Nathanson
Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Conti, J.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS
I. INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court are two motions to dismiss Plaintiffs first amended complaint (“FAC” or “Complaint”), ECF No. 47, in this securities fraud case. The first motion to dismiss was filed by Defendants Polycom, Inc. and Polycom’s last two Chief Financial Officers (“CFOs”), Michael Kourey and Eric Brown. ECF No. 51 (“Polycom Mot.”). Collectively the Court will refer to these Defendants as “the Po-lycom Defendants.” The second motion to dismiss was filed by Defendant Andrew Miller, Polycom’s former CEO. ECF No. 53 (“Miller Mot.”).
These motions are fully briefed 1 and appropriate for resolution without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-l(b). As explained below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
II. BACKGROUND
This is a putative class action alleging securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against Polycom, Inc., a San Jose-based provider of video and telecommunication systems, two former Polycom CFOs and Polycom’s former CEO, Andrew Miller.