misrepresentation.”). Additionally, SAB No. 99 observes that “[a]mong other factors, the demonstrated volatility of the price of a registrant’s securities in response to certain types of disclosures may provide guidance as to whether investors regard quantitatively small misstatements as material,” and that “[w]hile the intent of management does not render a misstatement material, it may provide significant evidence of materiality.” 64 Fed.Reg. at 45152. Case law supports the use of these additional factors as evidence of materiality. United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1298 (2d Cir.1991) (“stock movement is a factor the jury may consider relevant” to materiality, although not itself determinative); see Gebhardt v. Con-Agra Foods, Inc., 335 F.3d 824, 829-30 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 2. Discussion The Court concludes that there
recognizing managements role in misstatements as part of the total mix of information that would probably be important to investors holding that written information cures oral misstatements and omissions recognizing that there is an important privacy interest in corporate financial documents the court agrees that the information can be protected therefore the court  required that the information be disclosed pursuant to a confidentiality order only to be used in connection with this litigation recognizing that the information possessed by the defendant is an important variable in that equation holding that representations and omissions must be considered together and in context to determine whether they affect the total mix of information and mislead a reasonable investor