`
`
`
`POMERANTZ LLP
`
`Jennifer Pafiti (SBN 282790)
`1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90024
`Telephone: (310) 405-7190
`E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs
`
`[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`HUEI-TING KANG and
`ARTHUR FLORES,
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`CASE NO.: 3:21-cv-06468-CRB
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`HON. CHARLES R. BREYER
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
`OF THE SECURITIES LAWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................... iv
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION .............................................................................................. 1
`
`A. The CFPB Investigation into PayPal Credit & Continuing Violations ................... 3
`
`B. Regulatory Problems with Interchange Fees, Including the SEC Investigation ..... 6
`
`C. Investors React Negatively at the News that the Company’s Risk of Regulatory
`Scrutiny Has Materialized ....................................................................................... 7
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE .......................................................................................... 8
`
`PARTIES ............................................................................................................................. 9
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................... 10
`
`A. Background ........................................................................................................... 10
`
`B. PayPal Credit’s Checkered History of CFPA Violations and the 2015
`Consent Order ....................................................................................................... 11
`
`C. Continued Violations of the 2015 Consent Order and Federal Consumer
`Financial Laws Significantly Increased the Likelihood of Regulatory Scrutiny
`and Investigations Throughout the Class Period ................................................... 14
`
`1.
`
`PayPal Credit’s Deferred Interest Offerings Violated the CFPA’s
`Prohibitions Against Deceptive, Unfair, and Abusive Practices
`Throughout the Class Period ..................................................................... 14
`
`i. PayPal is Subject to the CFPA ...................................................... 15
`ii. PayPal Engaged in Deceptive, Unfair, and Abusive Practices
`Throughout the Class Period in Violation of both the 2015
`Consent Order and the CFPA ........................................................ 17
`2. The Misleading Promotions to Students Offering PayPal Credit
`Violated Regulation Z Throughout the Class Period ................................ 26
`
`3.
`
`PayPal Continues to Violate Federal Statutes and Regulations Despite
`Misleading, Public Assurances that it Would Stop ................................... 29
`
`D. PayPal’s Participation in a Shadow Banking Scheme that Circumvents and
`Evades Federal Regulations Substantially Increased the Risk of Regulatory
`Scrutiny and Investigations Throughout the Class Period .................................... 31
`
`
`PAYPAL AND THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS MADE FALSE OR
`MISLEADING STATEMENTS DURING THE CLASS PERIOD ................................. 38
`
`LOSS CAUSATION ......................................................................................................... 52
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 3 of 77
`
`
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS OF SCIENTER ........................................................... 54
`
`A. The Individual Responsibilities Imposed by the 2015 Consent Order on
`PayPal’s Board of Directors and Senior Management Raise a Strong
`Inference of Scienter ............................................................................................. 54
`
`B. The Individual Defendants Knew About the SBPC’s Findings yet Failed to
`Take Appropriate, Corrective Actions Despite False Assurances
`to the Contrary ....................................................................................................... 56
`
`C. Defendants’ Own Statements Support an Inference of Scienter ........................... 55
`
`D. Any Assumption Regarding Defendants’ Lack of Knowledge that
`PayPal’s Debit Cards Skirted Regulation II is Absurd ......................................... 57
`
`E. Schulman’s and Rainey’s Stock Sales Enhance an Inference of Scienter ............ 59
`
`LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ............................................. 61
`
`COUNT I ........................................................................................................................... 63
`
`COUNT II ......................................................................................................................... 66
`
`COUNT III ........................................................................................................................ 68
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................... 69
`
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY .................................................................................. 69
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................................... 72
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 4 of 77
`
`
`TABLE OF DEFINITIONS
`
`Term or Acronym
`
`Definition
`
`2015 Consent Order
`
`The Consent Order between the Consumer Financial Protection
`
`Bancorp
`
`Bland
`
`Bureau and PayPal, entered into on May 20, 2015
`
`The Bancorp Bank, Inc.
`
`Defendant Doug Bland, Vice President and General Manager of
`
`PayPal Credit
`
`Braintree
`
`Braintree Payments, a PayPal-owned product that automates online
`
`payments for merchants by providing payment gateways and
`
`billing, storage and other payment related support
`
`CEO
`
`CFO
`
`CFPA
`
`CFPB
`
`Chief Executive Officer
`
`Chief Financial Officer
`
`Consumer Financial Protection Act
`
`Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
`
`CFPB Complaint
`
`CFPB v. PayPal, Inc. and Bill Me Later, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01426,
`
`(D. Md. May 19, 2015)
`
`CID
`
`Civil Investigative Demand
`
`Class Period
`
`April 27, 2016 to July 28, 2021
`
`Clearing House
`
`Clearing House Association, LLC
`
`Association
`
`Company
`
`Complaint
`
`CW
`
`EFTA
`
`PayPal Holdings, Inc.
`
`Amended Complaint
`
`Confidential Witness
`
`Electronic Fund Transfer Act of 1978
`
`Exchange Act
`
`The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
`
`Federal Reserve
`
`Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
`
`Gallo
`
`GGR
`
`Defendant Joseph Gallo, Director of Communications at PayPal
`
`Global Government Relations
`
`Individual Defendants
`
`Defendants Daniel Schulman, John Rainey, Doug Bland, and
`
`Lead Plaintiffs
`
`Lead Plaintiffs Huei-Ting Kang and Arthur Flores
`
`Joseph Gallo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 5 of 77
`
`
`
`
`Marqeta
`
`NASDAQ
`
`Marqeta, Inc.
`
`National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation
`
`PayPal
`
`PayPal Holdings, Inc.
`
`Global Select Market
`
`PayPal Credit
`
`An open-end, revolving credit line built into a PayPal account that
`
`allows an account holder to pay for purchases online over a
`
`specified period after a credit application is approved by PayPal
`
`PYPL
`
`Rainey
`
`PayPal’s stock ticker
`
`Defendant John Rainey, CFO of PayPal
`
`Regulation II
`
`Federal Reserve Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing
`
`Regulation pursuant to Section 1075 of the Electronic Fund
`
`Transfer Act of 1978
`
`Regulation Z
`
`The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s implementing
`
`SBPC
`
`Student Borrower Protection Center
`
`regulation to the Truth in Lending Act
`
`SBPC Letters
`
`Letters sent from the Student Borrower Protection Center dated
`
`August 21, 2020 to Defendants PayPal and Schulman, and to the
`
`Director of the CFPB and the Acting Comptroller of the Currency
`
`SBPC Report
`
`Student Borrower Protection Center report on Shadow Student
`
`Debt: Shadow Student Debt, STUDENT BORROWER PROTECTION
`
`SEC
`
`Schulman
`
`Square
`
`CENTER, July 2020
`
`U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
`
`Defendant Daniel Schulman, CEO of PayPal
`
`Square Inc., now known as Block Inc.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Sutton
`
`Sutton Bank
`
`Synchrony
`
`Synchrony Bank
`
`TILA
`
`Venmo
`
`Truth in Lending Act
`
`A social payments service owned by PayPal that enables
`
`consumers to make and share payments online
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 6 of 77
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Lead Plaintiffs Huei-Ting Kang and Arthur Flores (referred to herein as “Lead Plaintiffs”
`
`2
`
`or “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, by their
`
`3
`
`undersigned attorneys, for their Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
`
`4
`
`Securities Laws (the “Amended Complaint”) against Defendants (defined below), allege the
`
`5
`
`following based upon personal knowledge as to those allegations concerning Lead Plaintiffs and,
`
`6
`
`as to all other matters, the investigation conducted by and through their attorneys, including, among
`
`7
`
`other things, a review of the Defendants’ public statements and filings made with the United States
`
`8
`
`Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), wire and press releases either issued by or
`
`9
`
`regarding PayPal Holdings, Inc. (“PayPal” or the “Company”), published analysts’ reports about
`
`10
`
`the Company, information obtained from interviews with knowledgeable former employees of the
`
`11
`
`Company and other persons with knowledge regarding these allegations (hereafter the Confidential
`
`12
`
`Witnesses or the “CWs”), and other information obtainable on the Internet. Lead Plaintiffs believe
`
`13
`
`that substantial evidentiary support exists for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable
`
`14
`
`opportunity for discovery.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
`
`17
`
`otherwise acquired PayPal’s publicly traded common stock during the period from April 27, 2016
`
`18
`
`through July 28, 2021, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under
`
`19
`
`Sections 10(b) and 20(a), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78(j)(b) and 78t(a), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
`
`20
`
`(“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Excluded from
`
`21
`
`the Class are Defendants herein; the officers and directors of the Company during the Class Period,
`
`22
`
`and, at all relevant times, any entity in which any of the Defendants have or had a controlling
`
`23
`
`interest; and the affiliates, immediate family members, legal representatives, heirs, successors or
`
`24
`
`assigns of any of the above.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2.
`
`PayPal is a digital payments company and technology platform, based in San Jose,
`
`California, that enables consumers and merchants to send and receive payments on the Internet.
`
`Its Proprietary Payments platform consists of seven core products, two of which are relevant here:
`
`PayPal Credit and Venmo. During the Class Period, Defendants made misleading representations
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 7 of 77
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`about compliance to conceal or downplay two significant regulatory problems: (1) ongoing,
`
`systematic violations of a Consent Order entered in May 2015 following an investigation into
`
`PayPal Credit by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), and (2) the issuance of
`
`debit cards, including the Venmo debit card, in violation of federal law.
`
`3.
`
`PayPal Credit is an open-end, revolving credit line built into a PayPal account that
`
`allows an account holder to pay for purchases online over a specified period after a credit
`
`application is approved by PayPal. During the Class Period, Defendants considered PayPal Credit
`
`to be one of their most important divisions because it was a significant provider of revenues that
`
`produced extremely high margins. PayPal Credit’s core offering is a buy now, pay later financing
`
`arrangement on purchases over $99. No interest is charged if the balance is paid within six months
`
`of the purchase date, but interest is automatically charged and compounded from the date of
`
`purchase if the consumer fails to pay any part of the full balance within six months.
`
`4.
`
`Like PayPal, Venmo is a social payments service that enables consumers to make
`
`and share payments online. It was acquired by PayPal in 2013. It has recently experienced
`
`explosive growth, and its revenues have skyrocketed from $200 million in 2018 to nearly $1
`
`billion in 2021 and are expected to double in 2022 given its intense popularity with millennials
`
`and the rapid acceleration of online payments due to current market conditions. Nearly 30% of
`
`this revenue is attributable to unreasonable and disproportionate interchange fees that PayPal earns
`
`19
`
`from the Venmo debit card.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Interchange fees are paid to the issuer of a debit card that holds the debit
`
`cardholder’s account. Typically, the issuer is a bank that both issues the debit card under its own
`
`brand and actually holds the customer’s account. However, federal statutes and regulations cap
`
`the amount of interchange fees that large issuers can charge to limit costs for consumers and
`
`promote competition in the market. To evade and circumvent this cap, PayPal contracts with
`
`smaller banks such as The Bancorp, Inc., (“Bancorp”) to claim that the smaller bank is the issuer,
`
`even though the bank does not hold the customer’s account. During the Class Period, PayPal also
`
`earned interchange fees from the PayPal Business MasterCard and the PayPal Cash Card. These
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 8 of 77
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`debit cards are also issued in partnership with Bancorp, and similarly evade and circumvent the
`
`regulatory cap on interchange fees.
`
`A. The CFPB Investigation into PayPal Credit & Continuing Violations
`
`6.
`
`Before the Class Period began, in May 2015, the CFPB filed a complaint against
`
`PayPal and a proposed Consent Order (hereafter “the 2015 Consent Order”) that was subsequently
`
`entered in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The CFPB’s investigation found
`
`that PayPal violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”) in numerous ways
`
`by engaging in unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices in connection with the offering,
`
`marketing, providing and servicing of PayPal Credit. Specifically, and of particular relevance to
`
`this Action, the CFPB found that PayPal (1) enrolled customers in PayPal Credit without their
`
`consent, (2) failed to clearly and prominently explain the terms and conditions of a deferred
`
`interest offer, (3) misrepresented the terms and conditions of promotional offers associated with
`
`PayPal Credit, and (4) failed to ensure that merchants who offered PayPal Credit honored
`
`promotions or provided customers with at least the benefit of the offer as represented in the
`
`promotion. CW1, a highly placed former employee who served as the Head of Compliance for
`
`U.S. Credit and U.S. Operations during the Class Period until March 2018, confirms that the
`
`CFPB, and the 2015 Consent Order, was particularly concerned about the impact of misleading
`
`deferred interest promotions, and that the focus was to make sure that consumers understood what
`
`19
`
`the payment rules were.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`7.
`
`The 2015 Consent Order enjoined and restrained PayPal and the Individual
`
`Defendants named in this Action from misrepresenting any terms and conditions regarding
`
`deferred interest and requires them to ensure that any merchant that offers PayPal Credit honors
`
`the offer and provides the consumer with at least the benefit of the promotion as it was represented
`
`by the merchant. Thus, the 2015 Consent Order squarely required PayPal to ensure that merchants
`
`did not misleadingly claim free interest for six months without explaining that interest is
`
`compounded from the date of purchase if the consumer fails to pay the full balance within six
`
`27
`
`months.
`
`28
`
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 9 of 77
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`8.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly violated the 2015 Consent
`
`Order and several federal consumer financial laws by (1) enrolling customers in PayPal Credit
`
`without their knowledge or consent, (2) misrepresenting the terms and conditions of PayPal
`
`Credit’s deferred interest offers, and (3) failing to ensure that merchants who offered PayPal Credit
`
`honored promotions or provided customers with at least the benefit of the offer as represented in
`
`the promotion.
`
`9.
`
`The fact that PayPal Credit’s terms and conditions on merchants’ websites misled
`
`consumers during the Class Period cannot be the subject of reasonable dispute. On July 17, 2020,
`
`the Student Borrower Protection Center (“SBPC”), a nonprofit organization focused on alleviating
`
`the burden of student debt, released a report entitled “Shadow Student Debt,” in which it described
`
`how PayPal Credit was offered as a method of payment for tuition expenses at unaccredited
`
`schools that are otherwise ineligible for federal student loans. Deferred interest promotions in fact
`
`spurred the CFPB to take action against the Company nearly six years ago, which resulted in the
`
`14
`
`2015 Consent Order.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`10.
`
`On August 21, 2020, the SBPC sent letters to the CFPB and Defendant Daniel H.
`
`Schulman (“Schulman”), the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of PayPal, explaining how PayPal
`
`Credit was marketed to vulnerable students with misleading deferred interest promotions. These
`
`letters described how PayPal Credit was misleadingly promoted at 150 identified predatory for-
`
`profit educational institutions. On the very same day, Defendants, in an attempt to blunt the impact
`
`of the letters and manage the decline in the Company’s stock price, launched a media campaign
`
`to deflect attention away from the Company, including publicly committing to remove the
`
`misleading promotions, stating that PayPal had already started to remove them, and misleadingly
`
`distancing the Company from the underlying misconduct through claims that PayPal had “no
`
`direct relationship” with the predatory for-profit educational institutions. The media campaign
`
`worked. The price of the Company’s common stock declined by less than 1% on August 21, 2020
`
`as a direct result of the Defendants’ misleading statements.
`
`11.
`
`PayPal’s media campaign, however, was false and misleading. The accounts of
`
`several CWs and Defendants’ own statements confirm that merchants are vetted by PayPal and
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 10 of 77
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`the Company’s internal policies are designed to ensure that both it and its merchants comply with
`
`the law. In particular, the 2015 Consent Order specifically requires PayPal to ensure that
`
`merchants provide promotional offers exactly as they are advertised even if that was not what the
`
`advertisement intended. Lead Plaintiffs’ own investigation, as fully detailed herein, shows that
`
`numerous for-profit educational institutions misleadingly promoted deferred interest loans
`
`through PayPal Credit to vulnerable students throughout the Class Period and many of them
`
`continue to do so even as of today despite PayPal’s false assurances to remediate the problem in
`
`the summer of 2020 after the SBPC reported the Company to the CFPB.
`
`12.
