a special relationship with the corporation, ... have access to information more akin to a corporate insider.’ ” Hallet v. Li & Fung, Ltd., No. 95 Civ. 8917, 1996 WL 487952, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.27, 1996) (quoting In re XOMA Corp. Sec. Litig., No. C-91-2252, 1990 WL 357807, at *5-6 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 27,1991)). Plaintiffs have alleged that Keenan, as a founder of the Company and its largest individual shareholder, was significantly involved with the Company’s affairs. See SAC ¶ 212. Accepting this allegation as true, as required at this stage of the proceedings, Keenan was more akin to a “corporate insider” with a special relationship to the Company, rather than an outside director. Cf. In re Complete Mgmt. Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 99 Civ. 1454, 2001 WL 314631, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.30, 2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the alleged misrepresentations
holding in context of control person analysis that because defendant founded the company and was its largest shareholder he may be able to influence the company holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company holding owner of company qualified as an employer due to inter alia his authority to hire and fire employees and overall financial control of company holding that complete preservation of status quo in case involving improper use of trade secrets to operate competing chemical sales company was that new company would not be able to sell any of the disputed chemicals holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen