Cowan v. Axesstel, Inc. et al
Filing
22
ORDER denying Defendants' 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 2/13/2015. (jah)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
Amish Patel, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
6
vs.
7
Axesstel, Inc., H. Clark Hickock, and
Patrick Gray,
Defendant.
8
Case No.: 3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS
9
10
On April 24, 2014, Jesse Cowan filed a putative class action complaint
11
against Defendants Axesstel, Inc. (“Axesstel”), its former Chief Executive Officer
12
(“CEO”), H. Clark Hickock, and its Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) and current
13
CEO, Patrick Gray, alleging violation of federal securities laws. The Court then
14
granted an unopposed motion by Amish Patel for appointment as lead plaintiff and
15
for approval of class counsel. On September 22, 2014, Patel filed an amended
16
class action complaint against Defendants. Defendants have moved to dismiss the
17
amended complaint. The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court determined
18
that it was suitable for submission without oral argument. Because the amended
19
complaint alleges facts that create a strong inference of scienter, the motion is
20
DENIED.
1
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
I.
2
The Parties
A.
The Plaintiff Class
3
The putative class in this case consists of all purchasers of Axesstel stock
4
between February 28, 2013, to October 17, 2013 (the “Class Period”). [Doc. No.
5
13 at ¶ 1.] Lead Plaintiff Amish Patel and named plaintiff Jesse Cowan both
6
purchased Axesstel stock on several occasions during the Class Period. [Id. at ¶¶
7
22, 23.]
8
B.
Axesstel
9
Defendant Axesstel is a Nevada corporation founded in 2000 with its
10
principal place of business in San Diego, California. [Id. at ¶¶ 24, 30.] As of the
11
end of 2012, Axesstel had a total of thirty-five full-time employees, only fifteen of
12
whom were located in the United States.
13
employees, six were involved in executive, general and administrative functions,
14
three were involved in sales and marketing, and the remainder worked in product
15
development or operations. [Id.] Axesstel also had eight consultants, including
16
seven in sales and marketing, and one in product development. [Id.] In its 2012
17
Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”),
18
Axesstel stated that it “has a small employee base and depend[s] substantially on
19
[its] current executive officers and key sales, engineering and operational
20
employees.” [Id. at ¶ 37.]
[Id. at ¶ 35.]
Of the thirty-five
2
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
Axesstel provides various wireless and broadband products, including (1)
2
3G and 4G broadband gateway devices that can be used to provide wireless
3
broadband data to multiple computers on a network, (2) wireless desktop
4
telephones, and (3) wire-line replacement terminals that provide an alternative to a
5
traditional landline telephone network. [Id. at ¶ 30.] Axesstel sells and markets its
6
products worldwide. In the fourth quarter of 2012, Axesstel came out with a new
7
“Home Alert” product line that, once installed, automatically sends messages to
8
pre-assigned phone numbers or email addresses if the home or office is broken into
9
and a sensor is set off. [Id. at ¶ 31.] The Home Alert system was intended to be a
10
low cost alternative to traditional monitored alarm services because there is no
11
monthly monitoring fee. [Id. at ¶ 33.]
12
C.
H. Clark Hickock
13
Hickock was Axesstel’s CEO from March 2008 through October 13, 2013,
14
and a director from March 2008 through October 17, 2013. [Id. at ¶ 25.] In
15
addition, in early June 2013, Hickock assumed the management responsibilities of
16
Axesstel’s Chief Marketing Officer, who resigned on June 7, 2013. [Id. at ¶ 38.]
17
Going forward, the sales executives for each of Axesstel’s four key regional
18
markets reported directly to Hickock. [Id.] When announcing this change on June
19
13, 2013, Axesstel explained that Hickock “has been increasingly active in key
20
customer relationships.” [Id.] Along these lines, Hickock spent four weeks in
3
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
Africa in early 2013 during which he had 13 customer meetings and met with a
2
logistics partner and local wireless operators. [Id. at ¶ 129.]
3
Hickock participated in the issuance of, signed, or certified as accurate
4
pursuant to a Sarbanes-Oxley Required Certification,1 most or all of the alleged
5
false statements that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ securities fraud claim, including
6
statements made in several of Axesstel’s SEC filings during the Class Period. [Id.
7
at ¶ 26.]
8
D.
Patrick Gray
9
Gray was Axesstel’s CFO from February 2007 through the present, and has
10
also been CEO since October 13, 2013, following Hickock’s termination. [Id. at ¶
11
27.] Prior to joining Axesstel, Gray held various finance and accounting positions
12
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The amended complaint alleges that Hickock and Gray certified that they had
reviewed the respective filing and that:
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report.
[Doc. No. 13 at ¶ 90.]
4
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
with other companies.
[Id.]
He has an M.B.A. and a B.S. in business
2
administration with a concentration in accounting.
3
complaint alleges that Gray participated in the issuance of, signed, or certified as
4
accurate most or all of the alleged false statements that form the basis of Plaintiffs’
5
securities fraud claim, including statements made in several of Axesstel’s SEC
6
filings during the Class Period.
[Id.]
Like Hickock, the
7
II.
