them individually or differentiating among them.” Fener I, 425 F.Supp.2d at 793 n. 7. 2 . All defendants except Peckham have also filed a motion requesting the court to take judicial notice of various documents, including SEC filings, transcripts of press releases and conference calls, a stock price chart, and excerpts from trade presentations. The court grants the motion. See, e.g., Fin. Acquisition Partners L.P. v. Blackwell, 440 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir.2006) (addressing documents in addition to complaint and attachments that court can consider in deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motion). 3 . Additionally, because plaintiffs are not entitled to recover against Sander, Shive, and Williamson individually, they cannot recover against Belo based on their conduct. See Fener I, 425 F.Supp.2d at 798 (<HOLDING>). 4 . In Fener I the court held that the
holding that the elements of a claim under  3729a2 are 1 that the defendant made used or caused to be made or used a record or statement to get a claim against the united states paid or approved 2 the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent and 3 the defendant knew that the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent emphasis added holding that for a section 10b violation the sec must prove that the defendant in connection with the purchase or sale of securities made a materially false statement or omitted a material fact with scienter and that the plaintiffs reliance on the defendants action caused injury to the plaintiff holding that a plaintiff alleging securities fraud must show that a defendant 1 made a material misrepresentation or a material omission as to which he or she had a duty to speak 2 with scienter 3 in connection with the purchase or sale of securities holding that slusa preempts claims which allege a material misrepresentation or omission in connection with the purchase or sale of securities whether or not that allegation is an element of or otherwise necessary to the putative state claim holding that plaintiffs could not recover against belo based on conduct of moroney peckham or sander because in determining whether belo made statement with scienter court looked to state of mind of individual corporate official and plaintiffs had failed to connect moroney peckham or sander to oral or written misrepresentation or omission