of fact or affirmative false statement, although such would be highly probative of a scheme to defraud. Philip Morris, 304 F.Supp.2d at 70; United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir.1981). The mail fraud statute covers all fraudulent and deceptive statements, including statements that are literally true but deceptive in the context in which they are made. See, e.g., Emery v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 71 F.3d 1343, 1348 (7th Cir.1995) (“A half truth, or what is usually the same thing a misleading omission, is actionable as fraud, including mail fraud if the mails are used to further it, if it is intended to induce a false belief and resulting action to the advantage of the mislead-er and the disadvantage of the misled”); United States v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579, 585 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 410
holding under texas law that appellants could not have prevailed on the merits of their negligent misrepresentation claim because they had not identified any statements of fact by boa that were actually false  or so incomplete as to be misleading 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 misleading newspaper ads and letters which were mailed need not be false or fraudulent on their face and the accused need not misrepresent any fact since it is just as unlawful to speak half truths or to omit to state facts necessary to make the statements made in light of the circumstances under which they were made not misleading holding that even if defendants knew that the company had inventory problems  that fact standing alone does not show that defendants knew that the statements in their prospectus or other representations were materially false or misleading at the time the material statements were made holding that jury could make inference that corporate defendants false or misleading statements regarding sales which violated sfas 48 were made with an intent to deceive manipulate or defraud investors based on evidence that defendants were aware of the right of return and approved it