Felix v. Symantec Corporation et al

Filing 181

ORDER RE 170 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge William Alsup. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
AB, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 18-02902 WHA

v.

15

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
GREGORY S. CLARK, NICHOLAS R.
NOVIELLO, and MARK S. GARFIELD,

16

Defendants.

ORDER RE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT

17
18
19
20
21

/
INTRODUCTION

In this securities action, lead plaintiff moves for leave to file first amended complaint.
To the extent stated below, the motion is GRANTED.
STATEMENT

22

Previous orders have stated the facts of this case. In short, defendant Symantec

23

Corporation is a company that sells cybersecurity products and services. In early 2016,

24

Symantec divested Veritas Software, a company it had acquired for $13.5 billion. In June 2016,

25

Symantec announced the $4.65 billion acquisition of a privately-held network-security firm

26

called Blue Coat Systems, Inc. Blue Coat’s top management team then took control of

27

Symantec, with defendants Gregory Clark and Nicholas Noviello assuming the positions of

28

Symantec’s CEO and CFO, respectively. Defendant Mark Garfield, Symantec’s Chief
Accounting Officer prior to the Blue Coat acquisition, continued on in his role. In November

1

2016, Symantec acquired Lifelock, Inc., a consumer identity-protection company for $2.3

2

billion. In connection with this acquisition, Symantec increased its revenue and income targets

3

for executive compensation (Consolidated Compl. ¶¶ 19–40).

4

Symantec reported strong financial performance and the success of the Blue Coat and

5

Lifelock acquisitions in its SEC filings for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. In the Form 10-K for the

6

fiscal year 2017, defendants affirmed that Symantec’s financial statements were GAAP

7

compliant. These revenues exceeded CEO Clark and CFO Noviello’s 2017 executive

8

compensation plan targets and they accordingly received millions of dollars in equity awards

9

(id. ¶¶ 131–40, 183, 187–89, 195–96).
The leadership shakeup that followed the Blue Coat acquisition resulted in negative

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

changes in Symantec’s policies and practices concerning financial reporting. Specifically

12

defendants engaged in improper revenue recognition practices in violation of GAAP and

13

improperly recorded ordinary operating expenses as “transition costs” (id. ¶¶ 64–90).

14

In May 2018, Symantec announced that its Audit Committee had begun an internal

15

investigation. Symantec’s stock declined by over 33 percent following the announcement (id.

16

¶¶ 159). Individuals then filed two lawsuits in this district on behalf of themselves and a

17

putative class of similarly-situated investors. An August 2018 order consolidated the two

18

actions and appointed SEB Investment Management AB as lead plaintiff in the consolidated

19

action (Dkt. No. 75).

20

Also in August 2018, Symantec released its earnings for the first quarter of fiscal year

21

2019. At the same time, it announced the internal investigation was “ongoing.” Symantec’s

22

stock price dropped another eight percent (Consolidated Compl. ¶¶ 167, 288).

23

In September 2018, Symantec concluded its investigation and announced that it found

24

relatively weak and informal processes with respect to some aspects of the review. The

25

investigation also uncovered that $12 million of a $13 million transaction previously recognized

26

as revenue in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018 should have been deferred. Symantec also

27

announced that in September 2017 it had “initiated a review by an outside accounting firm of,

28

2

1

and took other steps to enhance, the Company’s policies and procedures regarding non-GAAP

2

measures” (id. ¶¶ 167–85).

3

In October 2018, an order approved SEB’s selection of lead counsel. A consolidated

4

complaint followed and defendants filed motions to dismiss in December 2018, which were

5

granted (Dkt. Nos. 88, 103, 114, 137). A June 2019 order granted a motion to relate Lee v.

6

Clark (Case No. 18-cv-02902), a derivative action. In the derivative action, plaintiff moved to

7

seal portions of the verified stockholder derivative complaint. A July 2019 order denied in part

8

and granted in part the motion (Dkt. Nos. 15, 23). Following the unsealing of portions of the

9

derivative complaint, plaintiff in the instant action filed an amended motion for leave to file a
first amended complaint. Defendants oppose. This order follows full briefing and oral

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

argument.

12
13

ANALYSIS
FRCP 15(a)(2) permits a party to amend its pleading with the court’s leave, advising that

14

“[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” In ruling on a motion for leave

15

to amend, courts consider: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4)

16

futility of amendment, and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. Allen v.

17

City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990). For purposes of assessing futility on

18

this motion, the legal standard is the same as it would be on a motion to dismiss under FRCP

19

12(b)(6). Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988).

20

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

21

must plead: (i) a material misrepresentation or omission; (ii) scienter; (iii) a connection with the

22

purchase or sale of a security; (iv) reliance; (v) economic loss; and (vi) loss causation. Dura

23

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341–42 (2005).

24

The proposed first amended complaint seeks to amend by including new facts

25

demonstrating the materiality of defendants’ revenue recognition misconduct, adding new

26

details regarding scienter, and alleging misrepresentations regarding the Blue Coat integration.

27
28

3

1

1.

REVENUE RECOGNITION.

2

According to the proposed amended complaint, defendants engaged in various revenue

3

recognition practices that violated GAAP. Such alleged improper revenue recognition practices

4

include failure to defer revenue, double-booking sales, and recognizing revenue for sales in

5

which a purchase order had not yet been issued.

6

A.

7

The order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss did so on the ground that plaintiff had

Materiality.

8

not provided sufficient facts to demonstrate the materiality of defendants’ improper revenue

9

recognition practices. Plaintiff has now met the requirement for pleading materiality.
First, the previous complaint alleged defendants identified a transaction where $13

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

million had been recognized as revenue in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018 but for which

12

$12 million should have been deferred to the following quarter. Defendants subsequently

13

revised the preliminary financial results to take this deferral into account. The order granting

14

defendants’ motion to dismiss highlighted the fact that the deferral reduced the company’s

15

fourth quarter revenue by less than one percent, too tiny to show materiality.

16

Plaintiff has now added further allegations stating the $12 million materially affected

17

Symantec’s operating income. Specifically, Symantec reported $49 million of operating

18

income for fiscal year 2018, which allegedly would have been reported as $61 million if

19

defendants had not revised their preliminary financial results. This would have accordingly

20

lowered operating income for the fiscal year by 20%. Plaintiff states the improper revenue

21

deferral also materially impacted Symantec’s 2018 fourth quarter financials as Symantec had to

22

lower its operating income for that quarter by 67%. Although Symantec uses operating income

23

as a key metric, there are other metrics used to gauge a company’s financial position. That

24

Symantec’s improper revenue recognition practice may have materially affected operating

25

income does not mean that it necessarily materially affected the company’s overall financial

26

position. Nonetheless, at this early stage in the litigation, plaintiff’s additional allegations

27

plausibly demonstrate the alleged misconduct materially impacted the company’s overall

28

financial position.

4

1

Second, the previous complaint alleged Symantec’s head of global sales made a verbal

While the deal technically booked in the fourth quarter, it appeared as if someone manually

4

changed the booking in the system so that it was booked in the first quarter of the following

5

fiscal year as well. Similar incidents happened to five other Symantec Account Managers.

6

Plaintiff has now added further details stating, among other things, a former Verizon strategic

7

account manager believes defendant Clark was involved in double-booking “six double digit

8

million-dollar deals which can be estimated to amount to a total of at least $63 million.” As

9

defendants argue, it is unclear from the face of the complaint if the revenue was indeed double

10

booked or if the revenue was merely recorded in the first quarter of 2018 while the employee

11
For the Northern District of California

agreement with Verizon to give Verizon a one million dollar discount on a $13 million deal.

3

United States District Court

2

was compensated for the deal in the fourth quarter of 2017. Nonetheless, if at least $63 million

12

was improperly recognized as plaintiff alleges, and this amount would have not only affected

13

the operating income by 17%, but would have been dispositive in determining the individual

14

defendants’ bonuses, the newly added claims contribute to the materiality of the alleged

15

improper revenue recognition practices.

16

Third, plaintiff has added new facts from various informants stating Symantec forced

17

through deals in which a purchase order had not yet been received. For example, a former

18

account executive alleged that when a customer told Symantec it would issue a purchase order a

19

few days following the end of Symantec’s fiscal quarter, Symantec’s channel partner would

20

write Symantec the purchase order right away and pay Symantec so that Symantec would not

21

have to wait until the next quarter to book it. Another similar allegation in the proposed

22

amended complaint details a situation in which a regional vice president was told to request a

23

purchase order of at least $750,000 from a partner for a product that had not been ordered and

24

which the regional vice president knew was not going to happen during that quarter.

