COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C Steven J. Toll (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Daniel S. Sommers (DS-2084) Elizabeth A. Berney (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
In Re DATATEC SYSTEMS, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates to: All cases
)))))))))))
Master File No. 2:04-CV-525 WGB-MCA (Document Electronically Filed) CONSOLIDATED SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Lead Plaintiffs Yola Sherman, M. Ronald Sherman, Jean T. Beaubien,
William E. Garrett, Eugene E. Epstein and Joan Shalant (“Lead Plaintiffs” or
“Plaintiffs”), through their attorneys, bring this action on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, on personal knowledge as to themselves and
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 1 of 131
2
their own activities, and as to all other matters, based upon the investigation of
Plaintiffs’ counsel, which included, among other things: (i) interviews of former
employees of Datatec Systems, Inc. (ADatatec” or the “Company”) and other
persons with knowledge and information concerning the matters alleged herein,
including the confidential sources described below; (ii) review and analysis of the
public filings of Datatec, including its filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (“SEC”); and (iii) review and analysis of news articles, press releases,
announcements, and analysts' reports by or relating to Datatec. Plaintiffs believe
that further evidentiary support for the allegations set forth below will exist after a
reasonable opportunity for discovery.
CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES
Confidential sources (also referred to as “CS-__”) who provided information
in connection with Plaintiffs= counsel's investigation include the following:
CS-1: Confidential Source 1 is a former Datatec project administrator, who
worked at Datatec from approximately six years prior to the Class
Period (defined below) through approximately four months after the
Class Period.
CS-2: Confidential Source 2 is a former high level technology executive at
Datatec, who worked at the Company commencing approximately
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 2 of 131
3
seven years prior to the Class Period through almost one year after the
end of the Class Period. CS-2 had frequent regular direct dealings
with the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officers, Chief
Operating Officer and other top executives of the Company.
CS-3: Confidential Source 3 is a former Datatec national project manager,
who worked at Datatec commencing approximately four years prior to
the Class Period through approximately one week after the Class
Period began. Throughout the remainder of the Class Period and
afterwards, CS-3 kept informed of events at Datatec by remaining in
close personal contact and frequently conversing with employees
(mostly other project managers) who remained at Datatec.
CS-4: Confidential Source 4 is a former high level sales executive at
Datatec, from approximately 14 years prior to the Class Period
through over one year after the Class Period.
CS-5: Confidential Source 5 is a former Datatec collections manager, who
worked at the Company for approximately 15 years, until
approximately one year prior to the Class Period. Thereafter,
including throughout the Class Period, CS-5 kept in contact with, and
had frequent conversations with former and then current Datatec
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 3 of 131
4
employees. CS-5 worked closely with Datatec=s financial officers
during CS-5's long tenure at Datatec.
CS-6: Confidential Source 6 is a former Datatec regional operations
manager, who worked at the Company commencing approximately
five years prior to the Class Period through approximately 3 months
after the Class Period.
CS-7: Confidential Source 7 is a former Datatec product manager involved
with Datatec=s eDeploy product, who worked at the Company from
approximately seven years prior to the Class Period through the end of
the Class Period.
CS-8: Confidential Source 8 is a former Datatec high-ranking financial
officer, who held this position at Datatec from approximately 3
months prior to the Class Period through after the end of the Class
Period, and who worked for defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP
(“Deloitte”) prior to the Class Period, from the mid-1980s to the mid-
1990s. CS-8 was recommended by Deloitte for his position at
Datatec.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 4 of 131
5
1. This is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of Datatec
securities between June 26, 2003 and December 16, 2003, inclusive, (the “Class
Period”), seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
“Exchange Act”).
2. Datatec was essentially, at its core, a company which stringed the
cable needed by new stores and other facilities which required computer access.
The business was neither a profitable one nor an advanced technology company
which would attract investors. Competition from local cable stringing companies,
which did not have Datatec’s enormous overhead, was fierce. According to CS-2,
the business should have failed years ago, and was only kept alive through
Defendants’ fraudulent practices for obtaining financing from investors and from
its credit facilities. CS-8, who served as the a high-ranking financial officer at
Datatec throughout the Class Period, similarly explained that Datatec never made
money, had no working capital, had entered into major contracts with unprofitable,
money-losing terms, and was only kept alive through financing from investors and
from Datatec’s over-extended credit line with IBM Credit LLC (“IBM Credit”).
3. Significantly, both before and during the Class Period, Datatec
entered into and was performing work on large, extremely costly, money-losing
“fixed price” contracts to perform cable stringing and related work, while
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 5 of 131
6
portraying to the public that these contracts were profitable. A huge $30 million,
multi-year fixed-price subcontract for Datatec to provide wiring services in
approximately 1,000 The Home Depot, Inc. (“Home Depot”) stores, on which
International Business Machines Corporation/IBM Global Services Division
(“IBM Global” or “IBM Global Services”) served as the general contractor, was
among the costliest of such contracts being performed during the Class Period.
Datatec’s Chief Operating Officer, defendant Raymond Koch (“Koch”), provided
the fraudulent, unrealistic “percentage of completion” and “gross margin” figures,
which were the basis for the revenue recognition pertaining to Datatec’s contracts
employed in Datatec’s public filings. The Company’s money-losing contracts and
business were thus portrayed as profitable. For instance, Koch claimed that the
Home Depot contract had a 25% gross profit margin in March 2003 – even though
such a margin was wholly unrealistic in light of Datatec’s extensive obligations
and the need for numerous expensive return site visits on this fixed price contract.
In reality, the “profit margin” amounted to a 6 to 10% loss. Instead of
acknowledging that massive cost overruns incurred at least from January 2003
onwards would result in a loss on the IBM/Home Depot contract, Defendants only
lowered the gross margin slowly, e.g., to approximately 20% in July 2003, so that
Datatec would continue to report fraudulent inflated net income and revenues.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 6 of 131
7
Defendant Koch also advised that massive cost overruns on Datatec’s contracts
were collectible, but then knowingly failed to even bill Datatec’s customers for
such cost overruns. Koch also failed to attempt to renegotiate the ruinous “fixed
price” terms of the Home Depot contract; instead, Defendants continued to falsely
portray to the public that the contract was profitable.
4. According to CS-8 and a confidential report (the “Eisner Report”)
prepared by Datatec’s subsequent, post-Class Period auditors, Eisner, LLP
(“Eisner”) (which report was described by CS-8), defendant Deloitte improperly
relied on defendant Koch’s “percentage of completion” and “gross profit margin”
estimates, despite the “red flag” of Koch’s history of continually providing vastly
overstated profit and percentage of completion figures which placed Deloitte on
notice that such estimates could not be relied upon. In accordance with the same
sources, Deloitte approved and “signed off” on the fraudulent presentation of
Datatec’s contracts, net income and revenues without proper investigation.
5. Defendants also engaged in fraudulent accounting manipulations with
respect to material purchased to use in Datatec’s contracts to perform services for
Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (“Lowe’s”) and CVS Corporation. Datatec “brokered”
the materials to Lowe’s, for cost plus a 10% administrative fee. For the sole
purpose of giving the appearance of profits, revenues and higher gross margins,
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 7 of 131
8
Datatec stockpiled between two and three years of materials for the Lowe’s jobs –
even though the materials suppliers’ delivery time frame was a few days (and
therefore there was no reason to stockpile more than a few days’ worth of
materials), and even though Datatec’s one-year verbal approvals to continue
working with Lowe’s were only renewed or confirmed in writing with actual job
commitments for one quarter (3 months) at a time. According to CS-8 and the
Eisner Report, Deloitte improperly permitted Datatec to recognize profits on
materials purchased for Lowe’s, even though Datatec’s massive materials
inventories in connection with the Lowe’s job had no business purpose and were
extremely unrealistic in relation to the Lowe’s jobs’ scope.
6. According to CS-8, if Datatec’s auditor during the Class Period,
defendant Deloitte, had followed normal audit procedures, Deloitte would have
rendered a “going concern” opinion, advising the public of the doubtfulness of
Datatec’s viability going forward as a “going concern.”
7. In addition to the improper recognition of net income and revenues on
contracts and Lowe’s materials purchases, CS-8 explained the following: The
Company’s IBM Credit credit line was over-extended at $28.5 million, and, from
at least March 2003 onwards, IBM Credit continually privately advised the
Company that it would not lend the Company further sums. On virtually a daily
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 8 of 131
9
basis, at the request of defendant Isaac J. Gaon (“Gaon”), Company controller
Simon Jethwani or an accounting manager such as Chris Benyak called IBM Credit
to wire additional funds to Datatec’s bank account. IBM Credit frequently stated
that it would not wire the requested funds or further funds to Datatec. IBM Credit
only temporarily relented, and wired the Company funds for the current day bills
after Gaon advised IBM Credit that, without the funds, Datatec would have to
close its doors and would not be able to perform on the large Home Depot
subcontract, on which IBM Global Services served as the contractor. CS-8 called
Deloitte on several occasions commencing in March 2003, and related to Deloitte
audit partner Mark Davis the foregoing conversations and Datatec’s lack of funds.
8. The Company’s lack of funds and situation with IBM Credit were
red flags that put Deloitte on notice of Datatec’s lack of viability. In light of these
and/or other red flags, Deloitte should have asked for a reconciliation of the
application of debt proceeds and examined where the Company’s borrowings were
being spent, and what was occurring with the Company’s contract jobs. When
heavy debts are being incurred, it is normal auditing procedure for the auditor to
examine why the debts are being incurred; what the company’s financial
requirements are; where the money is being deployed; and, if there are increased
costs associated with the company’s contracts, whether it is reasonably likely that
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 9 of 131
10
these costs will be recouped. Moreover, the fact that the Company’s cash and cash
equivalents during the Class Period, of approximately $155,000, were enough for
only three or four days’ expenses, particularly when viewed against the Company’s
almost $30 million of borrowings on its over-extended credit line, was another “red
flag” that put Deloitte on notice of Datatec’s lack of viability.
9. In fact, both before and during the Class Period, Datatec could not
meet its payroll or other bills without resorting to the manipulations described
herein, which included enormous borrowings, a repeatedly employed phantom
invoicing scheme, and a phantom products scheme designed to portray the
Company as a high technology company rather than as a cable stringing company.
10. Thus, throughout the Class Period, Defendants gave the investing
public a false picture of the Company=s contract profitability, financial condition,
balance sheet, and products, and failed to disclose that the Company had become
reliant on fraudulently-obtained financing, and that the Company’s ability to
continue as a going concern was severely in doubt.
11. Indeed, on June 26, 2003, Defendant Gaon, the Company=s CEO, told
investors that the Company was on track to post earnings for fiscal year 2004
(ending April 30, 2004) of $0.14 to $0.16 per share. On September 15, 2003,
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 10 of 131
11
Individual Defendants reiterated favorable fiscal 2004 full year earnings guidance,
of $0.12 per share.
12. On December 5, 2003, Datatec surprised investors with the news that
Gaon had stepped down as Chairman and CEO of the Company, and been replaced
by a new CEO, Raul Pupo. The Company also announced that board member
Mark Berenblut had resigned.
13. Also on December 5, 2003, Datatec announced that it was retracting
its previously announced earnings estimates for Fiscal 2004. Far from earning
$0.14 to $0.16 per share, or $0.12 per share, the Company would suffer a net loss
for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2003, as well as an overall net loss for
Fiscal 2004. Although the Company=s stock price dropped substantially on the
news (nearly 34%), the full impact of the adverse news did not come out for almost
another two weeks.
14. On December 17, 2003, the close of the Class Period, Datatec
announced that it would suffer a $10 million loss for the fiscal quarter ended
October 31, 2003. In addition, the Company told investors it was delaying the
filing with the SEC of its quarterly report for the quarter ending October 31, 2003,
and that the Company=s Audit Committee had decided to hire outside counsel to
conduct an independent review of the Company=s valuation of its long-term
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 11 of 131
12
contracts. In addition, the Company advised investors that on December 12, 2003,
IBM Credit had informed the Company that it would not provide Datatec with a
written default waiver for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2003. The
Company=s stock fell another 15% on extremely high volume of 2.3 million shares.
15. After the Class Period, the special situation advisory firm of Traxi
LLC issued an internal restatement of Datatec’s profits, based on the Eisner
Report, which indicated that Datatec’s profits had been overstated by $15 million.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ''1331 and 1337 and Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15
U.S.C. ' 78aa).
17. The claims asserted herein arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. '' 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder (17 C.F.R. ' 240.10b-5).
18. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 27 of the
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. ' 78aa) and 28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b). Substantial acts in
furtherance of the alleged fraud, including the preparation and dissemination of
materially false and misleading information, and/or its effects have occurred within
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 12 of 131
13
this District. In addition, Datatec was headquartered in Fairfield, New Jersey,
within this District, at all times relevant to this litigation.
19. In connection with the acts and omissions alleged in this complaint,
Defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of
interstate commerce, including, but not limited to, the United States mails,
interstate telephone communications, and the facilities of the national securities
markets.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs:
20. On December 23, 2004, the Court appointed Yola Sherman, M.
Ronald Sherman, Jean T. Beaubien, William E. Garrett, Eugene E. Epstein and
Joan Shalant to serve as Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ' 78(u)-4. Lead
Plaintiffs purchased Datatec common stock at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and were damaged thereby. Certifications for the Lead Plaintiffs were
previously submitted to the Court.
Defendants:
21. Defendant Gaon served as Datatec=s Chairman of the Board from
December 1997 until his resignation from all his positions at Datatec on or about
December 5, 2003. Gaon also served as a Director from 1992 until his December
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 13 of 131
14
2003 resignation; and as Datatec’s Chief Executive Officer from October 1994
until his December 5, 2003 resignation. In addition, Gaon served as Datatec’s
CFO from April 1992 until October 1994. Gaon is also a chartered accountant.
Gaon was Datatec’s primary contact with IBM Credit, and was intimately involved
with directing the fraudulent invoicing scheme and other fraudulent activities at
Datatec.
22. Defendant Koch served as Datatec=s Chief Operating Officer from
approximately July 2001 through the entire Class Period. From 1989 to 2000,
Koch also held several senior executive positions with the Company and its
subsidiary Datatec Industries, Inc. as follows: Chief Operating Officer and
Executive Vice President of the Company from 1996 to 2000; President and Chief
Operating Officer of Datatec Industries from 1994 to 1996; President of Datatec
Industries from 1991 to 1994; and Executive Vice President of Datatec Industries
from 1989 to 1991. Defendants Gaon and Koch are also referred to as “Individual
Defendants.”
23. During the Class Period, Koch was in charge of operations, according
to CS-8, who further explained the following: The Company’s field managers and
all of its field operations personnel reported to Koch. Datatec’s field managers
reported to Koch as to the percentage of each job that was complete, and Koch
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 14 of 131
15
provided and signed off on percentage of completion numbers used for the
Company’s revenue recognition in its public filings. Datatec’s production and
warehouse personnel and customer support personnel also reported to Koch.
Essentially, the entire business other than finance, HR, and legal, reported to Koch.
Koch was also responsible for the Company’s eDeploy product – to make sure that
it was used on jobs and integrated with Datatec’s field operations. Furthermore,
Koch was Datatec’s primary contact with IBM Global Services, which was the
general contractor on the multi-million dollar Home Depot contract which Datatec
performed on during the Class Period.
24. Defendant Deloitte is an auditing and accounting firm which Datatec
engaged as its principal independent accountants on April 11, 2002. Deloitte
served as the Datatec’s auditor throughout the Class Period, and resigned
approximately four months afterwards, in April 2004. Deloitte’s Independent
Auditors’ Report accompanied Datatec’s filings to the SEC during the Class
Period, including Datatec’s Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2003, filed
July 23, 2003, and included an unqualified opinion. The Deloitte audit team
assigned to Datatec during the Class Period consisted of Deloitte audit partner
Mark Davis, based in Deloitte’s New York office at Two World Financial Center,
225 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10281, as well as accounting manager
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 15 of 131
16
Nick Sankar, two senior accountants and a first year staff member. According to
CS-8, the Deloitte audit team during the year prior to the Class Period was led by a
different audit partner, from a Deloitte New Jersey office. This former audit
partner had brought up issues with which Datatec had disagreed. CS-8 reported
that Deloitte backed off on the issues that Deloitte had raised, and, by mutual
agreement with Datatec, removed the audit partner, and then assigned Mark Davis
to the Datatec account. Deloitte is a subsidiary of Deloitte & Touche USA LLP,
which is a member firm of the global organization, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.
25. When Deloitte was first engaged by Datatec (replacing Arthur
Anderson), Deloitte performed a re-audit of Datatec’s previous three years of
financials, and concluded that there were only minor errors in how Arthur
Anderson had accounted for certain items, totaling a few hundred thousand to one
million dollars. Deloitte audit partner Mark Davis signed off on the re-audit. In
the course of the re-audit, extensive information regarding Datatec’s financial
condition was provided to Deloitte.
26. After Deloitte’s resignation in April 2004, non-party Eisner & Co.
was engaged by Datatec’s audit committee as Datatec’s auditor, and was asked to
review the Company’s last three years’ financials. A team of three or four CPAs,
led by Eisner & Co. partner Robert Levine, worked at Datatec for two months, and
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 16 of 131
17
among other things, reviewed the revenue recognition on Datatec’s contracts for
the fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004 and for the quarter ending July 31, 2003.
Among other things, Eisner & Co.’s conclusions from this review were highly
critical of Deloitte. These conclusions were embodied in a report (the “Eisner
Report”) in approximately August 2004. In August 2004, the Eisner Report was
read over the telephone to various Datatec executives and other individuals,
including CS-8.
