History
  • No items yet
midpage
Stream Sicav v. Wang
989 F. Supp. 2d 264
S.D.N.Y.
2013
Read the full case

Background

  • SmartHeat, a Nevada holding company operating primarily in China, announced a management lock-up on January 29, 2009, preventing insiders from selling ~61% of outstanding shares until January 2012; the company repeatedly touted the lock-up to investors.
  • Plaintiffs (lead plaintiff Stream SICAV and named plaintiffs) allege SmartHeat and CEO James Jun Wang secretly amended the lock-up on February 5, 2010 (effective Jan 1, 2010) and did not disclose that revision.
  • Plaintiffs further allege Wang caused 380,000 previously locked-up shares to be sold through broker First Merger between Feb–Aug 2010 for $23 million, with First Merger receiving an allegedly excessive $1.1 million commission; FINRA later charged First Merger for failing to report suspicious activity.
  • Plaintiffs claim these omissions and secret sales rendered SmartHeat’s prior public statements materially false, inflating the stock price and causing losses when the truth emerged.
  • Procedurally: plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting § 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and § 20A claims; SmartHeat moved to dismiss the SAC; plaintiffs moved to strike a stockholder list exhibit and for alternative service on Wang under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether nondisclosure of the Feb 5, 2010 amendment (revision theory) states a §10(b) claim SmartHeat secretly revoked the lock-up effective Jan 1, 2010 and kept prior lock-up statements on its website, misleading investors (Not directly challenged by SmartHeat in motion to dismiss) Court: Revision theory pleads a materially misleading omission and survives dismissal
Whether secret sales of 380,000 shares (insider sale theory) state a §10(b) claim Sales were of previously locked-up shares; nondisclosure of those sales made lock-up statements misleading SmartHeat: public statements referenced only “senior management,” but SAC alleges unidentified “insiders”; implausible that sellers were senior managers; stockholder list shows senior managers still hold shares Court: SAC plausibly alleges sold shares were locked-up shares; identity tracing not required at pleading stage; insider sale theory survives dismissal
Whether scienter (knowledge/recklessness) of CEO Wang can be imputed to SmartHeat Wang acted to preserve investor confidence and corporate financing; corporate benefited from concealment (e.g., later equity raise) so his intent imputable SmartHeat: Wang acted for personal reasons adverse to corporation, invoking adverse-interest exception to imputation Court: Adverse-interest exception is narrow and inapplicable; allegations plausibly show corporate benefit, so Wang’s scienter imputable to SmartHeat
Whether alternative service on Wang via SmartHeat’s registered agent and counsel under Rule 4(f)(3) is permissible Plaintiffs show Hague Convention service impractically slow and that service on SmartHeat/counsel is likely to notify Wang SmartHeat contends Wang works for subsidiaries and may not be apprised by parent or counsel Court: Proposed service not prohibited by international agreement, comports with due process, and is warranted; court grants Rule 4(f)(3) alternative service

Key Cases Cited

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standards require plausibility)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations not entitled to assumption of truth)
  • ATSI Communs., Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.) (Rule 9(b) particulars for securities fraud)
  • Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (scienter must give rise to strong inference)
  • Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir.) (failure to follow publicly announced policy can be misleading)
  • Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (similar principle: nondisclosure of departure from public policy can state claim)
  • Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, 15 N.Y.3d 446 (N.Y.) (narrow adverse-interest exception to imputing agent knowledge to corporation)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Stream Sicav v. Wang
Court Name: District Court, S.D. New York
Date Published: Oct 7, 2013
Citation: 989 F. Supp. 2d 264
Docket Number: No. 12 Civ. 6682 (PAE)
Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.