25

Plaintiff estimates that as a result of these practices at least $10.75 million was

26

improperly recognized (Br. Ex. A ¶¶ 82, 91). These allegations if true are concerning, but

27

remain too vague. Plaintiff makes broad estimates regarding the impact of these improper

28

practices. For example, plaintiff cites to a regional vice president who stated, the improper

5

1

recognition was for orders of “at least $750,000 but . . . would have gone up to tens of millions

2

of dollars.” Similarly, plaintiff contends, “if a salesperson in the field had 100 deals a year, and

3

1% were brought that way, approximately $10 million would be” improperly recognized. It is

4

accordingly difficult to determine if these allegations “were minor or technical in nature, or

5

whether they constituted widespread and significant inflation of revenue.” In re Daou Systems,

6

Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005). They accordingly do not contribute to the materiality

7

of the alleged improper practices.

8

Plaintiff has finally added a number of other miscellaneous allegations regarding

many deals as possible before a new quarter. The proposed amended complaint also alleges

11
For the Northern District of California

improper revenue recognition practices stating sales employees were encouraged to pull in as

10

United States District Court

9

Symantec gave discounts to channel partners of three to five points or more to get customers to

12

buy products at quarter-end or year-end. These new allegations merely suggest Symantec

13

incentivized sales teams to close deals sooner. That is the American way. They accordingly do

14

not contribute to the materiality of the alleged improper revenue recognition practices.

15

Even though some of the claims and the amounts alleged to have been improperly

16

recognized in the first amended complaint are vague, plaintiff has met the requirement for

17

pleading materiality at this stage, subject to proof at trial or summary judgment. In other words,

18

we will have to decide whether the amounts alleged by plaintiff to have been improperly

19

recognized are material.

20

B.

21

To adequately plead scienter, the complaint must “state with particularity facts giving

Scienter.

22

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

23

78u–4(b)(2). That is, plaintiff must allege particularized facts supporting a strong inference that

24

defendants made false or misleading statements intentionally or with deliberate recklessness.

25

Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423, 429 (9th Cir. 2001). A strong inference is one that is “cogent

26

and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.”

27

Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 324 (2007). In evaluating scienter,

28

the proper inquiry is not whether “any individual allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that

6

1

standard,” but rather “whether all of the facts alleged, taken collectively” satisfy the scienter

2

burden. Id. at 323. Our court of appeals has further held plaintiffs may meet their pleading

3

burden as to scienter of a corporation by alleging facts creating a strong inference that someone

4

whose intent could be imputed to the corporation acted with the requisite scienter, even if that

5

person is not a named defendant. In re NVIDIA Corp. Sec. Litig., 768 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir.

6

2014).

7

In regards to defendant Clark, the strongest example of his scienter is that, in regards to

8

the Verizon deal, “Defendant Clark was the only person who had the authority to approve the

9

account managers getting paid for the [alleged double-booked] orders in Q4.” Specifically, the
proposed amended complaint alleges an account manager “had to write a justification to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Defendant Clark documenting the order numbers for Q4 to prove that it actually booked in Q4.”

12

Such allegations do not merely demonstrate defendant Clark’s personal involvement in the

13

approval of employee compensation, but that he was made aware of when certain orders were

14

booked and accordingly, the corresponding effect it had on revenue depending on when it was

15

booked. Plaintiff has thus adequately pled scienter regarding revenue recognition as to

16

defendant Clark.

17

In regards to defendant Garfield, plaintiff alleges he resigned in August 2017 due to

18

revenue recognition concerns. Specifically, plaintiff states Symantec’s former VP and CSO

19

“learned from multiple people who were part of the senior executive team that Garfield was

20

really unhappy with the aggressive accounting practices that were being implemented.” The

21

proposed amended complaint also alleges “Garfield reported to executives at Defendant Clark’s

22

level something improper that had to do with revenue” and that he was “given a payout to keep

23

quiet and move on.” Even assuming these allegations are true they are still too vague and

24

speculative to meet the pleading burden as to his scienter. It is unclear what alleged improper

25

revenue recognition practices defendant Garfield knew about and what, if any, of these practices

26

he knowingly or recklessly approved. This order concludes that plaintiff has failed to set forth

27

the necessary particularized allegations demonstrating defendant Garfield’s scienter as to

28

improper revenue recognition.

