City of Providence filing City of Sunrise Florida Firefighters Pension Fund Class Action Filings Against Oracle’s Executive Leadership Cloud Computing Consolidated Class Action Complaint Dave Welch former Oracle employees Larry Ellison Mars v. Oracle NetSuite OLSA OMA Oracle audit Oracle Licensing Oracle LMS Oracle's cloud business Oracle's inflated cloud revenue Oracle’s audit tactics Oracle’s cloud revenue Oracle’s sales tactics Pam Fulmer Pamela Fulmer Schedule C – Cloud Services Securities Class Complaint Tactical Law Group Tech Union Asset Management Holding AG

Securities Class Complaint and City of Providence Filing, re: Oracle Cloud Revenue Statements and Oracle Stock Price Manipulation: A Layman’s Analysis

Securities Class Complaint and City of Providence Filing, re: Oracle Cloud Revenue Statements and Oracle Stock Price Manipulation: A Layman’s Analysis

Securities Class Grievance and City of Providence Filing, re: Oracle Cloud Revenue Statements and Oracle Stock Worth Manipulation: A Layman’s Evaluation

posted June 6, 2019, four:32 PM by

Dave Welch (@OraVBCA), CTO & Chief Evangelist

New Class Action Filings Towards Oracle’s Government Leadership

There are two current and related class action lawsuits towards Oracle’s government management. The filings are substantial of their allegations of each constant public misrepresentation of Oracle’s cloud income and put in customer base, and Oracle’s audit and sales techniques to inflate its cloud income numbers. I consider the allegations and quotes of public materials in these lawsuits ought to be thought-about by clients assessing their Oracle license map, dealing with a previous or present Oracle audit, and/or considering increasing their relationship with Oracle.

Pam Fulmer of Tactical Regulation Group analyzed the Providence submitting in her 7 Might 2019 blog publish. House of Brick CEO Nathan Biggs discussed both filings in his 14 Might blog publish.

In your comfort, the filings may be downloaded here:


The 8 March 2019 Securities Class Grievance filing is an modification and enlargement of the City of Sunrise Florida Firefighters Pension Fund 10 August 2018 class action (see my 15 August 2018 weblog publish here). The Securities Class Grievance expands the category and sports activities a brand new, court-appointed main plaintiff – Union Asset Administration Holding AG (casual identify Union Funding) out of Germany. The Securities Class Grievance additionally expands over the Dawn submitting by way of the introduction of detailed allegations on the a part of 9 former Oracle staff from divisions and geographies everywhere in the globe.

The Providence submitting begins with this assertion:

“Plaintiff Metropolis of Providence (“Plaintiff”) … brings this action derivatively on behalf of Oracle Corporation …”

Intriguing. Right here’s the Providence filing’s rationale:

¶ eight: “The Securities Class Grievance seeks to get well damages on behalf of buyers who purchased or bought Oracle securities through the Relevant Interval. This motion, then again, seeks to redress hurt to the Company arising from the federal securities class motion, primarily as a result of Oracle isn’t a member of the class as defined within the Securities Class Grievance.” (See additionally ¶ 247 – 248, 253, 353-354, 356 – 357, 360, 363 – 365.)

Warning: these filings are web page turners. For those of us who spend our days dealing with Oracle overreach and misdirection, the content material of these filings is sort of compelling. The Providence filing references the Securities Class Grievance and integrates most of it by way of copy, typically with minimal, if any, rewording. For that cause, I like to recommend:

  • A full learn of the Securities Class Grievance
  • A selective learn of the Windfall grievance using the steerage I present under


In case your time is restricted, might I recommend the next:

All appearances are that Mars got here out properly in its 23 October 2015 filing. Mars’ filing was based mostly on two causes of action, one being Oracle’s try and redefine “installed” in hypervisor-enabled environments, and the other being Oracle’s try and expansively redefine what constitutes a enterprise intelligence software consumer. I feel it vital that neither Mars nor its two causes of action are even mentioned in both the Securities Class Grievance or the Windfall submitting.

Quoting from Nathan’s 14 March 2019 blog submit:

“Oracle staff validate what we (and our clients) already know. With the lots of of shoppers that we’ve assisted with Oracle license compliance validation, optimization, and audit protection providers, we have now turn out to be accustomed to the shenanigans that Oracle’s sales and audit LMS teams show across the globe on a daily and predictable basis.”

Three issues within the allegations, and quotes of revealed material, have been news to me (or stunned me). I mention two of them right here:

  • Securities Class Grievance: the allegation that Oracle had internally booked cloud gadgets not shown anyplace on customer-facing ordering documents.
  • Windfall submitting: the allegation that Oracle is effectively beneath the only control of Ellison.

Different Innovations in the Windfall Filing

Past the Securities Class Grievance, Providence’s allegations embrace, but usually are not restricted to, the following issues.

¶ 3: $14 billion in inventory repurchases inside lower than two years, the allegation being that the repurchase was meant to masks the corporate’s stagnant progress. (See also ¶ 74-80, 157, 242 – 244, 255, 259, 263, 267.) Inventory repurchases, are in fact, normal follow amongst publicly traded corporations. Will probably be as much as the shareholders and the courtroom to find out whether this was carried out egregiously to hide persistently dangerous efficiency, as alleged in the filings.

