United States First Circuit

Evidence that one corporate officer may have had a different interpretation of certain purchasing and accounting terminology than that used in the challenged statements, even with evidence of opportunity to deceive investors, does not show scienter sufficient for a 10b-5 claim.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/10/2001
• Published 05/10/2001

Judges

• TORRUELLA, Chief Judge., Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, CYR, Senior Circuit Judge, and STAHL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Court

• United States First Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Thomas G. Shapiro, with whom Thomas V. Urmy, Jr., Michelle Blauner, Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, Kenneth J. Vianale, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP and Jay S. Cohen, were on brief, for appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Mitchell H. Kaplan, with whom John R. Baraniak, Jr., Keith A. Custis and Choate, Hall & Stewart, were on brief, for appellees.