Opinion ID: 622296
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The February Statement

Text: But the December report, of course, tells us nothing about spending or capital allocation after that month. For this reason, it does not necessarily conflict with defendants' statement in February that, at that point, the majority of the physical network interconnections were complete. JA, Vol. 1 at A46-47. Nor is the February statement shown to be false by the report of April 2007. The April report, plaintiff alleges, indicated that by that month the company had integrated less than one-fifth of WilTel route into Level 3's network. Id. at A100. But according to our definitions above, route integration and physical network interconnections were two distinct components of physical integration, and plaintiff nowhere alleges that progress necessarily proceeded at the same pace on both components. Thus, for all we know, Level 3 could have completed a majority of physical network interconnections in April despite having been done with less than twenty percent of route integration. [11] Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff, as we must when considering the issue of falsity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, Pirraglia, 339 F.3d at 1188, we think that the district court erred. Plaintiff alleges no direct contradictions between Level 3's internal reports and its officers' outwards statements. But Plaintiff does adequately allegeif only barelythat defendants made three statements of material fact, on October 17, 2006, October 24, 2006, and December 4, 2006, that a reasonable person would understand as inconsistent with the facts on the ground.