supra, with approval). Of course, where the submitted materials “capture[] only part of the incident and would provide a distorted view of the events at issue, ... we do not require a court to consider that evidence on a 12(b)(6) motion.” Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555, 562 (6th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Based upon the foregoing discussion of legal principles, this Court con-eludes that, when ruling on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 24), it is appropriate to consider the public securities filings by Huffy and statements to analysts and to the press (i.e., conference calls and press releases) which have been referred to in the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. # 22), given that those materials are central to Plaintiffs’ claims. Jackson, supra (<HOLDING>). It is also appropriate for the Court to
holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint holding that plan documents could be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment even though the complaint referred only to the plan and not its associated documents holding that a court need not accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint holding that district court may consider documents referred to in plaintiffs complaint and central to his claim holding that a court ruling on a motion to dismiss may consider a document that is referenced in the complaint and is central to the plaintiffs claims