8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ruling-on-motion-to-dismiss-wwe-shareholder-lawsuit 1/60 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT -------------------------------- x IN RE WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAI NMENT, I NC. SECURI TI ES LI TI GATI ON : : : : Ci vi l No. 3: 14- cv- 1070( AWT) -------------------------------- x RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS The l ead pl ai nti f f , Mohsi n Ansar i , and an addi ti onal pl ai nt i f f , Adnan Shaf eeq, br i ng a f eder al secur i t i es cl ass act i on pur suant t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. Rul es 23( a) and ( b) ( 3) on behal f of t hemsel ves and ot her s who pur chased Wor l d W r est l i ng Ent er t ai nment , I nc. secur i t i es bet ween Oct ober 31, 2013 and May 16, 2014. The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege vi ol at i ons of t he Secur i t i es and Exchange Act of 1934 ( t he “Exchange Act ”) by Wor l d W r est l i ng Ent ert ai nment , I nc. ( “WWE”) ; Vi ncent K. McMahon ( “McMahon”) ; Geor ge A. Bar r i os ( “Bar r i os”) ; Mi chel l e D. W i l son ( “W i l son”) ; and St ephani e McMahon Levesque ( “Levesque”) . Speci f i cal l y, t hey al l ege vi ol at i on of § 10( b) of t he Exchange Act and Rul e 10b- 5 pr omul gat ed t her eunder by def endant s WWE, McMahon, Bar r i os, and W i l son; vi ol at i on of § 20( a) of t he Exchange Act by def endant s McMahon, Bar r i os, and W i l son; vi ol at i on of § 20( b) of t he Exchange Act by def endant s McMahon, Bar r i os, and W i l son; and vi ol at i on of § 20( A) of t he Exchange Act by Levesque.
60
Embed
Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
pur chased WWE secur i t i es dur i ng t he Cl ass Per i od. The gr avamen
of t he pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai ms i s :
Def endant s engaged i n a scheme to decei ve t he mar ket , and[ i n] a cour se of conduct t hat ar t i f i ci al l y i nf l at ed WWE’ sst ock pr i ce and oper at ed as a f r aud or decei t on Cl assPer i od pur chaser s of WWE’ s st ock by mi sr epr esent i ng t hest at us of WWE’ s i nt er nal cont r ol s and di scl osur es.Ul t i mat el y, however , when Def endant s’ pr i ormi sr epr esent at i ons and f r audul ent conduct came t o ber eveal ed t o i nvest or s, shar es of WWE decl i ned pr eci pi t ousl y– evi dence t hat t he pr i or i nf l at i on i n t he pr i ce of WWE’ sshar es was er adi cat ed. As a resul t of t hei r pur chases ofWWE st ock dur i ng t he Cl ass Per i od at ar t i f i ci al l y i nf l at edpr i ces, Pl ai nt i f f s and ot her member s of t he Cl ass suf f er edeconomi c l osses when t he Company’ s t r ue condi t i on . . . was
f i nal l y and f ul l y r eveal ed and t he ar t i f i ci al i nf l at i on wasr emoved f r om pr i ce of t he Company’ s st ock[ . ]
( Amended Compl ai nt f or Vi ol at i on of t he Feder al Secur i t i es Laws
( Doc. No. 71) ( “Amended Compl ai nt ”) ¶ 78. )
The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he def endant s made “mat er i al l y
f al se and mi sl eadi ng st atement s and omi ssi ons dur i ng t he Cl ass
Per i od r egar di ng WWE’ s abi l i t y t o mul t i pl y and t r ansf or m t he
Company’ s ear ni ngs pr of i l e. ” ( I d. ¶ 5. ) The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege
t hat t he def endant s made f al se and mi sl eadi ng st at ement s
r egar di ng t el evi si on cont r act negot i at i ons, suggest i ng t hat WWE
coul d command a cont r act comparabl e t o t hat between NASCAR, NBC
and FOX. The pl ai nt i f f s f ur t her al l ege t hat t he def endant s
“gr ossl y i nf l at ed t he si ze of WWE’ s f an base i n an ef f or t t o
convey a l arger market val ue f or t he Company. ” ( I d. ¶ 6. )
Addi t i onal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he def endant s “f ai l ed
t o i nf or m i nvest or s of t he det r i ment al i mpact t hat t he Company’ s
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
2014, Levesque sol d 441, 671 shar es f or a t otal of $6, 174, 551. 02.
( I d. ¶ 23. )
Materially False and/or Misleading Statements or Omissions
The pl ai nt i f f s speci f i cal l y al l ege t hat t he def endant s made
t he f ol l owi ng mat er i al l y f al se and/ or mi sl eadi ng st at ement s
dur i ng t he Cl ass Per i od. 2
On Oct ober 31, 2013, t he def endant s i ssued a pr ess r el ease
announci ng WWE’ s f i nanci al r esul t s. The pr ess r el ease quot ed
def endant McMahon as sayi ng:
These accompl i shments r ef l ect t he st r engt h of our brands,i ncl udi ng a nat i onal t el evi si on audi ence t hat exceeds t heannual r each of most ot her spor t s and ent er t ai nmentpr ogr ams. Thi s st r engt h pr ovi des a sol i d f oundat i on f or t her enegot i at i on of our TV cont r act s and t he pot ent i al l aunchof a WWE net wor k.
( I d. ¶ 37. ) The pr ess r el ease al so quot ed def endant Bar r i os as
stat i ng:
Gi ven t he r i si ng val ue of l i ve cont ent t hat has a br oad,l oyal f ol l owi ng, we ar e conf i dent t hat we wi l l be abl e t onegot i at e our key domest i c agr eement s by t he end of Apr i lnext year and t hat our ef f or t s, i ncl udi ng t he pot ent i all aunch of a WWE network, wi l l keep us on t r ack to doubl e ort r i pl e our OI BDA r esul t s of $63 mi l l i on by 2015[ . ]
( I d. ) The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t hese st at ement s wer e mat er i al l y
f al se and/ or mi sl eadi ng because t he def endant s knew or
2 I n t he Amended Compl ai nt , t he pl ai nt i f f s al so i dent i f y
al l egedl y f al se and/ or mi sl eadi ng st atement s made i n a Febr uary28, 2014 pr ess r el ease. However , as poi nt ed out by t hedef endant s and conceded by t he pl ai nt i f f s, t he r ef er enced pr essr el ease was i ssued on Febr uary 28, 2013, bef or e t he Cl assPer i od. Ther ef or e, t he cour t does not consi der i t .
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
r eckl essl y di sr egarded 1) t hat “WWE had al r eady begun
negot i at i ng wi t h NBC f or a new t el evi si on cont act , and t hose
negot i at i ons had al r eady f ai l ed t o achi eve a doubl i ng or
t r i pl i ng of 2012 OI BDA r esul t s”; 2) t hat “WWE’ s t el evi si on
audi ence was younger , l ess educat ed, and had a l ower aver age
i ncome t han the audi ence f or l i ve spor t s, whi ch caused WWE to
gener at e much l ess adver t i si ng r evenue than l i ve spor t s”; and 3)
t hat “net wor ks vi ewed WWE as cat egor i cal l y di f f er ent f r om and
l ess val uabl e t han t he ‘ l i ve cont ent ’ t hat had gar ner ed
i ncreasi ngl y l ar ge t el evi si on l i censi ng deal s. ” ( I d. ¶ 38. )
Thi s press r el ease al so cont ai ned a di scl ai mer st at i ng:
For war d- Looki ng St at ement s: Thi s press r el ease cont ai nsf or war d- l ooki ng st at ement s pur suant t o the saf e har borpr ovi si ons of t he Secur i t i es Li t i gat i on Ref or m Act of 1995,whi ch ar e subj ect t o var i ous r i sks and uncer t ai nt i es. Theser i sks and uncer t ai nt i es i ncl ude, wi t hout l i mi t at i on, r i sksr el at i ng t o mai nt ai ni ng and r enewi ng key agr eement s,
i ncl udi ng t el evi si on and pay- per - vi ew pr ogr ammi ngdi st r i but i on agr eement s. . . .
( Memorandum of Law i n Suppor t of t he Mot i on of Wor l d Wr est l i ng
Ent er t ai nment , I nc. , Vi ncent K. McMahon, Geor ge A. Bar r i os,
Mi chel l e D. Wi l son, and Stephani e McMahon Levesque t o Di smi ss
t he Consol i dat ed Amended Compl ai nt ( Doc. No. 77- 1) ( “Def endant s’
Memorandum) at 18) ( quot i ng Ex. 4, at 10)3
.
Al so on Oct ober 31, 2013, t he def endant s hel d an ear ni ngs
conf er ence cal l f or t he Thi r d Quar t er . The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege
3 The page number s f or t he Def endants’ Memorandum and Exhi bi t scor r espond t o t he ECF page number f ound at t he t op of t he page.
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
t hat t he f ol l owi ng st at ement f r om def endant McMahon was
mi sl eadi ng: “So we pr et t y much t hi nk t hat al l of t hese
i ni t i at i ves ar e, i f al l t he st ar s l i ne up and we bel i eve t hat
t hey wi l l , and we are worki ng hard t o make sur e t hat happens,
t hen our busi ness i s goi ng t o be t r ansf ormed as we know i t . ”
( Amended Compl ai nt ¶ 39. ) As al l eged by t he pl ai nt i f f s,
def endant McMahon knew or r eckl essl y di sr egarded t hat t he st ars
wer e not “l i ni ng up” and t hat “no net work, i ncl udi ng NBC, was
goi ng t o ever pay WWE an amount doubl e or t r i pl e t he val ue of
i t s t hen- cur r ent deal . Wi t hout t he l ever age of i nt er est f r om
ot her sui t or s, Def endant s coul d not negot i at e a cont r act t hat
woul d ‘ t r ansf or m[ ] ’ WWE. ” ( I d. ¶ 40) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) .
