Opinion ID: 2366732
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Additional Allegations and Denial of Leave to Amend

Text: We conclude by briefly addressing two remaining issues presented by this appeal. First, as to plaintiffs' remaining allegations, we find, as did the District Court, that plaintiffs' GAAP allegations are essentially derivative of those discussed above, id. at 546, although we, in turn, conclude that these allegations are sufficient to state a claim for largely the same reasons. In addition, although the District Court did not specifically address plaintiffs' risk disclosure allegations, we similarly conclude that these allegations are derivative of those already discussed and, accordingly, those claims are also reinstated upon remand. Second, we do not reach the issue whether the District Court exceeded its allowable discretion by dismissing plaintiffs' complaint without providing leave to amend. However, we note that where, as here, leave to amend is requested informally in a brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss, we have held that it is within the district court's discretion to deny leave to amend implicitly by not addressing the request. In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., 466 F.3d 187, 220 (2d Cir. 2006).