assert, this amount may still have been instrumental in allowing the Event Center to obtain an investment-grade rating. (d) Bespeaks Caution Doctrine Is Not an Absolute Bar to Liability on the Basis of Forward-Looking Statements. Under the bespeaks caution doctrine, forward-looking statements are not actionable if they are accompanied by sufficient cautionary language that warns of specific risks that may prevent a projection, estimate, or expectation from materializing. See Livid Holdings, Ltd. v. May 1, 2009) (rejecting defendants’ reliance on the bespeaks caution doctrine where plaintiffs alleged specific facts indicating that defendants knowingly made future financial projections that were unreasonable); In re World Access, Inc. Sec. Litig., 119 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1358 (N.D.Ga.2000) (<HOLDING>). Defendants’ reliance on the “bespeaks caution
holding that statements based upon defendants beliefs are actionable because there was evidence that the defendants were aware of undisclosed facts that seriously undermined the accuracy of their alleged opinions or beliefs holding that the bespeaks caution doctrine does not apply to representations of present facts that were false when made holding that the bespeaks caution doctrine is inapplicable when defendants are aware  of  facts rendering their forwardlooking statements untrue when made holding that allegations that defendants designed and implemented improper accounting practices failed to state claim for securities fraud in absence of allegations of particular facts demonstrating how defendants knew of scheme at time they made their statements of compliance that they knew the financial statements overrepresented the companys true earnings or that they were aware of a gaap violation holding that plaintiffs must specifically allege defendants knowledge of facts or access to information contradicting their public statements