and the Company’s solid execution led to launch
17
software for [BF4] and other transition games [that were] ready for launch.” Id. ¶ 89. Plaintiffs
18
allege that defendants were aware of the numerous complaints detailing game-crashing defects,
19
which customers posted to online forums in the hours between BF4’s launch and the defendants’
20
October 29th statements. Id. Plaintiffs also allege that the common use of Frostbite 3 for all
21
platforms made the defects certain to occur in the launch of the next-generation games. Id.
22
Further, the Amended Complaint alleges that “EA’s assurance that its close work with Microsoft
23
and Sony had led to the best transition games was shown to be false by the revelation that next-
24
generation build requirements took longer than expected to develop,” and that the close work was
25
necessitated by the fact that the next-generation consoles were unfinished during BF4’s
26
development. Id. As to all statements, the Amended Complaint alleges that defendants “tacitly
27
admitted falsity” when they announced that DICE would focus exclusively on fixing BF4, that
28
industry analysts understood EA's announcement as an admission that EA was not surprised by
6
1
BF4's defects, and that defendant Wilson admitted that the game had been unfinished at launch.
2
Id.
3
Defendants allegedly misrepresented facts about BF4 in order to drive BF4 pre-sales, beat
4
Activision’s Call of Duty to market, and launch with the next-generation gaming consoles in time
5
for the holiday season. Id. ¶¶ 6, 67, 92. In a December 4, 2013 Forbes article, the article’s author
6
stated, “I suspect that EA didn’t want to hand victory over to Activision and Call of Duty: Ghosts
7
by delaying the game. . . .” Id. ¶ 105. Further, a November 6, 2013 email from a DICE developer
8
stated that “EA . . . wants us to release 2 weeks before [Activision’s Call of Duty] to avoid
9
competition.” Id. ¶ 92.
In addition, defendants allegedly made these statements in order to sell their EA stock at
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
artificially inflated prices. Id. ¶ 13-14. The purported misstatements allegedly caused EA’s stock
12
to trade at artificially high levels, reaching a class period high of $27.99 per share during the class
13
period. Id. ¶ 13. After EA launched BF4 on the two next-generation gaming consoles, EA’s stock
14
price dropped to $21.01 per share on December 5, 2013, thus removing the artificial inflation. Id.
15
¶¶ 20, 107, 135. During the class period, defendants Wilson, Moore, and Gibeau sold 701,959
16
shares of EA stock for a total of $17,059,848. Id. ¶ 119. Individually, these defendants’ class
17
period stock sales represented 74%, 74%, 85%, respectively, of their total individual EA stock
18
sold between January 1, 2008 and December 5, 2013. ACC ¶ 122.
19
20
IV.
Procedural Background
21
In late 2013 and early 2014, plaintiffs instituted two actions against defendants: Kelly v.
22
Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 13-05837, and Mastro v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 14-00188. See Dkt.
23
No. 16. By order dated January 22, 2014, the Court consolidated these actions. See Dkt. No. 13.
24
On February 25, 2014, the Court designated Ryan Kelly and Louis Mastro as lead plaintiffs and
25
appointed lead class counsel. See Dkt. No. 16.
26
On June 9, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint under Federal
27
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 27. This Court granted defendants’ motion on
28
October 20, 2014, finding that the alleged misstatements were vague statements of corporate
7
1
optimism that were inactionable as a matter of law. Dkt. No. 45. The Court granted plaintiffs
2
leave to amend their complaint to allege actionable misstatements. Id. Plaintiffs filed their
3
Amended Complaint on November 18, 2014. Dkt. No. 49. As stated above, the Amended
4
Complaint alleges no new misstatements, but instead presents additional facts purporting to
5
demonstrate that the alleged misstatements are in fact actionable. The significant additions are the
6
following:
The Amended Complaint alleges that the term “de-risk,” which
forms the basis of a majority of the defendants’ alleged
misstatements, has a commonly understood meaning within the
video game industry. Id. ¶ 80. Specifically, the complaint states
that the term means “to make something safer by reducing the
possibility that something bad will happen and that money will
be lost.” Id. ¶ 80 n.10. Plaintiffs point to a number of articles
allegedly demonstrating a common understanding of the term
within the video game industry. Id. ¶ 80.