7

1

In regards to defendant Noviello, the proposed amended complaint makes few specific

2

allegations regarding his scienter. Plaintiff alleges defendant Garfield would quote defendant

3

Noviello when he told the Manager Bill and Collect-Finance to preemptively push through

4

purchase orders. In addition, plaintiff argues defendant Noviello gave a presentation regarding

5

deferred revenue (non-GAAP) trends. These generalized statements do not allege with enough

6

particularity that defendant Noviello knew of the specific aforementioned improper revenue

7

recognition practices and approved them. This order concludes that plaintiff has failed to set

8

forth the necessary particularized allegations demonstrating defendant Noviello’s scienter as to

9

improper revenue recognition.
Beyond the allegations regarding the aforementioned individual defendants, the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

proposed amended complaint also alleges that various other Symantec employees participated

12

in approving improper revenue recognition practices. For example, in regards to the allegation

13

that Symantec forced through deals in which a purchase order had not yet been received, a

14

regional vice president stated that he received text messages from David Auslander at the

15

instruction of Michael Fey, Steve Tchejeyan, and Marc Andrews to do so. Furthermore, the

16

complaint also alleges Tchejeyan was the one who made the verbal deal with Verizon that

17

ultimately led to the corresponding double-booked deal. Combined with the allegations

18

regarding defendant Clark, the proposed amended complaint offers sufficiently detailed facts to

19

plead scienter as to Symantec’s improper revenue recognition.

20

2.

TRANSITION COSTS.

21

According to the proposed amended complaint, defendants improperly recorded

22

continuing non-transition operating expenses and recurring operating expenses as transition

23

costs. This allowed the company to remove such costs from its adjusted operating expenses,

24

thereby inflating Symantec’s non-GAAP metrics for adjusted operating income, operating

25

margin, and earnings per share. The order dismissing plaintiff’s original complaint did so on

26

the ground that scienter was not adequately pled, specifically that the complaint alleged the

27

misclassification of expenses resulted from pressure from defendants, not that they had directed

28

8

1

the misclassification. Plaintiff has now added further details and allegations to support the

2

claim of scienter as to transition costs.

3

First, plaintiff points to Symantec’s retention of Ernst & Young and Fenwick & West to

4

enhance Symantec’s non-GAAP measures. Our court of appeals has held that the retention of

5

outside firms is not necessarily sufficient to support an inference of scienter. Here, the

6

proposed amended complaint only claims that the board commenced investigations and

7

recommended control enhancements in response to Ernst & Young and Fenwick & West’s

8

findings. There is no indication the investigation was specifically related to transition costs or

9

that defendants were made aware of any specific issues regarding transition costs. Such
allegations do not contribute to a finding of scienter. Second, the proposed amended complaint

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

alleges that Broadcom lowered its price for Symantec by one billion dollars due to discovery of

12

negative information during due diligence to support a finding of scienter. The causality

13

between this allegation and the alleged misconduct is weak as it is unclear what Broadcom even

14

discovered, and thus does not contribute to an inference of scienter. Third, plaintiff alleges the

15

departure of defendants Garfield, Noviello, Clark, and numerous other executive level

16

employees suggest they left in connection with the allegations in the instant action. Executive

17

turnover is a normal part of corporate acquisitions. However, the timing of the departures as

18

well as the fact that at least eleven executives departed following the Audit Committee

19

investigation is uncharacteristic and thus contributes to scienter.

20

Plaintiff also makes allegations specific to each individual defendant regarding their

21

scienter. As to defendant Clark, plaintiff alleges he was a board member during the class period

22

and was directly and personally involved in approving the transition costs at issue. Defendants

23

argue none of the allegations demonstrate defendant Clark considered and approved the

24

classification of specific transition expenses. However, Symantec’s Form 10-Q for the third

25

quarter of 2018 states “transition costs are incurred in connection with Board of Directors

26

approved discrete strategic information technology transformation initiatives.” This statement

27

indicates board members like defendant Clark were at aware and participated in the approval of

28

initiatives related to transition costs. Furthermore, defendant Clark was present at various

9

1

meetings in which transaction costs and their impact on other financial measures were

2

specifically discussed. These allegations accordingly give rise to a strong inference that even if

3

defendant Clark did not know how exactly the transition costs in question were being recorded,

4

he was aware of and took part in approving them. Because of this, plaintiff has sufficiently pled

5

scienter as to defendant Clark.

