affairs and the transactions that were accounted for in a materially misleading manner, Drabinsky and Gottlieb must put forward evidence that the misleading information was incorporated notwithstanding their reasonable efforts to ensure the Registration Statement’s accuracy. They cannot satisfy this burden by pleading ignorance of the accounting issues involved, see Escott, 283 F.Supp. at 684 (“The liability of a director who signs a registration statement does not depend upon whether or not he read it or, if he did, whether or not he understood what he was reading.”), or by blindly relying on outside counsel or auditors to ferret out inaccuracies, especially those that they were aware of or had even been responsible for introducing into the company’s fi-nancials. See id. at 685 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, even if Drabinsky and Gottlieb
holding that a corporate insider could not demonstrate due diligence on the basis of his reliance on outside auditors and lawyers where he had knowledge of facts that rendered the operative registration statement misleading holding that a prisoner had failed to demonstrate diligence for purposes of equitable tolling for the same reason that he had failed to show diligence to invoke the statute of limitations under  2255f4 where he had waited several years before pursuing expungement of his disciplinary actions holding that party claiming zoning estoppel must exercise due diligence to ascertain the truth and not only lack knowledge of the true state of things but also had no convenient means of acquiring that knowledge holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement recognizing an exception to the twoyear time bar imposed on rule 3850 claims when the claim asserted is based on facts that were unknown to the movant and could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence