context: The Court finds that these disclosures, following the SEC's initiation of its enforcement action, potentially revealed new information "addressed to," and "revealing to the market the truth regarding," the alleged misstatements and omissions.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 634 F.Supp.2d 419, 444
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding that an assessment of defendants' negative causation arguments was best left for summary judgment
citation_a.sentence: See, Azzolini, 2005 WL 3448053, at *6 (noting that “the lapse of time between the behavior complained, of and the loss is a factor to consider in determining whether the loss causation requirement has been met” (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted)); In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig., 634 F.Supp.2d 419, 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (concluding that an assessment of defendants’ negative causation arguments was best left for summary judgment); see also Local 295, 731 F.Supp.2d at 710 (“Where a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is based on an affirmative defense, the complaint must show on its face that the claim is barred by the defense.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 731 F.Supp.2d 710, 710
citation_b.parenthetical: "Where a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is based on an affirmative defense, the complaint must show on its face that the claim is barred by the defense."
citation_b.sentence: See, Azzolini, 2005 WL 3448053, at *6 (noting that “the lapse of time between the behavior complained, of and the loss is a factor to consider in determining whether the loss causation requirement has been met” (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted)); In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig., 634 F.Supp.2d 419, 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (concluding that an assessment of defendants’ negative causation arguments was best left for summary judgment); see also Local 295, 731 F.Supp.2d at 710 (“Where a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is based on an affirmative defense, the complaint must show on its face that the claim is barred by the defense.”).