Judge George Russell III dismissed the litigation in its entirety, determining that, when viewed collectively, the lead plaintiffs’ allegations “fail, at their inception, to raise a strong inference of scienter.”
During this period of growth, the court wrote, Medifast allegedly discovered errors in its accounting practices. “In sum, Medifast proffers a benign, non-fraudulent explanation for the Company’s series of misstatements beginning on March 4, 2010: the Company’s rapid growth, coupled with the transition between outside accountants, resulted in insufficient outside financial guidance and necessitated restatements of the Company’s financials.”
However, the court said, the lead plaintiffs “posit a veritable decathlon of allegations, the sum total of which, they believe, give rise to a cogent and compelling inference that Medifast and the Individual Defendants misled the market intentionally or with severe recklessness.”
The court also rejected the lead plaintiffs' “attempt to characterize the duration of the accounting errors as indicative of scienter. It is established law in this Circuit that there can be no inference of scienter based solely on [generally accepted accounting principles] or other accounting errors, even when such errors occur routinely.”
Moreover, the court said, the lead plaintiffs’ assertion that two individual Medifast defendants’ Sarbanes-Oxley certifications support a strong inference of scienter “is misguided.” The Sarbanes-Oxley allegation fails, the court exlained, “because Lead Plaintiffs do not plead facts indicating that defendants intentionally misstated a material fact or acted recklessly. Without that, there is no inference, much less a strong inference, that Defendants acted with the required scienter.”
The court rejected other attempts by the lead plaintiffs to satisfy the scienter element--including a “final salvo” based on the alleged insider trading of the individual defendants. None of the individual defendants sold stock in amounts that “were unusual or suspicious in comparison to their prior trading histories or to case law,” the court said.
The court also remarked that it “strains credulity to allege” that the defendants “were engaging in a nefarious scheme to inflate the price of Company stock for their own benefit while simultaneously making a public disclosure of their intention to sell shares far in advance.”
To see the opinion, go to http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Proter_v_Medifast_Inc_et_al_Docket_No_111cv00720_D_Md_Mar_17_2011.
To view additional stories from Bloomberg Law® request a demo now