if the inventory issues were not investigated and resolved, and recommended the allocation of additional resources “[e]onsidering the magnitude” of the adjustment. Id. A final report was not issued prior to the publication of the audit opinion, and plaintiffs claim that the issues were never resolved, causing an overstatement of $2.8 million. The court agrees with plaintiffs that the absence of a final report could reasonably be inferred to mean that the issue was never resolved. The court also agrees that, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the failure to resolve the issue prior to the finalization of FY97 financial statements was not cured simply by IKON’s promise to Ernst that any ongoing audits would not materially affect those statements. See generally Kline, 24 F.3d at 487 (<HOLDING>). However, the relevant inquiry is not merely
holding that plaintiffs law firm was subject to disqualifica tion when after unsuccessful mediation the plaintiffs firm hired the mediator appointed to settle the case holding that where law firm had reason to believe that the information provided to it by the company was materially different from the truth firm could not escape liability merely by stating that its opinion was based solely on information provided to it holding that law firm who was plaintiffs adversary in foreclosure proceeding owed no duty to plaintiffs as law firm could not have expected that plaintiffs would rely on law firms representations about payoff amounts holding that based on the little information plaintiff provided the court could not conclude that the eeoc affirmatively misled him holding that even if information in an affidavit was provided in reckless disregard of the truth appropriate course of action is to sever that information from the affidavit and determine whether sufficient information remained in order for the magistrate to find probable cause