First Solar, Inc. v. National Union First Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FIRST SOLAR, INC., §
§ No. 217, 2021
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§
NATIONAL UNION FIRST § C.A. No. N20C-10-156 (CCLD)
INSURANCE COMPANY OF §
PITTSBURGH, PA and XL §
SPECIALTY INSURANCE §
COMPANY, §
§
Defendants Below, §
Appellees. §
§
§
§
Submitted: January 19, 2022
Decided: March 16, 2022
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and
MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.
Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.
Jennifer C. Wasson, Esquire, Carla M. Jones, Esquire, POTTER ANDERSON &
CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Adam S. Ziffer, Esquire (argued), and
Meredith Elkins, COHEN ZIFFER FRENCHMAN & MCKENNA LLP, New York,
New York, Attorneys for Appellant First Solar, Inc.
Kurt M. Heyman, Esquire (argued), Aaron M. Nelson, Esquire, HEYMAN ENERIO
GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Scott B. Schreiber, Esquire,
Arthur Luk, Esquire, Omomah Abebe, Esquire, and Kolya D. Glick, Esquire,
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., Attorneys for
Appellee National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.
John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire, David A. Bilson, Esquire, PHILLIPS MCLAUGHLIN
& HALL, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Charles C. Lemley, Esquire (argued), Kim
Melvin, Esquire, and Anna Schaffner, Esquire, WILEY REIN LLP, Washington,
D.C., Attorneys for Appellee XL Specialty Insurance Company.
2
SEITZ, Chief Justice:
In this appeal we review whether a securities class action and a later follow-
on action were related actions, such that the follow-on action was excluded from
insurance coverage under later-issued policies. The Superior Court found that the
follow-on action was “fundamentally identical” to the first-filed action and therefore
excluded from coverage under the later-issued policies. Even though the court
applied an incorrect standard to assess the relatedness of the two actions, we affirm
nonetheless because under either the erroneous “fundamentally identical” standard
or the correct relatedness standard defined by the policies, the later-issued insurance
policies did not cover the follow-on action.
I.
A.
According to the allegations of the complaint, First Solar, Inc. (“First Solar”)
manufactures solar panels and sells photovoltaic (“PV”) power plants.1 First Solar
competes in the renewable energy space and has installed PV facilities throughout
the world. In March 2012, First Solar stockholders filed a class action lawsuit
against the company alleging that it violated federal securities laws by making false
1
Unless otherwise stated, the facts are drawn from the Superior Court’s June 23, 2021 opinion,
First Solar, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA and XL Speciality
[sic] Insurance Company., C.A. No. N20C-10-156, 2021 WL 2563023 (Del. Super. Jun. 23, 2021).
3
or misleading public disclosures.2 The parties refer to the original suit as the
Smilovits Action. The Smilovits plaintiffs alleged that from April 30, 2008, to
February 28, 2012, First Solar:
(1) misrepresented that it “had a winning formula for reducing
manufacturing costs so rapidly and dramatically as to make solar power
competitive with fossil fuels”; (2) “perpetuated [its] fraudulent self-
portrayal by concealing and misrepresenting the nature and extent of
major manufacturing and design defects in [its] solar modules”; (3)
misrepresented its financials; (4) artificially inflated its stock prices; (5)
allowed individuals to engage in insider trading; (6) manipulated the
cost-per-watt metrics; and (7) understated its expenses in violation of
General Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”).3
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National
Union”) provided insurance coverage for the Smilovits Action under a 2011–12 $10
million “claims made” directors and officers insurance policy.
B.
On June 23, 2015, while the Smilovits Action was pending, First Solar
stockholders who opted out of the Smilovits Action filed what has been referred to
as the Maverick Action. The Maverick Action alleged violations of the same federal
securities laws as the Smilovits Action, as well as violations of Arizona statutes and
claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. As summarized by the Superior
2
Specifically, they alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Federal Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the former enforced under SEC Rule 10b-5.
3
First Solar, 2021 WL 2563023, at *1 (citing Smilovits Compl.).
4
Court, the plaintiffs in the Maverick Action alleged that from May 2011 to December
2011, First Solar:
(1) misrepresented how close it was to achieving grid parity—“the
point at which solar electricity became cost competitive with
conventional methods of producing electricity without government
subsidies”; (2) concealed defects in First Solar’s panels and
manufacturing process; (3) concealed problems with First Solar’s
modules that resulting [sic] in increased costs; (4) manipulated the cost-
per-watt metrics; (5) misrepresented the value of a pipeline project; (6)
falsely represented that it was on track to meet its financial targets; (7)
refused to adjust its targets in light of an influx of panels globally; (8)
issued false financials that violated GAAP; and (9) artificially inflated
its stock price.4
When the plaintiffs filed the Maverick Action in 2015, First Solar had a $10
million “claims made” policy with National Union for 2014–15 (the “Primary
Policy”) and a $10 million layer of excess coverage with XL Specialty Insurance
Company (“XL Specialty” and the “XL Specialty Policy”).5 The 2014–15 Primary
Policy excluded coverage for “Related Claims.” A Related Claim is “a Claim
alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to any facts or Wrongful Acts that
are the same as or related to those that were . . . alleged in a Claim made against an
4
First Solar, 2021 WL 2563023, at *1.
5
Given that the XL Specialty Policy follows form with the Primary Policy, we will rely on the
Primary Policy’s language, as the Superior Court did below. Id. at *3 (quoting XL Specialty
Policy, § I). A “claims made” policy bars coverage for claims made after the inception date of the
policy. United Westlabs, Inc. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2011 WL 2623932, at *3 (Del. Super. June
13, 2011), aff’d, 38 A.3d 1255 (Del. 2012).
5
Insured.”6 And a Related Claim is deemed first made at the time of the previously
made claim under the following conditions:
(b) Relation Back to the First Reported Claim or Pre-Claim Inquiry:
Solely for the purpose of establishing whether any subsequent Related
Claim was first made . . . during the Policy Period or Discovery Period
(if applicable), if during any such period:
(1) A Claim was first made and reported in accordance with Clause 7(a)
above, then any Related Claim that is subsequently made against an
Insured and that is reported to the Insurer shall be deemed to have been
first made at the time that such previously reported Claim was first
made. . . . Claims actually first made or deemed first made prior to the
inception date of this policy . . . are not covered under this policy[.]7
Applied here, the Related Claim Exclusion bars coverage under the 2014–15
policies if the Maverick Action is a Related Claim to the Smilovits Action.
C.
At first, First Solar obtained defense coverage for the Maverick Action under
its 2011–12 policies. In 2015, First Solar exhausted all coverage under the 2011–12
National Union policy. Chubb, an excess insurer next in line after the 2011–12
National Union policy, accepted coverage of the Maverick Action because “the new
Maverick litigation is based on the same facts and circumstances of the previously
6
App. to Opening Br. at A067 (Primary Policy § 13). A “Wrongful Act,” as relevant here, means
“any actual or alleged breach of duty, neglect, error, misstatement, misleading statement, omission
or act by such Organization, but solely in regard to a Securities Claim.” Id. at A069 (Primary
Policy § 13).
7
Id. at A050 (Primary Policy § 7). The Primary Policy as amended is at A129–131 but does not
change the relevant language.
6
noticed Smilovits class action complaint,” and as such, “[Chubb] treats this matter
as a related claim.”8
Chubb provided coverage for the Maverick Action as the litigation progressed.
In the Smilovits Action, First Solar filed a “Motion to Transfer Related Case” to
litigate both Actions before the same judge. It argued that “[t]he substantial overlap
in legal and factual issues and the substantial overlap in parties weigh in favor of
transferring the Maverick [] Action to this Court.”9 The court granted the motion.10
After years of litigation and after incurring over $80 million in defense costs,
First Solar settled the Smilovits Action on January 5, 2020 for $350 million.11 All
primary and excess insurers under the 2011–12 policies paid their policy limits.
Having settled the Smilovits Action and exhausted all coverage under the 2011–12
policies, First Solar began to arbitrate a settlement of the Maverick Action. It sought
coverage under the 2014–15 Primary Policy and the XL Specialty Policy (the
“Policies”) for the Maverick Action. First Solar eventually settled the Maverick
Action for $19 million without a coverage commitment from National Union or XL
Specialty (collectively, the “Insurers”). After the Insurers denied coverage under
8
J.A. to Answering Brs. at B414. The insurer was then known as Federal but has since changed
its name.
9
Id. at B078. First Solar later moved to dismiss on the grounds that Maverick was the “latest in a
series of securities fraud actions” making “nearly identical allegations[,]” but did point out
differences similar to the those identified here. Id. at B141–43.
10
Id. at B080.
11
App. to Opening Br. at A397 (Memorandum in Support of First Solar’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Relatedness (Trans ID 66293000), filed January 28, 2021).
7
the Policies, First Solar filed suit in the Superior Court for breach of contract and
declaratory relief that the Insurers were obligated to provide coverage under the
Policies.
D.
The Superior Court litigation focused on the relatedness of the Smilovits and
Maverick Actions and whether the Maverick Action fell within the Primary Policy
exclusion for Related Claims. First Solar argued that the Smilovits Action and the
Maverick Action were not sufficiently related because they involved different
operative facts—different plaintiffs, conduct, causes of action, and time periods.12
The Insurers responded that the Maverick Action arose out of the Smilovits Action
and raised the same claims against the same parties in all material respects. As they
argued, because the Policies did not cover claims deemed first made before the
Primary Policy’s inception date, the Maverick Action was not covered.13
Relying on Pfizer Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., the Superior Court held that a
complaint is “related to” or “aris[es] out of” a previous complaint if the claims are
“fundamentally identical.”14 Fundamentally identical lawsuits, according to the
12
First Solar, 2021 WL 2563023, at *3.
13
Id. The Insurers also argued coverage was excluded because “(1) the Special Matter Exclusion
[which excludes the Smilovits Action] applies to the Maverick Action; (2) First Solar violated the
policies’ notice provisions by failing to provide notice to Defendants about the Maverick Action;
and (3) First Solar violated the policies’ consent-to-settle provisions by failing to obtain consent
before settling the Maverick Action.” Id.14
Id. at *4–5 (citing Pfizer Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3306043, at *9 (Del. Super. July 23,
2019)).
8
court, require the “same subject” and “common facts, circumstances, transactions,
events, and decisions.”15 The Superior Court previously held that there must be more
than “thematic similarities” for complaints to be sufficiently related under similar
policy language.16 This is because the words “arising out of” imply a causal
connection.17
The Superior Court then found the Actions had “substantial similarities,”18
and were “fundamentally identical.”19 Among other aspects, the lawsuits stemmed
from the same original suit, were against “identical defendants,” overlapped in time,
contained allegations of the same securities law violations, and relied on the same
specific disclosures.20 Also, the court found that the underlying wrongful conduct—
allegedly inflating First Solar’s stock price by misrepresenting cost-per-watt metrics
and falsifying financial reports—was the same. While there were some differences,
including the theory of damages claimed by the Maverick plaintiffs, the court held
that the differences did not outweigh the similarities. It concluded that the Maverick
15
Id. at *5 (quoting United Westlabs, 2011 WL 2623932, at *11).
16
Pfizer, 2019 WL 3306043, at *10.
17
First Solar, 2021 WL 2563023, at *5 (quoting Fimbres v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 708 P.2d
756, 758 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985); Northrop Grumman Innovation Sys., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.,
2021 WL 347015, at *11 (Del. Super. Feb. 2, 2021), 2021 WL 772312 (Del. Super. Mar. 1, 2021)
(certification of interlocutory appeal denied)).
18
Id. at *5.
19
Id. at *6.
20
Id. at *5.
9
Action was fundamentally identical to the Smilovits Action and was excluded as a
Related Claim under the Policies.
II.
On appeal, First Solar argues that the Superior Court ruled incorrectly that the
Smilovits Action and the Maverick Action were fundamentally identical. It claims
that the Maverick Action focused on grid parity and the company’s “Systems
Business,” as shown by the Action’s damage claims and reliance on First Solar’s
“objective to achieve grid parity with respect to utility-scale solar power plant
facilities in the future.”21 By contrast, the Smilovits Action focused on
“misrepresentations regarding the historical cost of individual solar modules[,]” a
temporally and categorically distinct part of the company’s business.22 First Solar
contends that the Actions merely share “thematic similarities[,]” not “fundamental
identity.”23 Finally, it argues that, even if the claims overlap, parts of the Maverick
Action seek to recover for separate Wrongful Acts (specific statements and
misrepresentations) that are not excluded by the Primary Policy.24
The Insurers counter that the Maverick Action meets the “fundamentally
identical” standard because it is directed to the same Wrongful Act and fraudulent
21
Opening Br. at 27–28.
22
Id.
23
Id. at 34.
24
Id. at 37–38.
10
scheme as the Smilovits Action. They argue further that the fundamentally identical
standard has been taken out of context and misapplied by the Superior Court.25
According to the Insurers, the meaning of “related to” should come from the
language of the insurance policy. The Insurers also contend that any non-
overlapping claims would only be distinct, non-excluded causes of action if the
underlying wrongful conduct was different, whereas here the complaints are directed
to the same fraudulent scheme.26 And finally, National Union argues that even if the
Maverick Action is not barred by relation back, the Specific Matter Exclusion in the
Primary Policy independently precludes coverage.27
In response to the Insurers’ argument directed to the “fundamentally
identical” relatedness standard, First Solar contends that stare decisis and policy
considerations should control but does not dispute that Delaware decisions have
substituted a “fundamentally identical” standard for the language of the insurance
policies.28 Instead, it argues that the plain language of the Primary Policy’s
relatedness standard would render coverage illusory.29
25
National Union Answering Br. at 36–39; XL Specialty Answering Br. at 19–20.
26
National Union Answering Br. at 34–26; XL Specialty Answering Br. at 32–35.
27
National Union Answering Br. at 44–48. Given the basis for our affirmance, we do not reach
this question.
28
Reply Br. at 1–2; id. at 5–8.
29
Id. at 5–7. First Solar also argues in its Reply Brief that the policy provision at issue was merely
intended to “bring[] future claims into the Policies’ coverage[.]” Id. at 21–22. First Solar did not
make this argument before the Superior Court or in its Opening Brief, so it is waived. Supr. Ct.
R. 8.
11
On appeal, we review “the Superior Court’s grant of a motion to dismiss” de
novo.30 “We also review the Superior Court’s interpretation of an insurance [policy]
de novo.”31
A.
As an initial matter, we agree with the Insurers that the Superior Court’s use
of the “fundamentally identical” standard to assess the relatedness of the Smilovits
and Maverick Actions disregards the plain language of the insurance policy. The
error can be traced to a misunderstanding of a Superior Court decision that addressed
the meaning of “arising out of” or “related to” for coverage of “related” complaints
and claims.
In United Westlabs, Inc. v. Greenwich Insurance Co., United Westlabs had an
ongoing conflict with a third-party, Seacoast, regarding access to a billing system
owned and run by Seacoast.32 United Westlabs contracted with Seacoast to use the
system, but Seacoast considered the software a trade secret, and maintained control
through remote virtual private network (“VPN”) access.33 After a payment dispute,
United Westlabs cut off Seacoast’s VPN access to the database.34 The parties
30
Difebo v. Bd. Of Adjustment of New Castle Cnty., 132 A.3d 1154, 1156 (Del. 2016) (citing King
Constr., Inc. v. Plaza Four Realty, LLC, 976 A.2d 145, 151 (Del. 2009)).
31
ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 21 A.3d 62, 68 (Del. 2011) (citing Pac. Ins. Co. v.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 956 A.2d 1246, 1254 (Del. 2008)).
32
United Westlabs, 2011 WL 2623932, at *1.
33
Id.34
Id.12
arbitrated the dispute, and United Westlabs later filed for a declaratory judgment that
it had not committed copyright infringement and sought to enjoin Seacoast from
filing civil claims.35 The parties settled in 2007, and the claims were dismissed
without prejudice. United Westlabs then obtained two insurance policies without
disclosing the Seacoast dispute.36 The “relationship continued to deteriorate” and
United Westlabs again terminated Seacoast’s VPN access and brought a new claim
along the same lines as before, but added a new claim for breach of the 2007
settlement agreement.37 Seacoast counterclaimed, and United Westlabs sought
coverage from its insurers.38 They denied coverage under policy provisions barring
claims “first made” before the inception date of the policies. United Westlabs sued
in Delaware Superior Court, seeking damages for the insurers’ breach of duty to pay
defense costs.39 The policy language provided that:
All Wrongful Acts that: (1) take place between the Retroactive Date
and the end of the Policy Period of the last Insurance Policy issued by
the Company to the Insured; and (2) involve the same or related subject,
person, class of person or have common facts or circumstances or
involve common transactions, events or decisions, regardless of the
number of repetitions, alterations, actions or forms of communication;
will be treated under this Policy as one Wrongful Act.40
35
Id. at *2.
36
Id. at *2–5.
37
Id. at *2, *5.
38
Id. at *5–6.
39
Id.
40
Id. at *10.
13
The Superior Court reasoned that the first and second claims involved “the
same subject and common facts, circumstances, transactions, events, and
decisions[.]”41 Although United Westlabs argued that the separate lawsuits were
“‘based on separate injuries and events, the [2008 Wrongful Acts] being predicated
on discrete instances of unprecedented conduct following a span of two years after
the [2006–07 Wrongful Acts,]’” the court found that the complaints covered the
same event, and any allegations added in the later claim were merely part of “a
continuous series of related acts[.]”42 Thus, according to the court, the claims were
“fundamentally identical[.]”43 The court ruled that the claims arose from the same
Wrongful Act under the policy and the later claim was excluded from coverage.44
After the United Westlabs decision, later cases picked up the court’s
“fundamentally identical” observation about the claims in that case and converted it
into a standard to assess relatedness under an insurance policy’s related claims
provision.45 But as a recent Superior Court decision observed about the error,
41
Id. at *11.
42
Id. at *10–11 (alterations in original).
43
Id. at *11 (“UWL’s 2006–07 Wrongful Acts and UWL’s 2008 Wrongful Acts are fundamentally
identical.”).
44
Id. at *10–11, 14.
45
Med. Depot, Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co., 2016 WL 5539879, at *14 (Del. Super. Sept. 29, 2016)
(“The two actions are not fundamentally identical. Mr. Mezzadri’s claim does not relate back to
the Swisher action.”); Pfizer, 2019 WL 3306043, at *7 (“Conversely, under Delaware law, similar
‘relatedness’ or ‘arising out of’ policy language is interpreted as precluding coverage only where
two underlying actions are ‘fundamentally identical.’” (citing Med. Depot, 2016 WL 5539879, at
*14; United Westlabs, 2011 WL 2623932, at *11–12)).
14
“neither the Delaware Supreme Court nor any other jurisdiction has adopted
‘fundamental identity’ as the standard governing all relatedness inquiries, regardless
of the contractual language at issue.”46 With all insurance policies, “[t]he scope of
an insurance policy’s coverage . . . is prescribed by the language of the policy.”47
And absent “ambiguity, Delaware courts interpret contract terms according to their
plain, ordinary meaning.”48 Whether a claim relates back to an earlier claim is
decided by the language of the policy, not a generic “fundamentally identical”
standard.49
B.
The Primary Policy’s Related Claim provision is broad. A Related Claim is
a “Claim alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to any facts or Wrongful
Acts that are the same as or related to those that were . . . alleged in a Claim made
against an Insured.”50 Thus, the question on appeal is whether the Maverick Action
46
Sycamore Partners Mgmt, L.P. v. Endurance Am. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 4130631, at *11 (Del.
Super. Sept. 10, 2021).
47
Emmons v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 697 A.2d 742, 745 (Del. 1997) (citing Rhone-
Poulenc Basic Chems. Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1195–96 (Del. 1992)).
48
Alta Berkeley VI C.V. v. Omneon, Inc., 41 A.3d 381, 385 (Del. 2012).
49
See, e.g., OptiNose AS v. Currax Pharm., LLC, 264 A.3d 629 (Del. 2021) (determining what it
means for a filing to “relate to or characterize” intellectual property); Liggett Grp. Inc. v. Affiliated
FM Ins. Co., 2001 WL 1456871, at *6 (Del. Super. Sept. 12, 2001), aff’d sub nom. Liggett Grp.,
Inc. v. Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 798 A.2d 1024 (Del. 2002) (holding that symptoms or
consequences causally linked to smoking are “related to” smoking even if not directly caused by
the act of smoking); Eon Labs Mfg., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 756 A.2d 889, 892 (Del. 2000)
(affirming a Superior Court judgment that all the allegations against the plaintiff “‘come within
the scope of the arising out of language,’ including ‘claims related to the use of [plaintiff’s drug].’”
(citations omitted)).
50
App. to Opening Br. at A067 (Primary Policy § 13).
15
raises Claims that “aris[e] out of, [are] based upon or attributable to any facts or
Wrongful Acts that are the same as or related to” the Smilovits Action.51
The Maverick Action is a Related Claim under the Primary Policy. Both
Actions are based on the same alleged misconduct—First Solar’s misrepresentations
about the cost-per-watt of its solar power. A side-by-side comparison of the two
complaints makes the point:
Category Smilovits Action Maverick Action
Defendants: First Solar, Inc.; Michael J. Same. (A176)
Ahearn; Robert J. Gillette;
Mark R. Widmar; Jens
Meyerhoff; James Zhu; Bruce
Sohn; and David Eaglesham.
(App. to Opening Br. at A422)
Time period: April 2008 to February 2012. May 2011 to December 2011.
(A425) (A214)
Overall theory: “Defendants’ fraudulent “Defendants’ fraudulent
scheme . . . artificially scheme to fraudulently inflate
inflated the price of First Solar the price of First Solar
publicly traded securities[.]” Stock[.]” (A242)
(A428)
Sampling of relevant February 24 conference call.February 24 conference call.
statements/evidence: (A484, A525) (A220–22)
May 3 conference call. (A487)
May 3 conference call.
(A225–26)
Pacific Crest Conference on Pacific Crest Conference on
August 8, 2011. (A526) August 8, 2011. (A232)
Cost issues and overruns at Cost issues and overruns at
PV plant Copper Mountain. PV plant Copper Mountain.
(A480) (A202, A217)
51
National Union cites cases where “arising out of” has been interpreted to mean “some
meaningful linkage between the two conditions imposed in the contract[,]” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co., 956 A.2d 1246, 1257 (Del. 2008), and “‘originating from,’ ‘having its origin in,’
‘growing out of,’ [] ‘flowing from[,]’” or “‘incident to, or having connection with[,]’” Goggin v.
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2018 WL 6266195, at *4 (Del. Super. Nov. 30, 2018)
(citations omitted). National Union Answering Br. at 21. But it does not ask us to adopt
“meaningful linkage” as the standard for the provision at issue.
16
GAAP violations. (A431, GAAP violations. (A210–11,
A497–A528) A220)
Understating “manufacturing Understating “manufacturing
excursion” (significant issues excursion” (significant issues
in manufacturing PV panels). in manufacturing PV panels).
(A425, A431–34, A440, (A185–91, A211)
A449–51)
Degradation effects. (A434– Degradation effects. (A191–
35, A442–48) 98)
Grid parity. (A529,52 A534– Grid parity. (passim)
35)
Claimed damages: Violations of §10(b) and Violations of §10(b) and
§20(a) of the Securities §20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10(b)(5). (A556-7) SEC Rule 10(b)(5); common
law fraud; A.R.S. § 44-
1999(B); A.R.S. § 44-
1991(A)(2)-(3);53 negligent
misrepresentation. (A250-58)
First Solar argues that the Smilovits Action focused on cost-per-watt
representations while the Maverick Action focused on grid parity, which was
understood to be a future objective. It also draws a distinction between the
“Components Business” alleged in the Smilovits Action (individual PV cells or solar
modules) and the “Systems Business” alleged in the Maverick Action (the PV
facilities built by First Solar).54 These distinctions, according to First Solar, show
52
In addition, as we have discussed, the Smilovits Action’s emphasis on cost-per-watt is simply
another way of looking at the issue of grid parity: “Because First Solar’s cost-per-watt was far
from the level necessary to compete with conventional sources of electricity without the benefit of
subsidies, defendants and analysts were keenly aware of the need for First Solar to maintain a
constant and rapid trend toward reducing their cost-per-watt.” App. to the Opening Br. at A529
(Smilovits Complaint at ¶ 198).
53
As we discuss below, the Arizona law counts are substantially similar to the sections of the
federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
54
Opening Br. at 2–3; id. at 25–28. National Union and XL Specialty contend that this is an
argument raised for the first time on appeal and should be considered waived. National Union
17
that the Smilovits Action centered on “historical performance” representations while
the Maverick Action dealt with predictions of grid parity, or “forward-looking
statements.”55
These differences are not, however, meaningful to the relatedness inquiry.
While there might be minor differences—like the disparity between a certain cost-
per-watt level and grid parity—the Actions focus on First Solar’s misrepresentations
about the cost of solar power.56 Both Actions allege violations of the same federal
securities laws from this wrongful conduct.57 In both cases, plaintiffs allege that
First Solar made material misrepresentations regarding its solar power capabilities
as part of a fraudulent scheme to increase stock prices. As the Superior Court found:
With respect to the allegedly wrongful conduct in the underlying
actions, both cases involve the same fraudulent scheme—artificially
raising stock prices by misrepresenting First Solar’s ability to produce
solar electricity at costs comparable to the costs of conventional energy
production. In other words, both actions allege that First Solar
misrepresented its ability to achieve grid parity. Both actions allege
that First Solar concealed defects in the design and manufacturing of
modules and panels. Both actions allege that First Solar manipulated
Answering Br. at 27; XL Specialty Answering Br. at 27. In our view, it is more like a reframing
of an argument First Solar already made (namely, that the complaints are fundamentally different),
and we include it in our analysis.
55
Opening Br. at 3; see also id. at 26–27.
56
Cost-per-watt and grid parity are both ways of describing how much a source of power costs.
Cost-per-watt can be any number of price levels, while grid parity is a specific price level. And
the Maverick Action expressly links those two concepts. See, e.g., App. to Opening Br. at A229–
30 (Maverick Complaint ¶ 204) (“Further, with respect to cost per watt, Gillette misleadingly
stated: ‘So what it means for our [grid parity] roadmap, is we’re committed to delivering on the
roadmap as we planned and still have that same target range in 2014 to get to that $0.52 to $0.63
range.’”).