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
The Amended Complaint provides details of EA’s past game
launches. The Simpsons, released in 2012, suffered from
technical issues that led EA to halt sales of the game for several
months. ACC ¶ 49. The 2013 launch of SimCity saw
Amazon.com pull the game from its website over technical
issues. Id. ¶ 52. Medal of Honor was another 2013 game launch
that was described as a “miss.” Id. ¶ 46.
12
13
14
15
19
The Amended Complaint quotes from defendant Wilson’s
interview of June 20, 2014, in which he stated that EA could not
get many things done until the last minute because “[EA was]
building [BF4] on an unfinished platform with unfinished
software . . . .” Id. ¶ 117. Plaintiffs describe this statement as an
admission that Frostbite 3 was unfinished as EA developed BF4.
Id. ¶ 2.
20
Presently before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
16
17
18
21
LEGAL STANDARDS
22
23
I.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
24
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a plaintiff
25
must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
26
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard requires the plaintiff to
27
allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
28
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a
8
1
right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
2
In deciding whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the
3
Court must assume that the plaintiff’s allegations are true and must draw all reasonable inferences
4
in the plaintiff’s favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987).
5
However, the court is not required to accept as true “allegations that contradict exhibits attached to
6
the Complaint or matters properly subject to judicial notice, or allegations that are merely
7
conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l
8
Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010).
If the court dismisses a complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend.
10
The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly
12
be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)
13
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
14
15
II.
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
16
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 declares it unlawful to “use or
17
employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive
18
device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the [SEC] may prescribe as
19
necessary. . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). SEC Rule 10b-5 implements Section 10(b) by making it
20
unlawful to make any untrue statement of material fact necessary in order to make the statements
21
made not misleading. 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
22
A plaintiff asserting a claim under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 must adequately allege six
23
elements: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a
24
connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4)
25
reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation.
26
Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148, 157 (2008) (citation
27
omitted); In re NVIDIA Corp. Sec. Litig., 768 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2014).
28
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) requires that a Section
9
1
10(b) complaint plead with particularity both falsity and scienter.
Zucco Partners, LLC v.
2
Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). As to falsity, the
3
complaint must state with particularity each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason
4
or reasons why the statement is misleading, and all facts on which that belief is formed. 15 U.S.C.
5
§ 78u-4(b)(1); In re Daou Sys., 411 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). As to
6
scienter, the complaint must state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the
7
defendant made false or misleading statements either intentionally or with deliberate recklessness.
8
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2); In re Daou Sys., 411 F.3d at 1015.
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 imposes liability on “control
10
persons.” 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a). To establish liability under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must first
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
prove a primary violation of Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d
12
1027, 1035 n.15 (9th Cir. 2002).
13
DISCUSSION
14
15
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim on the basis
16
that the ACC violates the law of the case by alleging the same misstatements that this Court has
17
previously held inactionable as a matter of law. Additionally, defendants renew their argument
18
that plaintiffs have failed to state a fraud claim, and that the ACC fails to plead with particularity
19
both falsity and scienter.7 As to plaintiffs’ Section 20(a) claim, defendants again move to dismiss
20
on the ground that the complaint fails to adequately allege a primary violation under Section 10(b)
21
or Rule 10b-5.
22
Because plaintiffs reallege the same statements that this Court previously held inactionable
23
as a matter of law, the issue before the Court is whether plaintiffs' factual additions to their
24
Amended Complaint demonstrate that the defendants’ statements were sufficiently definite to be
25
actionable, or otherwise pull the statements into the exception to the general rule that vague
26
statements of corporate optimism are inactionable. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds
27
7
28
Here, as in their prior motion to dismiss, defendants do not contest plaintiffs’ allegations
regarding certain other elements of a Section 10(b) claim, including loss causation.
