that Nexity expected to conduct an IPO in the latter part of 2000, the POM also contained explicit warnings that such an IPO might never occur. The POM stated that “no decision regarding such offer has been made ... [and] [t]here is no assurance that a public offer can be made on terms ... acceptable to Nexity.” Thus, Nexity pointed out that its stock might not be traded publicly and that, if it were not, the investors “will be limited in their ability to resell shares.” These cautionary statements directly relate to the alleged misrepresentation at issue. Nexity’s statements regarding the possibility of conducting an IPO in context with these cautionary statements would not have misled a reasonable investor. See P. Stolz Family P’ship L.P. v. Daum, 355 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir.2004)(<HOLDING>); Halperin v. eBanker USA.com, Inc., 295 F.3d
holding that future predictions and opinions especially those regarding future profitability of business cannot form basis for fraud as matter of law holding that cautionary statements neutralized any misrepresentations regarding future ipos holding that in texas future predictions and opinions especially those regarding the future profitability of a business cannot as a matter of law form a basis for fraud holding that expressions of belief or opinion regarding the future of plaintiffs and defendants respective businesses and promissory statements of future intent do not violate the udtpa holding that vague on schedule and on track statements were immaterial misrepresentations