Opinion ID: 740651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Statements about Production

Text: 35 Appellants challenge several statements pertaining to Cypress's Minnesota manufacturing plant, CMI, and statements about Cypress's overall yields. Specifically, they challenge Rodgers's purported statement to Barron's that CMI exceeded Cypress's expectations by 30 to 40 percent, (Statement B), Rodgers's statement in his December letter to shareholders that CMI continues its excellent performance and accounted for 6 percent of Cypress's third quarter revenue, (Statement P), and the company's statement in its 1991 Annual Report that CMI contributed positively beginning in the second quarter 1991. (Statement Y). They also challenge remarks that Allen made during the October teleconference, stating that yields [from Cypress's Texas manufacturing plant] started to improve dramatically during the third quarter 1991, (Statement F), Goldman's statement that [h]igher yields in Fabs 2 [Texas] and 3 [Minnesota] contributed to higher output [in the third quarter 1991], (Statement E), and Rodgers's statement in his December letter to shareholders that higher yields in Cypress's Texas and Minnesota plants contributed to higher output. (Statement P). 36 The record indisputably shows that Appellees' statements about CMI were accurate. Graphs distributed to market analysts demonstrate that CMI did contribute 6 percent of Cypress's third quarter revenues and that beginning in the second quarter of 1991, CMI began to contribute revenues to Cypress. (ER 280:305). Appellants point to no evidence in the record to dispute this. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate. 37 Likewise, a reasonable fact finder could not infer from Appellants' documentary evidence that Appellees' statements about yields were false or misleading. Status reports prepared by Don Stoops of CTI, (SR 287/3: 71293-96), and Lothar Maier of CMI, (SR 287/3: 71297-98), report that overall yields for the third quarter 1991 improved from overall yields for the second quarter 1991 at both these plants, and Allen testified that yields at both plants improved during the third quarter 1991. (SR 280: Allen Decl pp 24, 25.) In response, Appellants point to an August memorandum from Allen to Rodgers stating that yields on a particular chip at the Texas plant suck in comparison to yields on that particular chip at Cypress's San Jose plant, the plant where the chip was originally produced. (ER 318:49). However, that yields on a particular chip were bad at the beginning of August does not reasonably imply that overall yields were bad in October and December--when the challenged statements were made. Indeed, the record suggests that Cypress corrected the August yield problem before the October teleconference. (ER 318:47-48). Likewise, a memorandum from Allen stating that Cypress will not approve capital expenditures which are greater than forecasted revenues for the fourth quarter unless the expenditures are to improve yields does not contradict Appellees' evidence. (ER 318:40). While this memorandum suggests that Cypress was interested in improving its yields in the fourth quarter, that does not reasonably imply that its yields did not improve during the previous quarter. Finally, Appellants point to a September 1991 memorandum from Rodgers to Allen discussing [s]ome suggestions for your next yield presentation to the Board. (ER 318:72). While that memorandum implies that the Board thought that Cypress should improve its yields, it does not suggest that Cypress was not already improving its yields. Rather, in the memorandum, Rodgers tells Allen, You've just finished a quarter of substantial effort and major improvements.... (Id.)