agreements themselves bear witness to this concern by obligating JWP promptly to transmit to the AUSA plaintiffs copies of JWP’s unaudited quarterly and audited annual financial statements, its SEC filings, all audit reports submitted to JWP by its independent accountant and, on an annual basis, no-default certificates from its independent accountant. See, e.g., Ex. 9, at ¶ 5A, attached to Perschetz Aff. Thus, allegations of accounting fraud like those contained in the class action complaints disclosed in JWP’s Form 10-Q, coupled with the announcement that JWP’s CFO had been relieved of his duties, should have greatly concerned the AUSA plaintiffs, who are extremely sophisticated investors. See Lenz v. Associated Inns & Restaurants Co. of America, 833 F.Supp. 362, 375-76 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (<HOLDING>). We therefore hold that the information
holding that the passage of time was a relevant factor when determining custody issues holding that a court may consider the economic stature and commercial sophistication of the parties in determining the enforceability of a limitation of liability holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that sophistication of investor is relevant factor in determining when plaintiff placed on inquiry notice