Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): values,” Fait’s standard applies. Id. b. Whether the CAC Pleads Subjective and Objective Falsity Because the Court concludes that MF Global’s statements about its DTA were opinions, it must next determine whether the statements “were both false and not honestly believed at the time they were made.” Fait, 655 F.3d at 113. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to meet this standard. First, the Court finds that Plaintiffs plausibly allege that MF Global’s statements about its DTA were objectively false. Most significantly, MF Global’s United States operations were in a three-year loss position at the start of the Class Period, which served as significant negative evidence against recognizing the DTA. See Hoff v. Popular, Inc., 727 F.Supp.2d 77, 90 (D.P.R.2010) (<HOLDING>); In re Scottish Re Grp. Sec. Litig., 524 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the elevated class c felony penalty for the offense of criminal recklessness by shooting a firearm from a vehicle into a place where people are likely to gather did not shock public sentiment or violate the judgment of reasonable people because among other things the use of a vehicle would make it less likely that the person would be identified which in turn would make it more likely that the offense would be committed (B) recognizing threeyear loss position as strong evidence that at the beginning of the class period it was more likely than not that the company would not be able to realize dta (C) holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country (D) holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger (E) holding that petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return
Output (English): holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger