Opinion ID: 622296
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Immaterial Statements

Text: The importance of integration to Level 3 and its investors does not, however, mean that everything defendants said on the topic was material. Many of the statements in plaintiff's complaint are, as a matter of law, nothing more than puffery. For instance, defendants' representations regarding Level 3's integration skills, such as that Level 3 is a logical consolidator with proven integration experience, JA, Vol. 1 at A58, A63, A64, A68, are simply incapable of objective verification. Similarly, the assertion that this year is really focused on integration and getting synergies from all those acquisitions, id. at A68, must be characterized as vague (if not meaningless) management-speak upon which no reasonable investor would base a trading decision. See Grossman, 120 F.3d at 1121-22. We also include in this category defendants' general, forward-looking expressions of confidence in future integration progress. See, e.g., JA, Vol. 1 at A67 (We are equally focused on insuring that the excellent reputation that Level 3 has earned over the years for customer service does not get degraded.); id. at A73 ([W]e remain confident in our end-state architecture and will make meaningful progress toward our end-state environment during the balance of 2007.). Finally, broad claims by defendants regarding integration efforts and the customer experience overall are likewise non-actionable. See, e.g., id. at A62 (The integration of all the acquired companies is progressing well and we're beginning to see the benefits of synergies from those transactions.); id. at A67 (The overall integration effort is tracking within expectations in this regard, and the overall customer experience is still positive.). These are all the kind of rosy affirmation[s] commonly heard from corporate managers and numbingly familiar to the marketplaceloosely optimistic statements that are so vague, so lacking in specificity . . . that no reasonable investor could find them important. Ind. State Dist. Council of Laborers and Hod Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., 583 F.3d 935, 944 (6th Cir.2009); see also In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir.2010) (concluding that we believe our employee relations are good was a nonactionable, mildly optimistic, subjective assessment).