In re: LONGWEI PETROLEUM INVESTMENT HOLDING LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION
OPINION & ORDER
HAROLD BAER, Jr., District Judge.
This is a class action brought on behalf of investors who owned stock in Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding Ltd. between September 28, 2010 and January 3, 2014 for relief under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a), j(b). Default judgments have already been entered against Longwei and its officer and board member Dora Dong. Further, the company's founders, Cai Yongjun and Xue Yongping, have failed to appear in this action. The remaining defendants, Michael Toups, Douglas Cole, and Gerald DeCiccio (the "individual defendants"); Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw, PLLC and Anderson Bradshaw, PLLC ("the auditors"); and Russell Anderson, the principal audit partner throughout, have filed four separate motions to dismiss. All of the above defendants had been sued individually in prior actions, all of which have been consolidated. The motion to dismiss by the auditors and Russell Anderson is GRANTED with respect to the § 20(a) claim against Russell Anderson and DENIED with respect to all other claims. All other motions to dismiss are DENIED.
Longwei is a publicly traded distributor of petroleum products in China. From 2010 to 2012, over 91% of its reported revenues came from "the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel" from its three oil storage facilities in Shanxi province: Taiyuan, Gujiao, and Huajie. (Cons. Am. Compl. ("CAC") ¶ 58.) During this period, Longwei reported record revenues in sharp contrast to its competitors. ( Id. ¶ 203.) For example, on September 28, 2010, the beginning of the class period, Longwei filed a Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) listing a 74% revenue increase. ( Id. ¶ 76.) Plaintiffs allege that this and other company statements grossly overstated Longwei's oil sales since its facilities were "virtually idle." ( Id. ¶ 128.)
Plaintiffs also claim that Longwei's financial filings inaccurately stated that the company held no material off-balance sheet arrangements and that its filings conformed to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). ( Id. ¶¶ 78, 81, 83.) In fact, the company had invested $32 million in an unrelated tourism business partially owned by defendant Cai. ( Id. ¶¶ 83.) This interest was disclosed to the Chinese State Administration for Industry & Commerce (SAIC) but not to the SEC. ( Id. ¶¶ 143-44.) The company also reported drastically different revenues to the SAIC and SEC for part of 2012, claiming $428, 764 in revenue from the Taiyuan facility from January to December 2012 in SAIC filings but the exponentially greater $269.9 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012 in filings with the SEC. ( Id. ¶¶ 59, 136.)
On January 3, 2013, the end of the class period, GeoInvesting.com published an expose claiming that Longwei's reported sales "were vastly exaggerated." ( Id. ¶ 127.) Geoinvesting is a short-seller which also operates a website providing investment analysis to subscribers. GeoInvesting based its report on video surveillance of Longwei's three facilities between October and December of 2012, as well as on interviews with local, unnamed residents. ( Id. ¶ 128-29.) It also published photographs of the railroad tracks ostensibly used to deliver fuel, which showed overgrowth and rust, suggesting that they had been "unused" for "quite some time." ( Id. ¶ 132.) Geoinvesting concluded that the Gujiao facility had been "virtually idle" since at least 2011, and the Taiyuan facility for "a long time." ( Id. ¶ 128.) It asserted that Longwei had overstated its sales from the Taiyuan and Gujiao facilities by a factor of 882 for the month of November 2012. ( Id. ¶ 131.) Following this report, the company's share price dropped 72% in a single day. ( Id. ¶ 13.)
After GeoInvesting's announcement, the Daily Economic News, a Chinese newspaper, published a report confirming that the Taiyuan and Gujiao facilities "were not functional at all" based on a failed inspection by the Safety Inspection Bureau of Shanxi Province in May 2012. ( Id. ¶ 134.) In January -, the Chinese television station CCTV aired its own footage of unused railroad spurs at Taiyuan and Gujiao, with a local resident stating that the Gujuiao facility had "ceased operations for several years." ( Id. ¶ 135-36.) Plaintiffs' investigators independently corroborated these reports through similar interviews, photographs, and visits.
Plaintiffs allege that Toups, DeCiccio, Cole, and the auditors have committed securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10(b)-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and that Toups, DiCiccio, Cole, and Anderson are liable as control persons under § 20(a) Of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a).
The complaint alleges that the individual defendants supervised the company's financial reporting during the class period. Michael Toups was Longwei's chief financial officer (CFO). Gerald DeCiccio and Michael Cole were independent directors and members of the audit committee, and DeCiccio was also the chair and financial expert for the committee. Michael Toups and Douglas Cole signed all of the company's Forms 10-K from 2010 through 2012, and Gerald DeCiccio did so in 2010 and 2011. ( Id. ¶¶ 78, 97, 117.) Toups also made statements on behalf of the company concerning its financial well-being. He was quoted in a September 2011 press release saying that Longwei "expect[ed] both of our existing facilities [at Taiyuan and Gujiao] to continue generating strong revenues." ( Id. ¶ 95.)
Child VanWagoner & Bradshaw, PLLC ("CvWB") was Longwei's auditor from the beginning of the class period until August 1, 2012, when Anderson Bradshaw succeeded it but retained the same team of auditors. ( Id. ¶¶ 34-35.) Both firms issued unqualified audit opinions and concluded that Longwei's SEC filings presented the company's financial position fairly and conformed to GAAP. ( Id. ¶ 84, 103, 119.) Russell Anderson worked for both CvWB and Anderson & Bradshaw, and Plaintiffs identify him as the "principal audit partner and contact person for all Longwei audits" from at least February 15, 2011 forward. ( Id. ¶ 37.)
Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. When resolving a motion to dismiss, I must treat all facts in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Kassner v. 2nd Avenue Delicatessen, 496 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir. 2007). The "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). It must contain "enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal" conduct. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
I. Securities Fraud
To satisfy § 10(b), Plaintiffs must plead "(1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation." In re PXRE Grp., Ltd. Sec. Litig., 600 F.Supp.2d 510, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Plaintiffs adequately allege all elements of a § 10(b) violation for both the individual defendants and the ...