8
Over the course of its 88 pages, the amended complaint identifies a number
9
of allegedly false statements by Defendants during the Class Period. However, the
10
crux of Plaintiffs’ securities fraud case is that (1) Axesstel improperly recognized
11
and reported revenue from purported sales of its Home Alert products to five
12
customers in Africa in the fourth quarter of 2012 and first quarter of 2013, and (2)
13
Axesstel misrepresented the collectability of the accounts receivable related to this
14
revenue.
15
primarily in its annual and quarterly SEC filings and related conference calls with
16
analysts and investors to discuss those filings.
17
Factual and Procedural Background
As discussed below, Axesstel’s alleged false statements were made
A.
Axesstel’s Revenue Recognition Policy
18
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that Axesstel violated
19
its own revenue recognition policy in connection with the revenue reported in its
20
5
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
SEC filings. That policy, as stated in several of the filings at issue here, includes
2
the following:
3
4
5
Revenue from product sales is recognized when the risks of loss
and title pass to the customer, as specified in (1) the respective
sales agreements and (2) other revenue recognition criteria as
prescribed by Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) No. 101
(SAB 101), “Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements,” as
amended by SAB No. 104, “Revenue Recognition.”
6
7
[Id. at ¶ 42.] The amended complaint also alleges some of the terms of the
8
accounting bulletins referenced in Axesstel’s revenue recognition policy, which
9
state that revenue is realized or realizable only when:
10
11
12
(a) “Persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists,” with the
term “arrangement” meaning the final understanding between
the parties as to the specific nature and terms of the agreedupon transaction; (b) “Delivery has occurred or services have
been rendered;” (c) “The seller’s price to the buyer is fixed or
determinable;” and (d) “Collectability is reasonably assured.”
13
[Id. at ¶ 43. (quoting SAB 101(A)(1).] Further, the amended complaint alleges that
14
SAB 104, Topic 13, 3(b) explains:
15
16
17
18
19
After delivery of a product or performance of a service, if
uncertainty exists about customer acceptance, revenue should
not be recognized until acceptance occurs.
Customer
acceptance provisions may be included in a contract, among
other reasons, to enforce a customer’s rights to (1) test the
delivered product . . . Accordingly, when such contractual
customer acceptance provisions exist, the staff generally
believes that the seller should not recognize revenue until
customer acceptance occurs or the acceptance provisions lapse.
20
6
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
2
3
[Id. at ¶ 51.]
B.
February 28, 2013
1.
SEC Filings
4
The first set of Axesstel’s alleged false statements occurred on February 28,
5
2013, when it filed with the SEC its Fiscal Year 2012 (“FY 2012”) Form 10-K, its
6
FY 2012 Form 8-K, and a separate press release announcing its results that was
7
attached to the Form 8-K (the “FY 2012 PR”). The 10-K was signed by Hickock
8
and Gray, while the 8-K was signed by Gray alone. [Id. at ¶ 70.] These documents
9
announced Axesstel’s financial results for the fourth quarter (“Q4”) of 2012, and
10
for FY 2012 as a whole. To that end, Axesstel recognized a total of $15.8 million
11
in revenue in Q4 2012, which amount included $3.5 million resulting from the
12
purported sales of Home Alert products to two customers in South Africa in Q4
13
2012. [Id. at ¶¶ 46, 75-76.] The sales to these two new customers were Axesstel’s
14
first reported sales of Home Alert products. [Id. at ¶¶ 78.b, 92.]
15
2.
Conference Call with Investors and Analysts
16
Axesstel also held a conference call with investors and analysts on February
17
28, 2013, to discuss its FY 2012 and Q4 2012 financial results. On this call,
18
Hickock stated that in Q4 2012, Axesstel “launched our first entry level wireless
19
Axesstel home alert security system. We recorded a total of $3.5 million in
20
7
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
revenue from two new customers in Africa, which is one of the developing markets
2
we’ve targeted for this product.” [Id. at ¶ 93.]
3
On this call, when asked about the reception for the Home Alert product that
4
had already shipped, Hickock stated: “The reception has been fantastic. I mean
5
not only the ones what we just shipped to Africa, which are getting into the hands
6
of the guards now and the training is going on.” [Id. at ¶ 127.]
7
8
C.
May 14, 2013
1.
SEC Filings
9
The second set of false statements occurred on May 14, 2013, when Axesstel
10
filed its Q1 2013 Forms 10-Q and 8-K, as well as a separate press release attached
11
to the Form 8-K (the “Q1 2013 PR”). The 10-Q was signed by Hickock, while the
12
8-K was signed by Gray. [Id. at ¶ 70.]
13
revenue of $10.1 million during Q1 2013. [Id. at ¶ 80.] Of this $10.1 million, $4.0
14
million was for purported sales of Home Alert products to a total of three new
15
customers in South Africa and the Middle East. [Id. at ¶ 81.] Further, the Q1 2013
16
PR, which was attached to the 8-K form, stated that Axesstel “[s]old $4.0 million
17
of new Home Alert systems in the first quarter of 2013 totaling $7.5 million over
18
the past two quarters since the product release.” [Id. at ¶ 96.]
In these documents, Axesstel announced
19
In addition, Axesstel reported $21.9 million in accounts receivable, which
20
amount included the $3.5 million in purported Home Alert sales to the two
8
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
customers in South Africa from Q4 2012. [Id. at ¶ 80.c.] The Q1 2013 PR
2
contained a statement from Hickock explaining the rise in Axesstel’s accounts
3
receivable: “We also address a minor design issue in our newly-released Home
4
Alert security systems that caused a delay in collection of certain outstanding
5
accounts receivable as well as a slowdown in follow-on orders for those products.”
6
[Id. at ¶ 49.] Likewise, the Q1 2013 10-Q also explained that two “testing and
7
warranty events on [Axesstel’s] new phone and Home Alert products that caused a
8
delay in collection of our accounts receivables out of [Africa].” [Id. at ¶ 48.]
9
10
2.
Conference Call with Investors and Analysts
Once again, Axesstel also held a conference call on May 14, 2013, with
11
investors and analysts to discuss its filings.
On the call, Hickock discussed
12
Axesstel’s purported sales of Home Alert products, stating multiple times that
13
Axesstel sold over $4 million in new Home Alert products to new customers in
14
Africa, noting that these sales “helped boost our gross margin to a record 29%.”
15
[Id. at ¶ 97.] Hickock further summarized that in “the first two quarters since its
16
release we have sold a total of $7.5 million of our Alert devices to five new
17
customers in Africa.” [Id. at ¶ 97.]
18
19
20
9
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
D.
2
August 13, 2013
1.
SEC Filings
3
On August 13, 2013, Axesstel filed its Q2 2013 Forms 10-Q and 8-K with
4
the SEC, as well as a separate press release attached to the Form 8-K (the “Q2
5
2013 PR”). The 10-Q was signed by Hickock, while the 8-K was signed by Gray.
6
[Id. at ¶ 70.]
7
months of 2013, including revenue of $11.3 million and accounts receivable of
8
$15.1 million. [Id. at ¶ 85.] These figures included the $4 million in revenue from
9
purported sales of Home Alert products in Africa in the first quarter of 2013.
The Form 10-Q reported Axesstel’s financial results for the first six
10
Meanwhile, in the Q2 2013 PR, Hickock addressed the steep drop in revenue
11
during the second quarter, calling it a “perfect storm” that included a delay in the
12
launch of new product lines and slow collection of receivables, but that “despite
13
the launch delays, our new Home Alert products have generated opportunities that
14
will be very significant if we can convert them to firm orders.” [Id. at ¶ 100.]
15
Hickock went on to explain that “a minor warranty issue in the first quarter
16
delayed the product launch in Africa. We corrected that issue in the second
17
quarter. Those units are now being moved into the channel and are expected to
18
launch during the third quarter.” [Id.]
19
Also in the Q2 2013 PR, Gray addressed the accounts receivable and
20
Axesstel’s negative cash flow: “The reduction in cash is due in part to slow
10
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
collection of accounts receivable. . . . We finished the quarter with an account
2
receivable balance of $15.2 million, of which $12.2 million was past due. We
3
collected . . . an additional $3.0 million to date in the third quarter. We expect to
4
collect the remaining receivables in the second half of 2013.” [Id.]
5
2.
Conference Call with Investors and Analysts
6
As with the previous quarterly filings, Axesstel held a conference call with
7
investors and analysts on August 13, 2013. On this call, Gray again addressed the
8
accounts receivable, noting that $12.2 million was past due as of June 30, 2013,
9
“so we took a real hard look at those past year receivables—and reserves where we
10
thought was appropriate and make sure, you know, based on our best estimate at
11
the time, that how we were reserving at an appropriate level in a level that we think
12
we can collect the remaining receivables without having to take any additional
13
reserves.” [Id. at ¶ 133.] When an analyst followed up on this issue, Gray
14
reiterated that aside from $700,000 that Axesstel had reserved, it believed that the
15
remainder of the $12.2 million was collectible. [Id. ¶ 134.]
16
E.
October 17, 2013
17
On October 17, 2013, Axesstel filed a Form 8-K with the SEC stating that
18
Gray would be taking over the CEO position from Hickock, who had been
19
terminated. [Id. at ¶ 113.] Hickock also resigned as a board member effective
20
October 17, 2013. [Id.] The filing also addressed Axesstel’s accounts receivable,
11
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
stating that although it had collected $4.0 million during the third quarter, $9.0
2
million of the remaining $11.1 million in accounts receivable were for sales to
3
customers in Africa. [Id.] The 8-K continued: “Those accounts are aging and we
4
are evaluating various alternatives for collection, including reserves against the
5
accounts or in some cases retaking possession of the product as inventory, and
6
attempting to resell the product to third parties.” [Id.]
7
F.
March 31, 2014
8
On March 31, 2014, Axesstel filed another Form 8-K with the SEC. In
9
addition to reporting revenue of $800,000 for Q4 2013, Axesstel explained that it
10
would be restating its financial statements for Q1 2013 which would result in a
11
$3.9 million reduction in revenue for FY 2013. The filing continued:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
On March 27, 2014, executive management of our Company
concluded that the previously issued unaudited financial
statements contained in our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013, and the two subsequent
unaudited quarterly reports on Form 10-Q in 2013 for the
periods ended June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2013
(collectively the “Prior Periods”), should no longer be relied
upon because of errors in those financial statements. The errors
relate to the recognition of revenue from sales to two customers
in the first quarter of 2013. In addition to the financial
statements of the Prior Periods, related press releases furnished
on current reports on Form 8-K, reports and stockholder
communications describing our financial statements for the
Prior Periods should no longer be relied upon.
