Opinion ID: 2793871
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: August 3, 2007 Statements

Text: The August 3, 2007 statements regarding RBSʹs exposure were made prior to the start of the Class Period and cannot be the basis of liability unless ‐ 12 ‐ there was a duty to update or correct them. See Lattanzio v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 476 F.3d 147, 154 (2d Cir. 2007). Because the statements referred only to past events or conditions and did not imply anything about future circumstances, there was no duty to update. See Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124, 1129 (2d Cir. 1994). And because the FSA Report shows that the statements were not untrue, there was no duty to correct them. See In re Time Warner Inc. Sec. Litig., 9 F.3d 259, 267 (2d Cir. 1993). The FSA Report supports the truthfulness of Cameronʹs statements that RBS had ʺcut back a lotʺ on some of its risky exposures. It notes that, in 2007, RBS ʺhalted its new origination of structured creditʺ and ʺceased all originationʺ of leveraged finance in July and August of that year. App. at 1275. Similarly, Cameronʹs statement that RBS had taken no ʺcredit lossesʺ on its portfolio is consistent with the FSA Reportʹs statement that RBS took markdowns of at least $240 million on certain CDOs in response to ʺmarket developments.ʺ App. at 1287. The SCAC omits the context of Cameronʹs statement, which referred to market, as opposed to credit, losses. Accordingly, we affirm the district courtʹs holding with respect to the August 2007 statements. ‐ 13 ‐