or the security for other reasons, no reasonable buyer would base his or her decision on a lack of relevant information. To be sure, and as further discussed in this Order, the omission of data from the 2001 and 2005 Reports was arguably misleading because that data may have cast serious doubt on the projections in the Official Statements. This omission, however, does not give rise to an independent claim based on the disclosure found on page 22 of the Official Statements. (b) The Failure to Reveal the Decision to Forgo a Final ERA Study and S & Y’s Withdrawal Was Not Misleading. To be actionable under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, an alleged omission must render some affirmative public statement misleading. See In re Metropolitan Sec. Litig., 532 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1290 (E.D.Wash.2007) (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted). There is no duty to
holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading holding that to state cause of action based on an omission a plaintiff must explain how an alleged omitted fact negates the truth of or renders misleading the statements actually made recognizing the cause of action holding that a duty to disclose arises whenever secret information renders prior public statements materially misleading holding that an omission claim could not be maintained where plaintiff did not point to previous statements that were misleading without further disclosures