`
`Defendants’ statements to investors concealed their violations. In SEC filings, they
`
`falsely or misleadingly claimed that the Company was then “work[ing] to ensure compliance”
`
`with the 2015 Consent Order, was “monitor[ing]” laws “closely” to ensure compliance and that
`
`its interests were perfectly “aligned” with regulators. During the Class Period, Defendants
`
`Schulman and John Rainey (“Rainey”), PayPal’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), also repeatedly
`
`touted PayPal’s “world class” compliance regime that they claimed was a “role model” to others
`
`because the Company was laser-focused on compliance and was compliant with “any and all
`
`regulatory environments out there.” Defendant Doug Bland (“Bland”), the head of Global Credit
`
`and the senior executive in charge of PayPal Credit, made misleading statements about the
`
`transparency of PayPal Credit’s terms and conditions long after the Company was put on notice
`
`about the continued violations of the 2015 Consent Order. Defendants never stopped making such
`
`misleading statements even after Schulman knew about the SBPC’s concerns, and sent PayPal
`
`representatives to personally discuss the letter with the SBPC, as a CW from the SBPC confirms
`
`(“CW2”), and, despite representing to the contrary, failed to remove all the misleading promotions
`
`that PayPal Credit offered to vulnerable students as confirmed herein. At the very least, the risk
`
`of regulatory scrutiny and subsequent investigations had effectively materialized after the SBPC
`
`reported PayPal to the CFPB, but Defendants never tempered their misleading statements at any
`
`26
`
`point in time.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Defendants made their misleading statements with scienter. The 2015 Consent
`
`Order expressly placed responsibility on PayPal’s Board of Directors and the Individual
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 11 of 77
`
`
`
`
`Defendants, as members of PayPal senior management, to take specific steps to ensure that PayPal
`
`did not enroll customers in PayPal Credit without their consent or misrepresent the terms and
`
`conditions of any deferred interest offer and otherwise ensure that PayPal complied with the 2015
`
`Consent Order and all federal consumer financial laws. Their failure to do so was at least reckless.
`
`Defendants touted PayPal’s compliance program, which purportedly included the actions of its
`
`merchants, to investors, even as they had known about the violations since at least August 2020
`
`when Schulman received a letter from the SBPC detailing the chronic failures in the Company’s
`
`so-called “world class” compliance regime.
`
`14.
`
`Instead of fulfilling their duty to disclose all material information or refrain from
`
`trading, during the Class Period, Defendants Schulman and Rainey took advantage of PayPal’s
`
`artificially inflated stock price by selling nearly $168 million in stock. In particular, Schulman
`
`sold over $53 million, and Rainey sold over $20.8 million of PayPal’s common stock after the
`
`SBPC Shadow Student Debt Report was released and after they knew about the federal consumer
`
`financial law violations detailed herein. These specific stock sales were dramatically out of line
`
`with their prior trading activity over a comparable period in the past.
`
`B. Regulatory Problems with Interchange Fees, Including the SEC Investigation
`
`15.
`
`In addition, during the Class Period, Defendants concealed regulatory problems
`
`with interchange fees. PayPal issued several debit cards and earned unreasonable and
`
`disproportionate interchange fees in violation of Section 1075 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act
`
`of 1978 (“EFTA”) (15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq.), which was subsequently implemented by the Board
`
`of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) pursuant to a federal
`
`regulation on Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing known as “Regulation II.” Regulation II
`
`caps the amount of interchange fees that a financial entity can earn from debit card transactions,
`
`but, as fully explained below, PayPal has circumvented or evaded this regulation by using Bancorp
`
`as a conduit to keep virtually all the interchange fees for itself, which is, approximately twice the
`
`amount allowed pursuant to the regulatory cap. PayPal is either the issuer of the debit cards
`
`themselves or, as its own debit card agreements admit, it holds the customer’s account balances,
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 12 of 77
`
`
`
`
`both of which mean that neither PayPal nor Bancorp is entitled to claim an exemption from the
`
`requirements of Regulation II.