The pl ai nt i f f s al so al l ege t hat f ol l owi ng st at ements by
def endant Barr i os dur i ng t he Oct ober 31, 2013 conf er ence cal l
wer e mi sl eadi ng:
We ar e conf i dent t hat t he r i si ng val ue of cont ent i n t hemarket pl ace, and the pot ent i al l aunch of a WWE net work wi l lkeep us on t r ack t o doubl e or t r i pl e our 2012 OI BDA r esul t sby 2015. . . .
Recent deal s such as NASCAR wi t h NBC Spor t s r ei nf orce ourvi ew t hat t he pr ol i f er at i on of di st r i but i on al t er nat i ves i sdr i vi ng up t he val ue of cont ent , especi al l y compel l i ngcontent wi t h broad appeal . WWE shares t he key det ermi nants
of val ue t hat ar e at t r i but ed t o l i ve spor t s . . . whi chmakes WWE cont ent l i ke spor t s DVR- proof .
The pot ent i al l aunch of a WWE networ k i s anot her maj orsour ce of f ut ur e earni ngs gr owt h. Our market r esear ch andanal ysi s i ndi cat e t hat pot ent i al f or a meani ngf ulsubscr i ber base and a si gni f i cant economi c oppor t uni t y.
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
On t he same Oct ober 31, 2013 conf erence cal l , def endant
Bar r i os al so st at ed:
Over t he past 12 mont hs, our progr ammi ng surpassed t hecumul at i ve audi ence del i ver y of most spor t s andent er t ai nment pr ogr ams, i ncl udi ng t he nat i onal br oadcast ofMaj or League Basebal l , NASCAR, t he NHL and even The Wal ki ngDead, and our t ot al soci al medi a pl at f or m now r eachesnear l y 219 mi l l i on f ol l ower s, i ncl udi ng mor e than 140mi l l i on l i kes and 70 mi l l i on Twi t t er f ol l ower s . . .
( I d. ¶ 45. ) The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t hese number s wer e
dr ast i cal l y i nf l at ed, as one f an who was “f ol l owi ng” a dozen
di f f er ent wr est l er s woul d be count ed t wel ve t i mes. The
pl ai nt i f f s al so al l ege t hat def endant Wi l son asked CW1 t o
mi sr epr esent vi ewer shi p dat a to adver t i ser s.
The def endant s poi nt out t hat t he cal l st ar t ed wi t h t he
st at ement : “I n t oday’ s di scussi on, we’ l l be maki ng sever al
f orward- l ooki ng st atement s. These st atement s are based on
management est i mat es. Act ual r esul t s may di f f er due t o numerous
f act or s as descr i bed i n our pr esent at i on and i n our f i l i ngs wi t h
t he SEC. ” ( See Def endant s’ Memorandum at 18; Ex. 5, at 2)
On December 10, 2013 def endant Bar r i os par t i ci pat ed i n t he
UBS Gl obal Medi a and Communi cat i ons Conf erence. At t he
conf erence he compar ed a r ecent NASCAR deal wi t h NBC t o t he deal
t hat WWE was negot i at i ng wi t h NBCU. He not ed that whereas NASCAR
di d 330 hour s of pr ogr ammi ng i n the pr evi ous year wi t h an
aver age of 3 mi l l i on vi ewers, WWE di d 314 hours of progr ammi ng
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
wi t h an average of 3. 7 mi l l i on vi ewers. He then comment ed t hat
because t he NASCAR cont r act was $820 mi l l i on and WWE was
cur r ent l y at about $100 mi l l i on, t he new cont r act negot i at i ons
were a “massi ve oppor t uni t y” f or WWE. ( Amended Compl ai nt ¶ 47. )
He st at ed:
And we bel i eve, wi t h some success acr oss [ t he f our r enewalnegot i at i ons] , we doubl e or t r i pl e our 2012 OI BDA and gett o $120 mi l l i on t o $190 mi l l i on. I nt er nal l y, t hat ’ s whatwe’ r e shoot i ng f or . A homer un i n ei t her of t he f i r st t woget s you t her e al one. Thr ee or f our mi l l i on subs on anet work get s you t her e al one. Get hal f way bet ween wher e weare and wher e NASCAR [ i t ] get s you t her e al one. Some
success on bot h wi l l l ook and f eel pr et t y good.
( I d. ) Dur i ng t he conf er ence, def endant Bar r i os al so stat ed t hat
WWE had 220 mi l l i on soci al medi a f ol l owers ar ound t he wor l d.
The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat def endant Bar r i os “mi sl ed
i nvest ors t o bel i eve t hat NASCAR and WWE’ s pur por t edl y si mi l ar
vi ewer shi p hour s woul d r esul t i n WWE achi evi ng a si mi l ar
t el evi si on l i censi ng cont r act as t he $820 mi l l i on annual deal
NBC and FOX made wi t h NASCAR. ” ( I d. ¶ 48. ) The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege
t hat WWE woul d not be abl e to negot i at e such a l arge cont r act
because WWE brought i n f ar l ess adver t i si ng r evenue t han NASCAR,
i n par t because i t s audi ence had l ess spendi ng power t han l i ve
spor t s audi ences. Accor di ngl y, t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he
def endant s knew t hat i t woul d be “i mpossi bl e” t o “get hal f way
bet ween wher e we ar e t oday and wher e NASCAR i s. ” ( I d. ) The
pl ai nt i f f s al so al l ege t hat def endant Bar r i os mi sr epr esent ed t he
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
si ze of WWE’ s f an base; he st at ed t hat WWE had 220 mi l l i on
soci al medi a f ol l ower s around t he wor l d, but i n r eal i t y WWE onl y
had 4 t o 6 mi l l i on f ans. Accor di ngl y, t he def endant s knew or
r eckl essl y di sr egar ded t hat i t woul d be i mpossi bl e t o get “t hr ee
or f our mi l l i on subs on a net wor k. ” The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t he
def endant s knew t he act ual si ze of t he f an base “because CW1
speci f i cal l y r ef used t o pr esent t hese i nf l at ed number s when
asked by Def endant Wi l son on t he basi s t hat t hey wer e f al se. ”
( I d. ¶ 50. )
The def endant s al so not e t hat dur i ng t he quest i on and
answer per i od at t he conf er ence, def endant Barr i os was asked
about hi s compar i son of NASCAR and WWE and whet her adver t i ser s
f ound NASCAR t o be more at t r act i ve. Def endant Bar r i os st ated
t hat he t hought di st r i but i on agr eement s, r at her t han adver t i si ng
r evenue, woul d dr i ve t he cont r act s. He f ur t her st at ed, “t he
adver t i si ng shoul d be pr et t y cl ose but I don’ t have t he har d
data t o support t hat . ” ( Def endant s’ Memorandum, Ex. 6 at 9. )
The def endant s al so not e t hat :
I n di scussi ng t he negot i at i on of t he t el evi si on cont r act s,Bar r i os st ated t hat t he NHL, NASCAR, maj or l eague basebal l ,and t he NBA wer e “get t i ng anywhere bet ween 50 cent s and $1
per vi ewer hour whi l e WWE was get t i ng around 10 cent s perhour . ( Ex. 6 [ at 7] ) . He sai d, “[ Y]ou can make your own j udgment about oppor t uni t y t here. ” ( Ex. 6 [ at 7] ) .
( Def endant s’ Memorandum at 19- 20. )
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
On December 17, 2013, Var i ety magazi ne publ i shed an ar t i cl e
ent i t l ed, “WWE Ai ms t o Pi n Down Ri ch New TV Ri ght s Deal s
( EXCLUSI VE) . ” The ar t i cl e was based on i nt er vi ews wi t h
def endant s McMahon, Bar r i os, and Wi l son. The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege
t hat t he f ol l owi ng st at ement was mat er i al l y f al se and/ or
mi sl eadi ng:
“We’ ve had t o evol ve our t hi nki ng, ” [ Mi chel l e] Wi l son says,“We ar e cl ear l y ent er t ai nment - based, but i f you t hi nk aboutt he char acter i st i cs of our br and, i t ’ s l i ve acti on, andt hat ’ s sport s. We want t o be compensat ed f or a l i veaudi ence si nce l i ve cont ent i s get t i ng a ver y si gni f i cant
pr emi um i n t he market pl ace. ” The company ci t es Nascar ’ si mpressi ve deal maki ng t hi s summer as an exampl e. The raci ngl eague secured a new 10- year deal wi t h NBC and Fox wor t h$820 mi l l i on a year . And that i ncr ease came i n the f ace ofdecl i ni ng r at es f or many of i t s r aces. WWE ar gues t hat“Raw” and “SmackDown” al one are j ust as at t r act i ve, wi t h ar abi d f anbase t hat ’ s hel ped bui l d net wor ks, and i t s ser i esar e di ver se i n et hni ci t y and age.
( Amended Compl ai nt ¶ 51. ) The pl ai nt i f f s argue t hat t hese
st atement s wer e mater i al l y f al se and/ or mi sl eadi ng because they
“knew or r eckl essl y di sr egar ded t hat t he ‘ char act er i st i cs of
[ t he WWE] br and’ wer e not si mi l ar t o l i ve spor t s” as evi denced
by t he f act t hat i t s i nt er nal document s “di scuss t he Company’ s
r ecogni t i on t hat WWE i s ‘ not t he PGA, NFL, or MLB . . . ’ and
t hat WWE i s ‘ st i l l ear l y i n gr owt h st ages. ’ ”( I d. ¶ 52. ) The
pl ai nt i f f s al so al l ege t hat t hese i nt er nal document s bel i ed
def endant Wi l son’ s r epr esent at i on t hat WWE want ed t o “be
compensat ed f or a l i ve audi ence. ” Addi t i onal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s
agai n chal l enge the appr opr i at eness of t he compar i son t o NASCAR
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
because t he def endant s knew or r eckl essl y di sr egarded t hat WWE
coul d not gener at e the same l evel of adver t i si ng revenue.
On J anuary 14, 2014, t he def endant s had a conf er ence cal l
t o di scuss t he l aunch of a WWE Net work. Dur i ng t he cal l , an
anal yst asked about t he possi bl e canni bal i st i c i mpact t hat
l aunchi ng t he WWE Net work coul d have on i t s audi ence base f or
t he NBCU and Syf y progr ams. Def endant McMahon repr esent ed that
t he networ k and t he NBCU programmi ng wer e di st i nct because NBCU
woul d be ai r i ng t he l i ve pr ogr ami ng. He f ur t her r epr esent ed t hat
i t was bot h WWE’ s vi ew and USA’ s vi ew t hat t he net work was goi ng
t o i ncrease t el evi si on r at i ngs and over al l i nt er est i n and
awareness of WWE. The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat def endant McMahon’ s
st at ement s wer e mat er i al l y f al se and/ or mi sl eadi ng because ( a)
he l ater admi t t ed t hat “t he WWE net work ‘ def i ni t el y had a
negat i ve i mpact ’ on negot i at i ons wi t h NBC” and ( b) he al so
al l egedl y admi t t ed t hat whet her t he WWE net work was goi ng t o
i ncrease tel evi si on r at i ngs was a “poi nt of cont ent i on dur i ng
t he negot i at i on pr ocess. ” ( I d. ¶ 54. )
The def endant s not e t hat t he f ol l owi ng st at ement was made
at t he begi nni ng of t he cal l :
Today’ s di scussi on wi l l i ncl ude f or war d- l ooki ng st at ements. These f or war d- l ooki ng st at ements r ef l ect our cur r ent vi ews,are based on var i ous assumpt i ons and are subj ect t o r i sksand uncer t ai nt i es di scl osed f r om t i me t o t i me i n our SECf i l i ngs. Act ual r esul t s may di f f er mat er i al l y and unduer el i ance shoul d not be pl aced on t hem.
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
( Def endant s’ Memorandum, Ex. 25 at 1. ) Fur t hermore, dur i ng t he
cal l , def endant Bar r i os st at ed:
Al t hough t hese i ni t i at i ves hol d si gni f i cant pot ent i al , ourf i nanci al per f or mance f or 2014 coul d f al l wi t hi n a wi der ange of out comes dependi ng on t he r at e of Net worksubscri ber acqui si t i on, t he l evel of pot ent i al pay- per - vi ewcanni bal i zat i on and t he out come of our cont entnegot i at i ons. Thi s wi de range of out comes i n 2014 i ncl udespot ent i al l y l ower earni ngs i n 2013. . . . Management maychange i t s expect at i on t hat t he pl anned Net wor k wi l lcont r i but e t o pot ent i al l y doubl i ng or t r i pl i ng t hecompany’ s 2012 OI BDA r esul t s of $63 mi l l i on by 2015.
( I d. at 5. )
On J anuar y 16, 2014, WWE had a conf erence cal l wi t h
anal yst s. Dur i ng t hi s cal l , def endant Barr i os agai n compared WWE
wi t h NASCAR and l i ve spor t s, st at i ng:
The second maj or t r ansf or mabl e oppor t uni t y f or us i s t her enewal of our f our l argest TV agr eement s, t wo i n t he USwi t h NBCU. . . . Up t op you have t he l i ve gr oss r at i ngpoi nt s del i ver ed by t he maj or l i ve – del i ver er s of l i f e of[ l i ve] cont ent whi ch i s spor t s – NBA 514; Maj or League
Basebal l 295; NASCAR 212. WWE del i ver ed 344 l i ve gr ossr at i ng poi nt s over t he l ast 12 mont hs. The payment f ort hose gr oss r at i ng poi nt s s i t [ s] somewher e bet ween $2mi l l i on and $5 mi l l i on cur r ent l y i n t he mar ket pl ace. So t heway t hat mat h wor ks, i f you ar e NASCAR, you have 212 grossr at i ng poi nt s, you ar e aver agi ng about $4 mi l l i on per ,NASCAR on aver age i s $800 mi l l i on of domest i c r i ght s f ees ayear . As I ment i oned bef or e, WWE’ s f our l ar gest deal s ar eat $100 mi l l i on gl obal l y. So t he domest i c get s obvi ousl yl ess t han t hat . So t he r ange of oppor t uni t y si t s f r omsomewher e wher e are t oday t o t hose number s. We’ ve sai d wi t h
some l evel of success especi al l y across t he net work and t her i ght s r enewal t hat we t hi nk we can doubl e or t r i pl e 2012OI BDA by 2015.
( Amended Compl ai nt ¶ 55. ) The pl ai nt i f f s cont end that “Def endant
Bar r i os mi sl ed i nvest or s t o bel i eve t hat WWE’ s t el evi si on
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
On Februar y 20, 2014, WWE i ssued a pr ess r el ease announci ng
i t s 2013 Four t h Quar t er and f ul l year f i nanci al r esul t s. The
r el ease quot ed def endant Bar r i os as st at i ng:
Regardi ng our domest i c TV l i censi ng agr eement s, we ar e nowengaged wi t h pot ent i al par t ner s af t er exi t i ng our excl usi venegot i at i ons per i od wi t h NBCU. Based on our anal ysi s of t heval ue of comparabl e pr ogr ams and our ext ensi ve r esearchr egardi ng consumer i nterest i n WWE Net work, we cont i nue t obel i eve t hat we can doubl e or t r i pl e our 2012 OI BDA r esul t sof $63 mi l l i on by 2015.
( I d. ¶ 59. ) The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t hi s st at ement was
mat er i al l y f al se and/ or mi sl eadi ng because, accor di ng t o CW1,
“f r om t he onset ot her net wor ks had expr essed no i nt er est i n
worki ng wi t h WWE” and, t hus, t hey were not engaged wi t h ot her
pot ent i al par t ner s at t he t i me def endant Bar r i os made t he
stat ement . ( I d. ¶ 60. ) I n l i ght of t hat f act , t he pl ai nt i f f s
al so al l ege t hat :
Wi t hout t he i nt er est f r om ot her net wor ks, Def endant s knewor r eckl essl y di sr egarded t hat WWE coul d not negot i ate acont r act t hat woul d ‘ doubl e or t r i pl e’ t he oper at i ng i ncomeof WWE based on a new t el evi si on cont r act , because t heCompany was onl y negot i at i ng i t s cont r act wi t h NBC wi t houtany bar gai ni ng power .
( I d. )
The def endant s not e t hat t he press r el ease cont ai ned t he
f ol l owi ng di scl osur e:
For war d Looki ng St at ement : Thi s pr ess r el ease cont ai nsf or war d- l ooki ng st at ement s pur suant t o the saf e har borpr ovi si ons of t he Secur i t i es Li t i gat i on Ref or m Act of 1995,i ncl udi ng, wi t hout l i mi t at i ons, f or war d- l ooki ng stat ement sr egardi ng t he Company’ s growt h pl ans. Al l of t hose f orward-l ooki ng st at ement s are subj ect t o var i ous r i sks and
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
uncer t ai nt i es. These r i sks and uncer t ai nt i es i ncl ude,wi t hout l i mi t at i on, r i sks rel at i ng t o ent er i ng i nt o,mai nt ai ni ng and r enewi ng key agr eement s, i ncl udi ngt el evi si on and pay- per - vi ew pr ogr ammi ng and our networkdi st r i but i on agr eement s. . . . Actual r esul t s coul d di f f ermat er i al l y f r om t hose cur r ent l y expect ed or ant i ci pat ed.
( Def endant s’ Memorandum, Ex. 11 at 10. )
8. On Febr uar y 20, 2014, WWE al so had an earni ngs
conf er ence cal l f or i t s 2013 Four t h Quar t er f i nanci al r esul t s.
Def endant Bar r i os st at ed:
[ W] e cont i nue t o bel i eve t hat we can doubl e or t r i pl e our2012 OI BDA r esul t s by 2015. Our progr ams share t he same key
det er mi nant s of val ue t hat ar e at t r i but ed t o l i ve spor t s,si gni f i cant f i r st r un hour s, and t he associ at ed gr ossr at i ng poi nt s, a passi onat e and l oyal f an base and 90% l i vepl us same day vi ewershi p, whi ch makes WWE cont ent l i kesport s DVR- pr oof . Benchmar ki ng our r i ght s f ees t o the f eespai d f or spor t s pr ogr ammi ng and ot her or i gi nal scr i pt edser i es i ndi cat es t hat our l i cense agr eement s coul d havemeani ngf ul upsi de pot ent i al .
