NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[anders2211]

Let me help you by quoting the whole phrase then the answer to your remark is in bold.

Courts have noted that there is a duty to correct "when a company makes a historical statement that at the time made, the company believed to be true, but as revealed by subsequently discovered information actually was not." By contrast, this duty to correct is quite different from a duty to update "if a prior disclosure becomes materially misleading in light of subsequent events." Courts have rejected such a
duty. In the first situation, it is possible that a representative from a company could make a disclosure that asserts incorrect financial calculations or inaccurate data; in this case, the company has a duty to correct the original error. In the second situation, courts are unlikely to find an obligation to update soft information that is clearly set forth as a projection. 121

Cohn & Swick, supra note 59, at 940-41. Notably, however, this issue is not yet fully resolved. Factors that may affect a court's decision in a particular case may include: 1) the timing of the projection relative to the discovery of its inaccuracy, 2) the type of cautionary statements that may have accompanied the projection, 3) the extent of the discrepancy between the projection and the current information, and 4) a court's perceived relationship of the statements to attempted stock market manipulation. Id.