Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp.

Citation896 F.3d 933
Decision Date17 July 2018
Docket NumberNo. 16-56058,16-56058
Parties Mark STOYAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, and Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund; New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

896 F.3d 933

Mark STOYAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
and
Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund; New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56058

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 9, 2017—Pasadena, California
Filed July 17, 2018


Susan K. Alexander (argued), San Francisco, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Christopher M. Curran (argued), Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and William A. Fletcher,* Circuit Judges, and Wiley Y. Daniel,** District Judge.

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge:

In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. , 561 U.S. 247, 130 S.Ct. 2869, 177 L.Ed.2d 535 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the presumption against extraterritorial applicability of congressional legislation renders the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Exchange Act") applicable to deceptive conduct only in connection with the purchases or sales of any securities registered on a national securities exchange or domestic transactions in other securities not so registered. The Court reasoned that "the focus of the Exchange Act is not upon the place where the deception originated, but upon purchases and sales of securities in the United States." Id. at 266, 130 S.Ct. 2869. Appellants Automotive Industries Pension Trust

896 F.3d 937

Fund ("AIPTF") and New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund (together, the "Funds") are named plaintiffs in a putative class action alleging violations of the Exchange Act and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan ("JFIEA") against Toshiba Corporation ("Toshiba") based on its now-admitted fraudulent accounting practices that caused hundreds of millions of dollars in loss to U.S. investors. The complaint alleges (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 on behalf of American Depository Shares or Receipts ("ADRs") purchasers, (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of ADR purchasers, and (3) violation of JFIEA Article 21-2 on behalf of ADR purchasers and purchasers of Toshiba common stock. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice on the grounds that the over-the-counter market by which ADRs are sold was not a "national exchange" within the meaning of Morrison , and that there was not any domestic transaction between ADR purchasers and Toshiba. Having dismissed the Exchange Act claims, the district court dismissed the Japanese law claim under principles of comity and forum non conveniens.

Thus, at the heart of this appeal is the question of the nature of ADRs and their transactions, and whether Toshiba ADRs are covered by the Exchange Act through either registry on a national exchange, or through domestic sales and purchases.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In the wake of Toshiba's admission of substantial institutional accounting fraud and accompanying restatements of pre-tax profits,1 Mark Stoyas filed this securities fraud class action on June 4, 2015, against Toshiba, its current chief executive officer, and its former chief executive officer based on his ownership of thirty-three Toshiba ADRs and a loss of $180.53. Later, AIPTF became lead plaintiff based on its purchase on March 23, 2015, of 36,000 Toshiba ADRs in the United States on an over-the-counter market run by OTC Markets Group and a loss of $196,913.47.2

The Funds filed the first amended complaint ("FAC") on December 17, 2015. The FAC added New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund as a named plaintiff; unlike AIPTF, it had purchased 343,000 shares of Toshiba common stock on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.

The FAC alleges three class action claims for relief against Toshiba.3 The first two claims are brought on behalf of a class of all persons who acquired Toshiba ADRs ("ADR class") between May 8, 2012, and

896 F.3d 938

November 12, 2015 ("Class Period"). The first claim alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Class members "acquired" Toshiba ADRs "in reliance upon the truth and accuracy" of Toshiba's fraudulent financial statements, paid artificially inflated prices, and suffered economic loss when the ADRs declined in value after the fraud was revealed and pre-tax profits were restated.

The second claim alleges violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a). Toshiba, despite having the ability to control its directors, officers, and managers, including twenty-four specific individuals, failed to prevent their fraudulent conduct or, alternatively, "actively controlled and directed those actions so as to cause the violations" of securities laws.4

The third claim alleges violation of JFIEA Article 21-2. It is brought on behalf of both the ADR class and a class of "all citizens and residents of the United States who otherwise acquired shares of Toshiba common stock during the Class Period." Appellants claim that "Toshiba breached its duty to make a reasonable and diligent investigation of the statements" in its financial reports and "to ensure that the statements contained therein were truthful and accurate." The material false information and omissions artificially inflated the price of Toshiba common stock, and class members were harmed when the value of the stock declined due to the revelation of fraudulent accounting.

The district court dismissed the FAC with prejudice on May 20, 2016. Applying Morrison , the district court held that the over-the-counter market was not a "stock exchange" within the meaning of the Exchange Act, and that the FAC failed to allege Toshiba's involvement in the ADR transactions at issue, rendering Section 10(b) inapplicable. Having dismissed the Funds' Exchange Act claims, the district court dismissed the Japanese law claim on the basis of comity and forum non conveniens. Finding any amendment would be futile, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. The Funds timely appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court had jurisdiction over the Exchange Act claims pursuant to Exchange Act Section 27(a), 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a). The district court had jurisdiction over the JFIEA claim based on diversity jurisdiction, as Toshiba is a foreign corporation, as well as supplemental jurisdiction, because it arises from the same case or controversy as the Exchange Act claims. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(2), (d)(2) ; 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court's order and final judgment dismissing the Funds' claims with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

"We review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Fields v. Twitter, Inc. , 881 F.3d 739, 743 (9th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). "[R]eview is generally limited to the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of judicial notice."

896 F.3d 939

New Mexico State Inv. Council v. Ernst & Young LLP , 641 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011). In other words, we inquire "whether the complaint at issue contains ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Harris v. Cty. of Orange , 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ).

Denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Opinion Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. , 744 F.3d 595, 598 (9th Cir. 2014). "Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment." Harris , 682 F.3d at 1131 (quoting Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc. , 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) ). "A district court's failure to consider the relevant factors [set forth in Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) ] and articulate why dismissal should be with prejudice instead of without prejudice may constitute an abuse of discretion." Eminence Capital , 316 F.3d at 1052.

III. DISCUSSION

Toshiba's common stock is publically traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The Funds' Exchange Act claims are in connection with Toshiba ADR transactions on the over-the-counter market as opposed to direct purchases of Toshiba common stock. Nevertheless, the Exchange Act applies to Toshiba ADR transactions because Toshiba ADRs are "securities" under the Exchange Act and AIPTF's purchase of Toshiba ADRs on the over-the-counter market is a domestic "purchase or sale of ... any security not" registered on a national securities exchange. 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) ; see Morrison , 561 U.S. at 269–70, 130 S.Ct. 2869.

A. Toshiba ADRs are "Securities"

The Exchange Act of 1934 applies...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Khachatryan v. Blinken
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 14, 2021
    ...appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review dismissals for failure to state a claim de novo. Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp. , 896 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2018).II Decisions regarding the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals are a " ‘fundamental sovereign attribute exer......
  • J. K. J. v. City of San Diego
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 15, 2021
    ...amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment." Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp. , 896 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Harris v. County of Orange , 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) ). Additionally, we review the decision to......
  • Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Scoville
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • January 24, 2019
    ...exchange are domestic if irrevocable liability is incurred or title passes within the United States."); see also Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp., 896 F.3d 933, 949 (9th Cir. 2018), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Oct. 17, 2018) (No. 18-486); United States v. Georgiou, 777 F.3d 125, 137 (3d Cir. 201......
  • J. K. J. v. City of San Diego
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 15, 2021
    ...amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment." Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp. , 896 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Harris v. County of Orange , 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) ). Additionally, we review the decision to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Gibson Dunn Offers 2021 Year-End Securities Litigation Update
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • March 1, 2022
    ...Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Toshiba, alleging substantial accounting improprieties. Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp., 896 F.3d 933, 937–38 (9th Cir. 2018). The case was initially dismissed on extraterritoriality grounds, but the Ninth Circuit revived the case in a widely cov......
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT