and Hayward. The April 26 document gave an estimate of “roughly 5,000 barrels,” yet on April 28 Suttles pegged BP’s best estimate at only 1,000 barrels. Subsequent statements by Suttles and Hayward put the estimate at “somewhere between 1,000 and 5,000” or at a “guesstimate” of 5,000, while the second document from April 27 clearly shows that BP’s best estimate was actually over 5,000 and as high as 14,000 barrels per day. The documents support Plaintiffs’ contention that BP was lowballing the estimate numbers in an attempt to keep stock prices from falling. Whether the facts will actually establish that BP intentionally gave the public lower estimates is an issue for trial. See, e.g., Joffee v. Lehman Bros., Inc., No. 04 Civ. 3507, 2005 WL 1492101, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2005) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to
holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss holding that factual disputes are inappropriate for disposition on a motion to dismiss holding that nominative fair use involves questions of fact whose resolution is inappropriate on a motion to dismiss recognizing inferential factual allegations to defeat a motion to dismiss holding that a motion to dismiss based on a forumselection clause should be treated as a rule 12b3 motion to dismiss for improper venue