I do not agree Doc on that point. And no, you do not correct past future statements, which were made with likely a clear belief, and then when in litigation, which was the case on this particular point during that time, you definitely don’t talk about the issue again except in court. Which is where it was, in fact, clearly indicated what happened and then published in a publicly available legal opinion.
The issue was in fact litigated and discussed extensively in the court case. If it were a “lie”, they’d have won, or could have won, but I do not think even litigants questioned their intention. I do not think there is a real basis TO question their beliefs and intentions in that moment. That is the point of the safe harbor rule for future statements, events are dynamic. I might say something to you today, and then next week have information that changes that plan.
And see, this gets at the silly notion that anything anyone could possibly think is material has to be disclosed within a few days. That is not how any of this works. Rules apply with exact particularity, and then there are issues of liability and practicality. No court expects businesses to update their investors minute by minute, as to every change in direction, the disclosure rules in terms of timing are very particular, and anything anyone things might be material is not really the definition of either materiality or what must be disclosed under the 8-K rule.
It’s a mine field, which is why safe harbors are there and why we get any future statements at all.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
