Opinion ID: 760113
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Third Quarter Earnings

Text: 39 Plaintiffs also argue that the district court erred in failing to consider or to rule on plaintiffs' allegations that IBM made false and misleading statements and omissions as to its third quarter earnings. We easily reject this argument. The district court not only considered plaintiffs' allegations as to the third quarter earnings, but found them waived as untimely and, in any event, without merit. The district court concluded that IBM's statements regarding third quarter earnings were not materially greater than those plaintiffs claim should have been announced. In re IBM, 954 F.Supp. at 84 n. 3. 40 We need not reach the merits of plaintiffs' claim because we agree with the district court that plaintiffs have waived this claim. During discovery plaintiffs' expert calculated separate damages based on the alleged understatement of 1992 third quarter earnings. Subsequently, IBM moved to strike this portion of the expert's report on the ground that it related to a new claim stemming from IBM's failure to announce its third quarter earnings, a separate claim of liability that was never raised in the complaint. Plaintiffs responded by arguing that the expert's opinion did not relate to a new claim and instead supported their dividend claim. The district court gave leave to plaintiffs to amend their complaint to assert allegations of liability premised on IBM's alleged overstatement of third quarter earnings. See id. Plaintiffs never pled this new theory of liability and therefore have waived any claims relating to it.