10
1
that the additional facts do not justify revision of the Court's prior determination.8
2
3
I.
The Meaning of the Term “De-Risk”
4
In its prior dismissal order, this Court held that the term “de-risk” is a non-actionable
5
vague expression of corporate optimism and puffery. See First Dismissal Order, Dkt. No. 45, at
6
12. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs provide additional facts purporting to demonstrate that
7
the word “de-risk” has a specific and commonly understood meaning, in this case associated with
8
the reduction of the risk of “deficiencies that caused technical problems with prior game
9
launches.” ACC ¶ 2. The new allegations do not demonstrate such a precise meaning.
10
The definition plaintiffs provide adds no clarity to the term “de-risk.” The Amended
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Complaint points to the Cambridge Dictionaries Online definition of the term:
“to make
12
something safer by reducing the possibility that something bad will happen and that money will be
13
lost.” ACC ¶ 80 n.10.9 The Court previously likened this term to the word “improved,” which
14
also signifies making a product better or safer, and is a statement of corporate optimism and a
15
vague assessment of past results. See First Dismissal Order at 12 (citing In re Splash Tech.
16
Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1076-77 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (statement that product
17
line “improved” held inactionable as vague assessment of past results))
18
Further, the articles plaintiffs cite in support of their definition contradict the assertion that
19
the term “de-risk” has a precise meaning with regard to a reduction of the risk of technological
20
defects. See generally Defs.’ SRJN Ex. L (discussing ways to minimize risks to investments in
21
video game production); id. Ex. M (discussing the author’s emphasis on taking “smart risks” by
22
reducing costs and taking a cautious approach to production); id. Ex. N (discussing how a video
23
8
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants argue that the law-of-the-case doctrine precludes reconsideration of the
misstatements which the Court has already held inactionable. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 6-7.
Because the Court considers the allegations of the amended complaint as a whole, the Court finds
it unnecessary to reach this question.
9
In some instances, plaintiffs use the term to signify a reduction of risks. At other times,
however, plaintiffs use the term to signify a complete elimination of risks. Compare Pls.’ Opp. at
2 (stating that the term has a precise meaning of alleviating risks), and id. at 10 (disputing that
their allegations are premised on statements promising a problem-free launch), with id. at 14, 15
(stating that defendants’ message was that EA had eliminated risks associated with the transition).
11
1
game production company reduces risks by minimizing costs); id. Ex. O (using the term “de-risk”
2
as distinct from the process of creating games). The articles use the term “de-risk” in relation to
3
concepts such as cost, efficiency, and investments, but none uses the term in relation to
4
technological defects.
Defendants’ consistent use of “de-risk,” when viewed in context, also demonstrates the
6
term’s continued vagueness. See ACC ¶¶ 64, 66; Defs.’ SRJN Ex B, at 9, 15 (defendant Gibeau
7
using “de-risk” with reference to previous statements that Frostbite 3 reduces costs and promotes
8
efficiency); ACC ¶ 73, Defs.’ SRJN Ex. C, at 11-12 (defendant Moore using the term “de-risk” in
9
response to an investor's question about the risks of gearing production toward particular
10
consoles); ACC ¶¶ 77-78; Defs.’ SRJN Ex. F, at 3, 5 (defendant Gibeau using “risk” and “de-risk”
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
in discussions of early investments in Frostbite 3, reduced costs, and increased efficiency
12
associated with using a common technology engine across platforms). No use of the term came in
13
the context of discussing the game-breaking glitches plaintiffs use to establish falsity, and two
14
uses came after explicit references to EA’s SEC filings which made clear the risk of technological
15
glitches notwithstanding EA’s quality controls. Defs.’ SRJN Ex. B, at 4; id. Ex. C, at 12; id. Ex.
16
Q, at 3; id. Ex. R, at 3. Thus, instead of presenting Frostbite 3 as a panacea for technological
17
glitches, defendants used the term “de-risk” to signify reduced operating costs, increased
18
efficiency, and higher profit margins stemming from the use of a common technology engine
19
across current and next-generation platforms.
20
“[Frostbite 3 and Ignite] provide an enduring common technology that saves cost, fosters
21
efficiency, and provides spectacular physics and graphics for our games.”).
See, e.g., Defs.’ SRJN Ex. B, at 9 (Gibeau:
22
Thus, the allegations do not demonstrate that the term “de-risk” has any precise meaning.
23
Moreover, the inference that defendants used the term to promise the elimination of technological
24
risks is contradicted by the documents which plaintiffs incorporate into their complaint by
25
reference and is therefore entitled to no presumption of truth. See Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998.
26
Given that plaintiffs rely on the materialization of technological defects to establish that the
27
defendants lacked basis for their “de-risking” statements, neither the added context nor the
28
previously alleged facts pull defendants' statements within the actionable exception to corporate
12
1
puffery. See Kaplan, 49 F.3d at 1374 (9th Cir. 1994).10
2
3
II.
EA’s Past Game Launch Failures
The Court also finds that plaintiffs’ allegations regarding prior game launch failures do not
5
make any of the alleged misstatements actionable. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added
6
several paragraphs detailing the setbacks EA experienced with the past launches of three games:
7
Medal of Honor, The Simpsons, and SimCity. Id. ¶¶ 46-56. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’
8
statements that they had de-risked the transition technology created the false impression that they
9
had solved the issues that plagued these three games. Id. ¶ 82. Instead, plaintiffs allege, “[BF4’s]
10
launch was plagued by the very defects and development shortfalls that defendants claimed were
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
cured by the de-risking that they assured investors would make [BF4’s] launch different than
12
Medal of Honor, The Simpsons and SimCity.” Id. According to plaintiffs, the occurrence of
13
serious defects in BF4 at launch demonstrates that defendants’ statements about the improvement
14
in transition software were false. Pls.’ Opp. at 9; ACC ¶¶ 21, 68, 82.
15
As an initial matter, the Court notes that although the Amended Complaint adds more
16
detail regarding the “disastrous” prior game launches, the prior complaint alleged that “investors
17
were worried about the Company's history of disastrous game launches,” that “[i]nvestors were
18
therefore concerned about EA’s ability to successfully launch Battlefield 4, especially for next-
19
generation consoles,” and that to address those concerns defendants stated that EA “had ‘de-
20
risked’ the technology problems that had caused past botched game launches.” Consol. Compl.
21
¶¶ 3, 8-11. The Court addressed these allegations in the prior dismissal order, and found that the
22
alleged misstatements, such as defendant Gibeau’s May 7, 2013 statement that EA was in a “much
23
better state” for the next-generation transition and that Frostbite 3 had “largely been de-risked,”
24
and defendant Wilson’s October 29, 2013 statement proclaiming that EA’s launch software “[is]
25
26
27
28
10
This finding would not change even if the Court were to adopt the understanding of “derisk” as “minimizing the risks associated with the technological aspect of game development . . . .”
ACC ¶ 80. Indeed, the Court previously held the statements inactionable despite adopting that
view, that is, a representation that defendants “improved” upon past development platforms
through minimizing associated technological risks. See First Dismissal Order at 12.
13
1
head and shoulders above where we were last time” were non-actionable vague expression of
2
corporate optimism and puffery upon which no reasonable investor would rely. First Dismissal
3
Order at 12, 13. The additional context regarding the prior game launches does not change the
4
Court's analysis.
Further, each of defendants’ statements dealt specifically with transition software, and
6
none of the three above-mentioned games is alleged to have been a transition game, or built on
7
transition software.
8
statement in response to request for comparison of current and prior transition technology); id. Ex.
9
C, at 11-12 (defendant making “de-risk” statement in response to question about betting on certain
10
consoles in prior transition); id. Ex. F, at 3 (defendent Gibeau making “de-risk” statement in
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
response to question about prior transition platform); id. Ex. H, at 9 (defendant Moore stating that
12
the next-generation games were the best transition games he had seen come from EA); id. at 15
13
(defendant Wilson stating that the next-generation software was head-and-shoulders above where
14
it was before the last transition).
See Defs.’ SRJN Ex. B, at 14-15 (defendant Gibeau making “de-risk”
15
16
III.
Wilson’s June 20, 2014 Interview
17
The final significant factual additions to the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are excerpts
18
from a June 20, 2014 interview with defendant Wilson. In that interview, Wilson discussed BF4’s
19
troubled launch, stating, “when you are building a game on an unfinished platform with unfinished
20
software, there are some things that can't get done until the very last minute because the platform
21
wasn't ready to get done.” ACC ¶ 117.
22
The parties dispute the meaning of Wilson’s statement. Plaintiffs describe the statement as
23
an admission that BF4 was built on an unfinished Frostbite 3 engine, which prevented EA from
24
adequately testing BF4 prior to launch. ACC ¶¶ 2, 89. According to plaintiffs, this admission
25
demonstrates that defendants’ optimistic statements that the platform had been “de-risked” and
26
that the transition software was “head and shoulders” above prior transitions were unwarranted
27
and false when made. Id. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that Wilson’s statement referred
28
only to next-generation platforms, not Frostbite 3. Plaintiffs counter that their reading of Wilson’s
14
1
statement is reasonable, and that the Court must therefore draw the inference in favor of plaintiffs,
2
that Wilson admitted that Frostbite 3 had been unfinished during BF4’s development.
While the Court must ordinarily take the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court agrees
4
with the defendants that the context of the statement contradicts plaintiffs’ assertions; accordingly,
5
the Court need not adopt the plaintiffs’ view. See Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998. (“[A court is
6
not] required to accept as true allegations that contradict exhibits . . . .”). The context of Wilson's
7
statements was in a larger discussion of how the challenges of building a game for next-generation
8
consoles, rather than insufficient testing, led to the difficulties BF4 experienced. Defs.’ SRJN Ex.
9
P, at 3 (“Wilson denied [that EA rushed to launch BF4], however, insisting that DICE had plenty
10
of time to work on the game, before pointing to the challenge of creating a next-gen console
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
launch title.”). Even without this context, Wilson’s own statement about building BF4 on an
12
unfinished platform demonstrates that he was referring to next-generation consoles, not Frostbite
13
3: “Not to abdicate responsibility . . . but when you are building a game on an unfinished platform
14
with unfinished software, there are some things that can’t get done until the very last minute
15
because the platform wasn't ready to get done.”
16
responsibility would be meaningless if Wilson were admitting that an unfinished Frostbite 3
17
engine had been responsible for BF4’s problems. Further, Frostbite 3 was not brought up in the
18
interview at all. See generally id. Thus, the Court does not adopt the view that Wilson's June 20,
19
2014 statement constituted an admission that Frostbite 3 was unfinished during the development
20
of BF4. See Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998.11 Because this allegation does not demonstrate that
21
defendants lacked basis for their optimistic statements at the time those statements were made, the
22
Amended Complaint does not demonstrate that defendants’ statements of corporate puffery are
Id. (emphasis added).
The disclaimer of
23
11
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs contend that, even if Wilson's comment referred exclusively to nextgeneration consoles, having spoken about EA's close work with Microsoft and Sony triggered a
duty for defendants to disclose that the consoles were unfinished. Pls.’ Opp., at 11. The Amended
Complaint alleges no specific facts demonstrating that EA at any time concealed or
misrepresented the status of next-generation console development. To the contrary, the only
allegation plaintiffs have made on the point demonstrates that EA was in fact open about the
challenges presented by continued changes to next-generation consoles. See Consol. Compl.,
¶¶ 78-80. Plaintiffs have removed these allegations from their Amended Complaint and now
imply that such statements were never made. See Pls.’ Opp. at 11.
