close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Securities Litigation Alert: Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court's Dismissal of Securities Class Action

On November 26, 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities fraud lawsuit brought by Glazer Capital Management against InVision Technologies, Inc. and two of its executive officers. In Re InVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., C-04-3181. Click here to read the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.

A team from Fenwick & West LLP led by Susan Muck represented InVision in the Northern District of California and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The decision is significant in several respects.

First, the decision rejects application of the collective scienter theory on the facts alleged.

Second, the decision makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to base securities fraud claims on regulatory proceedings or settlements absent factual allegations demonstrating a strong inference of scienter by the named defendants.

Third, the decision rejects an officer's SOX certification as evidence of scienter absent facts showing the officer was severely reckless.

Finally, the decision rejects "personal profit" as a basis for pleading scienter of an officer for merger-related representations.

Facts

On March 15, 2004, InVision announced that it would be acquired by General Electric for $50 per share. The merger agreement included InVision's representation that it was "in compliance in all material respects with all laws" and in particular, with the books and records requirements and anti-bribery provisions of the Securities Exchange Act (including the FCPA). The agreement was signed by InVision's CEO, among others.

A few months later, InVision announced that it was conducting an internal investigation into possible violations of the FCPA and had reported the investigation to the DOJ and SEC. InVision warned that the investigation could delay or cause the termination of the merger. Following the announcement, InVision's stock price fell by $6, and plaintiff filed a class action alleging that InVision had misrepresented that it was in compliance with the FCPA.

Ultimately, the GE merger was consummated on the terms originally disclosed. InVision entered into a nonprosecution agreement with the Department of Justice and agreed to pay an $800,000 fine in connection with alleged FCPA violations. In addition, InVision entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC, which alleged that InVision had authorized payments to foreign sales agents despite knowing there was a "high probability" that those funds would be used to make improper payments to local government officials.

Significance of the Ninth Circuit's Opinion

Collective Scienter Inapplicable

The Court first addressed the question of whether plaintiff was required to plead facts indicating that the CEO, who had signed the merger agreement containing the alleged misstatements, acted with scienter, or whether Glazer could instead rely on a theory of "collective scienter." The "collective scienter" theory permits a plaintiff to allege "a strong inference of corporate scienter without being able to name the individuals who concocted and disseminated the fraud." Although the Court noted that Ninth Circuit law "does not foreclose the possibility that, in certain circumstances, some form of collective scienter pleading might be appropriate," the Court rejected collective scienter given the nature of the alleged misstatements and facts alleged:

[Under plaintiff's theory,] so long as any employee at InVision had knowledge of the violation of any law, scienter could be imputed to the company as a whole. This result would be plainly inconsistent with the pleading requirements of the PSLRA.

As a result, the Court held that plaintiff was required to plead scienter with respect to the specific individual who made the alleged misstatement.

FCPA Violations Do Not Satisfy Standard for Pleading Scienter

In an era in which FCPA investigations are on the rise, the InVision decision should make it more difficult for plaintiffs to plead securities fraud lawsuits that piggyback on the disclosure of FCPA investigations or similar regulatory proceedings. Absent the application of collective scienter, plaintiffs will have to plead specific facts demonstrating that the individuals responsible for the alleged misstatements knew about the FCPA violations. As the Ninth Circuit noted, this will be difficult because "the surreptitious nature of the transactions creates an equally strong inference that the payments would have been deliberately kept secret – even within the company." Indeed, the alleged improper payments "were not, by their nature, the type of transaction of which it would be 'hard to believe' senior officials were unaware." The Court also noted that the DOJ and SEC settlements were insufficient to raise an inference of scienter, since the mere fact that someone at the company may have had actual knowledge of improper transactions was insufficient to raise a strong inference that the defendant officers had such knowledge.

Sox Certifications Do Not Plead Scienter

Since the enactment of SOX, plaintiffs in securities fraud lawsuits routinely attempt to show scienter by pointing to SOX certifications signed by company executives. Glazer attempted this, arguing that the officers' SOX certifications were sufficient to infer defendants' knowledge of FCPA violations. The Court disagreed. Following decisions in other circuits, the Ninth Circuit held for the first time that a SOX certification "is only probative of scienter if the person signing the certification was severely reckless in certifying the accuracy of the financial statements."

"Personal profit" Insufficient to Plead Scienter

Glazer attempted to raise an inference of scienter by arguing that the officers were motivated to make false statements because they would profit personally from the merger. Joining several other circuits, the Ninth Circuit held that evidence of a personal profit motive on the part of officers and directors contemplating a merger is insufficient to raise a strong inference of scienter.


Susan S. Muck, Partner, Securities Litigation Group,
smuck@fenwick.com, 415.875.2325

Felix S. Lee, Partner, Litigation Group,
flee@fenwick.com, 650.335.7123

Christopher S. Walton, Associate, Litigation Group,
cwalton@fenwick.com, 650.335.7161

©2008 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.

This update is intended by Fenwick & West LLP to summarize recent developments in the law. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as legal advice. Readers who have particular questions about these issues should seek advice of counsel.