Ninth Circuit Trims PSLRA Safe Harbor’s Protection for Forward-Looking Statements

by Perkins Coie

Perkins Coie

A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, 865 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2017), cut back on the protections afforded by the safe-harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the PSLRA) for public companies whose forward-looking statements are alleged to be false or misleading.

The PSLRA’s safe harbor, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c), is a codification of the common-law “bespeaks caution” doctrine. Subject to certain statutory exceptions—including for statements made in connection with an initial public offering or a tender offer—the safe harbor precludes civil liability based on forward-looking statements that turn out to be “wrong” in two instances. First, the safe harbor protects a statement if it is identified as forward-looking and is either immaterial or accompanied by “meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement.” Second, in the absence of meaningful cautionary language, the safe harbor still protects against liability if the maker lacked actual knowledge that the statement was false or misleading.

Pre-Quality Systems Application of PSLRA Safe Harbor to “Mixed Statements”

“Mixed” statements containing both forward-looking and non-forward-looking components present the most difficult safe-harbor questions. In a “mixed” statement situation, arguably the inclusion of a forward-looking component makes the entire statement forward-looking. The Ninth Circuit sanctioned this approach in Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 759 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2014), holding that certain “mixed” statements, when examined as a whole, were forward-looking and therefore protected by the safe harbor. Other appellate courts have not gone this far, concluding that the safe harbor protects only the forward-looking portion of the mixed statement, leaving the speaker potentially liable for inaccuracies in the non-forward-looking portion. See, e.g., In re Vivendi, S.A., Sec. Litig., 838 F.3d 223, 246-49 (2d Cir. 2016); Spitzberg v. Hous. Am. Energy Corp., 758 F.3d 676, 691-92 (5th Cir. 2014); Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs Inc., 513 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2008).

Quality Systems Creates New Test for “Mixed Statements”

In Quality Systems, the Ninth Circuit essentially did an about-face, asserting that its decision in Intuitive Surgical had not addressed “the status of mixed statements under the PSLRA.” 865 F.3d at 1141. After holding that an allegedly false statement concerning the defendant company’s “robust” pipeline was neither forward-looking—despite its inclusion in the same sentence as projections of revenue and earnings growth—nor inactionable as puffery, the court tacitly rejected the approaches taken in Intuitive Surgical and in the decisions of its sister circuits.

Focusing on the cautionary language requirement of the safe harbor’s first prong, the court held that a materially false, non-forward-looking portion of a mixed statement almost always precludes application of the safe harbor to the forward-looking portion of the statement because “cautionary language must be understood in the light of the [accompanying] non-forward-looking statement.” Id. at 1146. In this situation, “virtually no cautionary language short of an outright admission that the non-forward-looking statements were materially false or misleading would have been adequate” to constitute the type of “meaningful” cautionary language required to qualify for safe-harbor protection. Id. at 1148. In other words, in order for the safe harbor to protect the speaker from liability for the forward-looking portion of a mixed statement, the speaker would have to admit that it had violated the securities laws with respect to the non-forward-looking portion of the statement.

Having effectively gutted the protection provided by the safe harbor’s first prong whenever a mixed statement includes an allegedly false non-forward-looking component, the court proceeded to do the same with the second prong based on a similar analysis: “[Defendants’] forward-looking statements were premised on . . . non-forward-looking statements [that they knew to be untrue]. It necessarily follows that they also had actual knowledge that their forward-looking statements were false or misleading.” Id. at 1149.

The Quality Systems defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, primarily arguing that by establishing a new prerequisite for application of the safe harbor, not found in the language of the PSLRA, the court had largely eviscerated the protections afforded by the safe harbor, in contravention of Congress’s intent to enhance market efficiency by encouraging greater disclosure of forward-looking information. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition.

Argument Not Considered by Ninth Circuit

Surprisingly, neither the defendants nor the amici who supported the defendants’ petition for rehearing en banc argued that the allegedly false non-forward-looking statement in Quality Systems—that the company’s product pipeline is robust—should itself be considered forward-looking, and therefore protected by the safe harbor, as “a statement of the assumptions underlying or relating to” the company’s revenue and earnings projections. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(i)(1)(A), (D). Nor is there any indication in the decisions of either the Ninth Circuit or the district court, 60 F. Supp. 3d 1095 (C.D. Cal. 2014), that this argument was presented at any time before the petition for rehearing en banc

This approach, if accepted, would turn the entire “mixed statement” into a forward-looking statement subject to the safe harbor’s protection. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit had appeared to endorse this approach in Intuitive Surgical. 759 F.3d at 1059.

Implications of Quality Systems Decision

The Ninth Circuit may not have the last word. The Quality Systems decision appears to be an outlier, in conflict with decisions of other federal circuit courts of appeals and with the Ninth Circuit’s own decision in Intuitive Surgical. Given this discord, as well as the apparent conflict between the Ninth Circuit’s decision and the statutory language of the safe harbor, it would not be surprising if the defendants seek direction from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the proper application of the PSLRA’s safe harbor to mixed statements. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court might find this case worthy of review.

But until then . . . . Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses Quality Systems, public companies seeking safe-harbor protections subject to the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation would be well-advised to separate their forward-looking statements from any non-forward-looking, historical statements. At the very least, public companies should guard against including statements about projections or plans in the same sentence as historical information, and should not assume that optimistic descriptors like “robust” will be considered so vague as to be nonactionable puffery.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Perkins Coie | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Perkins Coie

Perkins Coie on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.