Alan M. Harris, Yitzchok Wolpin, Fausto Pombar v. Ivax Corp., Phillip Frost, Michael W. Fipps, 209 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Alan M. Harris, Yitzchok Wolpin, Fausto Pombar v. Ivax Corp., Phillip Frost, Michael W. Fipps, 209 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Splash Technology Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation (cand, 2001-08-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In Re Splash Technology Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation
N.D. Cal. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Harris v. Ivax Corporation, 182 F.3d 799, 805 (11th Cir.1999), reh’g denied, 209 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.2000) (clas *1068 sifying the statement “the challenges unique to this period in our history are now behind us” as a forward-looking statement).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Unicapital Corp. Securities Litigation (2×)
S.D. Fla. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d 799 , 806-07 (11th Cir.1999), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, 209 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alan M. HARRIS, Yitzchok Wolpin, Fausto Pombar, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
IVAX CORPORATION, Phillip Frost, Michael W. Fipps, Defendants-Appellees
98-4818.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 20, 2000.
209 F.3d 1275
Atlee W. Wampler, III, Wampler, Buchanan & Breen, P.A., Miami, FL, Mark Levine, Jules Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody, New York City, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Eugene E. Stearns, Bradford Swing, Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alha-deff & Sitterson, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Cox, Hull, Cohill.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

[*1276] 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)(l)(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.