( Amended Compl ai nt ¶ 61. ) The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t hi s
st at ement was “mat er i al l y f al se and/ or mi sl eadi ng when made
because, among ot her t hi ngs, Def endant Bar r i os knew or
r eckl essl y di sr egarded t hat WWE does not ‘ shar e[ ] t he key
det er mi nant s of val ue t hat ar e at t r i but ed t o l i ve spor t s’
because WWE coul d not gener at e t he t ype of adver t i si ng r evenue
t hat l i ve spor t s gener at e. ” ( I d. ¶ 62. ) The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege
t hat t he def endant s al so knew t hat t hei r f an base di d not have
si gni f i cant spendi ng power , whi ch al so had a negat i ve i mpact on
t hei r negot i at i ons. Addi t i onal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat WWE
i s not DVR- pr oof .
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
Dur i ng t he cal l , def endant Bar r i os al so addr essed a
quest i on as t o whet her or not t he f act t hat t he medi a pai d a
l ower CPM ( “cost per t housand”) f or WWE’ s cont ent was a f actor
cont r i but i ng t o why WWE had not yet r eached a deal wi t h NBCU.
Def endant Barr i os r esponded,
I don’ t want t o char act er i ze any of t he di scussi ons we’ vehad i ncl udi ng wi t h NBCU. As I have sai d bef or e r i ght behi ndt he NFL and t he NBA comes WWE i n t erms of gener at i ng l i vegr oss r at i ng poi nt s i n t he U. S. So t hat ’ s ahead of NASCAR,ahead of NHL, i t i s ahead of Maj or League Basebal l , and al lt hei r nat i onal deal s. So we f eel good about t he val ue t hatwe br i ng t o a par t ner bot h i n adver t i si ng, bei ng abl e t o
dr i ve t hei r CPM as wel l as and mor e i mpor t ant l y i n t heval ue t o t hei r af f i l i at e r evenue st r eams.
( I d. ¶ 64. ) The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t hi s st at ement was
“mat er i al l y f al se and/ or mi sl eadi ng when made because Def endant s
knew or r eckl essl y di sr egarded t hat pur port edl y comparabl e
‘ gr oss r at i ng poi nt s’ f or WWE t o the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and
NASCAR wer e i n no way commensur at e wi t h how NBC val ued WWE’ s
t el evi si on l i cense. ” ( I d. ¶ 65. ) Accor di ngl y, t he pl ai nt i f f s
al l ege t hat t her e was no r eason t hat t he def endant s shoul d “f eel
good” about WWE’ s abi l i t y to add val ue t o an adver t i si ng
par t ner shi p or t o af f i l i at e r evenue st r eams. The pl ai nt i f f s al so
al l ege that “ot her net wor ks had al r eady decl i ned to wor k wi t h
WWE, so t he Company was onl y r enegot i at i ng i t s cont r act wi t h
NBC, who woul d not come cl ose t o t he $400 mi l l i on ( of t he total
$800 mi l l i on) t hat NASCAR r ecei ved i n i t s l i cense deal . ” ( I d. )
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
The def endant s not e t hat t hi s conf er ence cal l began wi t h
anot her f or war d- l ooki ng st at ement s di scl ai mer , whi ch was si mi l ar
t o t hose on pr i or occasi ons. They al so not e t hat def endant
McMahon “st at ed t hat t he r equi r ement t hat WWE negot i at e
excl usi vel y wi t h NBC had expi r ed and ‘ we’ r e out i n t he
mar ket pl ace [ f or ] t he f i r st t i me i n a l ong, l ong t i me. ’ ”
( Def endant s’ Memorandum at 25- 26) ( quot i ng Ex. 12 at 5) .
Def endant Bar r i os al so not ed t hat WWE had r enewed agr eement s i n
t he UK and Thai l and and was al so i n di scussi ons i n I ndi a.
On May 1, 2014, t he def endant s had anot her ear ni ngs cal l
wi t h anal yst s, and def endant Bar r i os made the f ol l owi ng
st atement :
Regar di ng our t el evi si on l i censi ng agr eement s, we ar econt i nui ng t o negot i at e wi t h pot ent i al di st r i but i onpar t ner s i n t he U. S. and I ndi a. . . . we cont i nue t obel i eve t hat t he successf ul execut i on of key i ni t i at i ves
coul d pot ent i al l y r esul t i n doubl i ng or t r i pl i ng our 2012OI BDA r esul t s t o a r ange of $125 mi l l i on t o $190 mi l l i on by2015.
( Amended Compl ai nt ¶ 69. ) The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t hi s
st at ement was mat er i al l y f al se and/ or mi sl eadi ng because,
accor di ng t o CW1, at t he t i me t hese st at ement s wer e made, WWE
was onl y negot i at i ng wi t h NBC, not wi t h any ot her “pot ent i al
di st r i but i on par t ner s. ” Fur t her mor e, t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat
t he st atement s wer e mater i al l y f al se and/ or mi sl eadi ng because
“accor di ng t o CW1, NBC was not wi l l i ng t o pay an amount of money
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
f or t he cont r act t hat woul d come anywher e cl ose t o doubl i ng or
t r i pl i ng 2012 OI BDA r esul t s. ” ( I d. ¶ 70. )
Dur i ng t he same cal l , def endant Bar r i os al so st at ed,
Our comprehensi ve consumer r esear ch demonst r at es t hat mor et han 50% of TV homes acr oss WWE’ s t op gl obal mar ket s wereabout 120 mi l l i on homes, r epor t some l evel of af f i ni t y f orWWE cont ent . And among t hese WWE homes, mor e t han 80mi l l i on ar e cl assi f i ed as act i ve, r epr esent i ng mor e t han170 mi l l i on passi onat e and casual f ans.
( I d. ¶ 71. ) The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t hi s st at ement was
mater i al l y f al se or mi sl eadi ng when made because, accor di ng t o
CW1, t he def endant s knew t hat t hei r f an base was 4- 6 mi l l i on
f ans, not mor e t han 80 mi l l i on.
The def endant s not e t hat t hi s earni ngs cal l st ar t ed wi t h a
f or war d- l ooki ng st at ement s di scl ai mer .
II. LEGAL STANDARD
When deci di ng a mot i on t o di smi ss under Fed. R. Ci v. P.
Rul e 12( b) ( 6) , t he cour t must accept as t r ue al l f act ual
al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt and must dr aw i nf er ences i n a l i ght
most f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f . Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S.
232, 236 ( 1974) . Al t hough a compl ai nt “does not need detai l ed
f act ual al l egat i ons, a pl ai nt i f f ’ s obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de t he
‘ gr ounds’ of hi s ‘ ent i t l e[ ment ] t o r el i ef ’ r equi r es mor e t han
l abel s and concl usi ons, and a f or mul ai c r eci t at i on of t he
el ement s of a cause of act i on wi l l not do. ” Bel l At l ant i c Cor p.
v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 550, 555 ( 2007) ( ci t i ng Papasan v. Al l ai n,
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
omi t t ed a mat er i al f act necessary t o make a st at ement not
mi sl eadi ng, t he pl ai nt i f f must “speci f y each st at ement al l eged
t o have been mi sl eadi ng [ and] t he reason or r easons why t he
st at ement i s mi sl eadi ng . . . ” 15 U. S. C. § 78u–4( b) ( 1) ( 2010) .
Fur t her mor e, t o st at e a cl ai m f or secur i t i es f r aud, t he
pl ai nt i f f must “wi t h r espect t o each act or omi ssi on . . . st at e
wi t h par t i cul ar i t y f acts gi vi ng r i se t o a st r ong i nf er ence t hat
t he def endant act ed wi t h t he requi r ed st at e of mi nd. ” 15 U. S. C.
§ 78u–4(b) ( 2) ( 2010) . “The r equi si t e st at e of mi nd i n a Rul e 10b-
5 act i on i s ‘ an i nt ent t o decei ve, mani pul at e or def r aud. ’ ”
Gani no v. Ci t i zens Ut i l s. Co. , 228 F. 3d 154, 168 ( 2d Ci r . 2000)
( quot i ng Er nst & Er nst v. Hochf el der , 425 U. S. 185, 193 n. 12
( 1976) ) .
III. DISCUSSION
The def endant s move t o di smi ss t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s consol i dat ed
amended compl ai nt , pur suant t o Rul es 9( b) and 12( b) ( 6) of t he
Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Procedur e and t he PSLRA. They ar gue t hat
t he Amended Compl ai nt shoul d be di smi ssed because
1. i t f ai l s t o pl ead non- concl usor y f act s showi ng a
mat er i al f al se st at ement or omi ssi on, as opposed t ogenui nel y bel i eved opt i mi sm about t he Company’ s f ut ur epr ospect s; 2. i t f ai l s t o pl ead non- concl usor y f act screat i ng t he r equi si t e st r ong i nf er ence of sci ent er ; 3.i t f ai l s t o pl ead non- concl usor y f act s showi ng l osscausat i on; and 4. i t i s bar r ed by t he saf e har bor i n t hePSLRA f or f orward- l ooki ng st atement s made wi t hout actualknowl edge of t hei r f al si t y.
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
They f ur t her asser t t hat “t he cl ai ms agai nst Wi l son and
Levesque shoul d be di smi ssed because Pl ai nt i f f s have not al l eged
any el ement s of a vi ol at i on agai nst t hem and have i gnor ed t hat
Leveque’ s shar es wer e sol d pur suant t o a Rul e 10b5- 1 pl an t hat
was execut ed and publ i cl y di scl osed seven mont hs bef ore t he
begi nni ng of t he cl ass per i od. ” ( I d. at 9. )
A. Count I: Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 by defendants WWE, McMahon, Barrios, and
Wilson
Sect i on 10( b) of t he Exchange Act makes i t unl awf ul t o “use
or empl oy, i n connect i on wi t h t he pur chase or sal e of any
secur i t y . . . any mani pul at i ve or decept i ve devi ce or
cont r i vance i n cont r avent i on of such r ul es and r egul at i ons as
t he Commi ssi on may pr escr i be as necessar y or appr opr i at e i n t he
publ i c i nt er est or f or t he pr ot ect i on of i nvest or s. ” 15 U. S. C. §
78j ( b) .
To st at e a cl ai m f or vi ol at i on of Sect i on 10( b) and Rul e
10b- 54, t he pl ai nt i f f must al l ege “( 1) a mat er i al
mi sr epr esent at i on or omi ssi on by t he def endant ; ( 2) sci ent er ;
4 Rul e 10b- 5, pr omul gat ed by t he SEC t o i mpl ement Sect i on 10( b) ,
makes i t unl awf ul f or any per sons, di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y, “[ t ] omake any unt r ue st atement of a mater i al f act or t o omi t t o st atea mat er i al f act necessary i n order t o make t he st at ement s made,i n l i ght of t he ci r cumst ances under whi ch they were made, notmi sl eadi ng. ” 17 C. F. R. § 240. 10b- 5( b) .
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
( 3) a connect i on bet ween the mi sr epr esent at i on or omi ssi on and
t he pur chase or sal e of a secur i t y; ( 4) r el i ance upon t he
mi sr epr esent at i on or omi ssi on; ( 5) economi c l oss; and ( 6) l oss
causat i on. ” Amgen I nc. v. Conn. Ret . Pl an and Trust Funds, 133
S. Ct . 1184, 1192 ( 2013) ( quot i ng Mat r i xx I ni t i at i ves, I nc. v.
Si r acusano, 563 U. S. 27, 37- 38 ( 2011) ) . 5
1. Material Misrepresentation or Omission
To st at e a cl ai m, t he pl ai nt i f f s must al l ege “t hat t he
def endant [ s] made a st at ement t hat was ‘ mi sl eadi ng as t o a
mat er i al f act . ’ ” Mat r i xx I ni t i at i ves, 563 U. S. at 38 ( quot i ng
Basi c I nc. v. Levi nson, 485 U. S. 224, 238 ( 1988) ) . The
“mat er i al i t y r equi r ement i s sat i sf i ed when t her e i s ‘ a
subst ant i al l i kel i hood t hat t he di scl osur e of t he omi t t ed f act
woul d have been vi ewed by t he r easonabl e i nvest or as havi ng
si gni f i cant l y al t er ed t he “t ot al mi x” of i nf or mat i on made
avai l abl e. ’ ” I d. , 563 U. S. at 38 ( quot i ng Basi c, 485 at 231- 32
5 The t hi r d and f i f t h el ements do not appear t o be cont est ed i n
t hi s case. The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat r el i ance i s est abl i shed vi at he f r aud- on- t he- mar ket doct r i ne. “The f r aud- on- t he- mar ketpr emi se i s t hat t he pr i ce of a secur i t y tr aded i n an ef f i ci entmar ket wi l l r ef l ect al l publ i cl y avai l abl e i nf or mat i on about a
company; accor di ngl y, a buyer of t he secur i t y may be pr esumed t ohave r el i ed on t hat i nf or mat i on i n pur chasi ng t he secur i t y. ”Amgen I nc. , 133 S. Ct . at 1190. “[ I ] f a mar ket i s shown t o beef f i ci ent , cour t s may pr esume t hat i nvest or s who t r adedsecur i t i es i n t hat mar ket r el i ed on publ i c, mat er i almi sr epr esent at i ons r egar di ng t hose secur i t i es. ” I d. at 1192. Thedef endant s do not cont est t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he f r aud- on- t hemar ket doct r i ne.
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
at *7 ( 2d Ci r . Mar . 4, 2016) ( quot i ng Omni car e, I nc. v. Labor er s
Di st . Counci l Const r . I ndus. Pensi on Fund,
135 S. Ct . 1318, 1327
( 2015) ) . The pl ai nt i f f
must i dent i f y par t i cul ar ( and mat er i al ) f act s goi ng t o t hebasi s f or t he i ssuer ' s opi ni on- - f act s about t he i nqui r y t hei ssuer di d or di d not conduct or t he knowl edge i t di d ordi d not have- - whose omi ss i on makes t he opi ni on st at ement ati ssue mi sl eadi ng t o a reasonabl e per son r eadi ng t hest at ement f ai r l y and i n cont ext .
I d. ( quot i ng Omni car e, 135 S. Ct . at 1332) . “[ O] pi ni ons, t hough
si ncer el y hel d and ot her wi se t r ue as a mat t er of f act , may
nonet hel ess be act i onabl e i f t he speaker omi t s i nf or mat i on whose
omi ss i on makes t he st at ement mi sl eadi ng to a r easonabl e
i nvest or . ” I d. ( quot i ng Omni car e, 135 S. Ct . at 1332) . “[ A]
r easonabl e i nvest or , upon hear i ng a st at ement of opi ni on f r om an
i ssuer , ‘ expect s not j ust t hat t he i ssuer bel i eves t he opi ni on
( however i r r at i onal l y) , but t hat i t f ai r l y al i gns wi t h t he
i nf or mat i on i n t he i ssuer ' s possessi on at [ t he] t i me. ’ ” I d.
( quot i ng Omni care, 131 S. Ct . at 1329) . At t he same t i me,
“[ r ] easonabl e i nvest or s under st and t hat opi ni ons somet i mes r est
on a wei ghi ng of compet i ng f act s, ” and, t her ef or e, “a st at ement
of opi ni on ‘ i s not necessari l y mi sl eadi ng when an i ssuer knows,
but f ai l s t o di scl ose, some f act cut t i ng t he ot her way. ’ ” I d. at
*8 ( quot i ng Omni car e, 135 S. Ct . at 1329) .
The Amended Compl ai nt i dent i f i es many st at ements t hat t he
pl ai nt i f f s al l ege ar e f al se or mi sl eadi ng. Those st at ement s f al l
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
f ol l owi ng. ( See Amended Compl ai nt ¶¶ 45, 50, 57. ) Fi r st , dur i ng
t he Oct ober 31, 2013 cal l , def endant Bar r i os st at ed:
[ O] ur t ot al soci al medi a pl at f or m now r eaches near l y 219mi l l i on f ol l ower s, mor e t han 140 mi l l i on Facebook l i kes and70 mi l l i on Twi t t er f ol l ower s, r epr esent i ng a 28% i ncreasef r om t he end of t he pr ecedi ng quar t er and a 92% i ncr easef r om t he end of t he t hi r d quar t er l ast year . Bui l di ng t hest r engt h of our br and i s evi denced i n t hese met r i cs, andt aki ng advant age of t hat st r engt h i s a cr i t i cal componentof our l ong- t er m st r at egy.
( I d. ¶ 45. ) Second, at t he December 10, 2103 conf er ence,
def endant Bar r i os st at ed:
The t hesi s i s we have 220 mi l l i on soci al medi a f ol l ower saround t he wor l d. I ment i oned J ohn Cena i s t he number 3at hl et e behi nd Kobe and LeBr on i n t he ent i r e wor l d, i nt er ms of f ol l ower s. Ther e ar e peopl e monet i zi ng t hataudi ence today. We are not doi ng as good a j ob i n t hatf ront .
( I d. ¶ 50) ; ( Def endant s’ Memorandum, Ex. 6 at 7. )
Thi r d, dur i ng t he J anuar y 16, 2014 conf er ence cal l ,
def endant Bar r i os st at ed,
The t hi r d i t em I t al ked about i s our soci al medi a anddi gi t al audi ence, 13 mi l l i on t o 14 mi l l i on uni ques t o ourwebsi t e, 250 mi l l i on soci al medi a f ol l ower s. That i s mor et han t he NBA and al l of i t s t eams combi ned. That ' smore t han t he NFL and al l of i t s t eams combi ned. I t i s anamazi ng tool f or us t o r each and engage our audi ence. Thesoci al medi a chat t er on t he Network has been t hr ough t her oof f or us gl obal l y.
( Amended Compl ai nt ¶ 57. )
The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t hese numbers ar e i nf l at ed
because management mani pul at ed the number of t hei r f ans on
soci al medi a by count i ng t he same f an mul t i pl e t i mes. For
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
base. I n t hat cont ext , even i f t he number s are mi sst at ed, t he
pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o al l ege t hat t he def endant s’
r epr esent at i ons are mat er i al l y mi sl eadi ng.
As t o t he t hi r d st at ement , t he pl ai nt i f f s al l eged wi t h
r espect t o t he compar i son t o t he NBA and t he NFL, t hat “an
i nt er nal company pr esent at i on” st ated t hat “WWE i s ‘ not t he PGA,
NFL, or MLB . . . ’ and t hat WWE i s ‘ st i l l i n ear l y gr owt h st ages
and need[ s] t o manage [ i t s] busi ness accor di ngl y. ’ ” ( Amended
Compl ai nt ¶ 58) . However , t he pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi de no cont ext f or
t he st at ement i n t he i nt er nal pr esent at i on and whet her t hi s
st at ement r el at es at al l t o t he si ze of t he soci al medi a
f ol l owi ng f or t hose spor t s as compared t o WWE. Thus, t he cour t
cannot concl ude t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s have al l eged f act s
suf f i ci ent t o cause t hi s st at ement t o be mi sl eadi ng.
