having problems ramping up the manufacturing of the R10000 chip for use in the upgraded Indigo2 IMPACT workstations; • SGI sales in Germany and the United Kingdom were materially below expectations; • SGI sales in France were much worse than expected; and • SGI’s OEM sales were trending downward. (¶ 60.) Plaintiffs’ belief that defendants’ statements were false is based on defendants’ announcements in 1996 that the company’s poor showing resulted from the combined negative effects of these factors. (¶¶ 63-64.) Plaintiffs allege that these conditions existed during the class period when defendants were making their optimistic .statements. (¶¶ 36-40.) Plaintiffs thus meet their burden of demonstrating why the statements were allegedly false and misleading. See GlenFed, 42 F.3d at 1548-49 (<HOLDING>); Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th
holding that contemporary condition contrary to defendants optimistic statements adequately pleads falsity holding that the objective truth or falsity of reports concerning a witness were not subject to further proof because such truth or falsity was a collateral matter holding that the factfinder may infer discrimination from the falsity of the employers explanation holding that there was no inference of scienter based on defendants knowledge of facts or failure to monitor information because plaintiffs did not specifically identified any reports or statements that existed or would have come to light in a reasonable investigation that would have demonstrated the falsity of the allegedly misleading statements holding that statements not protected where the defendants had no basis for their optimistic statements and already knew allegedly that certain risks had become reality