Opinion ID: 723747
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Russian Plant

Text: 52 In paragraph 52 the Complaint alleges that certain defendants represented in July 1993, during confirmatory due diligence, that the Russian Plant would be operating in the fourth quarter of 1993, and that those same defendants knew or should have known at that time that the main foundations for the Russian Plant had not been poured. 7 The question is whether the disclaimer of information ... with respect to ... operations of [MultiServ], except as expressly covered by a representation and warranty contained in Sections 2.01 through 2.04 hereof put Harsco on sufficient notice that representations regarding the Russian Plant could not reasonably be relied on. This is a closer call than the allegations contained in paragraph 48. Unlike relatively vague expectations of future performance complained of in that paragraph, here the allegation is more detailed: defendants knew the Russian Plant was not going to get built and represented otherwise. 53 Nevertheless, and again relying on the sophisticated context of this transaction, we hold that Harsco must be held to its agreement. There was no representation whatsoever about the Russian Plant in Sections 2.01 through 2.04. We think Harsco should be treated as if it meant what it said when it agreed in Section 2.05 that there were no representations other than those contained in Sections 2.01 through 2.04 that were part of the transaction. Here, as in our analysis of § 29(a) of the Exchange Act, a less detailed Section 2.04 might lead to a different result. But the exhaustive nature of the Section 2.04 representations adds to the specificity of Section 2.05's disclaimer of other representations. We can see no reason not to hold Harsco to the deal it negotiated. Claims relating to the Russian Plant were also properly dismissed. 54