¶ 167 – 171: The allegation that the factitious inflation of the efficiency of Oracle’s cloud enterprise greased the skids for the NetSuite buy. The thought is that Oracle was compelled to pay too much. Netsuite isn’t mentioned in the Securities Class Grievance aside from in a footnote reference.

The allegation that Ellison was the absolute management individual over Oracle:

¶ 347: “Throughout his tenure as an officer and/or Chairman of the Board, in addition to the Company’s visionary founder with absolute control over the Board and the Company, Defendant Ellison was a controlling individual of all Officer Defendants inside the which means of Section 20(a) of the Trade Act. By purpose of his absolute control, Defendant Ellison had the facility and authority to direct the administration and activities of the opposite Officer Defendants, to hire and hearth the opposite Officer Defendants at whim, and to cause the other Officer Defendants to interact within the wrongful conduct complained of herein. Defendant Ellison was capable of and did management, instantly or indirectly, the content of the general public statements made by all other Officer Defendants through the Related Interval, including the materially misleading financial statements, thereby inflicting the dissemination of the false and misleading statements and omissions of material details as alleged herein.”

¶ 348: “In his capacity as founder, visionary, controlling stockholder, senior government, and Chairman of the Board of Oracle, Defendant Ellison had direct involvement in and oversight over the day-to-day operations of the Officer Defendants and the Company’s staff, who would not act until Defendant Ellison agreed with their course of conduct. Particularly, Defendant Ellison is, and was at all related occasions, Oracle’s Chief Know-how Officer, Chairman of the Board, founder, visionary chief, and controlling stockholder. As the absolute control individual of Oracle, Defendant Ellison has personally employed and overseen the work of the Officer Defendants in finishing up his imaginative and prescient for the Firm in addition to threatened to take or has taken retaliatory actions towards any worker who strays from his management.”

(See further element on this allegation in ¶ 281 – 294.)

¶ 158, 218 – 220 mentions previous news: the Oracle board’s compensation committee’s rework of the chief group’s compensation to be incentivized based mostly on stock worth and cloud revenue efficiency.

Windfall’s Prayer for Aid consists of these further gadgets:

“B: Figuring out and awarding Oracle the damages sustained by it because of the violations set forth above from every Officer Defendant, joint and severally, along with prejudgment and post-judgment interest thereon;

C: Declaring that Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to Oracle;

D: Directing Oracle to take all vital actions to reform and improve its company governance and inner procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect the Firm and its stockholders from a repeat of the damaging occasions described herein;”

Parting Thoughts

I tip my hat to the three organizations named in the Securities Class Grievance (¶ 163) as having refused to play Oracle’s cloud income recreation:

  • Toy-maker Mattel
  • Guardian Life Insurance coverage
  • Southern California Edison


We’ve worked with organizations ruled by Oracle License and Providers Agreements (OLSA) that haven’t seen any substantial harm in accommodating Oracle’s insistence in introducing its Oracle Grasp Agreement (OMA) into incremental gross sales moderately than the purchasers’ legacy agreements. Nevertheless, these two lawsuits allege good purpose to stick with the OLSA. In contrast to the OMA, the OLSA doesn’t include Schedule C – Cloud Providers, providing another impediment to turning into an unwitting enabler in Oracle’s self-serving video games.

In fact these lawsuits call to mind the 1 June 2016 filing by plaintiff Blackburn alleging Oracle’s cooking of the cloud income books for purposes of manipulating inventory worth. Shortly thereafter, two class actions have been filed towards Oracle based mostly on the Blackburn submitting. (Each class action plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their actions out of courtroom. Oracle settled out of courtroom with Blackburn 8 February 2017.) In contrast, public entities are involved as plaintiffs in both of these new filings. I might think about that will increase the chances that the existence and element of any out-of-court settlements might develop into subject to Launch of Data/Freedom of Info statutes, and subsequently can be made public.

The unbiased allegations of two former staff that 90% of the so-called “Lifeless on Arrival” or “DOA” clients didn’t renew (Securities Class Grievance ¶ 125) put emphasis behind a couple of Oracle Cloud blog posts (right here and here) through which I referred to as into query Oracle Cloud’s readiness and competitive position. The allegations of Oracle’s systemic, shameless misrepresentations might give pause to organizations considering together with Oracle in RFP initiatives (see my 27 January 2017 blog publish on the CoverOregon litigation between the State of Oregon and Oracle).

In answer to my 15 August 2018 submit title Will This Newest Go well with Towards Oracle Ever See a Courtroom Listening to?, it might appear the go well with saw at the least one hearing earlier than Decide Freeman, which led to what is now the Securities Class Grievance.

The allegations in these two lawsuits might point out that Oracle clients have extra leverage than they understand. I word that Oracle moved to dismiss the original Metropolis of Sunrise Firefighters Pension Fund filing (See Tactical Regulation Group’s 26 April 2019 weblog submit) fairly than fortunately argue the case’s deserves in courtroom as a sign to the world that Oracle meant to rid itself of the nuisance of such lawsuits.

The allegations additionally emphasize the wisdom of getting skilled recommendation moderately than trying to go it alone. Let Home of Brick assist you together with your Oracle licensing needs.