On March 30, 2023, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action brought against a fitness technology company (the "Company") and certain of its executives. Robeco Capital Growth Funds SICAV – Robeco Global Consumer Trends v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-9582 (ALC)(OTW) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2023). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making material misstatements and omissions about the demand for the Company's product following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court dismissed the amended complaint, holding that certain of defendants' alleged statements were non-actionable under the PSLRA safe harbor, and that plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate other statements were false when made.
According to plaintiff, in the wake of business closures enacted during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, demand for the Company's fitness products increased dramatically and the Company began to experience supply chain issues and backlogs in delivering its products to its customers. Plaintiff alleged that in response to this, the Company significantly ramped up its production capabilities and disclosed that it would make significant investments in order to keep up with demand. Plaintiff alleged, however, that by early 2021, the effects of the pandemic began to subside, with brick-and-mortar gyms re-opening, and that demand for the Company's products began to decline. Plaintiff alleged that from February 5, 2021, through November 4, 2021 (the putative "Class Period"), defendants concealed the true nature of the declining demand and publicly stressed the importance of maintaining its commitment to investment in its supply chain. Plaintiff's allegations relied on purported statements of several confidential witnesses ("CWs")—allegedly consisting of the Company's former employees—who stated, among other things, that they were aware of the Company's decreased demand and sales and increased inventory backlog.
Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements, such as "[w]e are not seeing a softening in demand" and "we see continued momentum in the foreseeable future," and that throughout the Class Period, defendants continued to make false statements, including that "[w]e've lapped COVID now ... [and] we still see a ton of demand." Plaintiff alleged, however, that on November 4, 2021, the Company disclosed revised full-year revenue guidance for 2022 of between $4.4 to $4.8 billion—down from its previous guidance of $5.4 billion—and that the Company indicated that 91% of its inventory remained unsold, all of which plaintiff alleges resulted in the Company's stock price declining 35%.
The Court began its analysis by holding that several of the alleged statements were inactionable forward-looking statements that fall within the PSLRA's statutory safe harbor. The Court noted that these forward-looking statements were accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, such as the Company warning that "[t]he full extent of the impact of COVID-19 on our business and financial results will depend largely on future developments, including [whether] upon the removal of lockdowns ... consumers [will] go back to their pre-COVID routines ... [.]" The Court rejected plaintiff's contention that such warnings were too general, emphasizing that "[f]ar from being 'boiler-plate' ... these warnings are both specific and realistic about the precise risk factors faced" by the Company. The Court further held that several of the alleged statements—such as "COVID has been a tailwind for our demand ... we see continued momentum in [the] foreseeable future"—amounted to corporate optimism (i.e., puffery) that are similarly inactionable as a matter of law.
The Court next addressed the issue of falsity, holding that "the entirety of the public disclosures, incorporated by reference into the Amended Complaint, actually reveal that the challenged statements were entirely consistent with [the Company's] actual financial results." In other words, the Court held that plaintiff had not adequately pled that any of the alleged statements about the Company's financials were false at the time they were made. Additionally, and according to the Court, most importantly, the Court held that defendants "explicitly told the public that demand for [the Company's] products would be returning to pre-COVID levels after the surge in demand it had seen during COVID" and that the 2020 sales boom "was a COVID-phenomenon ... [that the Company] would be unable" to sustain. Separately, the Court held that because plaintiff has failed to plead any actionable misstatement or omission, the Court need not reach the question of whether plaintiff has adequately pleaded scienter and accordingly dismissed the Section 10(b) claims.
Having found that plaintiff failed to plead an underlying securities law violation, the Court dismissed plaintiff's Section 20(a) control person liability claims. Lastly, the Court granted leave to amend, noting that the Second Circuit has recognized that it is the usual practice upon granting a motion to dismiss to allow leave to replead.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.