green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 17×
56.3 score
G Cite
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, 2019–2025 · 3 courts ·
…document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
⚠ not in text
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases · 2 courts ·
…document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is . . . properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
EP Medsystems Inc v. Echocath Inc
But cf. Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d 799 , 805-06 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that statements made on the last day of a quarter concerning the results for the quarter ar e forward-looking).
cited
Cited "but see"
EP MedSystems, Inc. v. EchoCath, Inc.
But cf. Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d 799 , 805-06 (11th Cir.1999) (holding that statements made on the last day of a quarter concerning the results for the quarter are forward-looking).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In Re Immune Response Securities Litigation
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
if the allegation is that the statement is misleading, then it makes no sense to slice the into separate sentences.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In Re Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation
(9×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
ere we to banish from the safe harbor lists that contain both factual and forward-looking factors, we would inhibit corporate officers from fully explaining their outlooks .... that would hamper the communication that congress sought to foster.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lakatos v. Envision Healthcare
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bienaime v. Department of Children and Families
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Del Pino Allen v. GEICO
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Griffin v. Motorsport Games Inc.
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Einhorn v. AxoGen, Inc.
he challenges unique to this period in our history are now behind us . . . ur fundamental business and its underlying strategies remain intact . . . ivax is certainly very well positioned.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jenkins v. Prime Insurance Co.
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is . . . properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jenkins v. Prime Insurance Co.
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is . . . properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gordon v. National Seating & Mobility, Inc.
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is . . . properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wang v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is . . . properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Fnu v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD.
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. United Way of East Central Alabama
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Samara v. Taylor
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
McKleroy v. Jacksonville Health and Rehabilitation LLC
a document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Higgins v. Healthsouth Corporation
document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered, provided that its contents are not in dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Davis v. Self
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
ordinarily, the full text of would not be part of the record under review for a dismissal under fed.r.civ.p. 12(b)(6) unless it was attached to the complaint.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewitter v. Terran Orbital Corporation
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
“If the Court determines that the statement is accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, the defendants’ state of mind is irrelevant.” Id. (quoting Harris, 182 F.3d at 803) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
KBC Asset Management NV v. Discover Financial Services
The court explained that “[t]hese types of statements, when accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, are properly sheltered under the safe-harbor because they convey management plans for yet-to-be-proven future operations and goals.” Id. (citing Harris, 182 F.3d at 805).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzalez v. Cano Health, Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Harris, 182 F.3d at 807.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Southfield General Employees' Retirement System v. National Vision Holdings, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Defendants argue that nearly all the challenged “forward-looking statements” were “identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language that was ‘detailed and informative,’ thus qualifying the statements for protection under the first prong of the safe harbor.” (Doc. 53-1 at 21 (citing Harris, 182 F.3d at 807).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Delaware County Employees Retirement System v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation
An investor reading the disclaimer would not have been “sufficiently on notice of the danger of the investment to make an intelligent decision about it according to her own preferences for risk and reward.” Harris, 182 F.3d at 807 (quotation marks omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Axogen, Inc.
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 806.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Louisiana Sheriffs Pension & Relief Fund v. Cardinal Health, Inc.
When an investor “has been warned of risks of a significance similar to that actually realized, she is sufficiently on notice of the danger of the investment to make an intelligent decision about it according to her own preferences for risk and reward.” Helwig, 251 F.3d at 559 (citing Harris, 182 F.3d at 807).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
University of Puerto Rico Retirement System v. Ocwen Financial Corporation
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
While boilerplate won't suffice, the meaningful-cautionary-language obligation "does not require a listing of all factors"-it's enough that an issuer mention "important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement." Harris , 182 F.3d at 807 (citation *1327 omitted). "[W]hen an investor has been warned of risks of a significance similar to that actually realized, she is sufficiently on notice of the danger of the investment to make an intelligent decision about it according to her own preferences for risk and reward." Id . ; see also E…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re KLX, Inc. Securities Litigation
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Harris, 182 F.3d at 803.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lubbers v. Flagstar Bancorp. Inc.
Flagstar also cites Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d 799 (11th Cir.1999), where the court stated that “when an investor has been warned of risks of a significance similar to that actually realized, she is sufficiently on notice of the danger of the investment to make an intelligent decision about it according to her own preferences for risk and reward.” Id. at 807.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allen v. Housing Authority
United States v. Rojas, 718 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir.2013); Harris, 182 F.3d at 802.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Harman International Industries Inc.
(2×)
For instance, the Company did not warn as to the problem it faced — here, PND obsolescence — that it “has experienced, and may continue to experience,” certain “problems,” Par nes, 122 F.3d at 549 , or state “in detail what kind of misfortunes could befall the company and what the effect could be,” Harris, 182 F.3d at 807.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation
(3×)
Courts also adhere to “the common-sense proposition that words such as ‘expect’ identify forward-looking statements.” Id. (citing Harris, 182 F.3d at 804-06).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Westley v. Oclaro, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Litig., 311 F.Supp.2d 857, 882 (N.D.Cal.2004); see also Institutional Investors Group v. Avaya, Inc., 564 F.3d 242, 256 (3d Cir.2009) (stating that, “[t]o suffice, the cautionary statements must be substantive and tailored to the specific future projections, estimates or opinions in the prospectus which the plaintiffs challenge’ ”); Harris, 182 F.3d at 807 (stating that, “when an investor has been warned of risks of a significance similar to that actually realized, she is sufficiently on notice of the danger of the investment to make an intelligent decision about it according to her ow…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rochester Laborers Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co.
Solutions, Inc., 365 F.3d 353 , 372 (5th Cir. 2004) (“The requirement for ‘meaningful’ cautions calls for ‘substantive’ company-specific warnings based on a realistic description of the risks applicable to the particular circumstances, not merely a boilerplate litany of generally applicable risk factors.”); Harris, 182 F.3d at 807 (to be meaningful, cautionary statements must warn of “risks of a significance similar to that actually realized....”). “[T]o determine whether cautionary language is adequate, courts should evaluate it in light of the allegedly undisclosed risk and…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The safe harbor and bespeaks caution doctrines do not apply to these omissions.”) Cf. Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d at 805.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Scientific Atlanta, Inc. Securities Litigation
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Goodman, 594 F.3d at 795 (“[A]ctual knowledge of falsity will not deprive a defendant of protection by the statutory safe harbor if his forward-looking statements are accompanied by meaningful cautionary language.”); Harris, 182 F.3d at 803 (noting that if forward-looking statement is accompanied by “meaningful cautionary language,” the defendant’s state of mind is irrelevant).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re HomeBanc Corp. Securities Litigation
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
However, in order for a defendant to avail itself of the safe harbor, the cautionary statement need only mention important factors that could cause the company’s actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement, and “it does not require a listing of all factors.” Harris, 182 F.3d at 807; see also Cutsforth v. Renschler, 235 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1232 (M.D.Fla.2002) (“[A] cautionary statement does not have to list all factors that might cause actual results to differ from those in the forward-looking statements, and does not necessarily have to identify the spec…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Synchronoss Securities Litigation
Inc., 346 F.3d 660 , 672 (6th Cir.2003), and Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d at 803-04).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Laborers-Employers Pension Trust v. Panera Bread
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
In determining whether a statement is truly forward-looking, the determinative factor is not the tense of the statement; instead, the key is whether its "truth or falsity is discernible only after it is made." Harris, 182 F.3d at 805.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc.
In Harris, we declined to articulate a specific standard for pleading scienter when the statements at issue are forward-looking. 182 F.3d at 803-04.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Harley Davidson, Inc., Securities Litigation
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
"The usual rules for considering 12(b)(6) motions are thus bent to permit consideration of an allegedly fraudulent statement in its context." Harris, 182 F.3d at 802. 12 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Desai v. General Growth Properties, Inc.
(2×)
But that language need not expressly refer to the risk that ultimately caused the projection to differ from the results (Harris, 182 F.3d at 807), for “prevision” on the part of defendants is not required (Asher, 377 F.3d at 732 ).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc.
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
Harris, 182 F.3d at 803.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re XM Satellite Radio Holdings Securities Litigation
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
“If a statement is ‘accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements,’ the defendants’ state of mind is not relevant.” Kurtzman, 2000 WL 34292632 , at * 6 n. 15 (citing Harris, 182 F.3d at 803).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Schultz v. Applica Inc.
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
Liability for forward-looking statements may be avoided if such statements are “accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward looking-statement.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(A)(I); Harris, 182 F.3d at 803.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Yellen v. Hake
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Language is meaningful and cautionary if it puts an investor “on notice of the danger of the investment to make an intelligent decision about it according to her own preferences for risk and reward.” Harris, 182 F.3d at 807 (affirming dismissal under PSLRA’s safe harbor where forward-looking statements were accompanied by warnings that informed the reader in detail about the kinds of misfortunes that could befall the company and their potential effects).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Ibis Technology Securities Litigation
(3×)
In other words, “if a statement is accompanied by ‘meaningful cautionary language,’ the defendants’ state of mind is irrelevant.” Harris, 182 F.3d at 803.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Airgate Pcs, Inc. Securities Litigation
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Under this statutory safe harbor, a defendant may not be liable even in the absence of accompanying cautionary language if the plaintiff fails to prove that the defendant made the statement with “actual knowledge” that it was “false or misleading.” 15 U.S.C. § 77z- 2(c)(l)(B)(i); Harris, 182 F.3d at 803.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harris
v.
Ivax Corporation
v.
Ivax Corporation
98-4818.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 27, 1999.
182 F.3d 799
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. Florida (5) · N.D. Alabama (4) · N.D. Georgia (3) · M.D. Florida (2) · D. Utah (1)
Alan M. HARRIS, Yitzchok Wolpin, Fausto Pombar, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
IVAX CORPORATION, Phillip Frost, Michael W. Fipps, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 98-4818.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
April 20, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 97-559-CV-FAM); Federico A. Moreno, Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION OF REHEARING EN BANC
Before COX and HULL, Circuit Judges, and COHILL*, Senior District Judge.
v.
IVAX CORPORATION, Phillip Frost, Michael W. Fipps, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 98-4818.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
April 20, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 97-559-CV-FAM); Federico A. Moreno, Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION OF REHEARING EN BANC
Before COX and HULL, Circuit Judges, and COHILL*, Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The Securities and Exchange Commission, permitted to file a brief in partial support of a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc filed by the plaintiffs, has argued that our opinion in this case
erroneously implies that a "cautionary statement[ ]" could still be "meaningful," and thus shield a company from liability for a false forward-looking statement, even if the cautionary statement knowingly omits a fact
that is such a market-driver that it dwarfs the listed "factors that could cause actual results to differ." 15
U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A)(i). We write only to confirm that this argument was not made to the panel, and that we have therefore not considered it.
The petition for rehearing is otherwise DENIED, and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5), the Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
* Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.