27. Defendants are liable as direct participants with respect to the wrongs
complained of herein. In addition, Individual Defendants were “controlling
persons” within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Each exercised
his power and influence to cause the Company to engage in the fraudulent
practices complained of herein. In addition, on July 22, 2003, Defendant Gaon
signed Section 302 certifications pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley that, among other
things, Defendant had reviewed Datatec’s 2003 Form 10-K, and that the financial
statements, and other financial information included therein fairly presented in all
material respects Datatec’s financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows, and that Defendant was responsible for establishing and maintaining
Datatec’s disclosure controls and procedures.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 17 of 131
18
28. It is appropriate to treat Individual Defendants as a group for pleading
purposes and to presume that the materially false, misleading and incomplete
information conveyed in the Company’s public filings, press releases, and other
public statements, are the collective action of the narrowly defined group of
Individual Defendants identified herein. During the Class Period, Individual
Defendants, as senior executive officers and/or directors of Datatec, directly
participated in the management of the Company, were directly involved in the day-
to-day operations of the Company at the highest levels, and were privy to
confidential and proprietary information concerning Datatec, its operations,
finances, financial condition, present and future business prospects. Individual
Defendants also had access to material adverse non-public information concerning
Datatec. Because of their positions with Datatec, Individual Defendants had access
to non-public information about its business, finances, products, markets and
present and future business prospects via access to internal corporate documents,
conversations and connections with other corporate officers and employees,
attendance at management and board of directors meetings and committees thereof
and via reports and other information provided to them in connection therewith.
Because of their direct participation in the activities complained of herein, and
possession of such information, Individual Defendants knew or recklessly
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 18 of 131
19
disregarded the fact that adverse facts specified herein had not been disclosed to,
and were being concealed from, the investing public.
29. In addition, even if Individual Defendants are not treated as a group
for pleading purposes, according to CS-8, the Individual Defendants actually
reviewed the Company’s public filings during the Class Period, and provided input
and comments to the drafts, which were always circulated to Individual Defendants
five or six days prior to the due date. Individual Defendants also signed off on the
final filings. In addition, defendant Koch provided the information for, and signed
off on the percentage of completion numbers which were the basis of the
Company’s fraudulent, inflated revenue and net income (profits) recognition.
30. Individual Defendants, because of their positions with the Company,
controlled and/or possessed the authority to control the contents of its reports, press
releases and presentations to securities analysts and through them, to the investing
public. Individual Defendants were provided with copies of the Company=s reports
and press releases alleged herein to be misleading, prior to or shortly after their
issuance and had the ability and opportunity to prevent their issuance or cause
them to be corrected. Thus, Individual Defendants had the opportunity to commit
the fraudulent acts alleged herein.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 19 of 131
20
31. As senior executive officers and/or directors and as controlling
persons of a publicly-traded company whose common stock was, and is, registered
with the SEC pursuant to the Exchange Act, and was traded on the NASDAQ
Small Capital Market (ANASDAQ@) and governed by the federal securities laws,
Individual Defendants had a duty to disseminate promptly accurate and truthful
information with respect to Datatec=s financial condition and performance, growth,
operations, financial statements, business, products, markets, management,
earnings and present and future business prospects, to correct any previously
issued statements that had become materially misleading or untrue, so that the
market price of Datatec=s common stock would be based upon truthful and accurate
information. Individual Defendants= misrepresentations and omissions during the
Class Period violated these specific requirements and obligations.
32. Defendants are liable as participants in a fraudulent scheme and
course of conduct that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Datatec
common stock by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts. The scheme: (i) deceived the investing public
regarding Datatec=s business, operations and management and the intrinsic value of
Datatec common stock; (ii) enabled Datatec to obtain more than $8.4 million in
private placements and other financing transactions; (iii) allowed the Company to
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 20 of 131
21
obtain waivers of default on its existing $25 million credit line with IBM; and (iv)
caused Plaintiffs and members of the Class to purchase Datatec securities at
artificially inflated prices.
Non–Party Datatec:
33. Datatec is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its
principal executive offices located at 1275 Alderman Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia
30005. On December 14, 2004, Datatec filed a bankruptcy petition pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 1101 et. seq. Accordingly, Datatec is not named as a defendant herein at
this juncture due to its bankruptcy filing and the protections afforded by the
automatic bankruptcy stay.
THE FRAUDULENT SCHEMES
34. Individual Defendants described Datatec’s business as follows:
Datatec Systems, Inc., and its subsidiaries . . . are in the business of providing rapid and accurate technology services and licensing software tools designed to accelerate the delivery and management of complex Information Technology (“IT”) solutions for technology providers, primarily Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”), systems integrators, independent software vendors, telecommunications carriers and service providers . . . as well as to a select number of “Fortune 2000” customers in the United States and Canada. (Datatec Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending 4/30/03, filed 7/23/03) 35. However, according to CS-2, Datatec was essentially, at its core, a
company which stringed the cable needed by new stores and other facilities which
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 21 of 131
22
require computer access. Datatec’s core business was not profitable, and faced
fierce competition from local cable stringing companies, which did not have
Datatec’s enormous overhead. Datatec could not meet its payroll, vendor and other
bills without fraudulent manipulation.
36. Moreover, according to CS-8, Datatec had entered into large fixed-
price contracts which were causing the Company to lose enormous sums of money.
37. Thus, throughout the Class Period, Individual Defendants tried to
portray Datatec as an advanced technology company, which was creating new
breakthrough software products which would appeal to investors. Defendants gave
the market place a false picture of the Company=s contract profitability, financial
condition, balance sheet, and products, and failed to disclose that Datatec was
recognizing inflated revenues and net income by using grossly over-estimated
gross profit margins for its contracts, and by purchasing unnecessary materials for
Lowe’s; that the Company had become reliant on financing obtained with
“phantom invoices”; and that the Individual Defendants were touting essentially
non-existent products to keep investors pouring money into the Company when
Datatec was neither profitable nor solvent.
The Scheme To Employ Unreasonable And Overstated Gross Profit Margins To Fraudulently Inflate Net Income and Revenues:
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 22 of 131
23
38. According to CS-8, during the Class Period, most of Datatec’s
contracts were fixed revenue contracts. CS-8 explained that each month, an
estimated gross profit margin was applied to each of Datatec’s contracts, on a
percentage of completion basis, to determine the revenues and gross profit to be
recognized. At the end of each quarter, the gross profit margins were reviewed by
Koch and Deloitte. The estimated gross profit margin percentage employed in
revenue and gross profit calculations was critical. Tweaking a gross profit margin
by 1% can produce a profit from a loss; it is a very sensitive factor. On many of
the Company’s contracts, the gross profit margin was initially estimated (for
purposes of revenue recognition calculations) at 35%. However, such estimated
margins were grossly unrealistic. The actual gross profit margins on Datatec’s
contracts ended up in the low teens, single digits, or in the loss column.
39. CS-8 explained that the impact on the Company’s financials of over-
estimating gross profit margins was as follows: The use of excessive estimated
gross profit margins failed to recognize the fact that the Company would be
incurring costs that it was not going to cover in revenues. Hence, the Company’s
reported expenses were understated in its income statements. Consequently,
reported net income and revenues were inflated.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 23 of 131
24
40. According to the Eisner Report (as described by CS-8), the most
egregious problem with the Company’s financials during the Class Period was
Defendants’ use of grossly overstated gross profit margins. The resulting
understatement of expenses and losses amounted to approximately $10 million for
the three fiscal years ending April 31, 2003, up to and including the quarters
ending October 31, 2003. The largest understatements were for the latter period
when large losses were being incurred on the Home Depot contract, specifically
FY2003 and the quarters ending October 31, 2003. The Eisner Report criticized
Deloitte for relying on defendant Koch’s gross profit margin and percentage-of-
completion ratios, because Koch had persistently and repeatedly in the past
provided estimated percentage of completion / gross margin figures that had to be
significantly reduced upon contract completion.
41. According to CS-8, Deloitte merely spent a few hours per quarter
questioning Koch about gross margin percentages estimates established on jobs
after Deloitte saw the accumulated costs being incurred on the contracts. Deloitte
had a list of contracts, and asked Koch how the contracts were proceeding, and
what percentage of the job was complete. Deloitte asked, “Do you think we should
take the gross profit margin down?” “How do you think we can maintain the gross
margin estimate when it’s currently running much lower?” Normally, the disparity
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 24 of 131
25
was a large number, such as 25%. Koch offered excuses - such as that it was a
heavy up front job, or that Datatec would be able to bill for overcharges – which
Deloitte accepted with little or no investigation, despite the information in
Deloitte’s possession that Koch had a history of providing grossly over-estimated
gross profit margin percentages.
42. According to CS-8, in approximately December 2003 or January 2004
(after the end of the Class Period), Deloitte produced a work paper – using data
that had been in Deloitte’s possession for years – which showed the severe
deterioration in gross profit margin on every one of approximately 20 major
Datatec contracts, from the time the estimated gross profit margin was established
(at the outset of each contract), through completion. This Deloitte work paper was
prepared by Deloitte partner Mark Davis’ staff, and consisted of two pages of
accumulated data points. A vertical column listed about 20 (mostly Fortune 500)
clients. The horizontal columns listed the date when the estimated gross profit
margin was established for each contract, the estimated gross margin percentage
first established, and how that gross profit margin changed (deteriorated) each
fiscal quarter, from the time the percentage was set up through completion of the
contract. The estimated gross profit margin percentages gradually deteriorated
over time during the course of the contracts – and the actual profit margins were
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 25 of 131
26
far below the estimates. A sentence or two at the top of the work paper set forth
the purpose of the paper’s analysis, or contained the title of the work paper.
43. According to CS-8, there was never a reserve set up at Datatec to
allow for the aggressive estimated gross profit margins and percentages of
completion upon which Datatec based its income and revenue recognition. CS-8
explained that historical experience is telling. If a gross profit margin is too
aggressive, the accountants are obligated to require the establishment of a reserve,
or to check the veracity of the gross profit margin by checking with third parties
involved with the company’s contracts. According to CS-8, Deloitte “never
bothered” to examine the historical trend before or during the Class Period,
although the data to do so was in Deloitte’s possession, and examining the
historical trend was essential to a fair presentation of the Company’s financial
statements. Instead of examining the historical trend, Deloitte improperly relied on
assurances from defendant Koch.
44. CS-8 also related that Gretchen Kittel, an employee in Datatec’s
finance department who maintained percentage of completion work papers,
frequently brought to the attention of Koch and Gaon – both in written memos and
orally – that the percentage of completion estimates used for the Company’s
financial statements were unrealistically overstated. Ms. Kittel brought Koch
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 26 of 131
27
detailed spreadsheets indicating that accumulated costs incurred to date on the
Company’s contracts were far higher than expected, and asked Koch whether the
costs were in line with the percentage of the contract which was complete. Koch
disregarded Ms. Kittel’s information, and either refused to lower the gross profit
margin / percentage of completion, or lowered it only slightly.
45. Ms. Kittel provided most of the general ledger detail to the Deloitte
junior and senior auditors, and also presented her analysis of the detail to Deloitte.
Ms. Kittel presented to Deloitte a break down of costs from specific jobs and how
much profit was to be realized on each job. This consisted of 8-1/2 by 14 legal
sheets analyzing jobs by quarters in progress, with separate percentage of
completion calculations for each job. Ms. Kittel kept a database of this
information. Ms. Kittel also sent her analysis to Koch with comments such as “I
don’t understand how we can go forward with x, y and z job at x%.”
46. Ms. Kittel often voiced her concerns, in memos to Koch. Ms. Kittel
also provided supporting detail for the financial statements to Deloitte. Deloitte
asked Koch about the detail provided by Ms. Kittel, but then Deloitte accepted
Koch’s assurances.
47. The disastrous fixed-price Home Depot contract is a prime example of
the fraudulent nature of Defendants’ use of excessive overstated gross profits
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 27 of 131
28
margin estimates to calculate the income and revenues recognized in the
Company’s financials.
48. According to CS-8, the background on the Home Depot contract is as
follows: Home Depot had awarded a $100-million multi-year contract to IBM
Global to act as its general contractor to rewire and do related work on
approximately 1000 Home Depot stores. Datatec and another company won the
RFP to subcontract the Home Depot job. IBM Global split the work between the
two companies. Datatec was to provide services to approximately 500 stores. The
Home Depot contract work consisted of Datatec employees (IBEW Local 3
electrical workers) wiring Home Depot stores after hours, from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m.,
using hi-lo’s (cherry-pickers, or lifts) from Hertz’s equipment division.
49. IBM Global then learned that the other company’s subcontractors
were performing miserably. Consequently, in August or September of 2002, IBM
Global approached Datatec to wire all approximately 1000 Home Depot stores.
Datatec’s initial $15 million contract thus became a $30 million contract.
Datatec’s approximately 300 employees had to grow to approximately 800
employees to service the enlarged Home Depot contract. Yet, Datatec did not
increase its pricing to account for the huge recruiting and training costs which
Datatec needed to incur to grow from 300 to 800 employees. Datatec had to recruit
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 28 of 131
29
and train approximately 500 employees into the field, all members of IBEW Local
3. Administrative costs also increased. For instance, Datatec’s general counsel
had to field complaints from the union as to numerous matters, including the
assignment of two employees per hotel room, and overtime calculations.
50. According to CS-8, Datatec started receiving notices in January and
February 2003 to return to Home Depot’s sites to fix various problems with
Datatec’s rewiring jobs for Home Depot. Datatec continued to receive such notices
during May 2003 through the summer of 2003. A massive redeployment effort
was involved. Individual Defendants Koch and Gaon, and other personnel
throughout the Company had to re-schedule employees and send teams of
expensive employees and equipment back to Home Depot’s sites.
51. Most of the problems in the notices requiring revisits by Datatec
personnel were due to work changes initiated by Home Depot or faulty information
originally provided by Home Depot or IBM Global in the sample specifications in
the contract. For instance, many store configurations were different from the
specifications, and as a result, the cable which Datatec initially brought to the site
was insufficient. However, Individual Defendants did not approach IBM Global or
Home Depot about obtaining more compensation on the fixed price contract.
Meanwhile, from approximately January 2003 through approximately September
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 29 of 131
30
2003, Datatec’s unbilled costs were skyrocketing. To handle Home Depot revisits,
four hundred Datatec employees were working overtime, at $40/hour, renting vans,
renting equipment, incurring matching union costs, and being paid every two
weeks.
52. Despite the apparent massive cost overruns on the Home Depot
contract, Datatec and Defendants only gradually decreased the gross profit margin
on this contract by small amounts, and continued to employ wholly unrealistic,
extremely aggressive gross profit margins, as a result of which the Home Depot
contract expenses were vastly understated, and Datatec’s income and revenues
were overstated. The estimated gross profit margin employed to calculate income
recognition on the Home Depot contract was originally set at 25% to 30%. In
March 2003 – long after revisit notices started pouring into the Company – the
estimated gross profit margin employed was still 25%. From March to December
2003, the estimated gross margin was gradually reduced from 25% to 22% (in
approximately July 2003) to 19% to 15% to 6% (in October 2003) -- and
ultimately was actually determined to be negative 6% or 10% (in December 2003).
53. Although Deloitte noticed the cost overruns in approximately July
2003, Deloitte merely asked Koch if he thought he could collect unbilled costs on
the Home Depot contract. Deloitte accepted Koch’s affirmative response at face
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 30 of 131
31
value, without confirming with the customer that unbilled costs could be recouped
despite the fixed-price contract. Deloitte also failed to analyze remaining costs on
the Home Depot contract and other Datatec contracts. Deloitte could have
analyzed the remaining costs by confirming with project managers the remaining
work to be done, and computing the costs that would be incurred thereon.
Deloitte’s reliance on bald assurances from Koch and failure to properly adjust
Koch’s estimates downwards was particularly unreasonable in light of Koch’s long
history of providing vastly overstated gross margin percentages on Datatec’s
contracts – and in light of the Company’s poor cash position and extraordinary
borrowings – which required the auditor to scrutinize estimates carefully and
engage in extra audit procedures. As noted above, the Eisner Report criticized
Deloitte for its failures in the foregoing regard.
The Scheme To Fraudulently Recognize Inflated Revenues, Gross Profit and Net Income On Lowe’s Materials Purchases
54. The Eisner Report also was critical of a fraudulent scheme by which
ever-increasing inventories of materials, purportedly purchased for jobs for
Lowe’s, were used to improperly recognize revenues, gross profits and net income.
As related by CS-8, the scheme consisted of the following:
55. Datatec bought the materials from suppliers such as Anixter and
Graybar and other vendors, which were purportedly to be used on jobs for Lowe’s
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 31 of 131
32
for which Lowe’s would be charged a 10% administrative fee. The materials were
either drop-shipped to Lowe’s or, more frequently as Datatec’s materials orders
vastly increased, sent to Datatec’s warehouse in Atlanta.
56. Deloitte permitted Datatec to recognize revenues as soon as Datatec
bought the materials because, supposedly, Datatec had an agreement with Lowe’s
to reimburse Datatec for materials plus pay an administrative fee. Thus, the
“margin” (i.e., $10,000 on a $100,000 materials order) was recognized at the time
the materials vendor accepted Datatec’s order for materials. However, the
immediate recognition of revenue was improper, unreasonable and fraudulent for a
number of reasons. First, Lowe’s awarded jobs quarterly; and there was no written
contract for a year or the several years’ worth of materials purchases which Datatec
made. Second, there was no business reason to purchase and hold years’ worth of
supplies. Suppliers such as Graybar usually delivered supplies within a few days
to 30 days’ notice; thus there was no reason to stockpile materials. Moreover,
Datatec did not purchase sufficient materials to obtain a bulk discount that could
justify a large purchase plus warehousing costs.
57. At the end of each quarter during and prior to the Class Period, Gaon
asked Koch if Koch could buy more materials for Lowe’s, and how that would
impact Datatec’s bottom line. Gaon then told Koch to buy more materials, and
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 32 of 131
33
Koch and his staff bought more materials, with funds loaned to Datatec by Lowe’s.
In at least one of the applicable quarters during the Class Period, more materials
were purchased to “make revenues” and to increase Datatec’s gross profit margin.
Both prior to and during the Class Period, Datatec purchased materials for Lowe’s
in the amount of approximately $1 million per month ($12 million per year), the
overwhelming majority of which was unnecessary for existing projects and
purchased solely to inflate net income and revenues. These purchases generated
fraudulent, inflated net income and revenues of approximately $1 million per year.
As of the end of the Class Period, the cumulative inflated net income and revenue
from this mechanism was in excess of $3 million.
58. Datatec borrowed money from Lowe’s to buy the above-described
materials. Lowe’s was getting services at such a low rate from Datatec that Lowe’s
didn’t mind lending Datatec the money for the supplies. The Lowe’s arrangement
provided cash flow and “enhanced” Datatec’s financial statements. Although
Datatec borrowed the money from Lowe’s to purchase the material, Datatec never
paid the vendors right away.
59. In addition, if and when Datatec eventually used the pre-ordered
materials for a job for Lowe’s, Defendants improperly caused Datatec to record the
remainder of the gross sale price as revenue, and record the balance as COGS.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 33 of 131
34
(For instance, on a $100,000 materials order, $10,000 would be recognized
immediately upon the materials vendor’s acceptance of the purchase order; and if
and when the materials were used, $90,000 in revenue and $90,000 in COGS was
recorded, thereby causing the inflation of both.) According to CS-8, Datatec also
engaged in essentially the same materials purchasing scheme with CVS
Corporation during the Class Period, which was known to Deloitte.
The Phantom Invoicing Scheme:
60. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose that the
Company was obtaining financing on its credit lines with “phantom invoices,” and
had become completely reliant on the financing obtained through this fraudulent
mechanism to stay afloat. Several confidential sources, including CS-1, CS-2, CS-
3 and CS-5, described the following phantom invoicing scheme, which Individual
Defendants personally directed:
61. Both prior to the Class Period and during the Class Period with
increasing frequency and magnitude, Individual Defendants regularly placed
phantom invoices on Datatec’s books, to overstate the Company’s accounts
receivable, and to enable Datatec to obtain critical accounts receivable financing
through its $25 million credit facility with IBM Credit LLC (AIBM Credit@).
Datatec=s true but undisclosed financial condition was so precarious that Datatec
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 34 of 131
35
needed the fraudulently-obtained accounts receivable financing for Datatec to meet
its semi-monthly payroll, and to avoid having Datatec=s vendors cut off essential
supplies.
62. Specifically, according to CS-1, CS-2, and CS-5, Individual
Defendants, including Gaon, directed Datatec=s employees to post to Datatec=s
accounts receivable phony invoices for work that was not yet done and/or not yet
billable. According to CS-2, this same “phantom invoicing” device was used to
“cure” a variety of Datatec’s business problems. First, prior to each semi-monthly
payroll, the head of Datatec’s HR department would tell Individual Defendants,
including Gaon, that there was not enough money to meet the payroll – and
Individual Defendants would “cure” the problem by ordering phantom invoices to
be issued and posted to the Company’s accounts receivable, thereby obtaining
approximately 85% financing on those receivables. Second, Datatec also
frequently received threats from its supply vendors to cut off the Company’s
essential supplies if overdue payments were not forthcoming. Again, the solution
was to issue phantom invoices and thereby fraudulently obtain accounts receivable
financing.
63. CS-8 also confirmed that the phantom invoices were used to obtain
further funds from IBM Credit. CS-8 explained that the actual impact of the
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 35 of 131
36
phantom invoicing on the Company’s public financial presentations was that the
Company’s borrowings significantly exceeded the publicly disclosed 85% of the
Company’s accounts receivable. The purported 85% formula was disclosed, inter
alia, in Datatec’s 2003 Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2003, filed July
23, 2003, Item 7, MD&A, Senior Credit Facility. Therefore, Individual
Defendants’ disclosures describing the mechanics underlying the IBM Credit credit
facility were materially misstated. (CS-8 explained that the Company’s fraudulent
revenue recognition was achieved through Defendants’ schemes of using grossly
overstated percentages of completion, and manipulation of the Lowe’s accounts,
described herein.)
64. Individual Defendants constantly faced the prospect of not being able
to meet Datatec’s payroll throughout the Class Period. Datatec was also constantly
in jeopardy of being cut off by its vendors, such as Graybar (which sells just about
everything that Datatec would use at a job site – such as oil, screws, brackets, and
clamps), Hertz (which rented Datatec the vans and lifts used at all of Datatec’s job
sites), materials companies, and cable companies. According to CS-2, Gaon
attended the “vendor meetings” held at Datatec which concerned getting money to
the vendors who were threatening to discontinue sending needed supplies to
Datatec.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 36 of 131
37
65. On each of the above-described occasions, Individual Defendants,
usually Gaon himself, telephoned certain Company managers, and ordered them to
direct the Company’s project administrators to post phantom invoices to the
Company’s accounts receivable. These invoices listed work which the Company
“expected” to do in the coming weeks as already complete. CS-2 often personally
overheard Defendant Gaon issuing such instructions to Datatec’s managers during
the Class Period. The managers then called in the project administrators who
reported to them, and gave them the same instructions. CS-1’s manager called in
CS-1 for a meeting shortly before every payroll, and instructed CS-1 to post the
phantom invoices, while commenting: “Corporate says we need to do it again.”
66. Datatec’s project administrators complained about these instructions.
CS-3, a national project manager, reported that “at least half” of the 8 project
administrators with whom he had contact complained about being asked to post
phantom invoices. Some project administrators objected strenuously. According
to CS-1, one project administrator, who worked in the Company’s Dallas office,
and who had an accounting degree, complained to supervisory personnel that what
Individual Defendants were asking them to do was illegal, and that the Company
could not post phantom invoices. Individual Defendants responded by moving this
project administrator into an area with different responsibilities (collections).
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 37 of 131
38
67. Upon receipt of the instructions handed down from their managers,
the project administrators thereupon obtained information from project managers
as to future estimated work to be done by the Company, and “pre-invoiced” the
work on the Company’s accounts receivable, as if the work had already been done.
Once the “pre-invoice” was placed on the Company’s accounts receivable, the
Company would receive financing from IBM Credit of approximately 85% of the
amount of the invoice.
68. In the ensuing weeks, if and when the “pre-invoiced” work was
performed, the Company reversed the “pre-invoice” and issued a real invoice to the
customer. These manipulations played havoc with the Company’s billing
processes, and wasted enormous amounts of Datatec employees’ time. CS-1
described the havoc created by the pre-invoicing as “a nightmare,” and said that it
resulted in triple the amount of work. As a result of the extensive pre-invoicing,
the Company’s accounts receivable bore no relation to reality, and billing had to be
done by hand to try to avoid sending the phantom “pre-invoices” to customers who
were not supposed to receive bills for work that was not yet performed. According
to CS-3, who was a national project manager, Datatec’s project managers were
constantly concerned that pre-invoices would accidentally be sent to their
customers for work that was not yet performed. CS-3 heard of a number of
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 38 of 131
39
occasions prior to and during the Class Period when pre-invoices were in fact sent
to customers erroneously. For instance, according to CS-3, in approximately mid-
2003, AT&T / Banc One received one of these “funny invoices” for “an obnoxious
number” – approximately $75,000 or $125,000. Datatec sales representatives or
project managers then had to “back track” and give excuses to their irate customers
for such bills, such as “It was just a clerical error.”
69. The phantom invoicing began well before the Class Period on a
limited basis, and continued to snowball, until it became a regular occurrence
throughout the Class Period. For instance, in 1999, the project manager on a
project for LibbyOwensFord complained to CS-3 about having to invoice ahead of
time, but the invoicing was only a little ahead of time, about a week. CS-1, CS-2,
CS-3 and CS-5 noted that the pre-invoicing increased throughout the years, and
during the Class Period, was the “regular” way of doing business.
70. The impact on accounts receivable from the pre-invoicing was
dramatic, and became more so over time. CS-5 reported that in 2002, only $1
million out of $11 million on the accounts receivable aging was real. Nonetheless,
despite the fact that Defendant Gaon had instructed Datatec’s employees to engage
in pre-invoicing, according to CS-5, Gaon sometimes “played dumb” as to the
impact on the accounts receivable aging. CS-5 reported attending meetings in
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 39 of 131
40
approximately 2002, with Gaon, as well as the then-CFO, and another manager,
during which the following conversation repeatedly took place:
Gaon: “I don’t understand why you can’t collect more money on the accounts receivable.” CS-5: “Because the invoices aren’t real and haven’t been sent to the customers yet.” Gaon: “Who told people to invoice when the invoices aren’t real?” CS-5: “You did.”
71. Although CS-5 witnessed the conversation recounted in the preceding
paragraph prior to the Class Period, the situation kept escalating and was even
worse during the Class Period. CS-2 reported that during the Class Period, pre-
invoicing was a frequent occurrence, the “regular” way of doing business. CS-2
reported that the amounts directed to be pre-billed were substantial and
meaningful, usually over $100,000, and frequently involved Datatec’s largest
accounts, including Home Depot. CS-2 often heard Defendant Gaon say during
the Class Period, “We need to pre-bill $100,000 of the project today.” CS-2
opposed the pre-billing strategy in conversations with Gaon. However, CS-2
reported that at no time during his seven years at Datatec (which included the Class
Period) did Gaon abandon the pre-billing practices.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 40 of 131
41
72. Similarly, CS-3 reported that the pre-invoicing continued to escalate:
There were progressive stages: When Datatec was doing better, there was just a
little pushing ahead on invoices, with the excuse from management that it was just
so that the Company could “close out the month.” Later, the invoicing was
required to be more and more ahead of time. For instance, CS-3 reported that the
invoicing for a large project involving AT&T and Banc One was “well ahead of
time.” Project managers started receiving emails every two weeks, just before
payroll, to “get everything in” that could conceivably lead to billings. By 2003,
and during the Class Period, if there was any remote possibility of invoicing an
item, Individual Defendants pre-invoiced it.
73. Not surprisingly given what the finance personnel were asked to do,
there was enormous turnover in Datatec’s finance department throughout the years.
CS-5 reported that there were eight different bosses (usually the controller) in the
finance department over the course of 5 years. According to CS-1, there was “a
whole shuffle” in the finance department beginning in 2003, in which a “whole
new crew” was brought in by Defendant Gaon. The previous payroll person was
the only individual who stayed with the Company. About 8 out of 10 people in the
finance department were swapped in 2003.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 41 of 131
42
74. According to CS-5, Individual Defendants also furthered their pre-
invoicing scheme by manipulating audits of Datatec’s accounts receivable. When
auditors sent letters to customers requesting confirmation of the phantom accounts
receivable listed on Datatec’s books, Individual Defendants arranged to have
Datatec’s sales representatives and project managers prevail upon Datatec’s
customers to either discard the auditor letters or falsely confirm the phantom
invoices, “as a favor.” Smaller customers generally went along with confirming to
the auditors that invoices were true when they were not. Datatec’s major
customers (such as Dayton Hudson, Walgreens and Walmart) would not confirm to
the auditors that the invoices were true, but instead often discarded the auditor
letters without responding to them.
75. CS-5 reported that Datatec had other finance companies prior to IBM
Credit, and that whenever Datatec “got in trouble” with its financing company (i.e.,
the finance company finally did an extensive audit and learned what was really
occurring, or became completely dissatisfied because the poor collections did not
reflect the amounts shown on the accounts receivable), Datatec switched financing
companies. Prior to IBM Credit, there was a finance company called Finova which
Datatec had these types of problems with.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 42 of 131
43
76. According to CS-1 and CS-5, towards the end of the Class Period,
auditors for IBM Credit went “on a rampage” and undertook a very extensive audit
of Datatec=s accounts receivable because the accounts receivable – and the amounts
actually paid to Datatec by customers against the accounts receivable -- were so
askew that they did not make any sense. IBM Credit demanded extensive back-up
materials from Individual Defendants, and apparently learned the truth about the
phony invoicing.
77. However, according to CS-8, some of the IBM Credit personnel
actually knew about the phantom invoicing scheme all along, but had their own
agenda: First, the IBM Credit personnel did not want to acknowledge that they
should long ago have written-off much of Datatec’s IBM Credit credit line
borrowings. Instead, IBM Credit determined not to make more funds available to
Datatec. Second, the IBM Credit personnel did not want to “pull” Datatec’s credit
line while Datatec was doing subcontracting work for IBM Global Services on the
Home Depot contract at a bargain-basement price. The Home Depot contract was
over a $100 million contract for IBM Global Services, and IBM Global Services
did not want to jeopardize this contract by taking drastic measures against one of
its subcontractors before its work was finished.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 43 of 131
44
78. According to CS-8, Deloitte was also aware of the phantom invoicing
which Datatec used to draw down the IBM Credit credit line, but did not alter its
audit report to reflect the Company’s use of this fraudulent scheme or the
precariousness of the Company’s financial situation revealed by the invoicing
scheme. Deloitte knew this through several means, including through its work
with Chris Benyak, the Datatec accountant in charge of the IBM Credit credit line,
and through reading the quarterly reports of IBM’s internal auditors, which showed
what was invoiced and what was collected. These quarterly IBM Credit reports
stated that invoices used for draw downs of the credit line had not been invoiced
out to Datatec’s customers. Deloitte received these IBM Credit audit reports every
quarter from Datatec’s accounting staff.
79. A few days before the end of the Class Period – and after Datatec’s
work on the Home Depot contract was complete -- IBM Credit essentially
cancelled Datatec’s credit facility. Previously, commencing with the fiscal quarter
ended January 31, 2001, through and including the fiscal quarter ended July 31,
2003, IBM Credit had always provided the Company with written default waivers
for the Company’s non-compliance with certain financial covenants in the IBM
Credit facility. However on December 12, 2003, IBM Credit informed the
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 44 of 131
45
Company that it would not provide the Company with a written waiver for the
fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2003.
80. The investing public and others were kept in the dark about Individual
Defendants’ fraudulent invoices, the full extent of Datatec’s non-compliance with
IBM Credit=s financing requirements, and the true state of Datatec’s financial
condition indicated by Individual Defendants’ phantom invoicing scheme.
The Phantom Products Scheme:
81. In addition, during the Class Period, Individual Defendants touted
certain new software products, including an “Asset Guardian” service, as well
along in development, in order to entice investors to invest in the Company. The
following information regarding Datatec’s phantom products was related by CS-2,
a high-level former technology executive at Datatec:
82. Asset Guardian was, “by definition a product which couldn’t exist” --
particularly as Individual Defendants conceived and touted it, according to CS-2.
The product was supposed to manage the entire life cycle of a technology asset
(such as a computer, phone device, or any other technology device) from its
earliest conception to the final phases of disposal. The product was supposed to
manage technology assets’ life cycles all the way from procurement (sourcing,
purchasing), through deployment, configuration, installation, help desks,
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 45 of 131
46
maintenance, depreciation, technology refresh, planned obsolescence, retirement
and disposal, and everywhere in-between. The project was impossibly over-
ambitious. A lot of large companies – far larger than Datatec – “aspire just to bite
off just a small piece of the life cycle management products, and make a living
from that,” according to CS-2.
83. In reality, Individual Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that
Asset Guardian was utter “pie in the sky,” and was impossible to produce with the
limited financial and manpower resources Individual Defendants allotted to it.
However, Defendant Gaon knew that investors would like the concept. According
to CS-2, Individual Defendants thus merely went through the motions of trying to
develop the Asset Guardian product, and tried to put together a “skeletal product,
like a slide show,” to show to investors.
84. Some of the specific facts which Individual Defendants knew or
disregarded as to the impossibility of Datatec developing Asset Guardian, given
Datatec’s limited resources, included the following:
(a) According to CS-2 (who made his views known to Individual Defendants), development of the extraordinarily ambitious Asset Guardian project would have required millions upon millions of dollars (perhaps $30 million, but it is difficult to know, since “it’s never been done” and “nothing like that exists”) and a coordinated effort of hundreds of top programmers at a powerhouse software development company
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 46 of 131
47
such as IBM or Microsoft. A company of Datatec’s size “couldn’t pull it off if it had 100 years,” according to CS-2.
(b) Individual Defendants’ development efforts were paltry “for
show” efforts amounted to only the tiniest fraction of what the project required. Individual Defendants merely allocated to the project approximately $250,000 (for software and database applications and hardware), and approximately twelve programmers all together, consisting of some offshore developers, and the Datatec team which had previously failed to produce other viable software products whom CS-2 referred to as the “failed eDeploy team.” CS-7, a former project manager for eDeploy, explained that, after a series of layoffs, Datatec’s “software development division” consisted of only 10 people by May 2001, and continued to be cut until the few remaining people were all laid off at the end of 2003.
(c) Datatec’s competency was never in software development; it
was not a software development company. The same small team of programmers went from one failed project to another, while Individual Defendants touted the failed projects.
85. Asset Guardian was merely the last of Datatec’s “phantom
products.” These products only existed as “power point presentations.” Individual
Defendants would put on “dog and pony shows” for investors, and act as if
significant development of the product was only days away. Investors would
throw money at the Company, which Individual Defendants would promptly
squander.
86. Another failed Datatec product was “eDeploy.” Datatec previously
received $10 million of financing from IBM for eDeploy. Datatec and Individual
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 47 of 131
48
Defendants went through the $10 million in approximately a year and a half. At
the same time, Datatec had lavish offices in Denver, with budgets for ski vacations
for employees, a frozen margarita machine and foosball in the office: “It was a
dot.com party,” according to CS-2.
87. eDeploy was supposed to manage a technology deployment project
when devices were located in many different locations. However, it wound up
being a web-based spreadsheet instead of a product with any intrinsic value.
eDeploy was a “skeleton, extremely bare bones” compared to what it was supposed
to be. It was more work to use eDeploy than not to, and it created more work
(administration and paperwork) than it saved, because it was so poorly designed
and executed. Individual Defendants made rules attempting to force Datatec’s
managers to use eDeploy in their work, but the managers refused to use eDeploy
because it created so much extra work. Some Datatec managers were fired for
refusing to use eDeploy. Outside companies who licensed eDeploy from Datatec
discovered that it was unusable in its natural state. These companies either
discontinued using eDeploy, or revised it themselves. CS-2 summed up eDeploy
as follows: “It was just another failed software product.”
88. Another such failed Datatec product, which the same programmers
worked on, was IWPS. IWPS was supposed to be a software configuration tool,
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 48 of 131
49
which configured computer devices “wholesale” – loading software onto hundreds
of computers in an unattended and automatic fashion, to the customers’ specs,
without the need for anyone to spend “one on one” time with the individual
computers. It never worked.
89. The same developers who failed at putting together IWPS and
eDeploy went on to fail with Asset Guardian. Asset Guardian never saw the light
of day, and was never licensed or used.
90. Behind each of Datatec’s phantom products, there was someone –
usually a crony of Defendant Gaon’s – who had the vision for the product.
91. According to CS-2, Michael Lazar was the individual responsible for
the vision for Asset Guardian. Lazar and Gaon went “way back” and had
previously worked with one another at Glassgal. Raul Pupo, Datatec’s new CEO
after Gaon resigned, immediately recognized that Asset Guardian was valueless.
During Pupo’s first two weeks as CEO, he dismissed Lazar and everyone else who
had anything to do with Asset Guardian.
MATERIALLY FALSE AND MISLEADING
STATEMENTS ISSUED DURING THE CLASS PERIOD
92. The Class Period began on June 26, 2003. On that date, the Individual
Defendants issued a press release announcing the financial results of its fourth
quarter of fiscal 2003 (ending April 30, 2003) and revenue and earnings guidance
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 49 of 131
50
for fiscal 2004.1 Individual Defendants reported that for fiscal 2003, the Company
would report $125.1 million in revenues and $1.4 million in income, or $0.04 per
share.
93. Also on June 26, 2003, with respect to fiscal 2004 (ending April 30,
2004), Individual Defendants stated the following:
For fiscal 2004, Datatec expects that sales, excluding potential sales from new government opportunities, will be in the range of $120 to $125 million and earnings per share will be between $0.14 and $0.16. The Company expects to be profitable in all four quarters. Any Government sales in the year would be incremental to both the top and bottom line forecasts.
94. Chairman and CEO Gaon stated that the Company would be working
to improve its gross profit margins, profitability and cash flow, in an attempt to
reduce the Company=s future working capital needs: “The Company expects to
achieve improvements to gross margins, profitability and cash flows by taking a
more selective approach to project opportunities, adjusting its sales mix and
continuing to focus on expense control.” Gaon told the public that the Company=s
recent acquisition of Millenium Care, combined with Datatec=s Asset Guardian
software-enabled services, was expected to contribute to the gross margin
improvement.
1 The Company=s fiscal year begins on May 1, and thus its quarters break down as follows: Q1 (May 1 to July 31); Q2 (August 1 to October 31); Q3 (November 1 to January 31); Q4 (February 1 to April 30).
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 50 of 131
51
95. The statements in the preceding three paragraphs were materially false
and misleading when made for the following reasons:
(a) The statements setting forth Datatec’s financial results for its fourth quarter of fiscal 2003 (ending April 30, 2004) were materially false and misleading because they (i) failed to disclose that the results were based on the use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income, (ii) failed to disclose that revenues, gross profits, and net income were materially and artificially inflated by employing the practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases, and (iii) failed to disclose that Datatec’s finances were so dire that the Company was meeting its semi-monthly payroll and its bills from Datatec’s vendors with fraudulently-obtained accounts receivable financing. Defendants directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income. Defendants also directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases. In addition, Individual Defendants were directly involved with using fraudulent pre-invoices to obtain financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills.
(b) The statements setting forth Datatec’s positive revenue and
earnings guidance for fiscal 2004 lacked any reasonable basis and were materially false and misleading because they (i) failed to disclose that the guidance was based on the use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income, (ii) failed to disclose that revenues, gross profits, and net income were materially and artificially inflated
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 51 of 131
52
by employing the practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases, and (iii) failed to disclose that Datatec’s finances were so dire that the Company was meeting and could only continue to meet its semi-monthly payroll and its bills from Datatec’s vendors with fraudulently-obtained accounts receivable financing. Defendants directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income. Defendants also directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases. In addition, Individual Defendants were directly involved with using fraudulent pre-invoices to obtain financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills, and knew, or recklessly disregarded that the revenue and earnings guidance had no basis in reality.
(c) The statement that “Datatec’s Asset Guardian software-enabled
services is expected to contribute to . . . gross margin improvement” had no reasonable basis and was materially false and misleading because the Asset Guardian software was essentially “pie in the sky” and could not “contribute to . . . gross margin improvement.” Individual Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Asset Guardian software did not work and was not achievable without a commitment of resources far in excess of anything Datatec was capable of, and that Datatec had no viable plan for the development, financing and commercialization of the Asset Guardian software.
96. On July 3, 2003, Datatec announced that it had received “aggregate
gross proceeds of $4.9 million from six funds managed by The Palladin Group
L.P., one of the Company’s current lenders, through the issuance of Subordinated
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 52 of 131
53
Secured Convertible Notes.” The Company also issued four-year warrants to
purchase an aggregate of 875,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of
$1.32 per share to the purchasers of the Notes.
97. On July 23, 2003, the Company filed its annual report on Form 10-K
for its fiscal 2003 year ended April 30, 2003 (the “2003 Form 10-K”). The 2003
Form 10-K was signed and certified by defendant Gaon. In addition, defendant
Deloitte issued an unqualified opinion appended to the 2003 Form 10-K, stating
that its audit was conducted in accordance with GAAS and that Datatec’s
financials were presented in accordance with GAAP, which statements were untrue
for the reasons set forth herein. The Management Discussion and Analysis
(“MD&A”) section of the 2003 Form 10-K contained the following statements
regarding the Company’s critical revenue recognition policies:
Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates
Revenue Recognition
. . .
Services from deployment activities are performed primarily under long-term contracts, but may be performed under short-term workorders or time and material arrangements. The Company's typical long-term contract contains multiple elements designed to track the various services required under the arrangement with the customer. These elements are used to identify components of progress billings, but are combined for revenue recognition purposes. The Company recognizes revenue earned under long-term
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 53 of 131
54
contracts utilizing the percentage of completion method of accounting by measuring a contract's percentage of completion as determined by the percentage of total costs incurred to date to total estimated costs. Contracts are reviewed at least quarterly and if necessary, revenue, costs and gross margin are adjusted prospectively for revisions in estimated total contract value and total estimated contract costs. Estimated losses are recognized when identified. Payment milestones differ according to the customer and the type of work performed. Generally, the Company invoices customers and payments are received throughout the deployment process and, in certain cases, in advance of work performed if a substantial amount of up front costs are required. In certain cases payments are received from customers after the completion of site installation. However, revenue and costs are only recognized on long-term contracts to the extent of the contracts’ percentage of completion. Costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings, which is classified as a current asset, is recorded for the amount of revenue earned in excess of billings to customers. Deferred revenue is recorded as a current liability for the amount of billings in excess of revenue earned. The Company records payments received in advance and services to be supplied in the future under contractual agreements as billings in excess of costs and estimated earnings until such related services are supplied. [Emphasis supplied.]
98. The statements in the preceding paragraph were materially false and
misleading when made for the following reasons:
(a) The statement that “revenue and costs are only recognized on long-term contracts to the extent of the contracts’ percentage of completion” was false and misleading because Individual Defendants were causing Datatec to employ unreasonably overstated gross profit margins to significantly understate
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 54 of 131
55
operating costs, and materially and artificially inflate revenues, gross profits, and net income on long-term contracts. Defendants directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, such practices, and knew, or recklessly disregarded that Datatec’s stated accounting recognition policy was continually being violated.
(b) The statement that “Generally, the Company invoices
customers and payments are received throughout the deployment process and, in certain cases, in advance of work performed if a substantial amount of up front costs are required” failed to disclose that Individual Defendants in fact were causing Datatec to place phantom “pre-invoices” on its accounts receivable prior to the deployment process, or the appropriate stage in the deployment process, and well in advance of work being performed regardless of the up front costs required. Defendants directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s pre-invoicing of work prior to deployment, to obtain fraudulent accounts receivable financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills.
99. The MD&A in the 2003 Form 10-K also contained a chart purporting
to summarize Datatec’s defaults in its financial covenants (e.g., “net profit to
revenue” and “annual revenue to working capital” ratios) with IBM Credit during
each fiscal quarter, beginning in the fiscal quarter ended as of January 31, 2001,
which IBM Credit had waived. For instance, the chart listed the following
financial covenants with which Datatec had failed to comply for quarters ending in
2003:
Period Covenant Requirement Actual
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 55 of 131
56
Jan. 31,
2003
Annual revenue to working capital
Greater than 5.0 to 1.0 and equal to or less than 25.0 to 1.0
(126.9) to 1
Jan. 31,
2003
Debt service ratio Equal to or greater than 2.0 to 1.0
0.2 to 1
Apr. 30,
2003
Debt service ratio Equal to or greater than 1.25 to 1.0
(1.73) to 1
Apr. 30,
2003
Net profit to
revenue
Equal to or greater than 0.10 percent
(3.38%)
The introductory material to the chart in the 2003 Form 10-K explained that: “The
Company and IBM Credit entered into an Acknowledgement, Waiver and
Amendment to the Inventory and Working Capital Financing Agreement as of the
end of each quarter since January 31, 2001 by which IBM Credit has waived the
Company’s defaults.”
100. The statements in the introductory material and chart referenced in the
preceding paragraph were materially false and misleading when made for the
following reasons:
(a) The default ratios for items involving revenues (such as “annual revenue to working capital” and “net profit to revenue”) summarized in said chart were more serious than stated, because Individual Defendants had caused Datatec to use
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 56 of 131
57
inflated gross margins to significantly understate operating costs and materially and artificially inflate revenues, gross profits, and net income.
(b) The statement that IBM had waived the Company’s defaults with its financial covenants failed to disclose that Individual Defendants had caused Datatec to engage in a pervasive fraudulent invoicing scheme to obtain the IBM Credit financing.
101. The 2003 Form 10-K also contained the following description of
Datatec’s “deployment services”:
The Company utilizes internally developed Web-enabled implementation tools that differentiate its deployment services. These tools, together with its proprietary processes, allow the Company to rapidly and efficiently deliver high quality and cost effective large-scale technology deployment solutions to its clients, which it does primarily on a fixed time/fixed cost basis. The components of the Company's implementation model are made up of a combination of people, processes and technology that include: • The utilization of eDeploy®, a Web-based software tool
that provides collaboration capabilities for remote planning and design, communication capabilities through fax, voice, data, or digital photographs and monitoring capabilities, ensures that best practices are employed and that mission critical milestones or timelines are escalated to supervisory levels if missed by the responsible parties. These features and others are designed to enhance the speed, accuracy and productivity of the deployment process.
102. The statements in the preceding paragraph were materially false and
misleading when made for the following reasons:
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 57 of 131
58
(a) The statements that that “The Company utilizes internally developed Web-enabled implementation tools that differentiate its deployment services” and that “These tools, together with its proprietary processes, allow the Company to rapidly and efficiently deliver high quality and cost effective large-scale technology deployment solutions to its clients” were false and misleading because, instead of favorably differentiating Datatec’s deployment services, Datatec’s internally developed Web-enabled implementation tools (such as eDeploy, the first tool listed in the 2003 Form 10-K) were rudimentary, hindered Datatec’s services, and were generally not used by Datatec’s personnel, who refused to utilize these tools due to their inefficiency.
(b) The statements regarding eDeploy’s capabilities and the
statement that “These features and others are designed to enhance the speed, accuracy and productivity of the deployment process” were false and misleading because eDeploy was essentially a poorly-designed web-based spread sheet, which Datatec’s own personnel refused to utilize because it was more cumbersome than traditional methods.
103. In a press release dated July 23, 2003, issued in connection with the
filing of the fiscal 2003 Form 10-K, Datatec stated that it had reported $125.1
million in sales for fiscal 2003, a 66% increase compared to fiscal 2002. Reported
operating income for fiscal 2003 was $5.1 million compared to an operating loss of
$245,000 for the prior year. Reported net income was $1.4 million or $0.04 per
share in fiscal 2003 compared to a net loss of $2.7 million or $0.08 per share in
fiscal 2002.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 58 of 131
59
104. In the July 23, 2003 press release, Datatec “reiterated fiscal 2004
revenue guidance of $120 to $125 million and EPS guidance of $0.14 to $0.16,
based upon 41 million shares outstanding.” Gaon again told the public:
Our primary objectives for fiscal 2004 are to improve gross margins by being more selective with respect to the projects we undertake and to increase the focus on our suite of Asset Lifecycle Software products now integrated under the Asset Guardian brand name. In the short time we have been marketing the capabilities of Asset Guardian, which incorporates IW2000, eDeploy and I-Care and their attendant services, we are very encouraged with the response and traction this offering is having with both existing clients and prospects alike. The Asset Guardian web enabled solution has a high gross margin potential and should grow at significantly higher rate than other parts of the business.
105. In the press release Gaon went on to say:
Datatec is continuing to penetrate into new major OEM organizations with the expectation of securing their deployment services and we are also working diligently to increase our exposure to government opportunities through existing relationships. The Company expects to close its first government opportunity with Q2. At this time, we appear to be on track with the fiscal 2004 forecast that was announced on June 26. [Emphasis supplied.]
106. The statements in the preceding three paragraphs were materially false
and misleading when made for the following reasons:
(a) The statements setting forth Datatec’s financial results for fiscal 2003 were materially false and misleading because they (i) failed to disclose that the results were based on the use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 59 of 131
60
operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income, (ii) failed to disclose that revenues, gross profits, and net income were materially and artificially inflated by employing the practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases, and (iii) failed to disclose that Datatec’s finances were so dire that the Company was meeting its semi-monthly payroll and its bills from Datatec’s vendors with fraudulently-obtained accounts receivable financing. Defendants directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income. Defendants also directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases. In addition, Individual Defendants were directly involved with using fraudulent pre-invoices to obtain financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills.
(b) The statements reiterating Datatec’s positive revenue and
earnings guidance for fiscal 2004 and claiming that “At this time, we appear to be on track with the fiscal 2004 forecast that was announced on June 26” lacked any reasonable basis and were materially false and misleading because they (i) failed to disclose that the guidance was based on the use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income, (ii) failed to disclose that revenues, gross profits, and net income were materially and artificially inflated by employing the practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases, and (iii) failed to disclose that Datatec’s finances were so dire that the Company was meeting and could only continue to meet its semi-monthly payroll and its bills from Datatec’s vendors with fraudulently-obtained accounts receivable financing. Defendants directed and knew
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 60 of 131
61
about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income. Defendants also directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases. In addition, Individual Defendants were directly involved with using fraudulent pre-invoices to obtain financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills, and knew, or recklessly disregarded that the revenue and earnings guidance had no basis in reality.
(c) The statements that “In the short time we have been marketing
the capabilities of Asset Guardian, which incorporates IW2000, eDeploy and I-Care and their attendant services, we are very encouraged with the response and traction this offering is having with both existing clients and prospects alike” and that “The Asset Guardian web enabled solution has a high gross margin potential and should grow at significantly higher rate than other parts of the business” had no reasonable basis and were materially false and misleading because the Asset Guardian software was essentially “pie in the sky” and did not have “high gross margin potential.” Individual Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Asset Guardian software did not work and was not achievable without a commitment of resources far in excess of anything Datatec was capable of, and that Datatec had no viable plan for the development, financing and commercialization of the Asset Guardian software.
107. Five days later, on July 28, 2003, Datatec announced that it had “sold
3,696,621 shares of newly issued common stock to institutional and other
accredited investors for gross proceeds of $3.49 million. Investors will also
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 61 of 131
62
receive five-year warrants to purchase 1,848,306 shares of common stock at a
strike price of $1.3637 per share.”
108. On July 29, 2003, Datatec filed an amendment to a Form S-1
Registration Statement (File No. 333-105654) for the sale of 8,226,247 shares of
stock by certain selling shareholders. Four million shares pertained to a private
placement of Datatec common stock in April 2003, through which Datatec had
raised $5 million; two million shares pertained to conversion of warrants sold in
connection with the same private placement; 480,000 shares pertained to
conversion of warrants issued to a financial adviser in connection with the April
2003, private placement, and over 1.5 million shares were in connection with
Datatec’s acquisition of Millennium Care, Inc.
109. On July 31, 2003, Datatec filed a Form S-1 Registration Statement
(File No. 333-107502) for the sale of another 9,546,250 shares of stock held by
certain selling shareholders. The shares were previously issued to the selling
shareholders upon conversion of $4.9 million aggregate principal amount of
subordinate secured convertible notes issued in a private placement in July 2003.
110. On August 13, 2003, Individual Defendants announced that Datatec
was awarded a $5.8 million wireless deployment project. Individual Defendants
told the public that Datatec would receive $5.8 million to deploy “wireless
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 62 of 131
63
technologies at 170 retail locations nationwide” and that “[w]ork is scheduled to
start immediately and will be completed by October 31, 2003, coinciding with the
end of Datatec=s fiscal 2004 second quarter.” However, Individual Defendants did
not reveal the identity of the purported customer who had awarded the alleged
contract.
111. On September 9, 2003, Individual Defendants issued a press release
stating that it had been awarded a contract valued at $11.6 million “to deploy new
LAN-based security technologies at more than 500 retail locations across North
America.” According to the press release, the project would “start up immediately
and is scheduled for completion by January 31, 2004, coinciding with the end of
Datatec=s fiscal 2004 third quarter.” The press release also claimed that the
Company’s “Millennium Care division will play a pivotal role during both the
planning and implementation phases . . . .” Individual Defendants again did not
name the customer who purportedly contracted for these services.
112. On September 12, 2003, the Company filed a Registration Statement
on Form S-1 (File No. 333-108737) for the sale of another 8,071,611 shares of
stock by certain selling shareholders in the secondary market, including 5.5 million
shares issued in a July 28, 2003 private placement through which Datatec received
$3.49 million in proceeds. Thus, by September 12, 2003, the Company had
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 63 of 131
64
registered a total of in excess of 15 million shares for sale in the secondary market,
or nearly half of the Company=s issued shares. These secondary stock offerings
were being made on behalf of several companies that had provided financing for
the Company in exchange for common stock, such as The Palladin Group, and
others.
113. On September 15, 2003, Individual Defendants issued a press release
reporting Datatec’s results for the first quarter of fiscal 2004 ended July 31, 2003,
and reiterated “fiscal 2004 revenue guidance of $120 to $125 million and EPS
guidance of $0.12 cents based upon 50 million shares outstanding.”
114. Individual Defendants reported in this press release that Datatec’s
operating profits for the first fiscal quarter of 2004 were $613,000 compared to a
loss of $89,000 in the prior quarter. The net loss for the quarter was $175,000 or
$0.00 per share, compared to a net loss of $1,133,000 or $0.03 per share in the
prior quarter.
115. Defendant Gaon also stated in the September 15, 2003 press release
that: “Despite having achieved a break-even quarter compared to a loss in Q4 in
what is a continuing difficult economic environment,” he was still “reiterating the
same guidance of 12 cents per share that we gave three months ago.”
116. The September 15, 2003 press release expounded on fiscal 2004:
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 64 of 131
65
Mr. Gaon continued, >Some 12 months ago we stated that our primary objectives were to return to profitability and to strengthen the balance sheet following the debilitating effect of the technology slow down. We fully expect to sustain the profitability that we attained in fiscal 2003, and today, our balance sheet is stronger than ever. We are committed to improving the balance sheet even further without recourse to the capital markets through a combination of operational and marketing initiatives that should start positively impacting operations from Q3 onwards. These include anticipated Government revenues to provide greater critical mass and economies of scale, the full launch of Asset Guardian software and its attendant services that we expect will generate $7m in revenues this year climbing to $15m-$18m next year at a combined gross margin of around 50%, and finally, the automation and centralization of certain internal processes and functions to reduce costs.= [Emphasis supplied.]
117. The statements in the preceding four paragraphs were materially false
and misleading when made for the following reasons:
(a) The statements setting forth Datatec’s financial results for first quarter of fiscal 2004 and claiming that “today, our balance sheet is stronger than ever” were materially false and misleading because they (i) failed to disclose that the results were based on the use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income, (ii) failed to disclose that revenues, gross profits, and net income were materially and artificially inflated by employing the practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases, and (iii) failed to disclose that Datatec’s finances were so dire that the Company was meeting its semi-monthly payroll and its bills from Datatec’s vendors with fraudulently-obtained accounts receivable financing. Defendants directed and knew about, or
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 65 of 131
66
recklessly disregarded, the Company’s use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income. Defendants also directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases. In addition, Individual Defendants were directly involved with using fraudulent pre-invoices to obtain financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills.
(b) The statements again reiterating Datatec’s positive revenue and
earnings guidance for fiscal 2004, and Gaon’s insistence that he was reiterating “the same guidance of 12 cents per share that we gave three months ago” lacked any reasonable basis and were materially false and misleading because they (i) failed to disclose that the guidance was based on the use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income, (ii) failed to disclose that revenues, gross profits, and net income were materially and artificially inflated by employing the practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases, and (iii) failed to disclose that Datatec’s finances were so dire that the Company was meeting and could only continue to meet its semi-monthly payroll and its bills from Datatec’s vendors with fraudulently-obtained accounts receivable financing. Defendants directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income. Defendants also directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases. In addition, Individual Defendants were directly involved with using fraudulent pre-invoices to obtain financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills, and knew, or recklessly
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 66 of 131
67
disregarded that the revenue and earnings guidance had no basis in reality.
(c) The statements that “operational and marketing initiatives . . .
should start positively impacting operations from Q3 onwards” and that these initiatives included “the full launch of Asset Guardian software and its attendant services that we expect will generate $7m in revenues this year climbing to $15m-$18m next year at a combined gross margin of around 50%” had no reasonable basis and were materially false and misleading because the Asset Guardian software was essentially “pie in the sky” and would not have a “full launch” anytime in the foreseeable future. Nor could Asset Guardian generate the revenues which Individual Defendants claim they “expected,” nor could it achieve a “combined gross margin of 50%.” Individual Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Asset Guardian software did not work and was not achievable without a commitment of resources far in excess of anything Datatec was capable of, and that Datatec had no viable plan for the development, financing and commercialization of the Asset Guardian software.
118. On September 15, 2003, Individual Defendants filed Datatec’s Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2003. The Form 10-Q was signed by
defendant Gaon.
119. The Form 10-Q described Datatec’s purported revenue recognition
policies as follows (similarly to the description of these policies in the 2003
Company’s 10-K):
Critical Accounting Policies:
Revenue Recognition
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 67 of 131
68
The Company generates revenue from: (1) providing technology deployment services, including configuring Internetworking and computing devices to meet the specific needs of its customers, integrating these devices as well as operational and application software with a customer's existing hardware and software, and physically installing the technology on the customer's network and (2) from licensing its software to third parties.
Services from deployment activities are performed primarily under long-term contracts, but may be performed under short-term workorders or time and material arrangements. The Company's typical long-term contract contains multiple elements designed to track the various services required under the arrangement with the customer. These elements are used to identify components of progress billings, but are combined for revenue recognition purposes. The Company recognizes revenue earned under long-term contracts utilizing the percentage of completion method of accounting by measuring total costs incurred to total estimated costs. Under the percentage of completion method of accounting, revenue, costs and gross margin are recognized as work is performed based on the relationship between total costs incurred and total estimated costs.
Contracts are reviewed at least quarterly and, if necessary, revenue, costs and gross margin are adjusted prospectively for revisions in estimated total contract value and total estimated contract costs. Estimated losses are recognized when identified.
Payment milestones differ according to the customer and the type of work performed. Generally, the Company invoices customers and payments are received throughout the deployment process and, in certain cases, in advance of work performed if a substantial amount of up front costs is required. In certain cases payments are received from customers after the completion of site installation. However, revenue and costs
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 68 of 131
69
are only recognized on long-term contracts to the extent of the contracts' percentage of completion. Costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings, which is classified as a current asset, is recorded for the amount of revenue earned in excess of billings to customers. Accrued costs or deferred revenue is recorded as a current liability for the amount of billings in excess of revenue earned.
Revenue earned under short-term workorders and time and material arrangements is recognized as the work is completed. Billings under these arrangements are typically done when the work is completed. [Emphasis supplied.]
120. The statements concerning revenue recognition in the Form 10-Q set
forth in the preceding paragraph were false and misleading for the reasons set forth
in ¶ 98.
121. The same Form 10-Q also set forth the partial information regarding
Datatec’s liquidity difficulties:
Liquidity
The net loss of $19.4 million for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2001 and the net loss of $2.7 million for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2002 resulted in a strain on the Company's cash resources. Although the Company realized net income of $1.4 million for fiscal year ended April 30, 2003 and took dramatic measures to cut costs and to manage cash, it is still experiencing a significant strain on cash resources. The primary reason for the strain on resources is the increased requirements for expenditures for field personnel, job expenses and materials related to the increased revenue. As a result, the working capital financing line regularly remains at or close to its maximum allowable levels and the average days outstanding on trade
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 69 of 131
70
payables have extended beyond normal credit terms granted by vendors. Achievement of the Company's fiscal 2004 operating plan, including maintaining adequate capital resources, depends upon the timing of work performed by us on existing projects, our ability to gain and perform work on new projects, our ability to maintain positive relations with our key vendors and our ability to raise permanent capital and replace our current working capital financing line within the timeframe required to meet our spending requirements. Multiple project cancellations, job performance related losses, delays in the timing of work performed by us on existing projects, our inability to gain and perform work on new projects, or our inability to raise permanent capital and replace our current working capital financing line in a timely fashion could have an adverse impact on our liquidity and on our ability to execute our operating plan.
The Company has taken a variety of actions to ensure our continuation as a going concern. A summary of recent events and our completed or planned actions are as follows:
• The Company initiated and completed substantial cost saving measures during the fiscal years ended April 30, 2001 and 2002 and now believes it has a cost structure in line with our expected revenue.
• As a result of the increase in demand for our services and the cost reduction measures initiated over the past two years, we achieved profitability during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2002 and during fiscal 2003. We expect to be profitable throughout fiscal 2004.
• In April 2003, the Company raised aggregate gross proceeds of $5.0 million in a private placement of our common stock and warrants. The proceeds were raised for working capital purposes.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 70 of 131
71
• In June 2003, we extended our credit facility with IBM Credit to August 2004 from August 2003 and lowered the interest charges on the debt from prime rate plus 4.25% to prime rate plus 1.75%.
• On July 3, 2003, the Company raised an additional $4.9 million by issuing subordinated secured convertible notes and warrants to one of its existing lender groups. The proceeds are being used to pay down the IBM credit facility and for working capital purposes.
• On July 28, 2003, the company raised an additional $3.49 million aggregate gross proceeds in a private placement of our common stock and warrants. The proceeds were raised for working capital purposes.
• On August 29, 2003, the Company entered into an agreement with Christopher J. Carey, by which it agreed to pay down amounts owed to Mr. Carey in equal monthly amounts of $316,666.67, plus interest, beginning September 2003 and ending February 2004. At its option, the Company may pay such monthly amounts in cash or in shares of the Company's common stock determined using a five day average prior to the monthly payment date. The agreement with Mr. Carey also requires the Company to register the shares of common stock issuable to Mr. Carey.
• Management continues to seek to replace our working capital financing line and raise additional permanent capital to support our growth in business. However, management believes that if it is unable to replace our working capital financing line and raise additional capital, it may not be able to continue as a going concern.
IBM Credit, the Company's working capital lender, has notified the Company that it does not intend to renew its working capital line beyond August 2004 (see Note 6 of the Notes to the
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 71 of 131
72
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements). As a result, the company is seeking replacement financing for its credit facility. [Emphasis supplied.]
122. The statements in the Form 10-Q set forth in the preceding paragraph
were false and misleading when made for the following reasons:
(a) The statements that “As a result of the increase in demand for our services and the cost reduction measures initiated over the past two years, we achieved profitability during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2002 and during fiscal 2003” were materially false and misleading because they (i) failed to disclose that the 2003 results were based on the use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income, (ii) failed to disclose that revenues, gross profits, and net income were materially and artificially inflated by employing the practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits and net income on such purchases, and (iii) failed to disclose that Datatec’s finances were so dire that the Company was meeting its semi-monthly payroll and its bills from Datatec’s vendors with fraudulently-obtained accounts receivable financing. Defendants directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income. Defendants also directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases. In addition, Individual Defendants were directly involved with using fraudulent pre-invoices to obtain financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills.
(b) The statements that “We expect to be profitable throughout fiscal
2004” lacked any reasonable basis and were materially false and misleading because they (i) failed to disclose that the guidance was based on the use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 72 of 131
73
revenues, gross profits, and net income, (ii) failed to disclose that revenues, gross profits, and net income were materially and artificially inflated by employing the practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits and net income on such purchases, and (iii) failed to disclose that Datatec’s finances were so dire that the Company was meeting and could only continue to meet its semi-monthly payroll and its bills from Datatec’s vendors with fraudulently-obtained accounts receivable financing. Defendants directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income. Defendants also directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases. In addition, Individual Defendants were directly involved with using fraudulent pre-invoices to obtain financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills, and knew, or recklessly disregarded that the revenue and earnings guidance had no basis in reality.
(c) The statements regarding Datatec’s liquidity were false and
misleading because they did not reveal that Datatec was resorting to fraudulent invoicing to obtain financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills, and that the Company’s liquidity problems were thus actually worse than portrayed in the Form 10-Q.
123. The same Form 10-Q also contained a chart purporting to summarize
Datatec’s defaults of its financial covenants (e.g., “net profit to revenue” and
“annual revenue to working capital” ratios) under the IBM Credit facility, for each
fiscal quarter, beginning in the fiscal quarter ended as of January 31, 2001, which
IBM Credit had waived. For instance, the chart listed the same financial covenants
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 73 of 131
74
with which Datatec had failed to comply for quarters ending in 2003 which are
listed in ¶ 61 of this Complaint, plus the following additional item:
Period Covenant Requirement Actual
July 31,
2003
Net profit to revenue
Equal to or greater than 0.10%
(0.05%)
The introductory material to the chart in the Form 10-Q explained that: “The
Company and IBM Credit entered into an Acknowledgement, Waiver and
Amendment to the Inventory and Working Capital Financing Agreement as of the
end of each quarter since January 31, 2001 by which IBM Credit has waived the
Company’s defaults.” Following the chart, the Form 10-Q advised that: “IBM
Credit, the Company’s working capital lender, has notified the Company that it
does not intend to renew its working capital line beyond August 2004. As a result,
the Company is seeking replacement financing for its credit facility.”
124. The statements in the introductory material and chart and following
the chart, referenced in the preceding paragraph were materially false and
misleading when made for the following reasons:
(a) The default ratios for items involving revenues (such as “annual revenue to working capital” and “net profit to revenue”)
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 74 of 131
75
summarized in said chart were more serious than stated, because Defendants had caused Datatec to use inflated gross margins to significantly understate operating costs and materially and artificially inflate revenues, gross profits, and net income.
(b) The statement that IBM had waived the Company’s defaults
with its financial covenants and would not renew beyond August 2004 failed to disclose that Individual Defendants had caused Datatec to engage in a pervasive fraudulent invoicing scheme to obtain the IBM Credit financing.
125. On September 26, 2003, Individual Defendants issued the following
press release, touting its Asset Guardian product and a business partnership
purportedly entered into for the purpose of enhancing Datatec’s Asset Guardian
Service, as follows:
[Datatec] entered into a partnership with Network Physics to accelerate and simplify enterprise deployments of advanced network services such as IP Telephony, Wireless and Virtual Private Networking (VPN).
Datatec will utilize the Network Physics’ NP/BizFlow product as a cornerstone for its “Day 2” Asset Guardian® service, and Network Physics has selected Datatec’s Millennium Care division as its service desk partner for frontline help desk operations, providing tier one support for Network Physics customers.
Datatec’s Asset Guardian service focuses on the monitoring, maintenance, and administration of critical network services. Network Physics will provide three vital capabilities to Datatec’s Asset Guardian service: -- end-to-end service visibility from an end-user perspective
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 75 of 131
76
-- business impact alerting that identifies which business users and what applications are affected by network performance issues
-- rapid problem resolution for hard failures and hard-to-find performance degradations.
“Understanding the ongoing performance of your key assets is an integral part of the operations and maintenance of today’s IT environments,” said Michael Lazar, Datatec Vice President of Technology and Development. “By adding Network Physics as an offering to our Asset Guardian service, we can measure in real-time the key performance indicators (KPI’s) of an enterprise’s most strategic assets, including business critical applications and vital network connections across WAN, LAN, VPN, wireless, and Internet telephony deployments. The Network Physics product provides the right mix of end-to-end business application performance and deep network visibility to capture the end user experience and truly manage inside the network cloud.”
“The synergy between Datatec and Network Physics drove us to select Datatec as our frontline Help Desk delivery partner,” said David Jones, President and CEO of Network Physics. “Both Datatec’s and Network Physics’ customer bases are facing enormous challenges in the deployment (Day 1) and management (Day 2) of critical new network initiatives. Asset Guardian’s seamless approach to the full service chain made Datatec a natural choice as our Level One service desk partner for 24 x 7 customer support.”
126. The statements in the preceding paragraph were materially false and
misleading when made for the following reasons:
(a) The statement that “Datatec’s Asset Guardian service focuses on the monitoring, maintenance, and administration of critical
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 76 of 131
77
network services” was materially false and misleading because the Asset Guardian software was essentially “pie in the sky” and therefore could not “focus on” or otherwise assist with “monitoring maintenance and administration of critical network services.” Individual Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Asset Guardian software did not work and was not achievable without a commitment of resources far in excess of anything Datatec was capable of, and that Datatec had no viable plan for the development, financing and commercialization of the Asset Guardian software.
(b) Similarly, the statement that “By adding Network Physics as an
offering to our Asset Guardian service . . .” falsely and misleadingly implied that Asset Guardian was a functional service to which additional capabilities were being “added.” Individual Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Asset Guardian software did not work and was not achievable without a commitment of resources far in excess of anything Datatec was capable of, and that Datatec had no viable plan for the development, financing and commercialization of the Asset Guardian software.
127. On October 21, 2003, Datatec held its Annual Shareholders= Meeting
for the year ended April 30, 2003. In pertinent part, Defendant Gaon made the
following disclosures with respect to Datatec=s prospects for fiscal 2004:
Finally, on the issue of growth, we believe Asset Guardian will start to make a contribution to top and bottom lines by the fourth quarter of this year. We expect to have a prototype of the product by the middle of November when beta testing will commence. The general launch to the market will take place mid January to early February 2004. This software product has truly unique capabilities that will allow companies to capture, manage, monitor, analyze and account for all their assets from cradle to grave. This development is a mammoth undertaking for a company of our
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 77 of 131
78
size and limited resources, but our development team is rising to the occasion and I have every faith that they will meet or exceed all our expectations. . . . We will be providing the product primarily through an ASP hosting offering thereby making it affordable and easy to license for CAPEX restricted organizations and it will also provide Datatec with an increasing recurring and very high margin revenue stream. The product is also positioned to be deep rather than wide in applications, therefore providing greater practical assistance to management thereby allowing for a quick payback and significant R.O.I. . .
Institutional investors would understand where we are in our lifecycle and I think would be excited about our prospects especially now with our imminent launch of Asset Guardian. However, following the meltdown of the market in 2000/2001 and the subsequent dislocation of our business, we have not reached out to attract institutional support as we had much to do internally to get our business back on a sound footing. With operating performance and our balance sheet now both on firmer ground and economic prospects looking somewhat brighter although still very fragile, I believe the time is right to proceed with a program to increase the share of institutional holdings in our stock, which is currently very small. To help us with this effort and the launch of Asset Guardian, we will be engaging both an IR and PR firm.
In summation, I believe we are taking all the right steps to position this company to take full advantage of the technology recovery which many have anticipated is finally upon us and appears to have some greater momentum to it this time round.
128. The statements in the preceding paragraph were materially false and
misleading when made for the following reasons:
(a) The statement that Asset Guardian “has truly unique capabilities that will allow companies to capture, manage,
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 78 of 131
79
monitor, analyze and account for all their assets from cradle to grave” was materially false and misleading because the Asset Guardian software was essentially “pie in the sky” and did not have any of the “unique capabilities” which Individual Defendants claimed it had. Individual Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Asset Guardian software did not work and was not achievable without a commitment of resources far in excess of anything Datatec was capable of, and that Datatec had no viable plan for the development, financing and commercialization of the Asset Guardian software.
(b) Similarly, the statements that “We expect to have a prototype of
the product by the middle of November when beta testing will commence” and “The general launch to the market will take place mid January to early February 2004” and the statement referring to the “imminent launch of Asset Guardian” falsely and misleadingly implied that Asset Guardian was close to a launch as a functional service. Individual Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Asset Guardian software did not work and was not achievable without a commitment of resources far in excess of anything Datatec was capable of, and that Datatec had no viable plan for the development, financing and commercialization of the Asset Guardian software.
(c) In addition, the statements that “We believe Asset Guardian
will start to make a contribution to top and bottom lines by the fourth quarter of this year” had no basis in reality, and falsely and misleadingly implied that Asset Guardian was close to a launch as a functional service. Individual Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Asset Guardian software could not and would not contribute to Datatec’s revenues, did not work and was not achievable without a commitment of resources far in excess of anything Datatec was capable of, and that Datatec had no viable plan for the development, financing and commercialization of the Asset Guardian software.
(d) The statement that “operating performance and our balance sheet [are]
now both on firmer ground was false and misleading because they (i)
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 79 of 131
80
failed to disclose that Datatec’s financials were based on the use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income, (ii) failed to disclose that revenues, gross profits, and net income were materially and artificially inflated by employing the practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases, (iii) failed to disclose that Datatec’s finances were so dire that the Company was meeting its semi-monthly payroll and its bills from Datatec’s vendors with fraudulently-obtained accounts receivable financing, and (iv) failed to disclose that Datatec’s finances were continuing to worsen and were clearly not on “firmer ground.” Defendants directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s use of inflated gross margins which significantly understated operating costs, and materially and artificially inflated revenues, gross profits, and net income. Defendants also directed and knew about, or recklessly disregarded, the Company’s practice of purchasing excess raw materials and improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, gross profits, and net income on such purchases. In addition, Individual Defendants were directly involved with using fraudulent pre-invoices to obtain financing in order to meet payroll and vendor bills to an ever-increasing extent.
129. On December 5, 2003, Datatec filed a Form S-3 Registration
Statement (File No. 333-110935) to reregister the shares that had previously been
registered as alleged above, namely: 8,226,247 shares declared effective July 31,
2003 (File No. 333-107502); 9,546,250 shares declared effective 10/30/03 (File
No. 333-107502); 8,071,611 shares declared effective 11/26/03 (File No.
333-108737).
130. On December 5, 2003, in a partial revelation of the truth, Datatec
unexpectedly announced that Gaon had stepped down as Chairman and CEO, and
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 80 of 131
81
that Mark Berenblut had resigned as a board member. According to Datatec, Gaon
would be replaced by Raul Pupo as Chief Executive Officer. The Company said it
was Afinalizing the terms of [Pupo=s] employment,” and thus implying that the
executive search to replace Gaon had begun substantially earlier. Datatec also
retracted its previously-announced earnings estimates for fiscal year 2004 and
instead stated that it expected a net loss for the second quarter of fiscal 2004 and an
overall loss for all of fiscal 2004. Datatec=s stock price dropped 34%, from $1.16
on December 4, 2003 to close at $0.77 on December 5, 2003.
131. The Class Period ended on December 16, 2003. Before the opening
of trading on December 17, 2003, Datatec announced the extent of its earnings
retraction:
Datatec Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: DATC), a leading provider of technology deployment software, services and post-implementation customer care solutions, today announced that it expects the loss for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2003 to be approximately $10 million. The Company also intends to take a restructuring charge of approximately $4.5 million in the following fiscal quarter in connection with its decision to eliminate the commercialization of certain software applications and to refocus the business on its core strengths of configuration and deployment. The Company also announced that it will delay the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2003 and has decided, through its Audit Committee, to hire
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 81 of 131
82
outside counsel to conduct an independent review of the valuation of long-term contracts. (Emphasis added).
132. Datatec =s stock price dropped another 15% on the news from $0.68 in
the prior day=s trading to close at $0.58 on December 17, 2003 on extremely heavy
volume of 2,348,000 shares compared to the average daily volume of Datatec stock
for the prior 3 months which was approximately 908,863 shares.
Relevant Post-Class Period Events
133. Throughout the class period, Datatec was not in compliance with
certain required covenants under its credit facility with IBM Credit. On December
18, 2003, Datatec filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing, among other things,
that on December 12, 2003, IBM Credit informed Datatec that IBM Credit would
not provide the Company with a written waiver of Datatec=s default under its credit
facility with IBM Credit, for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2003. The 8-K
stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
Default Upon Senior Securities The Company maintains a credit facility with IBM Credit in the amount of approximately $25 million. For the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2003, the Company was not in compliance with certain required financial covenants, and as a result, the Company is in default of the credit facility with IBM Credit. Since the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2001, through and including the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2003, the Company
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 82 of 131
83
has had similar financial covenant defaults. For each of these fiscal quarters, IBM Credit had provided to the Company a written default waiver. On December 12, 2003, IBM Credit informed the Company that it would not provide the Company with a written waiver for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2003. The Company also has outstanding $4.9 million Subordinated Secured Convertible Notes which were issued to funds managed by the Palladin Group L.P. Pursuant to certain cross-default provisions of these notes, the Company has defaulted on these notes, as a result of its default of the IBM Credit facility and failure to obtain a waiver from IBM Credit on such default.
134. On December 17, 2003, the new CEO Pupo held a conference call
with analysts. An individual investor on the call was furious with Datatec for
giving positive earnings guidance to the public, only to announce a $10 million
loss for the quarter. The investor wanted to know, in substance, how defendant
Gaon could have given such guidance repeatedly to the public during the Class
Period when the Company=s earnings were obviously headed toward the substantial
losses the Company ultimately announced. Pupo was courteous to the investor, but
was careful not to answer any of the questions about Gaon=s conduct.
135. On December 23, 2003, Datatec announced that the Nasdaq Listings
Qualification Department had notified the Company that it violated Marketplace
Rule 4310(c)(14) by failing to file its Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31,
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 83 of 131
84
2003, and that consequently, the Company=s securities would be delisted from the
Nasdaq Stock Market at the opening of business on December 31, 2003.
136. On January 21, 2004, the Company announced the appointment of
two new independent directors to the Datatec board, John W. Adams and Per-Olof
Loof, to serve on the Audit Committee.
137. On October 20, 2004, Traxi LLC (“Traxi”) was retained by Datatec to
examine and understand the Company’s business, and prepare financial
information about Datatec for prospective buyers. On November 17, 2004, Traxi
presented a confidential presentation to IBM Credit and the Palladin Group, L.P.,
which contained an “Adjusted Statement of Operations” covering Datatec’s
operations from 2001 through 2004, based on information in the Eisner Report. In
the “Adjusted Statement of Operations,” Datatec’s revenue for 2004 was reduced
by approximately $10 million to write off unbilled revenue at April 30, 2004, and
Datatec’s revenue for 2003 was reduced by approximately $15 million (to $109.8
million) “to reflect adjustments recorded in FY2004 which are believed to relate to
FY2003.” Traxi’s “Adjusted Statement of Operations” thus confirms that
Datatec’s revenues were materially over-stated during the Class Period.
138. On December 14, 2004, Datatec filed voluntary petitions for
bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, in the District of Delaware.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 84 of 131
85
ADDITIONAL SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS
139. As alleged herein, Individual Defendants acted with scienter in that
Defendants directed and participated in the fraudulent schemes described herein.
As detailed herein, Defendants had actual knowledge, or at a minimum recklessly
disregarded the fact that Datatec and Individual Defendants engaged in the phony
invoicing and phantom products and contract income and revenue recognition
overstatement schemes detailed herein. Among other things, Koch continually
utilized unrealistic over-estimates of gross profit margins to inflate net income and
revenues while knowing the true state of Datatec’s contract costs and percentage of
completion from, inter alia, the project managers who reported to Koch, and Ms.
Kittel’s reports to Koch.
140. Gaon was well aware of Datatec’s precarious finances, as evidenced
by his telephone conversations with IBM Credit in which he asserted that Datatec’s
employees could not show up for work without additional funds. Gaon himself
frequently called Company managers and ordered them to post phantom invoices
to the Company’s accounts receivable. Gaon was often overheard to say, “We
need to pre-bill $100,000 of the project today.” Gaon also attended the vendor
meetings which concerned getting funds to Datatec’s vendors, who were
threatening to cut off sending needed supplies to Datatec – and Gaon “resolved”
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 85 of 131
86
these difficulties by ordering more pre-invoicing. Gaon was also informed of the
Company’s inability to meet payroll, and also “resolved” these problems by
ordering more pre-invoicing. Gaon was also advised by employees that the Asset
Guardian software was not feasible with Datatec’s limited resources. Despite this
knowledge, Individual Defendants touted the product, knowing full well that
Datatec could not make the product functional or commercially feasible.
141. In addition, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the public
documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company
were materially false and misleading; knew that such statements or documents
would be issued or acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements
or documents as primary violations of the federal securities laws. Defendants, by
virtue of their receipt of information reflecting the true facts regarding Datatec,
their control over, and/or receipt and/or receipt of information of Datatec=s
allegedly materially misleading misstatements and/or their associations with the
Company which made them privy to confidential proprietary information
concerning Datatec, participated in the fraudulent scheme alleged herein.
142. In addition, Individual Defendants were motivated to commit the
fraud alleged herein -- and in particular, Individual Defendants’ use of the phony
invoicing scheme detailed herein -- to obtain desperately needed funds and
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 86 of 131
87
maintain the Company=s financing from IBM Credit. The Company has had a
history of limited working capital. As a result, it was critical to the survival of
Datatec that the Company have sufficient accounts receivable in order to induce
IBM Credit to extend financing, as well as to induce investors to purchase Datatec
securities which were being offered during the Class Period. As of June 2003,
Datatec had borrowed the maximum available under its credit facility with IBM
Capital. According to Datatec, on April 14, 2003, IBM Credit agreed to amend the
credit facility to: A(i) extend the expiration date of the facility to August 2004 from
August 2003; (ii) provide a maximum availability of (a) $29 million until May 31,
2003; (b) $25 million until December 31, 2003; (c) $20 million until March 31,
2004; and (d) $15 million until August 1, 2004; (iii) lower the charges to prime
plus 1.75% from prime plus 4.25% and (iv) alter certain financial covenants.”
(Form S-1A, filed 10/2/03). IBM Credit subsequently informed Datatec, at least as
early as April 30, 2003, that it was Anot prepared to extend [Datatec=s] credit
facility beyond August 2004.” (SEC Form S-1A, filed 10/2/03). Individual
Defendants were motivated to engage in the fraudulent scheme alleged herein in
order to conceal Datatec’s viability in repaying its credit facility with IBM Credit.
143. In addition, Individual Defendants were motivated to engage in the
fraudulent scheme alleged herein in order to enable the Company to raise much-
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 87 of 131
88
needed capital through the issuance of Subordinated Secured Convertible Notes
and through newly issued common stock to institutional and other accredited
investors, as detailed herein. In total, the Company was able to raise more than
$13.39 million in proceeds. See Complaint ¶¶ 106, 107 and 110.
144. In addition, Individual Defendants were motivated to engage in the
fraudulent scheme alleged herein to enable Datatec to pay vendors who were
threatening to stop providing supplies, which would have closed down the
Company, as detailed above.
145. Also, Individual Defendants were motivated to continue the
substantial compensation, bonuses and perquisites they were receiving or due to
receive from Datatec, inasmuch as publicly admitting that the Company was
effectively insolvent and reliant on fraudulently-obtained financing would end all
of these substantial benefits. Defendant Gaon’s employment agreement (which
commenced on May 1, 2003 and was originally scheduled to end on April 30,
2006) provided him with a $400,000 base salary plus consumer price index
adjustments; a cash incentive bonus based on Datatec’s net consolidated after-tax
profits; a cash incentive bonus based on cumulative stockholder return; a
discretionary cash incentive bonus; stock options; and medical, life, health, dental
and disability insurance, among other perquisites.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 88 of 131
89
VIOLATIONS OF GAAP AND SEC REPORTING RULES
146. During the Class Period, Defendants materially misled the investing
public, thereby inflating the price of the Company’s common stock, by publicly
issuing false and misleading statements and omitting to disclose material facts
necessary to make Defendants’ statements, as set forth herein, not false and
misleading. These statements and omissions were materially false and misleading
in that they failed to disclose material adverse information and misrepresented the
truth about the Company and the accounting, reporting, and financial condition of
the Company in violation of the federal securities laws and GAAP.
147. The GAAP provisions violated by Defendants, and discussed in detail
below, were not new or untested provisions of GAAP and did not involve complex
accounting issues. Additionally, Defendants committed these GAAP violations
repeatedly, both before and during the Class Period.
148. The true nature of Datatec and Individual Defendants’ improper
accounting for contracts and revenue recognition practices were not revealed
during the Class Period. According to information related by Plaintiffs’
confidential sources set forth in this Complaint, Datatec’s improperly recognized
revenues consisted of estimated revenues on estimated, not-yet-performed future
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 89 of 131
90
work, which were recognized contrary to Datatec and Individual Defendants’
stated revenue recognition policies as well as GAAP.
149. The SEC requires that publicly traded companies present their
financial statements in accordance with GAAP. 17 C.F.R. § 210.4-01(a)(1).
GAAP consists of those principles recognized by the accounting profession as the
conventions, rules, and procedures necessary to define accepted accounting
practices at the particular time. Regulation S-X, to which the Company is subject
as a registrant under the Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R § 210.4-01(a)(1), 65 provides that
financial statements filed with the SEC that are not prepared in compliance with
GAAP are presumed to be misleading and inaccurate. Accounting Series Release
(“ASR”) 4, codified at SRA 34.
150. As set forth in Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”)
Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts (“SFAC”) No. 1, one of the
fundamental objectives of financial reporting is to provide accurate and reliable
information concerning an entity’s financial performance during the period being
presented. SFAC No. 1, ¶42 states:
Financial reporting should provide information about an enterprise’s financial performance during a period. Investors and creditors often use information about the past to help in assessing the prospects of an enterprise. Thus, although investment and credit decisions reflect investors’ and creditors’ expectations about future enterprise
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 90 of 131
91
performance, those expectations are commonly based at least partly on evaluations of enterprise performance.
151. Additionally, Section 13 of the Exchange Act requires, in part, that
companies like Datatec:
devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that - -
* * *
transactions are recorded as necessary (i) to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, and (ii) to maintain accountability for assets;
15 U.S.C. § 78m(b).
152. Defendants’ representations that Datatec’s financial statements were
presented in accordance with GAAP and other SEC reporting requirements were
materially false and misleading because, as alleged in this Complaint, Defendants:
(1) engaged in the fraudulent revenue recognition practices detailed in this
Complaint, which materially overstated the Company’s reported revenues, gross
profits, net income, and other financial results; and (2) failed to disclose material
trends in sales and invoicing practices that would have a significant, adverse effect
on future results. Each of these misrepresentations, material omissions and
fraudulent revenue recognition practices, standing alone, was a material breach of
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 91 of 131
92
GAAP or applicable SEC regulations, as well as the Company’s own accounting
policies.
Improper Accounting For Contracts
153. AICPA Statement of Position (“SOP”) 81-1, entitled “Accounting for
Performance of Construction-Type and Certain Production-Type Contracts,”
provides the GAAP requirements relating to accounting for long-term contracts.
SOP 81-1.22 provides for use of the percentage-of-completion method and
describes its advantages:
The percentage-of-completion method recognizes the legal and economic results of contract performance on a timely basis. Financial statements based on the percentage-of-completion method present the economic substance of a company's transactions and events more clearly and more timely than financial statements based on the completed-contract method, and they present more accurately the relationships between gross profit from contracts and related period costs. The percentage-of-completion method informs the users of the general purpose financial statements of the volume of economic activity of a company.
SOP 81-1.22.
154. Furthermore, Accounting Research Bulletin ("ARB") No. 45: Long-
Term Construction-Type Contracts, indicates that the principal advantage of the
percentage-of-completion method is the periodic recognition of income currently.
ARB No. 45 states in relevant part, as follows:
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 92 of 131
93
The percentage-of-completion method recognizes income as work on a contract progresses. The committee recommends that the recognized income be that percentage of estimated total income, either: (a) that incurred costs to date bear to estimated total costs after giving effect to estimates of costs to complete based upon most recent information, or (b) that may be indicated by such other measure of progress toward completion as may be appropriate having due regard to work performed.
155. The requirement that estimates used for the percentage-of-completion
method be dependable is emphasized in SOP 81-1.23 and 81-1.24:
Circumstances Appropriate to the Method
.23 The use of the percentage-of-completion method depends on the ability to make reasonably dependable estimates. For the purposes of this statement, ‘the ability to make reasonably dependable estimates’ relates to estimates of the extent of progress toward completion, contract revenues, and contract costs. The division believes that the percentage-of-completion method is preferable as an accounting policy in circumstances in which reasonably dependable estimates can be made and in which all the following conditions exist: • Contracts executed by the parties normally include provisions that clearly specify the enforceable rights regarding goods or services to be provided and received by the parties, the consideration to be exchanged, and the manner and terms of settlement. • The buyer can be expected to satisfy his obligations under the contract. • The contractor can be expected to perform his contractual obligations. .24 For entities engaged on a continuing basis in the production and delivery of goods or services under contractual arrangements and for whom contracting represents a significant part of their operations, the
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 93 of 131
94
presumption is that they have the ability to make estimates that are sufficiently dependable to justify the use of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. Persuasive evidence to the contrary is necessary to overcome that presumption. The ability to produce reasonably dependable estimates is an essential element of the contracting business. For a contract on which a loss is anticipated, generally accepted accounting principles require recognition of the entire anticipated loss as soon as the loss becomes evident. An entity without the ability to update and revise estimates continually with a degree of confidence could not meet that essential requirement of generally accepted accounting principles. (Emphasis added)
156. Defendants violated GAAP because Datatec’s financials did not
recognize anticipated losses, or use estimates based on reality and historical
experience (as opposed to the need to report profits), as required by SOP 81-1.
Instead, Defendants applied inflated estimates to distort reported net income and
revenues.
Improper Revenue Recognition
157. Under GAAP, revenue should not be recognized until it is both earned
and
collectible. SFAC No. 5, ¶¶ 83-84. These paragraphs indicate the following:
83. Further guidance for recognition of revenues and gains is intended to provide an acceptable level of assurance of the existence and amounts of revenues and gains before they are recognized. Revenues and gains of an enterprise during a period are generally measured by the exchange values of the assets (goods or services) or liabilities involved, and recognition involves consideration of two factors (a) being
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 94 of 131
95
realized or realizable and (b) being earned, with sometimes one and sometimes the other being the more important consideration.
a. Realized or realizable. Revenues and gains generally are not
recognized until realized or realizable. Revenues and gains are realized when products (goods or services), merchandise, or other assets are exchanged for cash or claims to cash. Revenues and gains are realizable when related assets received or held are readily convertible to known amounts of cash or claims to cash. Readily convertible assets have (i) interchangeable (fungible) units and (ii) quoted prices available in an active market that can rapidly absorb the quantity held by the entity without significantly affecting the price.
b. Earned. Revenues are not recognized until earned. An entity's
revenue-earning activities involve delivering or producing goods, rendering services, or other activities that constitute its ongoing major or central operations, and revenues are considered to have been earned when the entity has substantially accomplished what it must do to be entitled to the benefits represented by the revenues. Gains commonly result from transactions and other events that involve no "earning process," and for recognizing gains, being earned is generally less significant than being realized or realizable.
84. In recognizing revenues and gains:
a. The two conditions (being realized or realizable and being earned) are usually met by the time product or merchandise is delivered or services are rendered to customers, and revenues from manufacturing and selling activities and gains and losses from sales of other assets are commonly recognized at time of sale (usually meaning delivery).
b. If sale or cash receipt (or both) precedes production and
delivery (for example, magazine subscriptions), revenues may be recognized as earned by production and delivery.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 95 of 131
96
c. If product is contracted for before production, revenues may be
recognized by a percentage-of-completion method as earned—as production takes place—provided reasonable estimates of results at completion and reliable measures of progress are available.
d. If services are rendered or rights to use assets extend
continuously over time (for example, interest or rent), reliable measures based on contractual prices established in advance are commonly available, and revenues may be recognized as earned as time passes.
e. If products or other assets are readily realizable because they
are salable at reliably determinable prices without significant effort (for example, certain agricultural products, precious metals, and marketable securities), revenues and some gains or losses may be recognized at completion of production or when prices of the assets change. Paragraph 83(a) describes readily realizable (convertible) assets.
f. If product, services, or other assets are exchanged for
nonmonetary assets that are not readily convertible into cash, revenues or gains or losses may be recognized on the basis that they have been earned and the transaction is completed. Gains or losses may also be recognized if nonmonetary assets are received or distributed in nonreciprocal transactions. Recognition in both kinds of transactions depends on the provision that the fair values involved can be determined within reasonable limits.
g. If collectibility of assets received for product, services, or other
assets is doubtful, revenues and gains may be recognized on the basis of cash received.
SFAC No. 5, ¶¶ 83-84 (emphasis added).
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 96 of 131
97
158. For companies like Datatec that sell mostly services, revenue is
recognized when the services are received and accepted by Datatec’s customers.
As detailed herein, Defendants violated GAAP by repeatedly causing Datatec to
recognize revenue for services which were not yet performed and billable, or based
on grossly unreasonable estimates.
159. These same straight-forward accounting principles were reflected in
Datatec’s own stated revenue recognition policy. Datatec’s 2003 Form 10-K
represented the Company’s revenue recognition policy, as set forth in paragraph 97
of this Complaint. Datatec’s Form 10-Q, for the period ending July 31, 2003, set
forth the Company’s revenue recognition policy as set forth in paragraph 119 of
this Complaint.
160. As detailed herein, Defendants repeatedly caused Datatec to violate
both GAAP and its own revenue recognition policies by repeatedly recognizing
revenue before products were shipped or services rendered, and/or where the
purchaser had not yet been billed and had no fixed payment obligation; the
products or services had not been delivered; or collectability was not reasonably
assured. This violated the aforementioned SFAC No. 5, as well as Staff
Accounting Bulletin No. 101 promulgated by the SEC, which adopts the provisions
of SFAC No. 5.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 97 of 131
98
161. In addition, the recognition of assets was in direct violation of GAAP,
because such items did not meet the definition of assets contained in SFAC 6, ¶¶
25-26. These paragraphs provide as follows:
25. Assets are probable future economic benefits obtained or controlled by a particular entity as a result of past transactions or events. Characteristics of Assets 26. An asset has three essential characteristics: (a) it embodies a probable future benefit that involves a capacity, singly or in combination with other assets, to contribute directly or indirectly to future net cash inflows, (b) a particular entity can obtain the benefit and control others' access to it, and (c) the transaction or other event giving rise to the entity's right to or control of the benefit has already occurred. Assets commonly have other features that help identify them—for example, assets may be acquired at a cost and they may be tangible, exchangeable, or legally enforceable. However, those features are not essential characteristics of assets. Their absence, by itself, is not sufficient to preclude an item's qualifying as an asset. That is, assets may be acquired without cost, they may be intangible, and although not exchangeable they may be usable by the entity in producing or distributing other goods or services. Similarly, although the ability of an entity to obtain benefit from an asset and to control others' access to it generally rests on a foundation of legal rights, legal enforceability of a claim to the benefit is not a prerequisite for a benefit to qualify as an asset if the entity has the ability to obtain and control the benefit in other ways.
SFAC ¶¶ 25-26. Regulation S-K Violations
162. Item 7 of Datatec’s 2003 Form 10-K and Item 2 of Datatec’s Form 10-
Q for the quarter ending July 31, 2003, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”), required Individual
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 98 of 131
99
Defendants to furnish information required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K, 17
C.F.R. § 229.303. In discussing results of operations, Item 303 of Regulation S-K
says a registrant must:
Describe any known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant reasonably expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations.
The Instructions to Paragraph 303(a) add:
The discussion and analysis shall focus specifically on material events and uncertainties known to management that would cause reported financial information not to be necessarily indicative of future operating results.
163. In its May 18, 1989 Interpretive Release No. 33-6835, the SEC
indicated that registrants should employ the following two-step analysis in
determining when a known trend or uncertainty is required to be included in the
MD&A disclosure pursuant to Item 303 of Regulation S-K:
A disclosure duty exists where a trend, demand, commitment, event or uncertainty is both presently known to management and is reasonably likely to have material effects on the Registrant’s financial condition or results of operations.
164. Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that Item 303 of
Regulation S-K required Datatec to disclose that it lacked internal controls
necessary to prevent revenue recognition abuses, and that the absence of such
internal controls was reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 99 of 131
100
Company’s operating results. Disclosure of this information was necessary for a
proper understanding evaluation of Datatec’s operating performance and in making
an informed investment decision.
Additional Violations of GAAP
165. In addition to the accounting violations described above, Defendants
allowed Datatec to present its financial statements in a manner that violated, among
others, the following GAAP principles:
(a) the principle that a conservative approach be taken to ensure that uncertainty and risks inherent in business situations are adequately considered, and that errors in measurement be in the direction of understatement rather than overstatement of net income and net assets. (See SFAC No. 2 ¶¶ 91-97);
(b) the principle that the financial information presented should be
complete. (See SFAC No. 2, ¶¶ 79-80);
(c) the principle of fair presentation (“presents fairly”). (See SFAC No. 1, ¶33);
(d) the principle of adequacy and fairness of disclosure. (See SFAC
No. 1, ¶34 and SFAC No. 5, ¶¶7, 12);
(e) the principle of materiality concerning information that is significant enough to affect the judgment of a reasonable person. (See SFAC No. 2, ¶132);
(f) the principle that the financial statements contain and disclose
relevant and timely information for the economic decisions of the user. (See SFAC No. 2, ¶¶ 47, 48, 52, 56);
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 100 of 131
101
(g) the principle that the financial statements provide reliable financial information that represents the economic conditions or events that it purports to represent. (See SFAC No. 2, ¶¶ 58, 62);
(h) the principle that financial information should be comparable
and consistent with similar information about other enterprises and with similar information about the same enterprise for some other period or some other point in time. (See SFAC No. 2 ¶¶ 111, 115, 117, 120);
(i) the principle that financial information should be neutral, or
free from bias towards a predetermined result. (See SFAC No. 2 ¶¶ 98, 99);
(j) the principle that financial reporting should provide information
about the economic resources of an enterprise, the claims to those resources, and the effects of transactions, events, and circumstances that change resources and claims to those resources. (See SFAC No. 1 ¶40);
(k) the principle that financial reporting should provide information
that is useful to users of the financial statements in making rational investment, credit, and similar decisions. (See SFAC No. 1 ¶34);
(l) the principle that accounts receivable must be reported in the
financial statements at net realizable value. (See ARB 43, Chapter 3A); and
(m) the principle that disclosure of an entity’s accounting policies
should identify and describe the accounting principles followed by the reporting entity and the methods of applying those principles that materially affect the determination of financial position, changes in financial position, or results of operations because information about the accounting policies adopted by a reporting entity is essential for financial statement users. (See APB 22, ¶8, 12).
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 101 of 131
102
166. In filing financial statements with the SEC which failed to conform to
the requirements of GAAP, Defendants repeatedly disseminated or permitted the
dissemination of financial statements that were presumptively misleading and
inaccurate. Indeed, the accounting improprieties detailed herein evidence
Individual Defendants’ intent to deceive investors during the Class Period and
misrepresent the truth about the Company and its business, operations and financial
performance to the detriment of those who relied on them.
167. Defendants were required to disclose, in the Company’s financial
statements, the existence of the material facts described herein and to appropriately
recognize and report assets, revenues, and expenses in conformity with GAAP.
The Company failed to make such disclosures and to account for and to report its
financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Defendants knew, or were reckless
in not knowing, the facts which indicated that all of the Company’s financial
statements during the Class Period, including press releases, public statements, and
filings with the SEC, which were disseminated to the investing public during the
Class Period, were materially false and misleading for the reasons set forth herein.
Had the true financial position and results of operations of the Company been
disclosed during the Class Period, the Company’s common stock would have
traded at prices well below its posted price.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 102 of 131
103
DELOITTE IGNORED INFORMATION INDICATING DATATECS’S LACK OF VIABILITY AS A GOING CONCERN AND
FAILED TO FOLLOW GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS
168. CS-8 related that on virtually a daily basis during the Class Period,
Company controller Simon Jethwani or an accounting manager such as Chris
Benyak called IBM Credit to wire additional funds to Datatec’s bank account, at
the request of defendant Gaon. Approximately every two weeks, IBM Credit
responded that it would not wire any further funds. Gaon then told IBM, “I don’t
know what you want me to do. We need the money to pay our employees to
complete the jobs. If you don’t make the money available, our guys won’t show
up in the morning on the Home Depot job.” Inasmuch as IBM Global Services
was the general contractor on the Home Depot job, IBM Credit then relented, and
wired funds for current daily bills.
169. On several occasions commencing in March 2003, CS-8 called
Deloitte audit partner Mark Davis, related the foregoing conversations, and
described Datatec’s lack of funds. The lack of funds, and IBM’s statements to
Datatec officials that it would not advance further funds provided Deloitte with
actual notice of Datatec’s insolvent condition and viability as a going concern.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 103 of 131
104
170. Datatec’s cost overruns on the majority of its contracts also put
defendant Deloitte on notice regarding Datatec’s lack of viability. The Company’s
recorded costs, including salaries, insurance, and self-insured medical costs (which
were climbing), were all kept current on the general ledger, and available to
Deloitte. CS-8 observed Deloitte request certain items from the general ledger,
which were promptly furnished to Deloitte by Datatec’s accounting staff.
171. CS-8 also reported that Deloitte’s audit took place in June and July
2003, and was “mechanical.” Deloitte seemed unconcerned with Datatec’s
massive borrowing from IBM Credit, or how Datatec would find the cash to go
forward. Despite Datatec’s years of losses, lack of sustainable profits, borrowings
in excess of available credit limits, continuing lack of cash and inability to reduce
debt despite millions of dollars of private placements (which was a clear sign of
enormous continuing “cash burn” and unprofitability), Deloitte knowingly, or at a
minimum, extremely recklessly failed to ask the questions about the Company’s
viability or engage in the normal audit procedures compelled by Datatec’s
circumstances.
172. As indicated in the Eisner report, as described by CS-8, Deloitte
improperly relied upon defendant Koch’s totally unrealistic, excessive gross profit
margin estimates which inflated net income and revenues, despite Koch’s history
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 104 of 131
105
of continually providing excessive gross profit margin estimates. According to
CS-8, during Deloitte’s audit in June-July 2003, and as set forth in paragraph 41
above, Deloitte simply discussed with Koch what the gross profit margin estimate
should be on a list of contracts, and merely reduced the gross profit margin by
approximately one percent. Deloitte did not properly verify the gross profit margin
and percentage of completion with third parties, or by contacting project managers
regarding the remaining work and examining the costs of performing such
remaining work.
173. Moreover, although historical information and the historical accuracy
of estimates are critical for assessing the accuracy of current estimates, and
Deloitte had all the historical information available in the prior years’ work papers,
Deloitte did not compare the estimated versus actual gross profit margins used on
Datatec’s projects until December 2003.
174. Despite Deloitte’s lack of proper audit procedures to reasonably
assure that Datatec’s financial statements were free of material misstatement,
Deloitte issued an unqualified opinion to the public, in its Independent Auditors’
Report, filed with Datatec’s 2003 Form 10-K file on July 23, 2003 as follows:
We conducted our audits in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 105 of 131
106
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the company as of April 30, 2003 and 2002, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the tree years in the period ended April 30, 2003, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, such financial statements schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
175. During the end of October 2003 through the beginning of November
2003, while stating to put together materials for Datatec’s 10-Q for the period
ending October 31, 2003 (which 10-Q ultimately never was filed), Deloitte, Koch,
Gaon and other Datatec officers had several discussions during this period
regarding the lack of any possible profit on the Home Depot project, and were
aware that the expectations for gross profit would not be realized. Deloitte arrived
at Datatec’s premises for a two-week review from November 15 to 30, 2003,
during which time CS-8 again brought to Deloitte’s attention the concerns
regarding Koch and the fact that gross profit expectations would not be realized.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 106 of 131
107
176. On approximately December 1, 2003, CS-8 arranged a phone call with
Mark Davis from Deloitte, Datatec General Counsel Rick Davis, Datatec board
member Bob Friedman, the head of Datatec’s audit committee Ollie Magard, and
the other two members of Datatec’s audit committee. During the call, CS-8 stated
that Datatec would have a significant loss, rather than the gain which Defendants
had led investors to expect. CS-8 and Deloitte thereafter, during conversations in
approximately January 2004, discussed the fact that Datatec had never made a
profit – and that reported profits had been generated by establishing high estimated
gross profit margins.
VIOLATIONS OF GAAS
Deloitte’s Failure To Adequately Audit Material Management Estimates
177. To perform an audit in accordance with GAAS, the auditor is required
to apply certain procedures with respect to significant management estimates
embodied in the financial statements. Deloitte was responsible:
for evaluating the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management in the context of the financial statements taken as a whole. As estimates are based on subjective as well as objective factors, it may be difficult for management to establish controls over them. Even when management's estimation process involves competent personnel using relevant and reliable data, there is potential for bias in the subjective factors. Accordingly, when planning and performing procedures to evaluate accounting estimates, the auditor should consider, with an attitude of professional skepticism, both the subjective and objective factors.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 107 of 131
108
AICPA Professional Auditing Standard (“AU”) 342.04.
178. Moreover, historical experience and other factors need to be
considered by the auditor when evaluating the estimates’ reasonableness:
In evaluating the reasonableness of an estimate, the auditor normally concentrates on key factors and assumptions that are— a. Significant to the accounting estimate.
b. Sensitive to variations.
c. Deviations from historical patterns.
d. Subjective and susceptible to misstatement and bias.
The auditor normally should consider the historical experience of the entity in making past estimates as well as the auditor's experience in the industry. However, changes in facts, circumstances, or entity's procedures may cause factors different from those considered in the past to become significant to the accounting estimate.
AU 342.09 (emphasis added).
In evaluating reasonableness, the auditor should obtain an understanding of how management developed the estimate. Based on that understanding, the auditor should use one or a combination of the following approaches: a. Review and test the process used by management to develop the
estimate. b. Develop an independent expectation of the estimate to
corroborate the reasonableness of management's estimate.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 108 of 131
109
c. Review subsequent events or transactions occurring prior to completion of fieldwork.
AU 342.10.
Review and test management's process. In many situations, the auditor assesses the reasonableness of an accounting estimate by performing procedures to test the process used by management to make the estimate. The following are procedures the auditor may consider performing when using this approach: d. Identify whether there are controls over the preparation of
accounting estimates and supporting data that may be useful in the evaluation.
e. Identify the sources of data and factors that management used
in forming the assumptions, and consider whether such data and factors are relevant, reliable, and sufficient for the purpose based on information gathered in other audit tests.
f. Consider whether there are additional key factors or alternative
assumptions about the factors.
g. Evaluate whether the assumptions are consistent with each other, the supporting data, relevant historical data, and industry data.
h. Analyze historical data used in developing the assumptions to
assess whether the data is comparable and consistent with data of the period under audit, and consider whether such data is sufficiently reliable for the purpose.
i. Consider whether changes in the business or industry may
cause other factors to become significant to the assumptions.
j. Review available documentation of the assumptions used in developing the accounting estimates and inquire about any
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 109 of 131
110
other plans, goals, and objectives of the entity, as well as consider their relationship to the assumptions.
k. Consider using the work of a specialist regarding certain
assumptions (section 336, Using the Work of a Specialist).
l. Test the calculations used by management to translate the assumptions and key factors into the accounting estimate.
AU 342.11 (emphasis added).
179. Deloitte violated the foregoing standards by, inter alia, failing to
properly evaluate Individual Defendants’ accounting “estimates” and consider
historical experience and data relating to the percentage-of-completion estimates,
which were the lynchpins of the Company’s financial statements.
Deloitte’s Improper Reliance On Management Representations
180. AU § 333 provides auditing guidance for management
representations. This standard provides that while representations from
management are part of the evidential matter that an auditor obtains, they are not a
substitute for the application of auditing procedures considered necessary to
provide a reasonable basis for an opinion. AU § 333.02.
181. Moreover, GAAS requires that, if a representation made by
management is contradicted by other audit evidence, the auditor should use
professional skepticism in investigating the circumstances and consider the
reliability of the representations made. The standard also requires that based on the
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 110 of 131
111
circumstances, the auditor should consider whether reliance on management’s
representations concerning other aspects of the financial statements is justified.
