1. The plaintiffs were convinced that the short time period between the press release and the restatement indicated wrongdoing on the part of Humana. Can you imagine a scenario where the facts would have come to light in such a short period of time?
2. The amount of the revision is also what the plaintiffs used to bring their complaint. How do words like “projected,” “estimated,” or “possible,” allow an investor to be cautious of what follows those words?
3. Does the safe harbor rule give management an opportunity to cover up its wrongdoing, or should there be a way to be able to estimate and be wrong?