The pl ai nt i f f s al so i dent i f y t hree i nst ances i n whi ch t hey
al l ege t he def endant s made f al se or mi sl eadi ng st atement s about
WWE’ s t el evi si on audi ence. Fi r st , t hey poi nt t o t he Oct ober 31,
2013 pr ess r el ease t hat quot ed def endant McMahon as st at i ng,
These accompl i shments r ef l ect t he st r engt h of our brands,i ncl udi ng a nat i onal t el evi si on audi ence t hat exceeds t heannual r each of most ot her spor t s and ent er t ai nment
pr ogr ams. Thi s st r engt h pr ovi des a sol i d f oundat i on f or t her enegot i at i on of our TV cont r act s and t he pot ent i al l aunchof a WWE net work. Based on our abi l i t y t o create power f ul ,ent er t ai ni ng cont ent and t o expand di st r i but i on, west r ongl y bel i eve t hat we ar e poi sed t o t r ansf or m ourbusi ness.
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
does not cause def endant Bar r i os’ s s t at ement t o be mat er i al l y
f al se or mi sl eadi ng.
Thi r d, on May 1, 2014 def endant Bar r i os st at ed:
Our comprehensi ve consumer r esear ch demonst r at es t hat mor et han 50% of TV homes acr oss WWE’ s t op gl obal market s orabout 120 mi l l i on homes r epor t some l evel of af f i ni t y f orWWE cont ent . And among t hese WWE homes, mor e t han 80mi l l i on ar e cl assi f i ed as act i ve, r epr esent i ng mor e t han170 mi l l i on passi onate and casual f ans. Moreover , webel i eve t hat we have t he potent i al t o reengage some port i onof t he 40 mi l l i on homes wi t h l apsed f ans i n t hese mar ket s.I n our vi ew, t aki ng advant age of WWE’ s t r emendous brandst r engt h t o expand t he net wor k gl obal l y wi l l pr ovi de apl at f or m f or dr i vi ng l ong- t er m gr owt h over t he next sever al
year s.
( Def endant s’ Memorandum, Ex. 15 at 6) ; ( Amended Compl ai nt ¶ 71. )
Agai n, t he cour t consi der s t he cont ext i n whi ch t he st at ement
was made. See McMahan, 900 F. 2d at 579. Thi s st at ement was made
i n the cont ext of a di scussi on about expandi ng the WWE Network.
Dur i ng t hese same remarks, def endant Barr i os st at ed t hat “t he
net wor k [ was] on t r ack t o achi eve 1 mi l l i on subscr i ber s by year
end and 2 mi l l i on t o 3 mi l l i on subscr i ber s at st eady- st at e. ”
( Def endant s’ Memor andum, Ex. 15 at 6. ) He was t hen asked a
f ol l ow- up quest i on as t o why, i f WWE had a “mar ket si ze . . . of
about 140 mi l l i on, pl us about 40 mi l l i on l apsed[ , ] ” t he est i mat e
wasn’ t mor e l i ke 6 mi l l i on subscri ber s. ( I d. , Ex. 15 at 12. )
Def endant Bar r i os t hen expl ai ned t hat compar i ng t he number s was
a bi t l i ke compar i ng “appl es and oranges” and t hat t he 2 t o 3
mi l l i on was what t hey hoped f or domest i cal l y and t hat t he other
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
i nvest or s, t he cour t does not concl ude t hat t hei r
r epr esent at i ons wer e mat er i al l y mi sl eadi ng. 6
b. Statements regarding the potentially
cannibalistic effect of launching the WWE network
The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he def endant s knew or
r eckl essl y di sr egar ded t he pot ent i al l y canni bal i st i c i mpact of
l aunchi ng t he WWE net work. On J anuar y 14, 2014, def endant
McMahon r esponded t o a quest i on about t he pot ent i al
canni bal i st i c ef f ect of l aunchi ng t he net wor k. He was asked,
“Gi ven t he f act t hat you wi l l be rebr oadcast i ng some of t hose
progr ams, j ust maybe el aborat e on why t he l aunch of t he Net work
woul dn’ t be somewhat canni bal i st i c t o your - - pot ent i al l y
canni bal i st i c t o your cur r ent audi ence base f or t hose key
pr opert i es?” ( Amended Compl ai nt ¶ 53. ) He responded t hat he di d
not bel i eve i t woul d be because t he ot her shows wer e l i ve and
t hat was par t of t hei r appeal ; si nce the WWE network woul d not
be l i ve, he di d not t hi nk the net wor k woul d canni bal i ze t he
audi ence base f or WWE’ s ot her programmi ng. Def endant McMahon
added: “And by t he way, t hi s i s not somethi ng t hat i s j ust a WWE
poi nt of vi ew. Thi s i s al so a USA poi nt of vi ew. Havi ng
di scussi ons, obvi ousl y, wi t h management t her e, t hey t oo - - t he
6 Addi t i onal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s do not al l ege any connect i on
bet ween t hi s al l eged mi sr epr esent at i on and t he negot i at i on oft he NBCU cont r act . I n t hei r di scussi on of t he NBCU cont r actannouncement on May 15, 2014, t he pl ai nt i f f s do not ment i onanyt hi ng about t he WWE net work and i t s success or f ai l ur e.
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
def endant McMahon’ s st atement s about t he potent i al canni bal i zi ng
ef f ect of t he Net wor k l aunch was mat er i al l y mi sl eadi ng.
c. Statements comparing WWE and live sports
The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat i t was mi sl eadi ng f or t he
def endant s t o repr esent WWE as havi ng t he “key det ermi nants of
val ue t hat ar e at t r i but abl e t o l i ve spor t s” ( Amended Compl ai nt
¶¶ 41- 42) and t o benchmark WWE’ s t el evi si on cont r act s agai nst
cont r act s obt ai ned by l i ve spor t s because t he def endant s knew or
r eckl essl y di sr egar ded t he f act t hat WWE br ought i n a f r act i on
of t he adver t i si ng r evenue t hat l i ve spor t s di d. The pl ai nt i f f s
al l ege t hat f ai l ur e t o di scl ose t hi s f act was a mat er i al
omi ssi on.
The pl ai nt i f f s i dent i f y seven i nst ances i n whi ch t he
def endant s compare WWE t o l i ve spor t s, i ncl udi ng NASCAR.
Fi r st , t he Oct ober 31, 2013 pr ess r el ease quot ed def endant
Bar r i os as st at i ng:
Gi ven t he r i si ng val ue of l i ve cont ent t hat has a br oad,l oyal f ol l owi ng, we ar e conf i dent t hat we wi l l be abl e t onegot i at e our key domest i c agr eement s by t he end of Apr i lnext year and t hat our ef f or t s, i ncl udi ng t he pot ent i all aunch of a WWE network, wi l l keep us on t r ack to doubl e ort r i pl e our 2012 OI BDA r esul t s of $63 mi l l i on by 2015[ . ]
( I d. ¶ 37. ) The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat i t was mi sl eadi ng t o
char act er i ze t he WWE as “l i ve cont ent ” because t he “Def endant s
knew or r eckl essl y di sr egarded t hat net works vi ewed WWE as
cat egor i cal l y di f f er ent and l ess val uabl e t han t he ‘ l i ve
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
cont ent ’ t hat had gar ner ed i ncreasi ngl y l ar ge t el evi si on
l i censi ng deal s. ” ( I d. ¶ 38. ) Second, dur i ng t he conf er ence cal l
on Oct ober 31, 2013, def endant Barr i os st ated:
Recent deal s such as NASCAR wi t h NBC Spor t s r ei nf orce ourvi ew t hat t he pr ol i f er at i on of di st r i but i on al t er nat i ves i sdr i vi ng up t he val ue of cont ent , especi al l y compel l i ngcontent wi t h broad appeal . WWE shares t he key det ermi nantsof val ue t hat ar e at t r i but ed t o l i ve spor t s. Si gni f i cantf i r st r un hour s and associ at ed gr oss r at i ng poi nt s, apassi onate and l oyal f an base, and 90% l i ve pl us same dayvi ewershi p whi ch makes WWE cont ent l i ke spor t s DVR- pr oof .
( I d. ¶ 41. )
Thi r d, t he pl ai nt i f f s poi nt t o def endant Bar r i os’ s comments
dur i ng t he December 10, 2013 UBS conf erence dur i ng whi ch he
st at ed:
Let ' s t ake NASCAR, i t ' s one of my f avor i t es. NASCAR di dabout 330 hours of progr ammi ng l ast year . They aver agedabout 3 mi l l i on vi ewer s acr oss t hose 300 hour s, so do t hatmul t i pl i cat i on, i t ' s about 940 mi l l i on vi ewer hour s, t het ot al [ i n pr esci ent ] . Thei r cont r act s, t hei r aver age annual
val ue of t hei r deal s are about $820 mi l l i on. So I ment i onedour s ar e l ess t han $100 mi l l i on f or t hose f our deal s. Sot hey' r e at $820 mi l l i on. So l et ' s t ake t hat and compar e i tt o t he WWE. NASCAR di d 334 hours, WWE di d 314. NASCARaveraged about 3 mi l l i on, WWE averaged about 3. 7 mi l l i on –so 20% more vi ewers t han NASCAR di d. They' r e at 800, we' r eat some number around 100. That ' s why we thi nk t hi s i s amassi ve oppor t uni t y f or us. Does t hat al l get made up i none renewal cycl e? Don' t know. What I do know i s l i vecont ent t oday i s i ncredi bl y val uabl e. Al l t hese pr oper t i esare si gned up f or t he l ong t erm ot her t han t he NBA and WWE,
whi ch ar e the ones comi ng up - - r eal oppor t uni t y.
