TACTICAL LAW
  • Home
  • Professionals
    • Pamela K. Fulmer
    • Dee A. Ware
    • Marcela Davison Avilés
    • Affiliated Counsel
  • Practice
    • Software Audit Defense
    • Licensing & Contract Disputes
    • Litigation
    • ERP Licensing & Disputes >
      • Oracle/NetSuite Disputes >
        • River Supply v. Oracle/NetSuite
    • Advertising and Competition
    • Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility
    • Intellectual Property
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Tech Transactions
    • Outside General Counsel Services
    • Privacy and Data Security
  • Industries
  • Resources
  • About us
  • Oracle Blog
  • Tactical Law Blog
  • Contact

Oracle Blog

Shareholder's' Derivative Lawsuit Claims Oracle Management Knew of Predatory Audit Tactics and Misled Public

5/7/2019

2 Comments

 
Pamela K. Fulmer

​In a shareholder’s derivative lawsuit filed on May 6, 2019 in the Northern District of California, the City of Providence has accused the top echelons of Oracle’s management and its board of directors, of making materially false and misleading statements about the growth of Oracle’s cloud business and the simultaneous repurchase of common stock at inflated values. The verified 110-page complaint filed by the Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy law firm, relies heavily on a March 8th Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed in the In Re Oracle Corporation Securities Litigation, and sets out in meticulous detail the alleged misconduct relating to Oracle’s abuse of its audit rights and Oracle’s use of predatory audit tactics.  Essentially the Complaint alleges that Oracle License Management Services (“LMS”) improperly used software audits against Oracle customers to come up with bogus audit findings, which Oracle Sales could then leverage to force customers into Oracle cloud purchases.  Oracle management in turn would tout these sales to shareholders and the public, without disclosing that in many instances the Oracle customers never wanted or needed the products, but only bought them to get out from under the audit findings.  The Complaint alleges that the purpose of this elaborate scheme was to provide Oracle management with ammunition so that it could falsely claim that Oracle cloud sales were experiencing phenomenal growth thereby misleading the market.
 
The Complaint pleads specific facts, which will be familiar to many Oracle customers who have experienced an Oracle audit.  According to the complaint, in the typical “Audit, Bargain, Close” or “ABC deal”, Oracle’s LMS “would audit an existing on-premises client for violations of the software license and present the client with a hefty bill – say, $10 million. Oracle sales would then intervene, offering to reduce the penalties significantly – by, for instance, $4 million – if the customer purchased $2 million in cloud subscriptions. These customers, who neither wanted nor needed the cloud products, “purchased” a cloud subscription simply to save money on audit penalties, and, of course, almost never renewed those subscriptions. The Officer Defendants caused Oracle to misleadingly report these sham “sales” as cloud revenue, highlighting them as evidence of explosive business growth, when, in fact, they were nothing of the sort”.
 
Oracle customers who have undergone audit may also be able to relate to the following allegations:
 
“To start, Oracle installed its main on-premises products with extra options and management packs enabled by default, but did not inform its customers that these features had been installed and must be disabled in order to avoid license overages. Once a customer fell into this trap, Oracle’s sales and LMS teams worked in a highly coordinated fashion to audit the client for its license violations and push cloud products”. 
 
The complaint devotes a whopping 44 pages to setting out statements made by various high-level officers and directors of Oracle, which the complaint contends shows that Oracle management knew of and encouraged these improper practices and intentionally misled the public by repeatedly claiming that the growth in cloud sales was due to legitimate business factors and not fueled by improper audit and sales tactics. 
 

If you believe your company has been forced into an unwanted cloud purchase arising out of an Oracle audit, you may have legal remedies.  If you are currently under audit, and have been pressured to buy cloud, you may have legal options.  Please contact [email protected] if you would like to discuss your possible claims.

​Tactical Law Group LLP is continuing to monitor the litigation. Check back here for periodic updates.  The case is City of Providence v. Lawrence Ellison, et. al., Case Number 5:19-cv-02448-NMC.

You may read City of Providence’s Complaint by clicking below. 

 

city_of_providence_v._larry_ellison.pdf
File Size: 1352 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

2 Comments

    By Tactical Law Attorneys and From Time to Time Their Guests
    ​

    The contents of this blog is intended to convey general information.  It should not be relied upon as legal advice.  It is not an offer to represent you nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.  Tactical Law does not sponsor, endorse, verify or warrant the accuracy of the information contained on internal sites or subsequent links.

    Best Lawyers Award Badge

    Authors

    Collectively we have practiced law in California for over 60 years.  Our attorneys have advised clients of all sizes across industries on how to favorably resolve software audits, licensing and other disputes with Oracle/NetSuite and other software companies.

    Archives

    December 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    June 2024
    April 2024
    February 2024
    December 2023
    September 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    December 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    August 2018
    July 2017
    January 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

tactical law group llp

Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Contact

 COPYRIGHT TACTICAL LAW GROUP LLP 2016-2023..  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
​ 
Legal Disclaimer:  Contents may contain attorney advertising under the laws of some states.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
  • Home
  • Professionals
    • Pamela K. Fulmer
    • Dee A. Ware
    • Marcela Davison Avilés
    • Affiliated Counsel
  • Practice
    • Software Audit Defense
    • Licensing & Contract Disputes
    • Litigation
    • ERP Licensing & Disputes >
      • Oracle/NetSuite Disputes >
        • River Supply v. Oracle/NetSuite
    • Advertising and Competition
    • Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility
    • Intellectual Property
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Tech Transactions
    • Outside General Counsel Services
    • Privacy and Data Security
  • Industries
  • Resources
  • About us
  • Oracle Blog
  • Tactical Law Blog
  • Contact