Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): revenues, income, earnings per share, and other financial items; statements of plans and objectives of management for future operations; and statements of future economic performance. Id. § 78u-5(i)(l)(A)-(C). Additionally, “any statement of the assumptions underlying or relating to any [such] statement” is classified as forward-looking. Id. § 78u-5(i)(l)(D). Once it is determined that the statement is indeed forward-looking, the safe harbor provides two alternative paths to immunity where: (1) the statement was accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, id. § 78u-5(e)(1)(A); or (2) plaintiff fails to provide the projections were made with actual knowledge that they were false or misleading, id. § 78u-5(c)(1)(B). See In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). A. Forward-Looking Statements The majority of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a prior judgment resting on two or more independent alternative grounds is not conclusive as to issues which were necessarily found in order to establish only one of those grounds (B) holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction (C) holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified (D) holding that this court must determine by independent review the actual grounds upon which the remand was based (E) holding that the safe harbor provides two independent grounds for protection
Output (English): holding that this court must determine by independent review the actual grounds upon which the remand was based