that “Mr. Henneberry, and perhaps other individuals within Smartix, should provide the bridge loan themselves.” (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 129.) Henneberry further claims that he then “informed Mr. Graustein that he was going to make at least a $100,000 bridge loan based upon Mr. Graustein’s promises.” (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 130.) SCOA’s argument is not without merit, as it seems reasonable that experienced businessmen would understand that a commitment to invest such a large sum of money would not be final before completion of due diligence by the investor. However, given the context of the promise Henneberry refers to in his Third Amended Complaint, Graustein made a promise to Henneberry that SCOA would be making the $3-5MM Investment in Smartix. See, e.g., Esquire Radio, 804 F.2d at 793 (<HOLDING>); Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata Systems
holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading holding that statements admonishing a worried plaintiff not to worry about the size of plaintiffs inventory because we will buy the parts were specific clear and unambiguous statements sufficient to survive summary judgment holding that a witness could testify about statements made to him by a police department investigator because the statements were an admission by partyopponent and were thus not excluded by the hearsay rule holding without discussing the plaintiffs burden of persuasion that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant