Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577. In so doing, the Court recognized that while “an initially inflated purchase price might mean a later loss ... that is far from inevitably so.” Id. at 342, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (emphasis in original). Indeed, “that lower price may reflect, not the earlier misrepresentation, but changed economic circumstances, changed investor expectations, new industry-specific or firm-specific facts, conditions, or other events, which taken separately or together account for some or all of that lower price.” Id. at 343, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577. The Supreme Court’s holding in Dura did not represent a break from this Circuit’s approach to loss causation, but rather reaffirmed the analysis we laid out in Lentell, 396 F.3d at 173 (<HOLDING>). In Lentell, we described the two requirements 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the basic elements of section 10b and rule 10b5 claims are 1 a material misrepresentation or omission 2 scienter ie a wrongful state of mind 3 a connection with the purchase or sale of a security 4 reliance often referred to in cases involving public securities markets fraudonthemarket cases as transaction causation 5 economic loss and 6 loss causation ie a causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the loss internal citations omitted (B) holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else (C) holding where the defendant knows as well as anyone the value of the assets he concealed the intended loss calculation may properly be based upon the value of the assets concealed (D) holding that defendant must prove when the services were rendered to establish that the new value exception applies (E) holding that to prove loss causation a plaintiff must allege that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that when disclosed negatively affected the value of the security
Output (English): holding that defendant must prove when the services were rendered to establish that the new value exception applies