United States: District Of Nevada Grants In Part And Denies In Part Motion To Dismiss Exchange Act Claims Against Airline Company And Its Executives, Finding That Plaintiffs Adequately Alleged Scienter With Respect To Certain Alleged Statements

Last Updated: September 23 2019
Article by Shearman & Sterling LLP

District Of Nevada Grants In Part And Denies In Part Motion To Dismiss Exchange Act Claims Against Airline Company And Its Executives, Finding That Plaintiffs Adequately Alleged Scienter With Respect To Certain Alleged Statements Regarding The Airline's Safety And Mechanical Reliability

On September 9, 2019, Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada partially dismissed a putative securities class action brought against an airline company and certain of its current and former executives.  Brendon et al. v. Allegiant Travel Co. et al., 2:18-cv-01758 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged in their first amended complaint ("FAC") that the airline and its parent company (collectively, the "Airline") and certain of its executives made materially misleading statements and omissions concerning the safety and mechanical reliability of its aircrafts and the competency of its maintenance staff in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a).  The Court allowed claims related to certain alleged false statements by defendants to proceed, dismissed certain of the claims that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead falsity and scienter, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend to address certain of the pleading deficiencies.

Plaintiffs brought suit after a stock drop in 2018 following a CBS television network broadcast detailing, based in part on information obtained through FOIA requests, aircraft maintenance and repair issues experienced by the Airline beginning in 2015, which allegedly resulted in cancellations, delays, emergency landings, and aborted takeoffs.  Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of shareholders who traded in the Airline's stock between June 8, 2015, and May 9, 2018.  According to plaintiffs, the Airline was profitable because it flew second-hand aircraft that cost much less than new models, but that such aircrafts required "far greater maintenance than new planes."  Relying on statements from former Airline employees, plaintiffs alleged that in order to increase profits, the Airline "understaffed its maintenance department, hired inexperienced and unqualified maintenance personnel, failed to adequately train its maintenance employees, and had a culture that 'compromised maintenance . . . for profits.'"

Plaintiffs further alleged that despite these issues, the Airline and the individual defendants repeatedly assured investors and the public through various false or misleading statements that the Airline and its fleet were safe and reliable.  These alleged misstatements included:  (i) the Airline's 2015 10-K filing in which the CEO and CFO attested that they "believe[d] their aircraft are, and will continue to be, mechanically reliable,' and that its "technicians . . . have appropriate experience" and were provided "comprehensive training"; (ii) the Airline's current CEO and COO's statements during a January 2016 conference with analysts that the Airline was a safe operation in the past and continued to be; (iii) the Airline's statement that its maintenance personnel were "highly-trained" in denying allegations from local news reporting in 2015 and early 2016 that the Airline had operational problems caused by maintenance issues and that a maintenance employee quit due to a "worrisome culture" at the company; (iv) the Airline's code of ethics, which stated that the Airline was required to "provide safe working conditions" to employees and "pursue growth and earnings objectives while adhering to ethical standards"; and (v) shareholder letters sent by the CEO in 2016 and 2017 assuring investors that the Airline placed its "focus on safety and reliability," had a "proven, seasoned model," and that safety was its "core fundamental."  Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC, arguing that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege material misrepresentation, scienter, and loss causation.

In evaluating the sufficiency of the FAC's allegations of a material misrepresentation, the Court first considered and rejected defendants' truth-on-the-market defense.  Defendants, citing the Third Circuit's decision in In re Merck & Co. Securities Litigation, 432 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2005), argued that plaintiffs failed to plead an actionable false statement because "the market would have already incorporated the [damaging] information into [the company's] share price" because the CBS program reported on information that was already disclosed in local news reports in 2015 and 2016.  The Court rejected this argument, agreeing with plaintiffs that Merck could be distinguished because the CBS program relied on previously undisclosed information obtained through CBS's FOIA requests, and finding that, in any event, plaintiffs pled sufficient facts to show that the local news reports from 2015 and 2016 were not "comprehensive or credible enough to counterbalance [the Airline's] alleged misrepresentations."

The Court next considered whether each of the alleged statements were false or misleading.  Regarding the Airline's 2015 10-K, the Court found that the "statements regarding [the Airline's] reliability, staffing, and training are capable of objective verification" and were therefore "false and misleading," because, as alleged in the FAC, "'[the Airline] maintenance technicians were inexperienced and insufficiently trained,' resulting in substandard repairs and false certification that maintenance had been performed, and '[the Airline's] maintenance department was grossly understaffed,' resulting in rushed repairs and false certifications that maintenance had been performed."  The Court similarly found actionable the statements by the CEO and COO on the 2016 investor call that the Airline was a "safe operation," because "they address specific questions on aspects of [the Airline's] operation" that the CEO and COO "allegedly knew to be performing badly."  Alternatively, the Court found such statements could be "characterized as opinion statements with an embedded fact," which would also be actionable.  The Court thus denied defendants' motion regarding the 2015 10-K and 2016 investor call statements.

The Court, however, granted defendants' motion regarding the other alleged misstatements.  Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to specifically allege in the FAC that the Airline's statement that its maintenance personnel were "highly-trained" was false or misleading.  While the Court could not make such an inference under the PSLRA, it granted plaintiffs leave to amend to add specific allegations.  The Court next found that the Airline's statements in its code of ethics regarding the importance of safety were "inherently aspirational" and its statements in the shareholder letters regarding the Airline's "focus on safety and reliability" were not "capable of being objectively false," and denied leave to amend those allegations because it would be futile.   

