X hits on this document

124 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

18 / 47

An “artificially inflated purchase price” is not in and of itself a relevant economic harm.

Dura Pharms., 544 U.S. at 347. In addition to alleging an artificially inflated purchase

price, a plaintiff must also allege a causal connection between the false or misleading

statement and the subsequent decline in share price. Id. Given plaintiff’s burden of

proof as to causation, it is incumbent upon plaintiff at the pleading state to “ ‘allege that

the subject of the fraudulent statement or omission was the cause of the actual loss

suffered, i.e., that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market

that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security.’ ” Edward J.

Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1278-79 (M.D.

Fla. 2009) (quoting Lentell, 396 F.3d at 173)).

  • V.

    Analysis

  • A.

    The Whitney Defendants’ Motion

    • 1.

      The Deferred Revenues Theory

a.

Plaintiff says that the Whitney Defendants failed to properly defer revenue by,

inter alia, recording all “educational” packages as revenue despite failure to deliver

services and products; arbitrarily designating “Coaching” services as an immediate

revenue item, while nearly identical services were classified as Deferred Revenues; and

abusing Whitney’s refund policy. CAC at ¶¶57, 74, 124. Plaintiff further says that this

enabled the Company “to prematurely and improperly realize tens of millions of dollars

in additional revenues.” CAC at ¶ 75. Plaintiff also says that the Company’s revenue

recognition practices eventually came to a head on June 28, 2006 when the Company

announced that it would change its revenue recognition practices going back to 2000,

17

Document info
Document views124
Page views124
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 20:20:07 UTC 2016
Pages47
Paragraphs1041
Words12892

Comments