( I d. ¶ 47. ) Four t h, t he December 17, 2013 Var i et y ar t i cl e, based
on i nt er vi ews wi t h def endant s McMahon, Barr i os, and Wi l son,
st at ed:
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
“We’ ve had t o evol ve our t hi nki ng, ” [ Mi chel l e] Wi l son says.“We ar e cl ear l y ent er t ai nment - based, but i f you t hi nk aboutt he char acter i st i cs of our br and, i t ’ s l i ve acti on, andt hat ’ s sport s. We want t o be compensat ed f or a l i veaudi ence, si nce l i ve cont ent i s get t i ng a ver y si gni f i cantpr emi um i n t he market pl ace. ” The company ci t es Nascar ’ si mpressi ve deal maki ng t hi s summer as an exampl e. Ther aci ng l eague secured a new 10- year deal wi t h NBC and Foxwor t h $820 mi l l i on a year . And t hat i ncr ease came i n t hef ace of decl i ni ng r at i ngs f or many of i t s r aces. WWE ar guest hat “Raw” and “SmackDown” al one ar e j ust as at t r act i ve,wi t h a r abi d f anbase t hat ’ s hel ped bui l d net wor ks, and i t sser i es ar e di ver se i n et hni ci t y and age.
( I d. ¶ 51. )
Fi f t h, on t he J anuar y 16, 2014 conf er ence cal l wi t h
anal yst s, def endant Bar r i os st at ed:
Up t op you have t he l i ve gr oss r at i ng poi nt s del i ver ed byt he maj or l i ve - - del i ver er s of l i f e cont ent whi ch i sspor t s - - NBA 514; Maj or League Basebal l 295; NASCAR 212.WWE del i ver ed 344 l i ve gr oss r at i ng poi nt s over t he l ast 12mont hs. The payment f or t hose gr oss r at i ng poi nt s si t [ s]somewher e bet ween $2 mi l l i on and $5 mi l l i on cur r ent l y i nt he market pl ace. So the way t hat mat h works, i f you areNASCAR, you have 212 gr oss r at i ng poi nt s, you ar e aver agi ng
about $4 mi l l i on per , NASCAR on aver age i s $800 mi l l i on ofdomest i c r i ght s f ees a year . As I ment i oned bef ore, WWE' sf our l ar gest deal s ar e at $100 mi l l i on gl obal l y. So t hedomest i c get s obvi ousl y l ess t han t hat . So t he r ange ofoppor t uni t y si t s f r om somewhere where we are t oday t o t hosenumber s.
( I d. ¶ 55. )
Si xt h, dur i ng t he 2013 Four t h Quar t er f i nanci al r esul t s
conf er ence cal l on Febr uar y 20, 2014, def endant Bar r i os st at ed:
[ W] e cont i nue t o bel i eve t hat we can doubl e or t r i pl e our2012 OI BDA r esul t s by 2015. Our progr ams share the keydet er mi nant s of val ue t hat ar e at t r i but ed t o l i ve spor t s,si gni f i cant f i r st r un hour s, and t he associ at ed gr ossr at i ng poi nt s, a passi onat e and l oyal f an base and 90% l i vepl us same day vi ewershi p, whi ch makes WWE cont ent l i ke
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
sport s DVR- pr oof . Benchmar ki ng our r i ght s f ees t o the f eespai d f or spor t s pr ogr ammi ng and ot her or i gi nal scr i pt edser i es i ndi cat es t hat our l i cense agr eement s coul d havemeani ngf ul upsi de pot ent i al .
( I d. ¶ 61. )
Sevent h, he al so st at ed dur i ng t hat conf er ence cal l :
As I have sai d bef ore, r i ght behi nd t he NFL and NBA comesWWE i n t er ms of gener at i ng l i ve gr oss r at i ng poi nt s i n t heUS. So t hat ' s ahead of NASCAR, ahead of NHL, i t i s ahead ofMaj or League Basebal l , and al l t hei r nat i onal deal s. So wef eel good about t he val ue t hat we br i ng t o a part ner bothi n adver t i si ng, bei ng abl e t o dr i ve t hei r CPM as wel l asand mor e i mpor t ant l y i n t he val ue t o t hei r af f i l i at er evenue st r eams.
( I d. ¶ 64. )
The st at ements above compare WWE t o l i ve spor t s based on
t he met r i cs of gr oss r at i ng poi nt s, same day vi ewer shi p, f i r st
r un hour s, and i t s passi onat e and l oyal f an base. The def endant s
make no compar i sons of adver t i si ng r evenue. Ther ef ore, t he cour t
consi der s whet her omi ssi on of t he al l eged di scr epancy bet ween
WWE’ s adver t i si ng r evenue and t hat of l i ve spor t s r ender ed t hese
compar i sons mi sl eadi ng. “[ Sect i on] 10( b) and Rul e 10b–5( b) do
not cr eat e an af f i r mat i ve dut y t o di scl ose any and al l mat er i al
i nf or mat i on. Di scl osur e i s r equi r ed under t hese pr ovi si ons onl y
when necessary ‘ t o make . . . st atement s made, i n t he l i ght of
t he ci r cumst ances under whi ch they were made, not mi sl eadi ng. ’ ”
Mat r i xx I ni t i at i ves, 563 U. S. at 44 ( quot i ng 17 C. F. R. §
240. 10b- 5( b) ) . “Even wi t h r espect t o i nf or mat i on t hat a
r easonabl e i nvest or mi ght consi der mater i al , compani es can
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
cont r ol what t hey have t o di scl ose under t hese pr ovi si ons by
cont r ol l i ng what t hey say t o t he mar ket . ” I d. at 45; see al so I n
r e Ti me War ner I nc. Sec. Li t i g. , 9 F. 3d 259, 267 ( 2d Ci r . 1993)
( “a cor por at i on i s not r equi r ed t o di scl ose a f act mer el y
because a reasonabl e i nvest or woul d ver y much l i ke to know t hat
f act . Rat her , an omi ssi on i s act i onabl e under t he secur i t i es
l aws onl y when t he cor por at i on i s subj ect t o a dut y t o di scl ose
t he omi t t ed f act s. As Ti me Warner poi nt edl y remi nds us, we have
not onl y emphasi zed t he i mpor t ance of ascer t ai ni ng a dut y t o
di scl ose when omi ssi ons ar e at i ssue but have al so dr awn a
di st i nct i on bet ween t he concept s of a dut y t o di scl ose and
mat er i al i t y. ” (c i t at i ons omi t t ed) ) .
The def endant s poi nt out t hat def endant Bar r i os di d, i n
f act , di scl ose t he di screpancy i n adver t i si ng r evenue t o
i nvest ors dur i ng t he December 10, 2013 conf erence. Def endant
Bar r i os s t at ed t hat t he NHL, NASCAR, MLB, and t he NBA were
“get t i ng anywhere bet ween $50 and $1 per hour” and WWE was
get t i ng $0. 10. 7 ( Def endant s’ Memorandum, Ex. 6, at 7. ) He st at ed,
“[ Y] ou can make your own j udgment cal l about our oppor t uni t y
her e. ” ( I d. ) He was al so asked about t he anal ogy bet ween WWE and
7 I n t hei r mot i on t o di smi ss, t he def endant s quot e t hi s st at ementas “[ ] get t i ng anywher e bet ween 50 cent s and $1 per vi ewer hourwhi l e WWE was get t i ng around 10 cent s per vi ewer hour . ”( Memor andum at 12. ) I t appear s t hat t he conf er ence t r anscr i pthas a t ypo; wher e t he t r anscr i pt r eads $50, i t shoul d r ead$0. 50.
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
NASCAR and t he gap bet ween t hem. An anal yst asked, “[ H] ow do you
make t hat gap up, i s i t r eal l y the adver t i ser s, Pepsi , Coke
sayi ng hey, t he demogr aphi cs of NASCAR are more at t r act i ve than
t he demogr aphi cs of WWE?” ( I d. at 11. ) Def endant Barr i os
r esponded:
[ I ] f you l ooked at al l t hose deal s and l ooked at how muchi s gener at ed i n adver t i si ng dol l ar s by the net wor ks so i fyou say wel l NASCAR i s gener at i ng $820 mi l l i on i n l i censef ees f r om i t s par t ner how much adver t i si ng ar e t he net wor ksgener at i ng. Ver y l i t t l e rel at i vel y speaki ng 200 maybe 300,so t he quest i on why are net works payi ng money they are notgoi ng to l ose money i f t hey onl y maki ng that on t he
adver t i si ng. The r eason t hey pay t he money i s because oft he di str i but i on f ees. . . . So i t ’ s not j ust about t headver t i si ng, i t ’ s about bot h [ t he adver t i si ng anddi st r i but i on f ees] , t he quest i on speci f i cal l y on t headver t i si ng we don’ t have di r ect dat a on what ever ybody[ ’ s]CPMs ar e. We thi nk i f you l ook at t he under l yi ng demo t heyl ook pr et t y cl ose so my guess i s t he monet i zat i on, t headver t i si ng r evenue shoul d be pr et t y cl ose but I don’ t havet he hard data t o suppor t t hat . But . . . networks make 70%of t hei r money on aver age f r om di st r i but i on . . . and i t ’ sget t i ng more, t hat per cent age i s skewi ng mor e and more
everyday and on t hat f r ont we compar e t o everybody.
