I guess the main thin mber of cautionary statements, including the statements that Nexity may suffer losses during the first few years of operations, that Nexity had incurred a loss in the previous year, and that investment in Nexity was highly speculative. These cautionary statements sufficiently related to the alleged misrepresentations so as to render them immaterial. See Amdocs Ltd., 390 F.3d at 548 (stating that if cautionary statements relate to the alleged misrepresentations, such cautionary statements render the misrepresentations immaterial). Furthermore, written cautionary statements generally take precedence over contradictory oral representations and render the oral representations immaterial as a matter of law. See Carr v. CIGNA Sec., Inc., 95 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir.1996)(<HOLDING>); see also Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Green, 881
holding that if a literate adult is given a written document with warnings but is orally told something that contradicts those warnings then that person cannot maintain an action for fraud against the issuer holding that a court is free to change an orally pronounced sentence until a written judgment is filed holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud holding that a judgment is construed like other written documents and that the intent of the court is determined by viewing the document as a whole