I’d go broke.” Although “no magic words are required to express an inability to pay,” United Paperworkers Int’l Union, 981 F.2d at 865, the Company could not have used simpler words to declare that its financial situation was the cause of its refusal. An asserted inability to pay, whether made in writing or orally, is the cornerstone of an alleged Truitt violation. Clear statements of a company’s inability to pay cannot be cast aside as abruptly as the Board did here. The Company’s statements of inability to pay, i.e., “No, I can’t. I’d go broke,” coupled with its refusal to substantiate, strongly, but do not conclusively, suggest that the company bargained in bad faith, regardless of whether the statement was made during heated negotiations. See Lakeland I, 335 N.L.R.B. at 324-25 (<HOLDING>)-, Fairhaven Props., Inc. (Central Mgmt. Co.),
holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding that the acts duty of good faith includes the disclosure of information relevant to the employers bargaining position holding that when the courts oral statements in the plea colloquy conflict with the written agreement the courts oral statements control holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant holding oral statements by company sufficient to require disclosure of relevant financial information under truitt