Shuster

MEMORANDUM *

Shuster appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Symmetricom. We affirm the district court.

To violate the Securities Exchange Act, Symmetricom’s statements must have been (a) false or misleading and (b) made with the intent to deceive or with deliberate recklessness. 1 None of Symmetricom’s statements satisfy both of those elements.

The statements regarding the existence of the Bell South contract were not misleading because both parties fully expected to execute the contract. Statements concerning projections of orders from AT & T also were not misleading because the evidence shows that Symmetrieom believed AT & T was still interested in the Integrated Digital Services Terminal (IDST) product at the time Symmetricom made the statements. While the record indicates that there were some bugs in the IDST system, it also indicates that Symmetricom had fixed many of the problems and believed its negotiations with AT *707 & T were on track. And Symmetrieom’s statements that Pacific Bell was intending to install IDST in its Local Services Offices (LSO) applications were not misleading. The record shows that Pacific Bell had ordered some IDST units…