Having found some actionable statements, the Court next considered the issue of scienter.  Plaintiffs argued that they adequately alleged scienter because:  (i) the former employee allegations sufficiently plead defendants' recklessness regarding the Airline's maintenance practices and safety; (ii) the core operations doctrine permits an inference that defendants were aware of the maintenance and safety issues; (iii) the CEO's stock sales and formation of a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan permit an inference of scienter; (iv) the CEO's bonus structure incentivized fraud; and (v) the former COO's unexpected resignation further supports an inference of scienter.

First, the Court found that the "FAC describes each [former employee] 'with sufficient particularity to support the probability that a person in the position occupied by the source would possess the information alleged," noting that the FAC "specifies job titled, locations, responsibilities, dates of employment, and supervisors for each" former employee, and that the former employees "corroborate each other across [Airline] stations and seniority levels, thus bolstering their reliability."  The Court gave significant credibility to the former employees' allegation that "senior management (including the individual defendants) knew of the maintenance issues," highlighting that two of the former employees alleged "direct contact with individual defendants in daily briefings on the 'status of aircraft' and 'monthly reliability meetings to discuss new and ongoing reliability issues and mechanical problems with the fleet,'" and found that these "'particularized allegations that defendants had actual access to the disputed information . . . raise a strong inference of scienter.'"

Second, the Court considered the core operations doctrine, under which it could "infer 'that facts critical to a business's core operations . . . are known to a company's key officers.'"  Finding the doctrine applicable, the Court noted that the FAC "contains particularized allegations from the [former employees] that the individual defendants knew of the airline's maintenance issues" and that the Airline's 10-Ks (attested to by the CEO and CFO) state that "management closely supervises all maintenance functions performed by our personnel and contractors employed by us, and by outside organizations."  Having found that such allegations sufficiently allege scienter, the Court further noted that "it would also be 'absurd' to suggest that the management of any airline, much less an airline experiencing significant operational challenged, would not be aware of pervasive maintenance issues like those alleged by the plaintiffs."

Third, turning to the alleged stock sales, the Court found that the CEO's stock sales and his Rule 10b5-1 trading plan, standing alone, would not raise a strong inference of scienter, emphasizing that plaintiffs failed to allege the stock trading plan was created for suspect reasons and did not provide a comparison of the CEO's sales before, during, and after the putative class period to support the inference that any such sales were suspicious.  Moreover, while the Court found that the years-long class period suggests that the timing of the sales was not suspicious, it granted plaintiffs leave to amend to add further allegations in support of scienter.

Fourth, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show that the CEO's bonus structure supported any inference of scienter.  While plaintiffs contended that the CEO was motivated by his bonus in engaging in the alleged deception, the Court noted that the FAC merely alleged that the 2015 bonus was "a figure far above his usual payout," but that such allegations were insufficient to support an inference of scienter.  The Court, however, granted leave to amend these allegations because it found that it was not clear that amendment would be futile.

Fifth, the Court found that the former COO's unexpected resignation one week after a media report on a former Airline mechanic's allegations, and the press release suggesting that the "resignation as tied to operational challenges at the company," suggests that the resignation was accompanied by suspicious circumstances, and thus supports an inference of scienter.

Having found that the FAC sufficiently alleged scienter, the Court next considered whether there was any stronger opposing inference from the alleged facts.  Notably, the Court agreed with defendants' argument that the former employee accounts "support the proposition that [the Airline's] senior management paid a great deal of attention to airline safety and maintenance" and that the individual defendants "participated in daily conference calls, monthly reliability meetings, quarterly Town Hall events, and annual leadership conferences to discuss staffing, reliability, and mechanical issues."  Finding that this inference stronger than plaintiffs' proposed inference, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to plead scienter regarding the statements by the CEO and COO on the investor call that the Airline "ran a safe operation," and granted the motion to dismiss, but granted leave to amend those allegations.  However, the Court found that the allegations "do not permit an opposing inference that the individual defendants were unaware of [the Airline's] specific maintenance understaffing and training issues," and thus allowed the claims based on the representations in the Airline's 10-K to proceed.

Separately, the Court further found that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation because the stock price dropped in correlation to the three alleged corrective disclosures: first, the announcement of the CBS program; second, the release of the expose; and third, the Department of Transportation investigation into the Airline that followed after the CBS program.

The Court next turned to defendants' claims that the former COO (who later resigned) did not make false statements under Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011).  Janus held that one can be held liable under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act only if he or she is the "maker of a statement" and that the one signing a corporate filing could be considered a maker with "ultimate control" as to what is conveyed.  In dismissing Section 10(b) claims against the former COO, the Court held that given he did not sign the 10-K and left the Airline prior to the filing, he could not be considered under Janus as someone with "authority" over the statements, and plaintiffs' allegations as to his authority therefore were conclusory and insufficient under the heightened pleading standards of FRCP 9(b).

Finally, in considering the control person liability claims under Section 20(a), the Court found that plaintiffs adequately alleged that the CEO, CFO, and COO had control over the Airline, but that the former COO could not be held liable because he had left the Airline prior to the issuance of the 10-K. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions