Opinion ID: 199400
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Statements at Issue Revisited

Text: 26 The district court ultimately concluded either that the statements at issue were not misleading as a matter of law, or that no reasonable jury could have found that they were misleading. Appellants argue that this conclusion was in error, and that they proffered sufficient evidence to make it a question for the trier of fact whether the statements were misleading or not. 6 In short, appellants claim that under one plausible interpretation of the statements in question, Economou represented that Read-Rite was obligated to purchase all seventy-five units. In other words, appellants suggest that a reasonable jury could have found any of the following: (i) that the statement that Micrion had booked an order for $60 million was false or misleading because it indicated, wrongly, that Micrion had received a firm order for $60 million worth of equipment; (ii) that the statement that Micrion's backlog was $72 million was false or misleading because the term backlog only included equipment which a customer was obligated to buy, which only totaled approximately $40 million at the time of the statement; or (iii) that Economou's statement that all seventy-five units would certainly be delivered within the next twelve months was false or misleading because Read-Rite had only committed to purchase twenty-eight units. Alternatively, appellants argue that the failure to disclose that Read-Rite had no obligation to buy forty-seven units was a material omission, viewed in the context of the information provided in the Agreement. 27 For purposes of this appeal, we assume that there were triable issues of fact as to the falsity or misleading nature of these statements. As we explain below, however, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the separate ground that appellants introduced insufficient evidence of scienter. Burns v. State Police Ass'n of Mass., 230 F.3d 8, 9 (1st Cir. 2000) (court of appeals may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground supported by the record).