published in the First Quarter 10-Q were not forward-looking and therefore are not protected by the PSLRA’s safe harbor, nor by the bespeaks caution doctrine. Second, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the downgrade collateral estimates were immaterial. Rather, given the importance of liquidity to Constella tion’s merchant energy business (see Compl. ¶ 61 (citing Defendant Shattuck’s statement during the August 27, 2008 analyst meeting that “[t]he computation of downgrade collateral requirements is an important management tool”)), an investor would likely have viewed the figures in the First Quarter 10-Q as significant as part of the total mix of information available. See, e.g., In re Xcel Energy, Inc., Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 286 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1056 (D.Minn.2003) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to what Constellation argues, the
holding that it is apparent that this act is not a revenue bill within the contemplation of said section of the constitution fpr the reason that the revenue to be derived therefrom is merely an incident to the main object of the bill and that its general purpose was not that of raising revenue id  5 holding that a company that derived revenue from leasing its property was in business for purposes for the coal act holding that a company that generated revenue from the sale of its assets remained in business holding of no prejudice based in part on fact that the protester had not demonstrated that it could have improved its proposal in any material way so as to raise its score or increase its advantage holding that bjecause xcel itself claimed that its trading business was an important part of its overall strategic plan a reasonable investor could have seen improper trades and artificially inflated revenue as material matters