19
20
The conclusion that the financial statements for the Prior
Periods cannot be relied upon is the result of an investigation . .
12
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
. commenced following the recent receipt of information that
revenue was recognized on two transactions prior to the
satisfaction of necessary criteria for revenue recognition. Our
policy is to recognize revenue from product sales when the
risks of loss and title pass to the customer, assuming all other
revenue recognition criteria are met. . . . For the two orders in
question, products were shipped and revenue recognized prior
to March 31, 2013, based on what certain of our sales
employees believed to be firm verbal commitments from two
customers in Africa. The products were never paid for by the
customers and in the fourth quarter of 2013, the products were
returned by the customers and the accounts receivable were
written off. However, our recent investigation revealed that
certain key aspects of the sales to these two customers were not
finalized at March 31, 2013, including payment terms and
marketing allowances. Therefore, the revenue associated with
these potential sales should never have been recognized.
10
...
11
We have considered the effect of the restatement on our prior
conclusions of the adequacy of our internal controls over
financial reporting at the end of each of the applicable
restatement periods. As a result of the errors described above,
management has concluded that the Company’s internal control
over financial reporting were not effective to a reasonable
assurance as of the ends of each of the periods covered by the
restatement.
12
13
14
15
16
17
[Id. at ¶ 115.]
G.
May 21, 2014
18
Axesstel filed another Form 8-K with the SEC on May 21, 2014. In this
19
filing, Axesstel stated preliminary unaudited financial results for FY 2013,
20
including revenues for the year totaling $8.6 million, factoring in the $3.9 million
13
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
reduction for the Home Alert revenue to Africa in Q1 2013. The filing also stated
2
that “[i]n Africa, we had warranty issues which delayed the initial launch of the
3
products, but ultimately our customers did not complete their purchases.” [Id. at ¶
4
117.] In addition, Axesstel stated that its general and administrative expenses for
5
2013 “included a $3.3 million expense related to an account receivable reserve for
6
accounts sold into Africa in the fourth quarter of 2012.” [Id.]
7
III.
8
Plaintiffs’ first claim is for violation of Rule 10b-5, enacted pursuant to
9
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. “Rule 10b–5 forbids,
10
among other things, the making of any ‘untrue statement of a material fact’ or the
11
omission of any material fact ‘necessary in order to make the statements made ...
12
not misleading.’” Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341 (2005) (quoting
13
17 CFR § 240.10b–5 (2004)). “The basic elements of a Rule 10b–5 claim . . . are:
14
(1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact, (2) scienter, (3) a connection
15
with the purchase or sale of a security, (4) transaction and loss causation, and (5)
16
economic loss.” In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing
17
Dura Pharm., 544 U.S. at 341-42). In its motion, Axesstel argues only that the
18
amended complaint does not adequately allege scienter.
Discussion
19
20
14
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
A.
Pleading Standards for Scienter Under the PSLRA
2
Scienter is “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or
3
defraud.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 319 (2007)
4
(quoting Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 194, and n.12 (1976)). The
5
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) created heightened
6
pleading requirements for scienter under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act:
7
8
9
10
11
in any private action arising under this chapter in which the
plaintiff may recover money damages only on proof that the
defendant acted with a particular state of mind, the complaint
shall, with respect to each act or omission alleged to violate this
chapter, state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong
inference that the defendant acted with the required state of
mind.
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2) (emphasis added).
12
In the Ninth Circuit, the required state of mind is that “the plaintiffs must
13
show that defendants engaged in ‘knowing’ or ‘intentional’ conduct.” S. Ferry LP,
14
No. 2 v. Killinger, 542 F.3d 776, 782 (9th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original)
15
(quoting In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 975 (9th Cir. 1999)).
16
“[R]eckless conduct can also meet this standard ‘to the extent that it reflects some
17
degree of intentional or conscious misconduct,’ or . . . ‘deliberate recklessness.’”
18
Id.; see also Reese v. Malone, 747 F.3d 557, 569 (9th Cir. 2014) (same). “To
19
qualify as ‘strong’ . . . an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible
20
15
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
or reasonable—it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing
2
inference of nonfraudulent intent.” Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 314.
3
When determining whether Plaintiffs have adequately pled scienter on a
4
motion to dismiss, the Court must 1) accept all factual allegations as true, 2)
5
consider the complaint and “other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling
6
on Rule 12(b)(6) motions” to determine “whether all of the facts alleged, taken
7
collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter, not whether any individual
8
allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that standard,” and 3) “consider
9
plausible, nonculpable explanations for the defendant’s conduct, as well as
10
inferences favoring the plaintiff.” Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 322-24. “[T]he court’s job
11
is not to scrutinize each allegation in isolation but to assess all the allegations
12
holistically.” Id. at 326. “The inference that the defendant acted with scienter need
13
not be irrefutable, i.e., of the ‘smoking-gun’ genre, or even the ‘most plausible of
14
competing inferences.’” Id. (quoting Fidel v. Farley, 392 F.3d 220, 227 (2004)).
