in determining whether a misrepresentation or omission is material. Pames, 122 F.3d at 547. In this case, the written notice in the supplement that the minimum offering was being lowered to $10,000,000 rendered any contrary oral misrepresentations immaterial. Carr, 95 F.3d at 547. iv. IPO in 2000 Blackmon claims that the Nexity defendants misrepresented the likelihood that Nexity would conduct an IPO in 2000. He argues that Nexity had not hired an investment advisor or otherwise prepared to conduct an IPO when it represented that it anticipated conducting an IPO. Thus, Blackmon argues, the Nexity defendants materially misrepresented that Nexity would conduct an IPO when there was no such prospect. Although the POM and Ken Vassey, a Nexity officer, may have , 357-58 (2d Cir.2002)(<HOLDING>). Therefore, any representation by Nexity and
holding that deliberate or reckless omissions of facts that tend to mislead are false statements for franks purposes holding that written information cures oral misstatements and omissions holding that representations and omissions must be considered together and in context to determine whether they affect the total mix of information and mislead a reasonable investor holding that a plaintiff must plead with specificity as to the statements or omissions considered to be fraudulent the speaker when and why the statements were made and an explanation of why they were fraudulent holding that to determine whether minimum wage law has been violated one must divide total weekly pay received by total number of hours worked