Mem. Ex. E at 41), and claims, therefore, that a reasonable investor would not rely on the specific numbers cited in the First Quarter 10-Q- The court disagrees. First, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the inaccurate downgrade collateral estimates were forward-looking. Although the calculations described Constellation’s additional collateral obligations in the hypothetical event of a credit rating downgrade, they were a snapshot of Constellation’s contractual provisions at a specific point in time. Thus, they were not simply a projection of future financial circumstances, but rather a calculation of the collateral obligations that existed for the company in the event of a downgrade as of March 31, 2008. See Berson v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., 527 F.3d 982, 990 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Constellation’s argument that by the time the
holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense holding that the defendants backlog was a snapshot of how much work the company has under contract right now and descriptions of the present arent forwardlooking holding as much holding that the law in effect at the time a contract is made is as much a part of the contract as if incorporated therein