18-19. 11 . The Underwriter Defendants' contention that plaintiffs failed to plead with the required particularity that the Company knew that the software modifications were not working is unavailing. See Underwriter Def. Mem. at 19 n. 11. Even assuming that plaintiffs were held to the strict pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) — which would only apply to section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims that sound in fraud— plaintiffs have met its requirements. Plaintiffs learned from a confidential OFGEM source that at a meeting with OFGEM in early March 2000, Sulley and the Company were told that the software modifications were not solving the Company’s billing problems. See SAC ¶ 111. This allegation is sufficient at this early stage of the proceedings. See Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300, 313 (2d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1012, 121 S.Ct. 567,
holding that a valid waiver of counsel at an early stage of the proceeding does not continue in effect through a subsequent stage holding that plaintiffs need not reveal confidential sources at the pleading stage holding that credibility determinations should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage holding that the application of the fair use doctrine at the pleading stage is appropriate