Eisenstadt v. Centel Corporation

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997 · Corporations

113 F.3d 738 (1997)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsSecurities fraudRule 10b-5Material misrepresentationSummary judgment evidenceSection 10(b)Section 20(a)materiality

Facts

Centel announced that it would explore strategic alternatives and then conduct an auction for all or part of the company, which initially drove up its stock price. During the auction period, Centel publicly stated that the bidding process was going well and smoothly, while some major potential purchasers had declined to participate and the company privately considered what would happen if some assets proved hard to sell. A Chicago Tribune article reported that as many as 35 to 40 parties had explored submitting bids and referred to due-diligence reviews, but only 16 firms had actually visited Centel's data room. The auction ultimately produced only seven bids, none for the whole company, and Centel then sold itself to Sprint at a much lower price, after which the stock price fell sharply.

Issue

Whether Centel made materially false or misleading statements about the progress of the auction in violation of Rule 10b-5, and whether plaintiffs could rely on the Tribune article as admissible evidence to defeat summary judgment. More specifically, the court considered whether general statements that the auction was proceeding well were actionable and whether the alleged 35-to-40-due-diligence representation could be considered.

Rule

In summary judgment proceedings, hearsay is inadmissible to the same extent as at trial unless it fits a recognized exception or can properly be replaced by admissible evidence; unauthenticated newspaper articles ordinarily do not qualify. Under Rule 10b-5, a statement is actionable only if it is materially false or misleading from the perspective of a reasonable investor; vague expressions that a process is going well or smoothly are nonactionable puffery unless they conceal a concrete disaster or stoppage that makes the statement misleading.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Cedar Valley Wireless, a Delaware corporation based in Denver, announced that it was soliciting bids for several business units. During the process, its CEO told investors on a conference call that the sale effort was "moving smoothly" and "going very well," but the company later accepted a lower-than-expected offer and its stock fell.

Investors sue under Rule 10b-5, alleging the CEO's statements were fraudulent because the final sale price disappointed the market. What is the strongest argument for the company?

Explanation. General statements that a process is going well or smoothly are ordinarily too vague to be material to a reasonable investor. A poor outcome, viewed in hindsight, does not make earlier optimistic statements fraudulent. Such statements can become actionable only if they mask a concrete disaster or stoppage in the process. (Derived from Eisenstadt v. Centel Corporation (1997).)