Inter-Local Pension Fund, et al v. Waters Corporation, et al

Filing 920110120

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = '                   Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = '                   Although the complaint also alleged that certain of\
Ornell\'s statements as to predicted tax rates made on October 23,\
2007 were misleading, those allegations have been abandoned on\
appeal.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = '                   In this case, we do not decide the question of the\
materiality of the Japanese change in regulations, only that of\
whether there is a strong inference of scienter. Cf. New Jersey\
Carpenters Pension & Annuity Funds v. Biogen Idec, Inc., 537 F.3d\
35, 44 (1st Cir. 2008) ("We discuss materiality only insofar as it\
is relevant to the pleading of omissions said to be relevant to\
scienter.").\
'

var WPFootnote4 = '                   Given our disposition of this case, we need not engage in\
an additional inquiry that involves a "subjective test," requiring\
that "the omission derive from something more egregious than even\
\'white heart/empty head\' good faith." Sundstrand Corp. v. Sun\
Chem. Corp., 553 F.2d 1033, 1045 & n.20 (7th Cir. 1977); see also\
SEC v. Platforms Wireless Int\'l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1093 (9th\
Cir. 2010) (discussing the two part--objective and subjective--test\
for scienter); Backman v. Polaroid Corp., 893 F.2d 1405, 1418 (1st\
Cir. 1990) (discussing the good faith defense).\
'

var WPFootnote5 = '                   There is no need to reach defendants\' alternative\
argument that their future guidance statements are protected by the\
PSLRA\'s safe harbor provisions, under which a "forward-looking"\
statement, such as an earnings forecast, is not actionable under\
Section 10(b) if it is either (a) "identified as a forward-looking\
statement, and is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements\
identifying important factors that could cause actual results to\
differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement," or\
(b) the plaintiff fails to prove that it was made "with actual\
knowledge . . . that the statement was false or misleading." 15\
U.S.C. §78u-5(c)(1).\
'

var WPFootnote6 = '                   Plaintiff also alleges that seven non-defendant insiders\
sold 377,500 shares for proceeds of $25,119,276 during the class\
period. This court has considered stock sales by non-defendant\
insiders when evaluating the sufficiency of a pleading of scienter. \
See Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1224 (1st Cir.\
1996). However, listing only bare facts about the shares sold,\
plaintiff here does not provide any information about the trades\
indicating that they were unusual. Under these circumstances, it\
was not error for the district court to conclude that these sales\
were not probative. \
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "