Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Flotek Indus., Inc. — 915 F.3d 975 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019-02-07

15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)

Original case on neochart.com

Case and law context

15 U.S.C. § 78j

Role: applied; posture: private securities fraud class action; dismissal of complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and PSLRA affirmed; result: claimant-lost; claim:

Uncertainty

None recorded

Misfit

None recorded

B · Case × element grid

Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.

Elements 1–6 of 12

15 U.S.C. § 78j
CaseStatutory commerce, mails, or exchange facilitySection 78j(b) rulemaking hookMaterially false statement or misleading half-truthImportance to a reasonable investorIntent to deceive, manipulate, or defraudConnection with a covered securities or swap transaction
Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Flotek Indus., Inc. — 915 F.3d 975 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed

Elements 7–12 of 12

15 U.S.C. § 78j
CasePrivate plaintiff's purchaser or seller statusPrivate investor transaction causationActual economic loss in private damages actionCausal connection between fraud and economic lossFraudulent scheme or deceptive course of businessAdditional criminal mental-state requirement
Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Flotek Indus., Inc. — 915 F.3d 975 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed

Instances and excluded annotation blocks

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopePatternExact source quotations
Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Flotek Indus., Inc. — 915 F.3d 975 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))Intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraudnot
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: pleaded; party: Flotek Industries, Inc. and CEO Chisholm; count: class action securities fraud; subject: party=Flotek Industries, Inc. and CEO Chisholm; count=class action securities fraud

Fifth Circuit holds that presenting erroneous well-production data at an investor conference, calling the software's evidence "conclusive" and its data "un-adjusted" and "back-checked", suggests at most negligence: no particularized allegation that Chisholm knew of the errors or of the missing quality control when he spoke, the company is too large for the "special circumstances" position-based inference, and group pleading is rejected.
CEO presents third-party-sourced product data that proves wrong; no allegation he knew, error easy to check
The starkest example of Flotek's provision of false information is that Chisholm presented demonstrably false information at the September 2015 conference in the form of incorrect well data.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/0975-01; Unicode character offsets [17349:17539] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8691d155aacfa081e771ab2ac47ecdbc506617d1610f80ebad1700e66dcb9117.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

It does appear that it would have been very easy to check if this data was correct-Flotek verified the alleged errors and responded to the Bronte Report within a day.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/0975-01; Unicode character offsets [18791:18957] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8691d155aacfa081e771ab2ac47ecdbc506617d1610f80ebad1700e66dcb9117.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Indeed, as Chisholm admitted, there was a failure in quality control, because Flotek did not cross-reference "[the Drillinginfo data] with the [Texas] Railroad Commission data."
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/0975-01; Unicode character offsets [20418:20595] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8691d155aacfa081e771ab2ac47ecdbc506617d1610f80ebad1700e66dcb9117.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

However, while this suggests negligence, there is no indication that Defendants had reason to know of any deficiencies in quality control problems before the data was made public.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/0975-01; Unicode character offsets [18958:19137] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8691d155aacfa081e771ab2ac47ecdbc506617d1610f80ebad1700e66dcb9117.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

However, there is no specific allegation that Chisholm knew at the time he made the statement at issue that FracMax utilized an algorithm.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/0975-01; Unicode character offsets [16833:16971] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8691d155aacfa081e771ab2ac47ecdbc506617d1610f80ebad1700e66dcb9117.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

To withstand a motion to dismiss, "an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable-it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent."
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/0975-01; Unicode character offsets [11139:11344] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8691d155aacfa081e771ab2ac47ecdbc506617d1610f80ebad1700e66dcb9117.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Thus, Chisholm's use of incorrect data at the September 2015 conference also fails to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/0975-01; Unicode character offsets [19952:20082] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8691d155aacfa081e771ab2ac47ecdbc506617d1610f80ebad1700e66dcb9117.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

We agree that such allegations are insufficient to raise a strong inference of scienter and, at most, indicate "simple or even inexcusable negligence," a lesser showing than is required here.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/0975-01; Unicode character offsets [25797:25988] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8691d155aacfa081e771ab2ac47ecdbc506617d1610f80ebad1700e66dcb9117.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations recorded from this case