Stransky v. Cummins Engine Co.
1995 WL 144246, 51 F.3d 1329 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A company has no duty under SEC Rule 10b-5 to update a forward-looking statement that was reasonable when made but becomes inaccurate due to subsequent events. However, a forward-looking statement is actionable as securities fraud if it was made without a reasonable basis or not in good faith, and a company does have a duty to correct a historical statement that it later discovers was false when made.
Facts:
- In 1988, Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (Cummins) began producing redesigned engines to comply with new EPA emissions standards.
- Internal Cummins memoranda acknowledged that the design and production of the new engines had been 'rushed' without sufficient testing.
- Beginning in late 1988 and through the spring of 1989, Cummins' board of directors was informed that the new engines were experiencing significant design problems, causing warranty costs to rise dramatically.
- During a February 1989 board meeting, directors identified the rising warranty costs as the 'biggest problem' in the company's engine business segment.
- Fearing a hostile takeover, Cummins' directors allegedly sought to inflate the company's stock price by suppressing news of the engine problems.
- On February 7 and 28, 1989, Cummins issued press releases stating that 1989 would be a 'much improved year.'
- On April 4, 1989, Cummins issued a press release claiming its new engines 'were coming down on their cost curves and were making progress toward their targets.'
- On April 20, 1989, Cummins issued another release stating that profit margins 'should improve as the costs of these engines continued to decline.'
Procedural Posture:
- Alan Stransky filed a class action lawsuit against Cummins Engine Company, Inc. in federal district court, alleging securities fraud.
- Cummins filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted Cummins' motion and dismissed Stransky's claim with prejudice.
- The district court certified the dismissal of Stransky's claim as a final judgment, allowing for an immediate appeal.
- Stransky (appellant) appealed the dismissal of his claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company have a duty under SEC Rule 10b-5 to update forward-looking statements that were reasonable when made but have become inaccurate due to subsequent events?
Opinions:
Majority - Kanne, Circuit Judge
No, a company does not have a generalized duty to update forward-looking statements. The court distinguished between three potential theories of liability for corporate statements: a statement that is fraudulent when made, a 'duty to correct,' and a 'duty to update.' The court explicitly rejected the 'duty to update,' reasoning that Rule 10b-5 evaluates statements 'in the light of the circumstances under which they were made,' which precludes liability based on events that occur after the statement is issued. The court stated that 'securities laws typically do not act as a Monday Morning Quarterback.' However, the court held that a forward-looking statement can be actionable if it was made without a reasonable basis or in bad faith. Furthermore, the court acknowledged a 'duty to correct' historical statements that were believed to be true when made but are later revealed to have been false at that time. Applying this framework, the court found that some of Cummins' statements were historical and some were forward-looking, and remanded the case for the district court to determine if the historical statements required correction or if the forward-looking statements lacked a reasonable basis when made.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the scope of liability for corporate projections under Rule 10b-5 in the Seventh Circuit. By firmly rejecting a 'duty to update,' the court provided corporations with a safe harbor, protecting them from liability for predictions that are rendered inaccurate by subsequent, unforeseen events, so long as the original prediction was made in good faith and with a reasonable basis. This decision distinguishes between statements of historical fact, which must be corrected if found to be erroneous, and forward-looking statements, which are judged based on the circumstances at the time they were made. This nuanced approach helps balance investor protection against the chilling of useful corporate disclosures about future prospects.