15
Ultimately, “[a] complaint will survive . . . only if a reasonable person would deem
16
the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing
17
inference one could draw from the facts alleged.” Id.
18
The Ninth Circuit determined that the Supreme Court’s decision in Tellabs
19
“does not materially alter the particularity requirements for scienter claims
20
established in [the Ninth Circuit’s] prior decisions, but instead only adds an
16
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
additional ‘holistic component to those requirements. . . .” Zucco Partners, LLC v.
2
Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2009). To that end, the Ninth Circuit
3
stated that a court must conduct a dual inquiry when evaluating scienter allegations
4
on a motion to dismiss:
5
6
7
8
First, we will determine whether any of the plaintiff’s
allegations, standing alone, are sufficient to create a strong
inference of scienter; second, if no individual allegations are
sufficient, we will conduct a “holistic” review of the same
allegations to determine whether the insufficient allegations
combine to create a strong inference of intentional conduct or
deliberate recklessness.
9
Id. at 992. “When conducting [the] holistic review, however, [the court] must also
10
‘take into account plausible opposing inferences’ that could weigh against a
11
finding of scienter.” Id. at 1006 (quoting Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 323).
12
Here, Plaintiffs argue that the small size of Axesstel, the egregiousness of
13
the accounting errors, the relatively large amount of the improperly recognized
14
revenue, and the statements from both Hickock and Gray indicating direct
15
involvement in Axesstel’s sales and collections support a strong inference that
16
Defendants’ knew or were deliberately reckless with regard to the improper
17
recognition of revenue from African Home Alert sales and subsequent statements
18
as to the collectability of accounts receivable related to the same contracts, and that
19
therefore the amended complaint adequately alleges scienter.
Defendants,
20
17
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
meanwhile, contend that the stronger inference from the allegations in the
2
complaint is that Defendants were not yet aware of the insufficient internal
3
controls in the sales department that led to the improper revenue recognition and
4
that the allegations “point more cogently toward the conclusion that Axesstel was
5
simply overwhelmed with integrating a new product launch into its existing
6
business.” [Doc. No. 16-1 at 29.] As the Seventh Circuit, faced with similar
7
competing inferences in Tellabs after remand from the Supreme Court, aptly
8
framed the issue: “The critical question, therefore, is how likely it is that the
9
allegedly false statements . . . were the result of merely careless mistakes at the
10
management level based on false information fed it from below, rather than of an
11
intent to deceive or a reckless indifference to whether the statements were
12
misleading.” Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs Inc., 513 F.3d 702, 709 (7th
13
Cir. 2008) (hereinafter, Tellabs II).
14
15
B.
The Amended Complaint Adequately Alleges Scienter
1.
16
Were Defendants Deliberately Reckless In Failing to
Obtain Readily Available Information About the
Home Alert Sales to Africa?
17
First, Plaintiff argues that Hickock and Gray had access to the relevant
18
information about the Home Alert sales to Africa and therefore were deliberately
19
reckless in recognizing revenue in violation of Axesstel’s revenue recognition
20
policy without reviewing the sales agreements (or lack thereof) of the Home Alert
18
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
sales to Africa. In the same vein, Plaintiffs argue that Gray was deliberately
2
reckless when he stated in the Q2 2013 SEC filings and on the related investor call
3
that the past due receivables related to these Home Alert sales to Africa were
4
collectible considering Axesstel did not even have final sales contracts.
5
Deliberate recklessness is “a form of intentional or knowing misconduct”
6
such that “the plaintiff must plead ‘a highly unreasonable omission, involving not
7
merely simple, or even inexcusable negligence, but an extreme departure from the
8
standards of ordinary care, and which presents a danger of misleading buyers or
9
sellers that is either known to the defendant or is so obvious that the actor must
10
have been aware of it.’” Zucco, 552 F.3d at 991 (quoting In re Silicon Graphics
11
Inc. Securities Litigation, 183 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir.1999)). Notwithstanding this
12
high standard, the amended complaint adequately alleges deliberate recklessness in
13
connection with the alleged false statements here.
14
The SEC filings at issue here, all of which were signed by Hickock, Gray, or
15
both, state that Axesstel only recognized revenue when, among other things, (a)
16
title passed to the customer as specified in the sales agreement, and (b) the price is
17
fixed or determinable. In other words, a minimal prerequisite for Axesstel to
18
recognize revenue is the existence of a final sales agreement with definitive
19
payment terms. There is no dispute here that Axesstel recognized revenue without
20
this bare minimum requirement. Nevertheless, Defendants argue that the amended
19
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
complaint does not allege scienter because it does not allege that Hickock and Gray
2
actually knew the terms (or lack thereof) of the Home Alert contracts.
