See id. at 75-77. See id. at 81-83. At the close of plaintiff's evidence during a jury trial, the district court granted the bond sellers' Fed. We review a district court order disposing of a Rule 50 motion de novo, construing the evidence and making reasonable inferences most favorable to the nonmoving party. Our analysis necessarily examines the materiality of the omitted information.
Materiality is a mixed question of law and fact.
Rule 10b-5 provides in pertinent part that It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, . . . Liability for failure to disclose only arises when the duty to disclose exists and the withheld information is material. Thus we must evaluate the omissions in light of all the information included in the Official Statement, to determine if it would have affected that mix. This argument ignores the evidence in the record. No reasonable investor could interpret the defendants' representation in this manner.