during the amended period to above $6 per share, before crashing to $2. 19 as a result of FCPA-related disclosures. Doc. 63 at 3. As for Cuneo’s own losses, his original loss chart only shows purchases prior to the corrective disclosures about FCPA subpoenas, raising doubts about whether he even has standing to represent FCPA-related claims. Doc. 70-2. Cuneo responds that HDY represents an aggregation of unrelated plaintiffs with lesser financial interest in the litigation. Doc. 69 at 15. An amended loss chart filed with Cuneo’s amended complaint, however, shows he purchased additional stock after the first FCPA disclosure but sold it all prior to the second FCPA disclosure. Doc. 70-6 at 8. See Dura Pharma., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005) (<HOLDING>); In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec.
holding that plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the permit process where it could not show that it would ever be genuinely threatened by an unconstitutional prior restraint in this case holding that a plaintiff would have to show that he was not promoted because of his race not that he was a member of a protected group and was not promoted holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit holding that squatter in home did not have standing to challenge search of house where he was staying holding a plaintiff did not have standing to show loss causation where he completely sold out of a security by the time the operative corrective disclosure was made