United States Eleventh Circuit

Computer company's statement that it would need to upgrade its products to remain competitive still fall under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act 15 USC 77z-2 when it also contained cautionary language that competitor's products could make its own obsolete.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/30/2001
• Published 03/30/2001

Judges

• ANDERSON, Chief Judge:, Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, and MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Curtis V. Trinko,Neal A. DeYoung, New York City, Chris A. Barker, Alpert, Barker & Calcutt, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees., Lawrence D. Silverman, Steven E. Hartz, Christopher S. Carver, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., Miami, FL, Daniel F. Molony, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Michael P. Winter, Malfitano, Campbell & Dickinson, Tampa, FL, M. Robert Thornton, David Onorato, Kara W. Ong, King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.