consider the meaning of ‘high quality’ with a more discerning ear.”). GE argues that it had no independent duty to “break out” details concerning its subprime exposure. As an abstract proposition that may be so. But once a company chooses to speak — as GE insistently did with respect to the “high quality” of GE Capital’s portfolio — “it has a duty to disclose any additional material fact ‘necessary to make the statements [already contained therein] not misleading.’ ” In re CitiGroup Inc. Bond Litig., 723 F.Supp.2d 568, 590 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (brackets in original) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78k). If, as plaintiff alleges, defendant’s qualitative statements as to the strength of GE Capital’s portfolio were misleading, then they are actionable under the securities laws. See Novak, 216 F.3d at 315 (<HOLDING>); Shapiro v. UJB Fin. Corp., 964 F.2d 272, 282
holding that though there was no express statement that the appellant had committed perjury the clear impact of the specific language in nine sentences was that the appellant lied while under oath which weighed in favor of an actionable statement holding that even though an inventory search was invalid the vehicle was properly impounded holding that a qualitative statement that inventory was in good shape while defendants knew the contrary was actionable holding statement that plaintiff was antisemitic not actionable holding that inventory search could not be condemned insofar as department policy permitted opening box for the standard purposes of inventory searches