at 1409 (quoting Fecht, 70 F.3d at 1082). We cannot agree that the only reasonable interpretation of the contested sentence is that it warned potential investors that PCI may not have received all of the capital from the $25 million stock sale. Instead, the most obvious interpretation of this sentence is that this cash had already been received, but that this “fact” and the resulting cash increase was not yet updated in the Memorandum. In finding the statement immaterial, the district court also extended the bespeaks caution doctrine to statements of fact, despite the lack of approval from this circuit for such application of the doctrine as well as the explicit rejection of such an extension by two other circuits. See Shaw v. Digital Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1213 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Harden v. Raffensperger, Hughes & Co., 65
holding that rule does not apply where defendant made false representations holding that a cause of action for constructive fraud will lie even when the misrepresentations were made innocently and their false nature is not discovered until well after the representations are made holding that defendants false representations that concealed cause of action preclude statute of limitations defense 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