AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., a major property and casualty insurer, acquired Warrantech in 2010 and subsequently adopted an accounting method that recognized revenue from extended warranty contracts immediately upon sale, rather than over the life of the contract. The company also expensed discretionary employee bonuses in the year they were paid rather than the year they were earned. These practices led to a significant overstatement of income and earnings from 2012 through 2016. In 2017, AmTrust restated its financial results to correct these errors, acknowledging that it should have deferred revenue recognition and accrued bonus expenses. Investors, including the New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and Pension Funds, sued AmTrust, its executives, its board of directors, its underwriters, and its auditor, alleging violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. The District Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the disputed accounting statements were non-actionable expressions of opinion. The Second Circuit reviewed this dismissal de novo.
The Second Circuit applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund, which established that statements of opinion can be actionable if they are objectively false or misleading due to omitted material facts. The court focused on two specific accounting practices: the recognition of revenue from extended warranty contracts and the expensing of discretionary bonuses. Regarding the warranty contracts, the court found that AmTrust's statements were actionable because the company allegedly lacked the historical evidence required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to justify its 'time-of-sale' revenue recognition method. By asserting its accounting was compliant without possessing the necessary evidence, AmTrust implied facts about its inquiry that were false. Similarly, regarding employee bonuses, the court held that AmTrust's statements were actionable because the company allegedly knew that the payment of these bonuses was 'probable' under GAAP standards, yet claimed otherwise. The court distinguished these from Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) certifications, which it affirmed were non-actionable opinions because the complaint failed to allege that the executives did not believe their certifications or lacked a basis for them. The court also affirmed the dismissal of claims against the auditor, BDO, finding the audit opinion too general to be material, and dismissed Exchange Act claims against the company for failing to allege scienter, or intent to defraud.
The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on the claims regarding warranty revenue and bonus accounting. AmTrust and its officers, directors, and underwriters must now defend these specific allegations at trial. The decision clarifies that corporate statements of opinion on accounting matters are not automatically immune from liability; they are actionable if the company lacks the factual basis for the opinion or omits critical context about its internal inquiry. However, the ruling limits the scope of the litigation by upholding the dismissal of claims based on SOX certifications, the auditor's 2013 opinion, and the Exchange Act claims due to a lack of proven intent to defraud.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download