that Nexity had budgeted or had financial information that was not included in the prospectus, I believe that was your question. And the answer is yes, they did. “Q: All right. And my question really was did Mr. Lee or anybody else at Nexity before you made your investment tell you that such information, in fact, existed? “A: The only thing I was told was that Nexity was doing well and that it was progressing as per their model or their budget on plan.” Blackmon admitted that he had not asked to review Nexity’s strategic plan or budget. Given the vague generality of the representation that Nexity was “progressing as per their model or their budget [was] on plan,” no reasonable investor would rely on it. See Hillson Partners Ltd. P’ship v. Adage, Inc., 42 F.3d 204, 213-16 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90
holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague holding that statements that a company was recessionresistant and that it would maintain a high level of growth were too vague to constitute material statements of fact holding that vague on schedule and on track statements were immaterial misrepresentations holding that restriction on government employee speech was unconstitutionally vague