Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-103/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 /

No. C 02-1486 CW

ORDER REGARDING

CHALLENGED

STATEMENTS

In their joint pre-trial conference statement, the parties

indicate that they dispute whether five challenged statements are

forward-looking and therefore potentially protected under the safe

harbor in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of

1995 or the judicially-created "bespeaks caution" doctrine. See 15

U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(A)(I); In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig., 35

F.3d 1407, 1413 (9th Cir. 1994).

The PSLRA defines the phrase "forward-looking statement" to

include, among other things, a projection of revenues, income,

earnings per share, capital expenditures, dividends, capital

structure or other financial items. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u5(i)(1)(A). A statement of the assumptions underlying such

projections is also a forward-looking statement. See id. § 78u5(i)(1)(D). Case law applying the bespeaks-caution doctrine

defines "forward-looking statement" in a similar manner. See,

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1618 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court refers to the alleged false or misleading

statements according to the statement numbers assigned by the

parties in exhibit A to the joint pre-trial conference statement.

2

e.g., Worlds of Wonder, 35 F.3d at 1414 (doctrine applies to future

projections, estimates and forecasts).

The Court has reviewed the disputed statements and finds that

no genuine and disputed issues of material fact exist regarding

their classification as forward-looking or not. The Court hereby

rules that statements two and three are forward-looking and that

statements eleven, twenty-six and thirty-seven are not forwardlooking.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/10/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 1618 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 2