15
1
actionable. See Kaplan, 49 F.3d 1363.
However, even if the Court drew the inference that defendant Wilson had in fact admitted
3
that Frostbite 3 had been unfinished, the result would be the same. A later statement “may suggest
4
that a defendant had a contemporaneous knowledge of the falsity of his statement, if the later
5
statement directly contradicts or is inconsistent with the earlier statement.” In re Read-Rite Corp.
6
Sec. Litig., 335 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in South
7
Ferry LP, No. 2 v. Killinger, 542 F.3d 776, 782-84 (9th Cir. 2008).
8
“admission” does not directly contradict any of the alleged misstatements.
9
constituted a favorable comparison of EA’s current position in relation to the company’s position
10
ahead of the prior transition. ACC ¶¶ 64, 66, 73, 76-77, 84-86. The Amended Complaint lacks
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
any specific factual allegations related to prior transition games or technology, except for vague
12
references to prior “transition failures.” See, e.g., ACC ¶ 22. Thus, an admission that Frostbite 3
13
had not been finished until the last minute does not directly contradict statements that Frostbite 3
14
represented an improvement over EA’s last transition software. See Read-Rite, 335 F.3d at 946;
15
see also Splash Tech. Holdings, 160 F. Supp. 2d at 1077 (holding vague assessments of past
16
results inactionable).12
However, Wilson’s
Each statement
17
In sum, taking all of non-conclusory factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true,
18
and drawing all reasonable and uncontradicted inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, the Court
19
continues to find that each of the defendants’ statements represents an inactionable vague
20
statement of corporate puffery. See In re Apple Computer, Inc. Sec. Litig., 127 F. App’x 296, 304
21
(9th Cir. 2005) (holding “this is going to be the best Power Mac ever” inactionable as plausibly
22
held opinion and statement of corporate optimism); In re Cisco Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C 11-
23
1568 SBA, 2013 WL 1402788, at *13 (N.D. Cal Mar. 29, 2013) (holding statement that company
24
was “extremely well positioned” inactionable); Splash Tech. Holdings, 160 F. Supp. 2d at 1077
25
12
26
27
28
Nor would plaintiffs’ reading of Wilson’s statement contradict Gibeau’s July 23, 2013
statement that EA developed Frostbite 3 to the point of being able to ship games on it. See ACC
¶ 77. Gibeau’s statement is exceedingly vague and does not refer to BF4 or any other particular
game. No facts in the Amended Complaint support the inference that EA could not ship any
games on Frostbite 3—even if the engine had been unfinished at the time Gibeau made this
statement.
16
1
(holding statement that product line “improved” inactionable); Stickrath v. Globalstar, 527 F.
2
Supp. 2d 992, 998-99 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (statements touting “high quality” and “reliable” service
3
were non-actionable puffery that would not be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer).
4
5
IV.
Falsity and Scienter
6
Defendants again move to dismiss this action on the additional ground that the Amended
7
Complaint fails to plead with particularity that defendants made false or misleading statements
8
about BF4 intentionally or with deliberate recklessness. In addition to the reasons stated above,
9
the Court agrees that the Amended Complaint fails to adequately allege falsity and scienter for the
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
reasons articulated by defendants.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) claims with prejudice.13
12
CONCLUSION
13
14
15
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Complaint with prejudice.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated: April 30, 2015
19
20
________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for control person liability under Section
20(a) on the ground that the Amended Complaint fails to allege a primary violation under Section
10(b) or Rule 10b-4. To establish liability under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must first prove a
violation of Section 10(b) or Rules 10b-5. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1035 n.15
(9th Cir. 2002). As discussed above, plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a violation of Section
10(b) or Rule 10b-5. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss the Section
20(a) claim with prejudice.
17
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?