context: Plaintiffs argue the opposite: that it is inconceivable that Suttles, who led BP's media response effort after the oil spill, would not have known of "BP's very oum, estimates of the flow rate." (Doc. No. 186, at 36.) Plaintiffs' argument is more persuasive here.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 291 F.3d 351, 351-54
citation_a.parenthetical: explaining that a securities fraud complaint may survive where plaintiffs have alleged facts demonstrating that defendants failed to review or check information that they had a duty to monitor
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., see also ABC Arbitrage, 291 F.3d at 351-54 (explaining that a securities fraud complaint may survive where plaintiffs have alleged facts demonstrating that defendants failed to review or check information that they had a duty to monitor); see also In re Washington Mut, Inc., 694 F.Supp.2d at 1209-1210 (finding a strong inference of scienter pleaded as to statement about risk management where defendant was responsible for overseeing risk management).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 694 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1209-1210
citation_b.parenthetical: finding a strong inference of scienter pleaded as to statement about risk management where defendant was responsible for overseeing risk management
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., see also ABC Arbitrage, 291 F.3d at 351-54 (explaining that a securities fraud complaint may survive where plaintiffs have alleged facts demonstrating that defendants failed to review or check information that they had a duty to monitor); see also In re Washington Mut, Inc., 694 F.Supp.2d at 1209-1210 (finding a strong inference of scienter pleaded as to statement about risk management where defendant was responsible for overseeing risk management).