missed a scheduled coupon payment is not determinative .... NECA was not required to prove the precise amount of any damages at the pleading stage.”). Moreover, plaintiffs assert that although Plumbers’ Fund incurred only a nominal $2,000 loss, Pipefitters’ Fund and NECA-IBEW suffered larger losses. See Pis.’ Surreply at 5-6. 18 . Determining the accuracy of defendants’ contention requires a factual investigation into whether Pipefitters and NECA-IBEW, exercising reasonable diligence, should have "discover[ed] [] the untrue statement” within the year and eleven days that elapsed between the date of the corrective disclosure and the date of the filing of the Complaint. See 15 U.S.C. § 77m; cf. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633, 130 S.Ct. 1784, 1796, 176 L.Ed.2d 582 (2010) (<HOLDING>); Young v. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1, 12 (1st
holding that the evidence must be sufficient to support the agencys findings of fact and that the agencys inferences from those facts must be reasonable holding that facts showing scienter are among those that constitute the violation  and must be discovered for a claim to accrue recognizing that when the facts alleged in the administrative complaint are not disputed this leaves only conclusions of law to be drawn as to whether the admitted facts constitute a violation of the statutes as charged and penalties to be imposed holding that to be entitled to relief under rule 60b2 the moving party must show among other things that the newly discovered evidence is material holding that the proper standard to apply  is to assume that the facts have occurred as reported and then determine  whether those facts constitute a violation of law or rule adopted pursuant to law