reported the financial health of the company and the percentage growth in diabetes product sales. There is no allegation that Sanofi failed to accurately report any of its financial figures. Courts in this district have held that “the allegation that a corporation properly reported income that is alleged to have been, in part, improperly obtained is insufficient to impose Section 10(b) liability.” In re Marsh, 501 F.Supp.2d at 470; see also In re FBR, 544 F.Supp.2d at 856 (“Accurate statements of past earning figures are not themselves actionable under Section 10(b).”); City of Brockton Ret. Sys. v. Avon Products, Inc., 11 cv 4665 (PGG), 2014 WL 4832821, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2014). But see In re Van der Moolen Holding N.V. Sec. Litig., 405 F.Supp.2d 388, 400-01 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (<HOLDING>). Absent an allegation that Sanofi reported
holding that the creation drafting editing or making of the statements at issue can give rise to liability under  10b holding that statements which put the sources of the defendants revenue at issue gave rise to liability under section 10b because the company failed to disclose the improper conduct that generated that revenue holding that the fact that the company violated gaap when viewed in light of significant overstatements of revenue tended to support inference of scienter holding that a private plaintiff is not entitled to maintain an aiding and abetting action under  10b or rule 10b  5 holding that amended complaint related back where the facts alleged in the original complaint clearly put defendants on notice as to the conduct  at issue in this action