10b-5 Actions: Actual or Inquiry Discovery?, 30 San Diego L.Rev. 917, 948 (1993)). However, Congress’s extension of the relevant limitations period from one to two years alleviates this concern and allows us to conclude that an inquiry n ute of limitations begins running, we first determine when the plaintiff had inquiry notice of the facts giving rise to his or her securities fraud claim. A plaintiff is on inquiry notice when there exists sufficient suspicion of fraud to cause a reasonable investor to investigate the matter further. Like our sister circuits, we caution that inquiry notice should not be construed so broadly that the particular plaintiff cannot bring his or her suit within the limitations period. The facts constituting inquiry notice “must be suffic 252 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Great Rivers Coop, of S.E. Iowa v. Farmland
holding that the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred holding that extreme nervousness potentially inconsistent stories and other suspicious answers did not amount to a reasonable or articulable suspicion holding that an inquiry into trip destination is permissible even in the absence of suspicious circumstances holding that inquiry notice exists where a reasonable investor of ordinary intelligence would have discovered the suspicious information and recognized it as suspicious holding that reasonable suspicion existed based on defendants nervousness expired drivers license and suspicious story regarding travel plans