X hits on this document





40 / 47

Id. Neither of these press releases makes any mention whatsoever of the Company’s

accounting for deferred revenue or chargeback levels. Moreover, plaintiff concedes the

Company disclosed the increase in chargeback reserves from one to five percent on

August 12, 2005. CAC at ¶ 43. As the rise in chargeback levels was announced more

than a year before the cited press releases, there can be no causal relationship

between that issue and the decline in the Company’s share price.

Indeed, if the Company misstated revenue by taking it too soon (as alleged in the

deferred revenue theory), that would have inflated the balance sheet. Plaintiff, however,

has alleged no facts as to any dollar amounts, how the revenue was inflated or when

the adjustment was made or how that affected the stock.

Moreover, the press releases are insufficient to establish loss causation as to the

business model theory of fraud. The mere announcement of investigations regarding

“efficacy or trading success” and “marketing activities,” without any subsequent

disclosure of actual misconduct, can hardly be considered a “revelation” that the

Company’s business model is a “sham.” The Company’s announcement that it would

be withdrawing the EduTrades registration statement similarly does not identify, reveal,

or correct any prior misstatement or omission regarding the legitimacy of the Company’s

business model and, therefore, does not qualify as a corrective disclosure for loss

causation purposes.

Plaintiff relies on In re Bradley Pharms. Sec. Litig., 421 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D.N.J.

2006), for the proposition that a drop in stock price following the disclosure of a

governmental investigation is sufficient to establish loss causation. However, Bradley is

distinguishable because, there the press release announcing an SEC investigation was


Document info
Document views178
Page views178
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 23:50:21 UTC 2017