more than just refuse to give effect to the "unaudited" disclaimer. We would also have to ignore the absence of any mention of Ernst & Young in BT's press release and focus instead on what the market might have implicitly "understood" about Ernst & Young's involvement in that press release. In other words, we would have to grant Wright an exception to the rule established by the Supreme Court that secondary actors such as accountants may not be held primarily liable unless they themselves have made "a material misstatement (or omission) on which a purchaser or seller of securities relies." Central Bank, 511 U.S. at 191, 114 S.Ct. 1439. We find no justification for granting such an exception. See, e.g., In re Fidelity/Micron Securities Litigation) 964 F.Supp. 539, 543-44 (D.Mass.1997) (<HOLDING>) spoke for Magellan'" (emphasis added)). We
holding that municipality may not be held liable under  1983 upon theory of respondeat superior holding that a mutual fund magellan cannot be held primarily liable on a theory of respondeat superior for the alleged misstatements of its fund manager notwithstanding plaintiffs contention that the market understood that the fund manager holding that a party can be held liable for securities fraud on an agency or a respondeat superior theory holding inter alia that a municipality cannot be held liable under section 1983 on a respondeat superior theory holding that a municipality cannot be liable on a respondeat superior theory