( I d. ) Addi t i onal l y, when Bar r i os was asked t o expl ai n t he
“di spar i t y” bet ween NASCAR and WWE, he r esponded:
Ei t her t her e i s some f undament al di f f er ence i n t he del i ver yt hat we are not seei ng and we’ ve l ooked at everyt hi ngi ncl udi ng demogr aphi cs and i f anythi ng I ’ d ar gue ourdemogr aphi cs l ook a bi t bet t er because i t ’ s younger andmor e di ver se. Househol d i ncome i s a l i t t l e bi t l ower but
not mat er i al l y so. So t here may be somethi ng t hat we ar emi ss i ng on t hat end or we j ust haven’ t done as good a j obas we shoul d have hi st or i cal l y i n negot i at i ng t heseagr eement s. But i f you bel i eve . . . t her e i s val ue i n l i veeyebal l and i f you bel i eve t her e i s val ue i n zer odevel opment r i sk i n del i ver i ng t hose eyebal l s, so we’ r e nott al ki ng about a ser i es t hat maybe i t does wel l , maybe i tdoesn’ t and t he hi t r at e’ s about one i n t en. So i f you
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
bel i eve t hat t her e’ s val ue i n l i ve, bui l t i n f an base andDVR pr oof t her e’ s val ue i n our cont ent . And I t hi nk i f your ead t he t r ades you know t hat ’ s t he onl y thi ng peopl e areval ui ng now, l i ve and bui l t i n whi ch i s why spor t s [ ar e]wher e t hey ar e at . So i t ’ s a gr eat quest i on about hel p[ i ng]us t hi nk t hr ough t hat . We can’ t f i nd dat a t o expl ai n t hegap.
( I d. at 9. )
As not ed, when consi der i ng t he mi sl eadi ng natur e of a
st atement , t he cour t must ask “whet her def endant s'
r epr esent at i ons, t aken t oget her and i n cont ext , woul d have
mi sl ead a reasonabl e i nvest or . ” McMahan, 900 F. 2d at 579.
Def endant Bar r i os’ s di scl osur e at t he UBS conf er ence pr ovi des
t he cont ext f or ot her st at ement s made at t hat conf erence and
t hat cont ext i ncl udes t he st at i st i cs about adver t i si ng r evenue.
For t hi s r eason, t he cour t does not consi der hi s st at ement s at
t he UBS conf erence t o be mi sl eadi ng.
However , t he cont ext of t he ot her r epr esent at i ons di d not
i ncl ude t hese stat i st i cs about adver t i si ng r evenue. The
pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat , based on st at ement s f r om CW1, omi ssi on
of t hi s i nf or mat i on was mat er i al l y mi sl eadi ng. CW1 st at es t hat
i n or der f or WWE t o secur e a cont r act even hal f t he si ze of
NASCAR’ s, i t woul d have had t o get pai d f our t i mes more per
adver t i si ng spot , and CW1 st at ed t hat t hi s was not possi bl e.
The cour t concl udes t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s have al l eged f act s
suf f i ci ent t o suggest t hat t her e i s a subst ant i al l i kel i hood
t hat t he di scl osur e of t he di scr epancy i n adver t i si ng r evenue
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
sel l t hei r st ock under mi ned t he pl ai nt i f f s' t heor i es t hat
negat i ve i nf or mat i on was wi t hhel d t o obt ai n a hi gher sel l
pr i ce. ” ( ci t i ng San Leandr o, 75 F. 3d at 814; Aci t o v. I MCERA
Gr p. , I nc. , 47 F. 3d 47, 54 ( 2d Ci r . 1995) ) . Al so, t he
“pl ai nt i f f s have al l eged no f act s suggest i ng t hat [ Levesque]
act i ng al one had t he opport uni t y t o mani pul ate [ WWE’ s st ock] f or
[ her] own advant age. ” San Leandr o, 75 F. 3d 814 n. 14.
Mor eover , t o t he ext ent t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege a gener al
mot i ve t o i ncr ease t he pr of i t s of WWE or of f i cer and di r ect or
compensat i on,
[ m] ot i ves t hat are common t o most corporate of f i cer s, suchas t he desi r e f or t he cor por at i on t o appear pr of i t abl e andt he desi r e t o keep st ock pr i ces hi gh t o i ncr ease of f i cercompensat i on, do not const i t ut e “mot i ve” f or pur poses oft hi s i nqui r y. Rat her , t he “mot i ve” showi ng i s gener al l y metwhen corporate i nsi der s al l egedl y make a mi sr epr esent at i oni n or der t o sel l t hei r own shar es at a pr of i t .
ECA, Local 134, 553 F. 3d at 198.
The cour t concl udes t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s have not adequat el y
pl ed sci ent er on t he basi s of mot i ve and oppor t uni t y.
b. Conscious Recklessness
The pl ai nt i f f s have al so f ai l ed t o adequat el y pl ead
sci ent er on t he basi s of consci ous r eckl essness. I n or der t o
pl ead consci ous r eckl essness, t he pl ai nt i f f s must al l ege “a
st at e of mi nd appr oxi mat i ng act ual i nt ent , and not mer el y a
hei ght ened f or m of negl i gence. ” Sout h Cher r y St . , 573 F. 3d at
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
109 ( emphasi s r emoved) ( quot i ng Novak, 216 F. 3d at 312) . I n
Sout h Cher r y St . , t he cour t st at ed:
I n el abor at i ng as t o what may const i t ut e r eckl essness i nt he cont ext of a pr i vat e secur i t i es f r aud act i on, we haver ef er r ed t o conduct t hat “‘ at t he l east . . . i s hi ghl yunr easonabl e and whi ch repr esent s an ext r eme depar t ur e f r omt he st andar ds of or di nar y car e t o the ext ent t hat t hedanger was ei t her known to t he def endant or so obvi ous t hatt he def endant must have been aware of i t , ’ ” I n r e Cart er –Wal l ace, I nc. Secur i t i es Li t i gat i on, 220 F. 3d 36, 39 ( 2dCi r . 2000) ( quot i ng [ Rol f v. Bl yt h, East man Di l l on & Co. ,I nc. , 570 F. 2d 38, 47 ( 2d Ci r . 1978) ] ( emphasi s our s) ) ; ort o evi dence t hat t he “def endant s f ai l ed t o revi ew or checki nf or mat i on t hat t hey had a dut y to moni t or , or i gnor edobvi ous si gns of f r aud, ” and hence “shoul d have known t hat
t hey wer e mi sr epr esent i ng mater i al f act s, ” Novak, 216 F. 3dat 308 ( emphases added) . “An egr egi ous r ef usal t o see t heobvi ous, or t o i nvest i gat e t he doubt f ul , may i n some casesgi ve r i se t o an i nf er ence of . . . r eckl essness. ” [ Chi l l v.Gener al El ect r i c Co. ,
101 F. 3d 263, 269 ( 2d Ci r . 1996) ]
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( emphases added) ; see,e. g. , [ SEC v. McNul t y, 137 F. 3d 732, 741 ( 2d Ci r . ) , cer t .deni ed, 525 U. S. 931 ( 1998) ] ( def endant cor por at e of f i cerwho prepared and pr oceeded t o f i l e document s wi t h t he SECcont ai ni ng st atement s whose ver aci t y he hi msel f hadquest i oned, had had an obvi ous dut y to ver i f y the
suspi ci ous i nf or mat i on) .
I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .
The pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o al l ege f act s suf f i ci ent t o
suggest t hat t he def endant s’ conduct r epr esent ed an “ext r eme
depar t ur e f r om t he st andar ds of or di nar y car e. ” Thr oughout t he
Amended Compl ai nt , t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege that t he def endant s had
access t o i nf or mat i on t hat cont r adi ct ed t hei r publ i c st at ement s.
Al t hough “[ p] l ai nt i f f s can est abl i sh consci ous r eckl essness by
adequat el y al l egi ng t hat ‘ def endant s knew f act s or had access t o
non- publ i c i nf or mat i on cont r adi ct i ng t hei r publ i c st at ement s’
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit
C. Count III: Violation of Section 20(b) of the Exchange
Act by defendants McMahon, Barrios, and Wilson
Sect i on 20( b) of t he Exchange Act pr ovi des t hat “[ i ] t shal l
be unl awf ul f or any per son, di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y, t o do any
act or t hi ng whi ch i t woul d be unl awf ul f or such per son t o do
under t he pr ovi si ons of t hi s chapt er or any rul e or r egul at i on
t hereunder t hr ough or by means of any ot her person. ”
15 U. S. C. § 78t ( b) . The par t i es di sagr ee as t o whet her § 20( b)
cr eat es a pr i vat e r i ght of act i on. However , t he cour t need not
deci de whet her or not t hi s st at ut e creat es a pr i vat e r i ght of
act i on because t he cour t has concl uded t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s have
not adequat el y pl ed vi ol at i on of any of t he “pr ovi si ons of t hi s
chapt er or any r ul e or r egul at i on t her eunder . ” Accor di ngl y,
Count I I I i s bei ng di smi ssed.
D. Count IV: Violation of Section 20(A) of the Exchange
Act by defendant Levesque
Sect i on 20( A) of t he Exchange Act pr ovi des:
Any per son who vi ol at es any pr ovi si on of t hi s chapt er ort he r ul es or r egul at i ons t her eunder by pur chasi ng orsel l i ng a secur i t y whi l e i n possessi on of mat er i al ,nonpubl i c i nf or mat i on shal l be l i abl e i n an act i on i n anycour t of compet ent j ur i sdi ct i on t o any per son who,cont empor aneousl y wi t h the pur chase or sal e of secur i t i est hat i s t he subj ect of such vi ol at i on, has pur chased ( wher e
such vi ol at i on i s based on a sal e of secur i t i es) or sol d( wher e such vi ol at i on i s based on a pur chase of secur i t i es)secur i t i es of t he same cl ass.
15 U. S. C. § 78t - 1( a) . The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat def endant
Levesque was “i n possessi on of mat er i al , non- publ i c i nf or mat i on”
8/18/2019 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss WWE Shareholder Lawsuit