“network applications will quickly reshape customer expectations” were false and misleading. The court held that these statements are the “sort of soft, puffing statements, incapable of objective verification, that courts routinely dismiss as vague statements of corporate optimism.” Id. at 1121-22; see also San Leandro Emergency Medical Group Profit Sharing Plan v. Philip Morris Cos., 75 F.3d 801, 811 (2d Cir.1996) (statement that company was “ ‘optimistic’ about [its earnings] in 1993” and that it “should deliver income growth consistent with its historically superior performance” held to be mere “puffery” and to “lack the sort of definitive positive projections that might require later correction”) (internal quotations omitted); Searls v. Glasser, 64 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Hillson Partners Ltd. v. Adage, Inc., 42 F.3d
holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient holding that even if defendants knew that the company had inventory problems  that fact standing alone does not show that defendants knew that the statements in their prospectus or other representations were materially false or misleading at the time the material statements were made holding that statements that a company was recessionresistant and that it would maintain a high level of growth were too vague to constitute material statements of fact holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding that vague on schedule and on track statements were immaterial misrepresentations