U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2000

Alan M. Harris, Yitzchok Wolpin, Fausto Pombar v. Ivax Corporation, Phillip Frost, Michael W. Fipps

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided April 20, 2000 · Cox, Hull, Cohill

209 F.3d 1275; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7187; 2000 WL 430031 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

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.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Unicapital Corp. Securities Litigation (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2001)
In re Synchronoss Securities Litigation (District Court, D. New Jersey 2010)
In re Splash Technology Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.