with analysts’ projections of earnings over $1.65 per share. From this announcement, plaintiffs allege that the results of the third inspection should have been publicly disclosed as far back as September 1991. This contention is without merit. Mere allegations that statements in one report should have been made in earlier reports do not make out a claim of securities fraud. Denny v. Barber, 576 F.2d 465, 470 (2d Cir.1978); see DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627-28 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 941, 111 S.Ct. 347, 112 L.Ed.2d 312 (1990). Moreover, conclusory allegations of fraud do not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), see Wexner, 902 F.2d at 172, and defendants’ lack of clairvoyance simply does not constitute securities fraud, see Denny, 576 F.2d at 470 (<HOLDING>). Here, the third inspection was inevitable
holding that reliance is not an element to be proven under securities fraud in indiana holding that failure to predict future law or to anticipate arguments that blossomed after trial is not a basis for ineffective assistance of counsel claims holding that even assuming that the defendants attorney had misadviced the client that his previous convictions could not be used to enhance future sentences njeither the court nor counsel is required to anticipate a defendants future recidivism  holding that defendants failure to anticipate future events did not constitute securities fraud holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud