b'costs, by accepting open-ended commitment[s]the court held that plaintiff failed to adequately to fulfill any service needs that arose and failing toallege defendants fraudulent intent, because the accurately estimate such costs, such as in 2012, whensecond amended complaint did not even establish Ericsson estimated that costs for a project at Grandthat Ericssons actual accounting practices deviated Central Terminal would be $5 million-6 million butfrom its publicly stated practices. To the contrary, they ultimately grew to $157 million by March 2018.the court stated that the companys publicly stated Ericsson allegedly encouraged its employees to scopeaccounting practicesnamely, recognizing revenue contracts as slim and lean as possible through awhen the services have been provided, generally pro corporation-wide initiative that lasted until 2014. Third,rata over the contract period, and making provisions plaintiff alleged the company delayed cost recognitionfor estimated losses immediately when losses by pushing incurred costs onto the accountingare probableinherently involved an exercise of books for later quarters. For example, plaintiff allegedjudgment and plaintiff failed to allege when defendants that a former project manager at Ericsson stated thatcontravened those practices. Second, the court held Ericsson would bill AT&T for projects in advance butthat alleged statements from nine former employees wait until the project was completed before recognizingincluded in the second amended complaint did not the costs. Finally, plaintiff alleged the companyreflect any knowledge by any individual defendant of prematurely recognized revenues, including examplesthe two allegedly improper accounting practices, let where the company allegedly convinced customersalone identify with specificity how contrary information to prematurely sign off on contract milestones in orderwas communicated to them. Finally, the court rejected to record the revenue early. According to plaintiff,plaintiffs argument that the core operations doctrine each of these four undisclosed practices tainted theprovided an inference of scienter because plaintiff companys financial results during the class period.did not adequately allege that long-term contracts Defendants moved to dismiss, and the court dismissedconstituted nearly all of Ericssons business, particularly the second amended complaint, holding plaintiffwhen considering that the company also provided failed to adequately plead falsity or scienter. First, thehardware and short-term services. court held that plaintiffs claims relating to EricssonsAlthough the court expressed skepticism about plaintiffs purported contracting practices failed because plaintiffability to cure the second amended complaints defects, failed to adequately allege what, if any, financial datait granted plaintiff thirty days to amend. Plaintiff waived was tainted by Ericssons alleged failure to accuratelyits right to amend on February 10, 2020, and the court report loss-leading contracts or to accurately project thedismissed the case with prejudice.costs associated with its contracts. Plaintiffs failure was compounded by the fact that plaintiff did not adequately allege how the data at issue in the second amendedAsay, et al. v. Pinduoduo Inc., et al., Case complaintcosts, revenues, and other financial resultsNo. 18-cv-7625, 2020 WL 1530745 (S.D.N.Y. for past periodscould be tainted by allegedlyMar. 30, 2020) incorrect estimates of future project costs. The courtAnti-Counterfeit Measures And thus held plaintiff failed to adequately allege falsity.Marketing SpendSecond, the court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter because it did not allegePinduoduo, Inc. operates an online marketplace that what information or knowledge would have alertedsells consumer products in China. On July 26, 2018, defendants that their initial project cost estimates,Pinduoduo completed an IPO in the U.S., selling 85.6 such as those for the Grand Central Terminal project,million American Depository Shares (ADSs) at a were wrong from the start. Instead, plaintiffsprice of $19 per share, netting more than $1.7 billion in allegations showed that a former employee purportedlyproceeds. In its registration statement, the company acknowledged that Ericsson would not have knownstated [a]lthough we have adopted strict measures about cost overruns until six to twelve months afterto protect against [liabilities arising from the sale starting a project, disproving that defendants couldof counterfeits], including proactively verifying the have known their project estimates were wrongauthenticity and authorization of products sold on our when made. Thus, the court held that plaintiffs claimplatform through working with brands and conducting that Ericssons historical financial reports were falseoffline investigations, immediately taking down any or misleading due to Ericssons allegedly impropercounterfeit or illegal products or misleading information contracting practices was really a claim of fraud byfound on our platform, and freezing the accounts of hindsight, and not actionable. merchants in violation of the platform policies, these measures may not always be successful. The offering Turning to plaintiffs claims that Ericssons historicaldocuments further explained that the company could financial reports were false or misleading due toface claims from customers, brands, or government Ericssons allegedly improper accounting practices,entities if counterfeit products were sold through 64'