3
Defendants essentially argue that the amended complaint does not allege a
4
smoking gun such as a communication to Gray and Hickock stating that no
5
contracts with African customers were finalized. The pleading standard is not so
6
stringent. Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 324. Tellabs “permits a series of less precise
7
allegations to be read together to meet the PSLRA requirement.” South Ferry LP,
8
No. 2., 542 F.3d at 784. Although Defendants are correct that senior executives
9
cannot be expected to know the details of every contract just by virtue of their
10
officer roles, Axesstel is an exceedingly small company and these were no ordinary
11
contracts. The total of five contracts in question accounted for twenty to forty
12
percent of the revenue Axesstel was recognizing in the respective quarters.
13
Moreover, these were supposedly the first contracts for sale of the Home Alert
14
products, and sales that Hickock touted on his calls with investors. Thus, while
15
Hickock and Gray did not have to review every detail of these contracts, it was
16
deliberately and consciously reckless for them to fail to at least confirm that such
17
contracts existed.2
18
19
20
2
Further, the lack of payment terms related to these sales implies that the sales
figures touted by Hickock were little more than estimates, which also supports
scienter, as it would be deliberately reckless to recognize a specific amount of
20
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
Moreover, the allegations in the amended complaint create a strong
2
inference that Hickock and Gray did in fact know the details of these purported
3
sales. For example, in February 2013, Hickock discussed the reception of the
4
products in Africa and the fact that guards were being trained.
5
Hickock’s May 2013 statement that minor warranty issues caused a delay in
6
collection on the African contracts infers specific knowledge about the sales,
7
including that they were in fact not final, but contingent on acceptance by the
8
customer.3 Further, on the investor calls, Hickock touted the number of Home
9
Alert contracts to Africa and the amount of revenue attributable to them, while
10
Gray confirmed that “we took a real hard look” at the receivables related to the
11
revenue and found it collectible.
12
confirming the existence of contracts with set payment terms in place was
13
deliberately reckless and creates a strong inference of scienter.
Likewise,
To make such statements without even
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
revenue when the final sales price and payment requirements had not even been
determined.
3
Along these lines, Axesstel’s restatement indicates that these warranty issues are
what caused the customers not to complete their purchases. [Doc. No. 13 at ¶ 117.]
This further supports the inference that based on earlier statements concerning
these warranty issues, Hickock and Gray knew all along that these sales were not
final. Yet Axesstel recognized the revenue anyway. At a minimum, this supports
a strong inference of deliberate reckless both about the initial recognition of
revenue, and even more about the collectability of this revenue while these
warranty issues were pending.
21
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
2.
The Core Operations Theory
2
Second, Plaintiffs argue that core operations theory creates a strong
3
inference of scienter. Under that theory, the Court “can impute scienter based on
4
the inference that key officers have knowledge of the ‘core operations’ of the
5
company.” Reese, 747 F.3d at 575. As the Ninth Circuit explained:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
allegations regarding management’s role in a company may be
relevant and help to satisfy the PSLRA scienter requirement in
three circumstances. First, the allegations may be used in any
form along with other allegations that, when read together, raise
an inference of scienter that is “cogent and compelling, thus
strong in light of other explanations.” This view takes such
allegations into account when evaluating all circumstances
together. Second, such allegations may independently satisfy
the PSLRA where they are particular and suggest that
defendants had actual access to the disputed information . . . .
Finally, such allegations may conceivably satisfy the PSLRA
standard in a more bare form, without accompanying
particularized allegations, in rare circumstances where the
nature of the relevant fact is of such prominence that it would
be “absurd” to suggest that management was without
knowledge of the matter.
14
15
S. Ferry LP, No. 2, 542 F.3d at 785-86 (internal citations omitted).
16
Here, the amended complaint contains numerous statements from the
17
individual defendants themselves indicating that they were directly involved in
18
sales and knew the details of Axesstel’s dealings with its African customers. As
19
for Hickock, in February 2013, he told investors and analysts that “reception [in
20
Africa] has been fantastic.” Between February and May 2013, Hickock spent four
22
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
weeks meeting with customers and logistic partners in Africa. Further, in a June
2
2013 press release, Axesstel announced that Hickock would be taking over the
3
responsibilities of Chief Marketing Officer and had “been increasingly active in
4
key customer relationships.”4 Cf. Daou, 411 F.3d at 1022 (“[S]pecific admissions
5
from top executives that they are involved in every detail of the company and that
6
they monitored portions of the company’s database are factors in favor of inferring
7
scienter in light of improper accounting reports”). As for Gray, his assurance that
8
the accounts receivable had been reviewed for collectability necessarily implies
9
confirmation that the contracts supporting such sales at least existed and were
10
available for review, which according to the amended complaint was not the case.5
11
In addition to these specific allegations creating an inference of the
12
individual defendants’ scienter, the amount of the falsely recognized revenue,
13
which came from only a handful of contracts and signified the first sales of a major
14
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
The amended complaint also contains allegations about Hickock’s involvement in
sales and marketing based on the statements of a confidential witness. Because the
other allegations in the amended complaint are sufficient to satisfy the PSLRA’s
scienter requirements, the Court did not consider or rely on the confidential witness
allegations for this opinion.
