must both be determined by the jury.” Defendants are incorrect. It is for the jury to determine, pursuant to Section 11, whether defendants have proven that all or any of the diminution in value of the securities between the dates of purchase and the time of suit was not the result of defendants’ alleged misrepresentations. It is for the Court to determine, pursuant to Section 12(b), whether defendants have proven that all or any of the amount recoverable under Section 12(a)(2) was depreciation in the value of the securities that was not the result of defendants’ alleged misrepresentations. In making the latter finding, the Court will, of course, accept as true any facts with respect to loss causation found by the jury. See LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412, 432 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Wade v. Orange Cnty. Sheriffs Office, 844
holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife holding it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny equitable relief by relying on its own findings that were inconsistent with the jurys findings