(“[o]bviously, all of us have very tight compliance programs that we run here”) and an unidentified Sanofi spokesman’s August 8, 2013 statement that Sanofi had “zero tolerance for any unethical conduct.” (CAC ¶¶ 65-66). Plaintiffs further contend that Sanofi’s 2012 and 2013 20-Fs are misleading because they incorporate by reference Sanofi’s Financial Code of Ethics. (CAC ¶¶ 57, 73). They allege that these statements were materially misleading because Sanofi did not actually maintain an effective compliance program and did tolerate unethical conduct in its diabetes group— i.e., Sanofi engaged in an illegal marketing scheme in its US diabetes group — at the time the statements were made. These statements are not actionable under the securities laws, defendants F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), defendants’ statements about Sanofi’s
holding that accurate statements about past performance are not actionable under the securities laws holding that puffery is not actionable under the securities laws holding that the in connection with requirement of rule 10b5 was satisfied where investors were injured as investors through respondents deceptions and the scheme to defraud and the sale of securities coineided holding that nyseg telling its investors that it would not compromise its financial integrity was not actionable under the securities laws holding that morrison precludes securities claims brought by us investors who purchase securities on a foreign exchange even where those securities are also listed on a us exchange