6

As to defendant Noviello, the primary new allegations in the proposed amended

transition costs and financial reporting errors were discussed. For example, plaintiff cites to a

9

January 2017 meeting attended by defendants Clark and Noviello prior to the class period in

10

which defendant Noviello gave a presentation regarding non-GAAP revenue and operating

11
For the Northern District of California

complaint are that he was present at multiple Audit Committee and board meetings in which

8

United States District Court

7

income basis as well as the impact of transition costs on non-GAAP operating income. He was

12

also present at an October 2017 meeting in which remedial activities were discussed and in

13

which the board requested further detail on transition and transformation accounts. Similarly,

14

the primary new allegations regarding defendant Garfield are that he was present at meetings in

15

which financial reporting errors were discussed. Plaintiff cites to a May 2017 Audit Committee

16

meeting attended by all three individual defendants in which they reviewed and discussed

17

“errors in financial reporting and recording.” They also discussed the use of non-GAAP

18

measures. Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged scienter as to either of these individual

19

defendants in regards to transition costs. The proposed amended complaint at most only alleges

20

they separately discussed transition costs and errors in financial reporting at various meetings,

21

not that the deficiencies in question were related to the classification of transition costs or that

22

the they had approved them. The tenuous connection between the subjects discussed at these

23

meetings does not support a strong inference that defendants Noviello and Garfield knew,

24

approved, or recklessly disregarded the alleged improper manipulation of transition costs.

25

Scienter requires particularized facts supporting a strong inference defendants made

26

false or misleading statements intentionally or recklessly. When viewed holistically with

27

plaintiff’s previous factual allegations of scienter, the proposed amended complaint does not

28

10

1

adequately plead scienter as to defendants Noviello or Garfield, but does as to defendants Clark

2

and Symantec.

3
4

3.

LOSS CAUSATION.

For loss causation, plaintiff must demonstrate a causal connection between the alleged

5

misconduct and the economic loss suffered. Nuveen Mun. High Income Opportunity Fund v.

6

City of Alameda, Cal., 730 F.3d 1111, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013). Defendants argue there was no

7

loss causation following the stock price drop on May 10, 2018, because the August 2 disclosure

8

alleged in the proposed first amended complaint merely stated the Audit Committee

9

investigation was ongoing. Defendants contend the disclosure was not a corrective one
regarding misstatements and thus could not have caused the August 3 stock decline. However,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

what defendants miss is that the disclosure also stated the 2018 fourth quarter results were

12

subject to the Audit Committee’s investigation and thus could plausibly have caused the stock

13

decline. Given the low burden for pleading loss causation, plaintiff has sufficiently pled loss

14

causation on August 2.

15

4.

16

Plaintiff has now added new allegations claiming Symantec made false, positive

INTEGRATION SUCCESS.

17

statements regarding its integration with Blue Coat. Importantly, here, even if the alleged

18

“exodus of employees” and lack of integration of the sales teams indicate that defendants’

19

representations concerning the success of the integration were false, plaintiff has failed to show

20

they are material. The proposed amended complaint does not adequately plead with specificity

21

the extent to which these alleged misrepresentations affected the financial position of the

22

company. Plaintiff has thus not sufficiently pled its integration claim.

23
24
25

5.

JUDICIAL NOTICE AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE.
A.

Judicial Notice.

Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) permits courts to take judicial notice of any fact “that is

26

not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from

27

sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” While a court may take judicial

28

notice of matters of public record at the motion to dismiss stage, it cannot take judicial notice of

11

1

disputed facts contained in such public records. Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d

2

988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018).

3

Defendants request judicial notice of eight documents (Exhibits 6, 7, 12–16, 21), which

4

are excerpts of Symantec’s Form 10-Q and Form 8-K for various time periods between 2016

5

and 2019. Plaintiff does not object to Exhibits 16 and 21. Because these documents are the

6

appropriate subjects of judicial notice, defendants’ unopposed request is GRANTED.

7

Plaintiff challenges Exhibits 6 and 7 on the grounds that defendants seek to judicially

of defendants’ revenue recognition practices. This order takes judicial notice of the fact that

10

such disclosures were made and the revenue amounts cited by defendants in their opposition

11
For the Northern District of California

notice the documents to inappropriately dispute plaintiff’s allegations regarding the materiality

9

United States District Court

8

brief (Opp. at 12).

12

Plaintiff also challenges Exhibits 12 and 13, arguing that defendants use the exhibits

13

improperly to ask for judicial notice of the truth of the matter asserted that KPMG knowingly

14

accepted defendants Clark and Noviello’s signatures with awareness of their actions in

15

connection with improper accounting practices. This order agrees and will take judicial notice

16

of the existence of the documents and the fact that defendants Clark and Noviello signed them,

17

but declines to take judicial notice of the truth of the matter that KPMG would not have

18

accepted the signatures if they were aware of wrongdoing.

19

Plaintiff challenges Exhibits 14 and 15 on the grounds that defendants use the exhibits to

20

improperly ask for judicial notice of the truth of the matter asserted that the transition after the

21

Blue Coat acquisition would be “disruptive” and that Symantec could be expected to reduce and

22

close certain facilities. This order agrees and will take judicial notice of the existence of the

23

documents and the fact that such statements were made, but not the truth of the matter.

24
25

B.

Incorporation by Reference.

It is improper to assume the truth of an incorporated document if such assumptions only

26

serve to dispute facts stated in a well-pleaded complaint, but that does not preclude

27

consideration of the document under the incorporation by reference doctrine for any purpose.

28

Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1003.

12

1

Defendants have requested twelve documents, consisting of various excerpts from

2

Symantec’s Form 8-K, 10-K, and 10-Q for various time periods between 2017 and 2019 to be

3

incorporated by reference (Exhibits 1–5, 9, 11, 17–20, 22). Plaintiff does not dispute that

4

Exhibits 9, 11, 17–20, and 22 are appropriately considered. These documents will therefore be

5

considered under the incorporation by reference doctrine.

6

Plaintiff challenges Exhibits 1 and 2 on the grounds that defendants improperly ask the

7

undersigned to assume the truth of the matters asserted because the documents are used to

8

dispute the fact that the $12 million was material to Symantec’s operating income. Exhibit 2,

9

however, is not solely used to dispute this allegation, but also to support the fact that defendants
Clark and Noviello signed Symantec’s Form 10-K filed in October 2018 and that two of the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

pulled in deals cited by plaintiff constituted an immaterial amount of the FY17 and FY18

12

revenue. This order will consider Exhibit 2 incorporated by reference to the extent defendants

13

ask for it to assert the truth of the matter that the document was signed by defendants Clark and

14

Noviello. This order will also decline to consider Exhibits 1 and 2 incorporated by reference to

15

the extent defendants seek to use them assert the truth of the matter that the alleged improper

16

revenue recognitions practices were immaterial, but will consider the documents incorporated

17

by reference to the extent they are used to assert the financial metrics cited in defendants’

18

opposition (Opp. at 4, 5, 10, 12). .

19

Plaintiff challenges Exhibit 3 on the grounds that defendants improperly ask the

20

undersigned to assume the truth of the matters asserted because they are used solely to dispute

21

the fact that defendant Clark did not possess sufficient scienter. This order agrees and the

22

document will not be considered under the incorporation by reference doctrine.

23

Plaintiff challenges Exhibits 4 and 5 on the grounds that defendants improperly ask the

24

undersigned to assume the truth of the matters asserted because they are used solely to dispute

25

the fact that the alleged improper revenue recognition practices were material. Again, this order

26

will not consider the documents incorporated by reference to the extent defendants seek to use

27

them for the purpose asserting the truth of the matter that the alleged improper revenue

28

recognitions practices were immaterial. It will, however, consider Exhibits 4 and 5

13

1

incorporated by reference to the extent defendants ask for them to assert the financial metrics

2

cited in their opposition (Opp. at 10).

3

CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint

5

is GRANTED to the extent stated above. An amended complaint pursuant to this order shall be

6

filed by OCTOBER 17 AT NOON. Further leave to amend would be futile. Defendants shall file

7

their answer by NOVEMBER 7 AT NOON.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: October 2, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

14