Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Operating & Production Corp., 30 F.3d 907, 911-12 (7th Cir.1994)). Plaintiffs have alleged substantial circumstantial evidence to show that the financial disclosure statements issued by the Company contained material misstatements or omissions and that those material misstatements were made with scienter. “To the extent that a plaintiff sets forth a primary violation of the Exchange Act, dismissal of § 20(a) claim for derivative liability is inappropriate.” Chalverus v. Pegasystems, Inc., 59 F.Supp.2d 226, 236 (D.Mass.1999). See In re Fidelity/Micron Sec. Litig., 964 F.Supp. 539, 549 (D.Mass.1997). A motion to dismiss a § 20(a) claim should be denied, moreover, when the defendants themselves made the allegedly false and misleading statements. See Chalverus, 59 F.Supp.2d at 226 (<HOLDING>); In re PLC Sys. Sec. Litig., 41 F.Supp.2d 106, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because defendants made the statements in the press release and signed the sec disclosure forms in light of a preliminary finding of a primary violation it could not dismiss the  20a action (B) holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief (C) holding positive press release was not actionable where plaintiffs have not alleged that any of the historical representations in that press release were false (D) holding that agency could not claim national security disclosure exemption where documents already released to the press (E) holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion
Output (English): holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion