investigations resulting in losses to shareholders. In addressing this question, the Court first must determine whether Plaintiffs have pleaded omissions rendering prior FCPA-related statements “in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. The Court must then determine whether the omissions plausibly satisfy all the elements of fraud set forth in Stoneridge, including materiality, scienter, and causation of artificially high stock prices and losses to shareholders after the subpoenas were announced. If Plaintiffs have not pleaded omissions rendering prior statements misleading, Rule 10b-5 does not apply. Pontiac, 752 F.3d at 184 (quoting Ciresi v. Citicorp, 782 F.Supp. 819, 823 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd, 956 F.2d 1161 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>)); In re Par Pharm. Cos., Inc. Sec. Litig., 733
holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense holding that erisas duty of loyalty creates a duty to disclose certain information to beneficiaries holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence holding companies do not have a duty to disclose uncharged unadjudicated wrongdoing 