How do you know when a judge does not think much of your case? When the quips start flying around in her decision.
In City of Brockton Retirement System v. The Shaw Group Inc., 2008 WL 833943 (S.D.N.Y. March 18, 2008), District Judge Colleen McMahon addressed a securities class action brought after The Shaw Group was forced to restate its 2Q 2006 financials. In particular, the restatement resulted from two accounting errors: (a) an arithmetic error related to the computation of percent complete on one contract; and (b) a failure to account properly for a minority interest in a variable interest entity. The court dismissed the case based on the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately plead a strong inference of scienter (i.e., fraudulent intent) and made its overall feelings about the claims quite clear. Here are some of the more quotable lines:
(1) “Calling the failure to catch [the simple arithmetic error] a ‘failure of accounting controls’ makes it sound sinister, but it does not change the fundamental nature of the ‘failure’ – somebody forgot to check his/her work. This is not sinister at all. Mistakes like this happen a lot in the third grade, and sometimes they happen in public companies, too. There is no reason to make a federal case out of it.”
(2) “It may not be prudent as a business matter to have an accounting department that has a hard time keeping up with new information technology, but it is not a violation of the federal securities laws to do so.”
(3) “So none of the matters cited by plaintiffs admits of an inference of fraud. Plaintiffs argue, however, that zero plus zero plus zero plus zero plus zero adds up to something. In this, its arithmetic is as faulty as Shaw Group’s was.”
Thanks to an alert reader for sending in the decision.