AU § 333.04.
182. Deloitte, in violation of these professional standards, improperly
relied on the gross profit margin estimates provided by defendant Koch, despite
Koch’s history, contained in Deloitte’s work papers, of continually providing
excessive gross profit margins. Indeed, the Eisner Report criticized Deloitte for
this serious lapse.
183. In light of Deloitte’s improper reliance on Koch’s estimates, which
historically were grossly over-estimated, Deloitte also failed to adequately evaluate
the competence and sufficiency of the evidential matter. GAAS requires the
auditor to evaluate evidential matter obtained to ensure that the specific audit
objectives are achieved, to design audit procedures recognizing the possibility that
financial statements may not be fairly presented in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles, and to consider relevant evidential matter. AU §
326.25. Moreover, “[t]o the extent the auditor remains in substantial doubt about
any assertion of material significance, he or she must refrain from forming an
opinion until he or she has obtained sufficient competent evidential matter to
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 111 of 131
112
remove such substantial doubt, or the auditor must express a qualified opinion or a
disclaimer of opinion.” Id.
Deloitte’s Failure To Adequately Consider Indicia Of Fraud
184. Deloitte was required, under GAAS, to plan its audits to obtain
reasonable assurance that the financial statements it was auditing were free of
material misstatement, whether caused by error or fraud. In fact, Deloitte was
required to specifically assess the risk that Datatec’s financial statements could be
materially misstated as a result of fraud. See, e.g., AICPA-SAS No. 82. SAS No.
82 provides examples of various factors that may be indicative of fraud or motive
to commit fraud at an audit client. Some of the very same examples of “red flags”
of fraud noted in the GAAS literature actually existed at Datatec. Deloitte was
required by these GAAS provisions, among others, to assess the presence of each
of these factors and, therefore, knew of or recklessly ignored these indicia of fraud
at Datatec. In addition to those “red flags” discussed above which put Deloitte on
notice regarding the Company’s lack of viability, including the Company’s lack of
cash for operations, heavy borrowings, and failure to reduce debt despite millions
of dollars of securities placements, Deloitte also knew of or recklessly disregarded
the “red flag” of Datatec’s high management turnover, with numerous Chief
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 112 of 131
113
Financial Officers, and high turnover among its financial personnel, within a short
period of time.
Deloitte’s Failure To Obtain And Evaluate Sufficient Competent Evidential Matter
185. Deloitte also violated GAAS by violating the third standard of field
work which states: “Sufficient competent evidential matter is to be obtained
through inspection, observation, inquiries, and confirmations to afford a reasonable
basis for an opinion regarding the financial statements under audit.” AU 326.01.
Most of the auditor's work in forming an opinion on a Company's financial
statements consists of obtaining and evaluating evidential matter concerning the
assertions in such financial statements.
186. Furthermore, in evaluating the competency of evidential matter, the
standard states:
To be competent, evidence, regardless of its form, must be both valid and relevant. The validity of evidential matter is so dependent on the circumstances under which it is obtained that generalizations about the reliability of various kinds of evidence are subject to important exceptions. If the possibility of important exceptions is recognized, however, the following presumptions, which are not mutually exclusive, about the validity of evidential matter in auditing have some usefulness:
a. When evidential matter can be obtained from independent sources outside an entity, it provides greater assurance of reliability for the purposes of an independent audit than that secured solely within the entity.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 113 of 131
114
b. The more effective the internal control, the more assurance it
provides about the reliability of the accounting data and financial statements.
c. The independent auditor's direct personal knowledge, obtained
through physical examination, observation, computation, and inspection, is more persuasive than information obtained indirectly.
AU 326.21.
187. Deloitte violated the foregoing standard by failing to obtain competent
evidential matter with regards to, inter alia, Individual Defendants’ estimates of
gross profit margin and percentage of completion, as well as the fictitious
receivables.
Deloitte’s Failure To Properly Evaluate Datatec’s Ability To Continue As A Going Concern, And To Issue A “Going-Concern” Opinion
188. GAAS requires the auditor to evaluate whether there is substantial
doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable
period of time. The professional standards state the following:
a. The auditor considers whether the results of his procedures performed in planning, gathering evidential matter relative to the various audit objectives, and completing the audit identify conditions and events that, when considered in the aggregate, indicate there could be substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. It may be necessary to obtain additional information about such conditions and events, as well as the appropriate evidential matter to support information that mitigates the
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 114 of 131
115
auditor's doubt.
b. If the auditor believes there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, he should (1) obtain information about management's plans that are intended to mitigate the effect of such conditions or events, and (2) assess the likelihood that such plans can be effectively implemented.
c. After the auditor has evaluated management's plans, he concludes whether he has substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. If the auditor concludes there is substantial doubt, he should (1) consider the adequacy of disclosure about the entity's possible inability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, and (2) include an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) in his audit report to reflect his conclusion. If the auditor concludes that substantial doubt does not exist, he should consider the need for disclosure.
AU 341.03
189. Deloitte violated the foregoing standard by failing to properly obtain
information and evaluate whether there was substantial doubt about the entity's
ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, and by
failing to issue a “going-concern” opinion.
APPLICABILITY OF PRESUMPTION OF RELIANCE: FRAUD-ON-THE-MARKET DOCTRINE
190. At all relevant times, the market for Datatec common stock was an
efficient market for the following reasons, among others:
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 115 of 131
116
(a) that Datatec common stock met the requirements for listing, and was listed and actively traded, on the Nasdaq, a highly efficient market;
(b) As a regulated issuer, Datatec filed periodic public reports with
the SEC; (c) Datatec stock was followed by securities analysts employed by
major brokerage firms who wrote reports which were distributed to the sales force and certain customers of their respective brokerage firms. Each of these reports was publicly available and entered the public marketplace; and
(d) Datatec regularly issued press releases which were carried by
national newswires. Each of these releases was publicly available and entered the public marketplace.
191. As a result, the market for Datatec securities promptly digested
current information with respect to Datatec from all publicly-available sources and
reflected such information in Datatec=s stock price. Under these circumstances, all
purchasers of Datatec common stock during the Class Period suffered similar
injury through their purchase of stock at artificially inflated prices and a
presumption of reliance applies.
PLAINTIFFS= CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
192. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class, consisting of all those who
purchased the securities of Datatec during the Class Period who were damaged
thereby. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 116 of 131
117
Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants
have or had a controlling interest.
193. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable. Throughout the Class Period, Datatec common shares were
actively traded on an efficient market, the NASDAQ. While the exact number of
Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time and can only be ascertained
through appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs believe that there are hundreds or
thousands of members in the proposed Class. Record owners and other members
of the Class may be identified from records maintained by Datatec or its transfer
agent and may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, using the form of
notice similar to that customarily used in securities class actions.
194. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class
as all members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants= wrongful conduct
in violation of federal law that is complained of herein.
195. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
members of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class
and securities litigation.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 117 of 131
118
196. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the
Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of
the Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are:
(a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by Defendants= acts as alleged herein;
(b) whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public during
the Class Period misrepresented material facts about the business, operations, and management of Datatec; and
(c) to what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages and
the proper measure of damages.
197. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is
impracticable. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual Class members
may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it
impossible for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs done to
them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
NO SAFE HARBOR
198. The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements
under certain circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements
pleaded in this complaint. The specific statements pleaded herein were not
identified as Aforward-looking statements” when made. To the extent there were
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 118 of 131
119
any forward-looking statements, there were no meaningful cautionary statements
identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially
from those in the purportedly forward-looking statements. Alternatively, to the
extent that the statutory safe harbor does apply to any forward-looking statements
pleaded herein, Defendants are liable for those false forward-looking statements
because at the time each of those forward-looking was made the particular speaker
knew that the particular forward-looking statement was false, and/or the
forward-looking statement was authorized and/or approved by an executive officer
of Datatec who knew that those statements were false when made.
COUNT I
Violations Of Section 10(b) Of The Exchange Act And Rule 10b-5 Promulgated
Thereunder Against All Defendants
199. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained
above as if fully set forth herein.
200. During the Class Period, Defendants, and each of them, carried out a
plan, scheme and course of conduct which was intended to and, throughout the
Class Period, did: (a) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiffs and other
Class members, as alleged herein; (b) artificially inflate and maintain the market
price of Datatec=s securities; (c) cause Plaintiffs and other members of the Class to
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 119 of 131
120
purchase Datatec=s securities at artificially inflated prices; and (d) cause losses to
Plaintiffs and other Class members when the truth regarding Datatec’s revenues,
net income, contracts accounting and financial condition emerged at the end of the
Class Period. In furtherance of this unlawful scheme, plan and course of conduct,
Defendants, and each of them, took the actions set forth herein.
201. Defendants (a) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud;
(b) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts
necessary to make the statements not misleading; and (c) engaged in acts,
practices, and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the
purchasers of the Company=s securities in an effort to maintain artificially high
market prices for Datatec=s securities in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5. All Defendants are sued either as primary participants in the
wrongful and illegal conduct charged herein or as controlling persons as alleged
below.
202. In addition to the duties of full disclosure imposed on Defendants as a
result of their making of affirmative statements and reports, or participation in the
making of affirmative statements and reports to the investing public, Defendants
had a duty to promptly disseminate truthful information that would be material to
investors in compliance with the integrated disclosure provisions of the SEC as
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 120 of 131
121
embodied in SEC Regulation S-X (17 C.F.R. Sections 210.01 et seq.) and
Regulation S-K (17 C.F.R. Sections 229.10 et seq.) and other SEC regulations,
including accurate and truthful information with respect to the Company=s
operations, financial condition and earnings so that the market price of the
Company=s securities would be based on truthful, complete and accurate
information.
203. Defendants, individually and in concert, directly and indirectly, by the
use, means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce and/or of the mails, engaged
and participated in a continuous course of conduct to conceal adverse material
information about the business, operations and future prospects of Datatec.
204. Defendants employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud, while
in possession of material adverse non-public information and engaged in acts,
practices, and a course of conduct as alleged herein in an effort to assure investors
of Datatec=s value and performance and continued substantial growth, which
included the making of, or the participation in the making of, untrue statements of
material facts and omitting to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made about Datatec and its business operations and future prospects in
the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, as set
forth more particularly herein, and engaged in transactions, practices and a course
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 121 of 131
122
of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of Datatec=s
securities during the Class Period.
205. Individual Defendants= primary liability, and controlling person
liability, arises from the following facts: (a) Individual Defendants were high-level
executives and/or directors at the Company during the Class Period; (b) Individual
Defendants were privy to and directly participated in the fraudulent schemes
described herein, and in the creation, development and reporting of the Company=s
internal budgets, plans, projections and/or reports; and (c) Individual Defendants
were aware of the Company=s dissemination of information to the investing public
which they knew or recklessly disregarded was materially false and misleading.
206. Defendants had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts set forth herein, or acted with reckless disregard for the
truth in that they failed to ascertain and to disclose such facts, even though such
facts were available to them. Such Defendants= material misrepresentations and/or
omissions were done knowingly or recklessly and for the purpose and effect of
concealing Datatec=s operating condition and future business prospects from the
investing public and supporting the artificially inflated price of its securities. As
demonstrated by Individual Defendants= overstatements and misstatements of the
Company=s business, operations and earnings throughout the Class Period,
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 122 of 131
123
Defendants, if they did not have actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and
omissions alleged, were reckless in failing to obtain such knowledge by
deliberately refraining from taking those steps necessary to discover whether those
statements were false or misleading.
207. As a result of the dissemination of the materially false and misleading
information and failure to disclose material facts, as set forth above, the market
price of Datatec=s securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In
ignorance of the fact that market prices of Datatec=s publicly-traded securities were
artificially inflated, and relying directly or indirectly on the false and misleading
statements made by Defendants, or upon the integrity of the market in which the
securities trade, and/or on the absence of material adverse information that was
known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants but not disclosed in public
statements by Defendants during the Class Period, Plaintiffs and the other members
of the Class acquired Datatec securities during the Class Period at artificially high
prices and were damaged thereby. Defendants’ failures to disclose furthermore
caused Plaintiffs and other Class members’ losses when the truth regarding
Datatec’s revenues, net income, contracts accounting and financial condition
emerged at the end of the Class Period.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 123 of 131
124
208. At the time of said misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs and
other members of the Class were ignorant of their falsity, and believed them to be
true. Had Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class and the marketplace known
of the true financial condition and business prospects of Datatec, which were not
disclosed by Defendants, Plaintiffs and other members of the Class would not have
purchased or otherwise acquired their Datatec securities, or, if they had acquired
such securities during the Class Period, they would not have done so at the
artificially inflated prices which they paid.
209. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants have violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
210. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants= wrongful conduct,
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with
their respective purchases and sales of the Company=s securities during the Class
Period.
COUNT II
Violation Of Section 20(a) Of The Exchange Act Against The Individual Defendants
211. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained
above as if fully set forth herein.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 124 of 131
125
212. Individual Defendants acted as a controlling person of Datatec within
the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of
their high-level positions, and their ownership and contractual rights, participation
in and/or awareness of the Company=s operations and/or intimate knowledge of the
statements filed by the Company with the SEC and disseminated to the investing
public, Individual Defendants had the power to influence and control and did
influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision-making of the Company,
including the content and dissemination of the various statements which Plaintiffs
contend are false and misleading. Individual Defendants reviewed, approved, and
were provided with or had unlimited access to copies of the Company=s reports,
press releases, public filings and other statements alleged by Plaintiffs to be
misleading prior to and/or shortly after these statements were issued and had the
ability to prevent the issuance of the statements or cause the statements to be
corrected. Datatec’s public statements were circulated to, commented upon and
approved by Individual Defendants.
213. In particular, Individual Defendants had direct and supervisory
involvement in the fraudulent schemes described herein, and in the day-to-day
operations of the Company and, therefore, are presumed to have had the power to
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 125 of 131
126
control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the securities
violations as alleged herein, and exercised the same.
214. As set forth above, Datatec and Individual Defendants each violated
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by their acts and omissions as alleged in this
Complaint. By virtue of their positions each as a controlling person, Individual
Defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As a direct
and proximate result of Datatec=s and the Individual Defendants= wrongful conduct,
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with
their purchases of the Company=s securities during the Class Period.
COUNT III
Violation By Deloitte of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act And Rule 10b-5(b) Promulgated Thereunder
215. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained
above as if fully set forth herein.
216. This Count is brought pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class
against Deloitte & Touche LLP.
217. Deloitte made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to
state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading, by use of
means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce in order to maintain artificially
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 126 of 131
127
high market prices for Datatec’s securities and create a market therefore in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule l0b-5.
218. During the Class Period, Deloitte made false and misleading
statements of material fact which were intended to and did: (a) deceive the
investing public, including Plaintiffs, as alleged herein; (b) artificially inflate and
maintain the market prices of Datatec's securities; and (c) cause Plaintiffs to
purchase or otherwise acquire Datatec securities at artificially inflated prices. In
furtherance of this unlawful plan, scheme and course of conduct, Deloitte took the
actions set forth herein.
219. Among other things, Deloitte acted as auditors for Datatec. Deloitte
knew and understood that its reports and opinions concerning the financial
statements and reports of Datatec would be released to the investing public and that
investors would rely, and had a right to rely, on their reports and opinions. In its
role as auditors, Deloitte had access to employees of Datatec, and continuing
access to and knowledge of Datatec’s confidential corporate, financial, operating
and business information as well as the accounting manipulations and other
schemes undertaken by themselves and Individual Defendants. Despite this access
and knowledge, Deloitte, inter alia, knowingly or with extreme recklessness
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 127 of 131
128
certified without qualification and publicly represented that Datatec’s financial
reports were free from material misstatements.
220. Deloitte engaged in the fraudulent activity described above knowingly
and intentionally, or in such an extremely reckless manner as to constitute willful
deceit and fraud upon Plaintiffs. Deloitte knowingly or extremely recklessly
caused Datatec’s and their own reports and statements to contain
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact as alleged herein.
221. As a result of the fraudulent activities of Deloitte described above, in
conjunction with the activities of Individual Defendants, the market prices of
Datatec securities were artificially inflated during at least the Class Period, and
Plaintiffs and other Class members were damaged when the truth regarding
Datatec’s revenues, net income, contracts accounting and financial condition
emerged at the end of the Class Period.
222. In ignorance of Datatec’s true financial condition, Plaintiffs, relying
upon the integrity of the market price for Datatec’s securities and/or the statements
and reports of Datatec containing false and misleading information, purchased or
otherwise acquired Datatec securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for relief and judgment, as follows:
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 128 of 131
129
(a) Determining that this action is a proper class action, and
certifying Lead Plaintiffs as class representatives under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Plaintiffs’ counsel as Lead Counsel;
(b) Awarding compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiffs and the
other Class members against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages
sustained as a result of Defendants= wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest thereon;
(c) Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; and
(d) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
Dated: October 31, 2005
COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C
By: __s/ Daniel S. Sommers_____________ Steven J. Toll (pro hac vice) Daniel S. Sommers (DS-2084) Elizabeth A. Berney (pro hac vice) 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 129 of 131
130
Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 130 of 131
COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C
Steven J. Toll (pro hac vice) Daniel S. Sommers (DS-2084) Elizabeth A. Berney (pro hac vice) 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 2005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (212) 408-4699 Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
In Re DATATEC SYSTEMS, INC., SECURTIES LITIGATION This Document Relates to: All cases
.
)))))))
Master File No. 2:04-CV-525 WGB-MCA CERTIFICATE OF NON-ARBITRABILITY
Daniel S. Sommers of full age, certifies that pursuant to L. Civ. R. 201.1 the within matter is not arbitrable, being that the Complaint seeks damages that are in excess of $150,000.
__s/ Daniel S. Sommers_____________ Dated: October 31, 2005
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 131 of 131
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on October 31, 2005, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which
will send notification of such filing to counsel of record in this
matter who are registered on the CM/ECF system. Parties whose
counsel are not registered on the CM/ECF system will be served via
process server within the time frame allowed by Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
/s/ Daniel S. Sommers____ Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
Case 2:04-cv-00525-GEB-MCA Document 54-2 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 1 of 1