5
Defendants argue that Gray’s failure to discover that the contracts did not exist
when reviewing the collectability of the accounts receivable is not evidence of
fraud. This argument is not persuasive. If Gray did not discover the lack of
payment terms for these receivables, his statement that he took a “real hard look”
was false and deliberately reckless because no “real hard look” would miss this
fact. If Gray did in fact discover the lack of payment terms or contract, then his
reassurance that the receivables were collectable was false and deliberately
reckless.
23
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
new product for Axesstel, creates a strong inference that Hickock and Gray would
2
be aware of the details of these sales. See Berson v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., 527
3
F.3d 982, 988 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The size of the contract and the prominence of
4
the client raise a strong inference that defendants would be aware of this order.”);
5
see also Curry v. Hansen Medical, Inc., No. C 09-5094 CW, 2012 WL 3242447, at
6
*11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) (stating that because defendant was small company
7
with less than 200 employees and sold so few units, each of which was significant
8
to its revenue stream, the individual defendants must have known about each of the
9
sales).
10
Further, Hickock’s and Gray’s roles in Axesstel are magnified by the
11
exceedingly small size of the company. Axesstel is not to be confused with Apple.
12
The individual defendants here are not officers in a large company who “may be
13
removed from the details of a specific business line or remote business activity.”
14
Reese, 747 F.3d at 572. Rather, Axesstel has only thirty-five employees, including
15
only six employees in executive or administrative roles. Thus, the individual
16
defendants would be among the first (and only) to know of the details of major
17
contracts, or conversely as is alleged here, that products were being shipped
18
despite the fact that no such contracts had been signed. Cf. Batwin v. Occam
19
Networks, Inc., No. CV 07-2750 CAS (SHx), 2008 WL 2676364, at *12 (C.D. Cal.
20
24
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
July 1, 2008) (factoring the company’s relatively small size, with 80-100
2
employees, in finding allegations of scienter to be persuasive).
3
In sum, it would be absurd to think that the CEO and CFO of a company
4
with just thirty-five employees, of whom only ten are involved in sales, general or
5
administration, would be unaware of the lack of written agreements or definitive
6
payment terms with the five new customers in Africa that represented the
7
company’s first sales of a significant new product that constituted between twenty
8
and forty percent of Axesstel’s overall revenue. See Berson, 527 F.3d at 989 (9th
9
Cir. 2008) (holding that complaint alleged scienter when the complaint alleged
10
facts supporting an inference that the statements were misleading when made and
11
that the facts were prominent enough that it would be “absurd to suggest” that top
12
management was unaware of them).
13
With respect to Hickock, this absurdity is compounded in light of his
14
specific involvement in Axesstel’s sales. Cf. In re InfoSonics Corp. Sec. Litig., No.
15
06cv1231 BTM(WMc), 2007 WL 2301757, at * (S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2007) (noting
16
that a high-level employee in sales at a company with fewer than thirty employees
17
would be in a position to know about problems with the company’s biggest
18
customer).
19
warranty issue” related to the Home Alert products in Africa. [Doc. No. 13 at ¶¶
20
48-50.] That these executives were aware of an issue even they deemed minor
Indeed, both Hickock and Gray made statements about a “minor
25
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
creates a strong inference that they would also be aware of the major issue that no
2
contracts or payment terms were actually in place for the sale of those products.
3
Likewise, it would be absurd to suggest that Gray could have taken (or even
4
supervised) a “real hard look” at receivables related to the African sales without
5
discovering (to the extent he did not already know) that the agreements for such
6
sales were at most verbal, and more significantly, lacked payment terms. Cf.
7
Nursing Home Pension Fund, Local 144 v. Oracle Corp., 380 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th
8
Cir. 2004) (holding that complaint alleged scienter of top Oracle executives in part
9
because of allegations of specific admissions from top management concerning
10
their involvement in the business and the magnitude of the allegedly improper
11
revenue recognition)
12
Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the allegations in the amended
13
complaint concerning Hickock’s and Gray’s respective roles in Axesstel both
14
generally and with respect to the sales at issue here satisfy the PSLRA’s
15
requirement of a strong inference of scienter.
16
3.
Holistic Review and Competing Inferences
17
Even if the previously discussed individual allegations were not enough on
18
their own to support a strong inference of scienter, a holistic review of these
19
allegations along with all of the other allegations in the amended complaint creates
20
26
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
a cogent inference of scienter that is more compelling than any of the alternative
2
inferences argued by Defendants. Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 322-24.
3
Defendants’ argue that “it is more cogent and compelling to infer that
4
Axesstel’s management, acting in good faith, was unable to immediately identify
5
and effectively control the internal control and accounting processes within the
6
Company during its product launch with new customers in a new geographic
7
region, than that it was intentionally and systematically manipulating its
8
accounting records to make the Company seem more successful shortly before
9
voluntarily announcing the need to restate.” [Doc. No. 21 at 14.] This argument
10
implies that the restatement here is merely a correction of minor technical
11
accounting issue, which simply is not the case.
12
In addition to all of the scienter allegations discussed above, the amended
13
complaint alleges with particularity that Defendants violated simple GAAP
14
accounting principles along with Axesstel’s own revenue recognition policy to
15
prematurely recognize millions of dollars in revenue, equaling 22.2% of its
16
revenue in Q4 2012, and almost 40% of its revenue in Q1 2013.6 “Certainly,
17
6
18
19
20
Limiting the calculations to Axesstel’s Home Alert product further strengthens
the inference of scienter. Axesstel, through filings and other statements signed or
made by Hickock and Gray, announced $7.5 million in Home Alert sales in Q4
2012 and Q1 2013. According to the amended complaint, none of these sales were
final and in fact all of the shipped product was returned. In other words, Axesstel,
through Hickock and Gray, announced $7.5 million in Home Alert sales when the
27
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
prematurely recognizing millions of dollars in revenue is not minor or technical in
2
nature.” Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d at 1020 (noting that the complaint alleged that
3
48% of the company’s reported revenue was prematurely recognized). Moreover,
4
“while scienter cannot be established by publishing inaccurate accounting figures,
5
even when in violation of GAAP . . . significant violations of GAAP standards can
6
provide evidence of scienter so long as they are pled with particularity.” Daou
7
Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d at 1022; cf. In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Sec. Litig., 126
8
F.Supp. 2d 1248, 1273 (N.D.Cal.2000) (“When significant GAAP violations are
9
described with particularity in the complaint, they may provide powerful indirect
10
evidence of scienter. After all, books do not cook themselves.”). Here, it strains
11
credulity to believe that Hickock and Gray did not know that no final contracts in
12
fact existed for the Home Alert sales in Africa, when such sales purportedly
13
equaled between 20% and 40% of Axesstel’s overall quarterly revenue and 100%
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
actual amount of sales was zero. Viewed through this lens, the allegations in the
amended complaint are similar to a hypothetical from Tellabs II used to explain
how it is possible to create a strong inference of corporate scienter even if it was
unknown what individuals were responsible for dissemination of the false
information: “Suppose General Motors announced that it had sold one million
SUVs in 2006, and the actual number was zero. There would be a strong inference
of corporate scienter, since so dramatic an announcement would have been
approved by corporate officials sufficiently knowledgeable about the company to
know that the announcement was false.” Tellabs II, 513 F.3d at 710; see also
Glazer Capital Mgmt., LP v. Magistri, 549 F.3d 736, 744 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting
that “there could be circumstances in which a company’s public statements were so
important and so dramatically false that they would create a strong inference that at
least some corporate officials knew of the falsity upon publication”).
28
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
of its revenue from its important new product. See Brown v. China Integrated
2
Energy, Inc., 875 F.Supp. 2d 1096, 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (“It strains credulity to
3
believe that [the defendant’s] directors and officers did not know that a factory that
4
. . . generated 20% of total company sales was not functioning.”).
5
Nor is Defendants’ argument that their voluntary restatement weighs against
6
scienter compelling. That Defendants came clean when Axesstel’s cash position
7
was so poor that they likely had no other choice does not lead to a compelling
8
inference that the individual defendants did not know all along that these purported
9
sales to Africa were not finalized. The fact that Defendants’ gamble—recognizing
10
revenue and vouching for the collectability of that revenue in the absence of
11
contracts with payment terms in the hopes that the customers will ultimately agree
12
to purchase the products—“fails is not inconsistent with its having been a
13
considered, though because of the risk a reckless, gamble. It is like embezzling in
14
the hope that winning at the track will enable the embezzled funds to be replaced
15
before they are discovered to be missing.” Tellabs II, 513 F.3d at 710.
16
Ultimately, while it is conceivable that the CEO and CFO of a thirty-five
17
person company could be completely unaware of the fact that there were no written
18
contracts for the sale of $7.5 million of their company’s new product that had been
19
shipped to Africa, this possibility is exceedingly unlikely, and more important to
20
29
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
this instant analysis, a less compelling inference than the compelling inference of
2
scienter based on a holistic review of the allegations in the amended complaint.
3
Accordingly, given the size of Axesstel, Hickock’s and Gray’s management
4
roles in Axesstel and their alleged involvement in sales and the complete lack of
5
contracts for the purported sales of Home Alert products in Africa at issue here, the
6
egregious nature GAAP violations, and the amount of the improperly recognized
7
revenue, there is a logical, and strong, inference that Defendants were aware at the
8
time the false statements were made that the revenue was being recognized
9
improperly. Moreover, this inference is far more compelling than Defendants’
10
hypothesis that the false statements were merely the result of being overwhelmed
11
with a new product launch.
12
C.
Section 20(a)
13
Plaintiffs’ claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act requires “(1) a
14
primary violation of federal securities law, and (2) that the defendant exercised
15
actual power or control over the primary violator.” Howard v. Everex Sys., 228
16
F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2000).
17
predicated entirely on its argument that the amended complaint fails to state a
18
primary violation of Section 10(b) for failure to adequately allege scienter. Thus,
19
because the Court finds that the amended complaint pleads a strong inference of
Axesstel’s motion to dismiss this claim is
20
30
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
1
scienter for purposes of establishing a primary violation of Section 10(b), the
2
motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim fails.
3
IV.
4
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. It is
Conclusion
5
SO ORDERED.
6
Dated: February 13, 2015
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
31
3:14-CV-1037-CAB-BGS
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?