Opinion ID: 740651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Statements about Backlog

Text: 34 Appellants contend that several statements that Cypress entered the fourth and first quarters with record backlogs, (Statements E, F, R), and statements that Cypress's backlog was now cleaned and scrubbed and much more solid, (Statement H), were misleading because the backlog figures contained double bookings. However, as the district court properly recognized, Appellants have put forth no evidence that the backlog for either the first or fourth quarter contained double bookings. Appellants rely on a memorandum from Lowell Turriff, Vice President for Marketing and Sales, to Rodgers attributing a marketing miss in the third quarter of 1991 to double bookings in the distributors' backlog. (ER 318:42). However, that memorandum states that double bookings affected backlog in the third quarter rather than the quarters at issue. The memorandum also states that the method which distribution used to create its BOQ had been accurate in the past, that distribution had approached marketing with a revised backlog and BOQ forecast accounting for these double bookings, but Turriff rejected the revision and that [b]arring a market collapse, I do not see another large miss like last quarter. (Id.). Thus, one cannot reasonably infer from this memorandum that Cypress's backlog figures for the first and fourth quarters contained double bookings. The two other memoranda upon which Appellants rely, likewise, fail to support an inference that Cypress knew its fourth and first quarter backlog figures contained double bookings. In fact, neither memorandum even pertains to double bookings. (ER 318:361; ER 318:62).