Opinion ID: 740651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Statements About Delivery and Testing

Text: 38 Appellants contend that Rodgers's October 14, 1991 statement that Cypress planned to improve delivery of new products, particularly the time to ramp to volume production in the fourth quarter, (Statement E), and Rodgers's January 1992 statement that the testing problem which had contributed to the fourth quarter shortfall would be addressed shortly, (Statements R, S), were misleading. However, the record indisputably shows otherwise. 39 For example, although Appellants point to several documents detailing alleged delivery problems, none of these documents details problems in improving the time that it took Cypress to move a product from ramp to volume production. Moreover, that customers complained to Cypress about delivery problems does not imply that Cypress was not attempting to improve delivery. Indeed, one of the memoranda upon which Appellants rely expressly states that Cypress was improving its delivery. The August 18, 1991 memorandum from Paul Keswick to Rodgers states, Although transparent to customers, Logic and the Manufacturing groups have made steady improvements in product and delivery performance.... (ER 318:286). 40 Likewise, nothing in the record indicates that Cypress did not address its testing problem shortly after Rodgers's January statements. In stating that Cypress would address the test problem shortly, Rodgers stated that the test group would be reorganized in the next week. Both Rodgers and Allen testified that Cypress dismantled the test department and reassigned the test group's assignments to the individual product lines in January. (SR 280: Allen Decl. p 43; SR 280: Rodgers Decl. p 56). Appellants have put forth no evidence to contradict this testimony.