However, "[n]o manner of cautionary language can cure false statements knowingly made," and "a purposeful omission of existing facts or circumstances does not qualify as a forward-looking statement and is not protected by the safe harbor of the Reform Act." In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 1431209, at *7 (D. Del. May 23, 2006). The forward looking statements in this instance are clearly material, and both parties agree that Deckers' public filings and transcripts contained numerous cautionary statements related to "rising sheepskin prices, mild weather, and inventory."
Payne v. DeLuca, 2006 WL 1157861 (W.D. Pa 2006).See Letter to the Court from Steven J. Fineman, Esq., D.I. 70 (May 4, 2006); Letter to the Court from Daniel K. Hogan, Esq., D.I. 71 (June 2, 2006); Letter to the Court from Daniel K. Hogan, Esq., D.I. 72 (June 8, 2006) (citing In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 1431209 (D. Del. 2006)); Letter to the Court from Steven J. Fineman, Esq., D.I. 73 (June 28, 2006); Letter to the Court from Daniel K. Hogan, Esq., D.I. 74 (July 7, 2006); Letter to the Court from Steven J. Fineman, Esq., D.I. 75 (July 14, 2006).III. DISCUSSION