57
Id. at A250, A556.
18
its costs, including cost-per-watt metrics. Both actions allege that First
Solar issued false financial reports in violation of GAAP. Both actions
allege that First Solar’s deceptions came to light on February 28,
2012.58
First Solar also argues that categorical differences between the two Actions
show that they are not fundamentally identical, nor sufficiently related. It cites the
Pfizer decision as an example of a case where the Superior Court found two
complaints were not sufficiently related. According to First Solar, Pfizer “involv[ed]
the same drug” but “one claimed alleged false representations regarding the
cardiovascular risks associated with Celebrex and the other alleged false and
misleading statements regarding the gastrointestinal health risks of Celebrex.”59
Similarly, First Solar points to the Superior Court’s finding in Medical Depot, Inc.
v. RSUI Indemnity Co. that two actions based on the same product but with entirely
different fact patterns and causes of action were unrelated.60
Although the Actions are not identical in their claims or evidence, absolute
identity is not required. In Pfizer, the court addressed two claims about different
side effects, with different omissions and misrepresentations.61 The claims
58
First Solar, 2021 WL 2563023, at *6.
59
Opening Br. at 33 (citing Pfizer, 2019 WL 3306043).
60
Id. (citing Med. Depot, 2016 WL 5539879).
61
Pfizer, 2019 WL 3306043, at *10 (“The Garber Action was brought by Pharmacia’s
shareholders seeking redress for fraudulent and misleading statements Pharmacia and its co-
marketer Pfizer made regarding the gastrointestinal health risks of Celebrex . . . The Morabito
plaintiffs, on the other hand, brought suit against Pfizer and some of its executives for false
representations and omissions regarding the cardiovascular risks associated with Celebrex and
another drug, Bextra . . . In short, while there may be some thematic similarities, the Underlying
Actions are truly, in all relevant respects, different.”).
19
overlapped in that they involved the same drug. But the Wrongful Acts in that
case—the misrepresentations made about gastrointestinal and cardiovascular health
risks, respectively—were substantially different, relying on different concepts,
pharmaceutical trials, and statements.62 The same is true for Medical Depot. In that
case, the product and defendants in both actions were the same, but the actions did
not share any other operative facts, legal theories, or similarities.63 Here, as in United
Westlabs, the Actions involve “the same subject, as well as common facts,
circumstances, transactions, events, and decisions[.]”64 They are substantially
similar and fundamentally identical.
The Superior Court noted that “[t]he most apparent striking difference
between the underlying actions is the type of damages sought by the Maverick
plaintiffs, with the apparent intent of garnering greater recovery.”65 The damages
62
Id. (“the Garber plaintiffs alleged that Pharmacia and Pfizer publically [sic] misrepresented the
results of its CLASS Study to create the impression that Celebrex users ‘had fewer upper-GI toxic
effects than those who took other traditional NSAIDs[ ]’ . . . [while] the alleged market harm in
the Morabito Action stemmed specifically from the defendants ‘repeatedly touting internal safety
data which they claimed demonstrated cardiovascular safety’ while they ‘were in possession of
completed drug safety studies and other data and information which documented the serious
cardiovascular risks of Celebrex and/or Bextra.’”).
63
Med. Depot, 2016 WL 5539879, at *14 (“The Swisher action and the Mezzadri action are
different. The Swisher action was a wrongful death and products liability action. Swisher sought
redress for the sling’s causing a death. The Initial Complaint and Amended Complaint are a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of California’s Business & Professions Code sections 17200 and
17500, and Civil Code 1750, et seq. Mr. Mezzadri is seeking redress for buying the sling. Mr.
Mezzadri never claimed that the sling caused him physical harm.”).
64
United Westlabs, 2011 WL 2623932, at *11.
65
First Solar, 2021 WL 2563023, at *6. As noted above, the theories of recovery are also slightly
different. The Maverick Action, besides the federal securities claims, alleges violations of Arizona
securities laws—which map to the federal claims—and common law causes of action (fraud and
20
are slightly different. The Smilovits plaintiffs sought “actual damages and attorneys’
fees” while the Maverick plaintiffs sought “[r]escission or rescissionary damages;
actual damages; punitive damages for common law fraud; pre- and postjudgment
interest and attorneys’ fees.”66 But the thrust of the Wrongful Acts alleged in the
two Actions is the same regardless of how damages are claimed.
Finally, if there is any remaining doubt about relatedness under the Primary
Policy language, we can rely on what First Solar said about the two Actions when
insurance coverage was not at issue. First Solar agreed in another matter that the
Actions were nearly identical. In addition to seeking and receiving coverage for the
Maverick Action as an action related to the Smilovits Action under its 2011–2012
policies, First Solar filed a “Motion to Transfer Related Case” to litigate the two
Actions before the same judge. It argued that “[t]he substantial overlap in legal and
factual issues and the substantial overlap in parties weigh in favor of transferring the
Maverick [] Action to this Court.”67 In its filings, First Solar claimed that the
Maverick Action made “nearly identical allegations” to other actions “asserting that
negligent misrepresentation), based on the same misrepresentations. Compare A.R.S. § 44-
1999(B) (controlling persons liability) with Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (controlling persons
liability), and A.R.S. § 44-1991(A)(2)-(3) (prohibiting untrue statements of material fact relating
to securities) with 17 CFR § 240.10b-5 (prohibiting untrue statements of material fact relating to
securities). App. to Opening Br. at A255, A256 (Maverick Complaint ¶¶ 300, 308). But the state
claims largely map to the federal securities laws.
66
Opening Br. at 27.
67
Id. at B078.
21
First Solar’s stock price decline was somehow caused by a fraudulent scheme to
conceal the existence and costs of various manufacturing deviations.”68
C.
First Solar also claims that even if the Actions are Related Claims, the Actions
have “distinct wrongful acts” such that non-excluded separate claims exist.69 First
Solar asks us to look at the individual misrepresentations—for instance, the specific
statements made in conference calls and SEC filings—as separate Wrongful Acts
under the Primary Policy.70 It contends that all “non-overlapping alleged
misrepresentations and corrective disclosures are independent claims” that do not
relate back and must be covered under the Primary Policy.71
But as the Superior Court ruled, the Wrongful Act is the fraudulent scheme to
inflate the price of First Solar’s stock by making misrepresentations about its solar
power cost and efficiency.72 The Smilovits Action and the Maverick Action include
different misrepresentations and evidence to support their claims—not different
Wrongful Acts. It is analogous to United Westlabs, where the Superior Court held
that United Westlabs had “engaged in a continuous series of related acts, constituting
68
Id. at B141–43.
69
Opening Br. at 37.
70
See Reply Br. at 16–18.
71
Id.72
First Solar, 2021 WL 2563023, at *6.
22
a single wrongful act as defined by the” policy at issue, even though the complaints
spanned different time periods and included different allegations.73
D.
Finally, First Solar claims in a footnote that the Superior Court incorrectly
applied the Relation Back Provision of the Primary Policy instead of the Specific
Matter Exclusion.74 This argument was not sufficiently briefed and is waived.75 But
even so, the Primary Policy’s Relation Back Provision applies when two claims are
related. Under the Policy, “any Related Claim that is subsequently made against an
Insured . . . shall be deemed to have been first made at the time that such previously
reported Claim was first made.”76 Claims first made before the inception date of the
Primary Policy “are not covered under this policy.”77 The Superior Court correctly
applied the Primary Policy language, because if the Maverick Action relates back to
the Smilovits Action, it is deemed “first made” at the time of the Smilovits Action
and thus “not covered under this policy.”78
73
United Westlabs, 2011 WL 2623932, at *11. First Solar also relies on AT&T Corp. v. Faraday
Capital Ltd. to argue that individual causes of action can be different Wrongful Acts. Opening Br.
at 37–38 (citing 918 A.2d 1104, 1108–09 (Del. 2007)). But we held in AT&T Corp. that new
Wrongful Acts could exist when causes of action did not “arise out of the same underlying
wrongful conduct[.]” 918 A.2d. at 1109. Here, the causes of action were based on the same
underlying wrongful conduct—a fraudulent scheme to raise First Solar’s stock price by
misrepresenting its PV capabilities.
74
Opening Br. at 20 n.8.
75
Supr. Ct. R. 8.
76
App. to Opening Br. at A050 (Primary Policy § 7(b)).
77
Id.
78
Id. at A050.
23
Using the Primary Policy’s Related Claim definition, the Maverick Action
raised claims “alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to any facts or
Wrongful Acts that are the same as or related to those” raised in the Smilovits Action.
Thus, the Maverick Action Claim is deemed first made at the time of the Smilovits
Action and is excluded from coverage under the Related Claim Exclusion of the
Policies.
III.
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
24