`
`16.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, PayPal repeatedly acknowledged in filings with the
`
`SEC that it was aware of Regulation II and the regulatory cap and misleadingly claimed that the
`
`amount of the interchange fee could decrease, and the fees collected may become the subject of
`
`regulatory challenge. However, the plain language of both the EFTA and Regulation II and its
`
`accompanying commentary from the Federal Reserve make it clear that PayPal is not entitled to
`
`an exemption and has set up a shadow banking arrangement to earn unreasonable and
`
`disproportionate fees prohibited by federal law. At the very least, Defendants knew or recklessly
`
`disregarded the increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and subsequent investigations given the
`
`intense focus on this issue from both the industry and regulators over the last decade.
`
`C. Investors React Negatively at the News that the Company’s Risk of Regulatory
`Scrutiny Has Materialized
`
`17.
`
`On October 23, 2020, the Clearing House Association LLC (“Clearing House
`
`Association”), a research and analysis organization focused on financial regulation, submitted a
`
`public comment to the Federal Reserve outlining how PayPal and other large fintech companies
`
`were evading or circumventing the regulatory cap on interchange fees imposed by Regulation II.
`
`18.
`
`On this partial disclosure or the materialization of the risks thereof, the price of
`
`PayPal’s common stock declined by nearly 3% from its closing price of $203.04 that day, to close
`
`at $197.22 per share on October 26, 2020, the next trading day.
`
`19.
`
`On July 29, 2021, Bloomberg News reported that the price of PayPal’s common
`
`stock declined that day upon news that the Company faced probes from both the CFPB and the
`
`SEC. The article published in Bloomberg News noted that the price of the Company’s common
`
`stock continued to fall in late trading in New York after news of the investigations emerged. On
`
`the same day, PayPal also filed with the SEC its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the second
`
`quarter of 2021 (“2Q21 10-Q”), in which it provided more details about the investigations. The
`
`2Q21 10-Q stated that PayPal had received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the CFPB
`
`“related to the marketing and use of PayPal Credit in connection with certain merchants that
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 13 of 77
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`provide educational services. The CID requested the production of documents, written reports,
`
`and answers to written questions.” The 2Q21 10-Q further stated that PayPal had responded to
`
`subpoenas and requests for information from the Division of Enforcement at the SEC concerning
`
`“whether the interchange rates paid to the bank that issues debit cards bearing our licensed brands
`
`were consistent with Regulation II of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and
`
`the reporting of marketing fees earned from the Company’s branded card program.”
`
`20.
`
`The market reacted significantly and negatively to the announcement of these
`
`investigations. On July 29, 2021, the price of the Company’s common stock declined by over 6%
`
`from its previous day closing price of $301.98 to close at $283.17.
`
`21.
`
`On July 30, 2021, the price of the Company’s common stock declined further by
`
`over 2.6% from its previous day closing price of $283.17 to close at $275.53 as the market
`
`continued to absorb the news. On July 30, 2021, Coinspeaker, a media outlet dedicated to the
`
`fintech industry, also published an article on the SEC investigation and stated that the price of the
`
`Company’s stock declined upon the announcement of news of the investigations on the previous
`
`day, and continued to decline on the following day as investors absorbed news about the
`
`investigations. On July 31, 2021, it declined another 1.6% from its previous day closing price of
`
`$275.53 to close at $270.99 on heavy trading volume.
`
`22.
`
`As a result of the Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
`
`decline in the market value of PayPal’s common stock upon the partial disclosures and/or
`
`materialization of the concealed risks thereof, Lead Plaintiffs and other Class members have
`
`21
`
`suffered significant losses and damages.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`23. The claims asserted herein arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
`
`Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §
`
`25
`
`240.10b-5).
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`24. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 and Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa).
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.: 21-CV-06468-CRB
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-06468-CRB Document 49 Filed 01/25/22 Page 14 of 77
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`25. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act (15
`
`U.S.C. § 78aa(a)) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) given that a significant portion of the Defendants’
`
`misconduct took place within this District. PayPal is a corporation incorporated in Delaware with
`
`its principal place of business in San Jose, California, and Defendants Rainey and Schulman reside
`
`in or around the San Francisco Bay Area.
`
`26.
`
`In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Amended
`
`Complaint, Defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate
`
`commerce, including but not limited to, the United States mail, interstate telephone
`
`communications and the facilities of a national securities exchange.
`
`PARTIES
`
`27.