Complaints in this ease meet either standard. According to Plaintiffs, Brad Fain, who was one of FSG’s four members, received the 2001 and 2005 Reports and reviewed the content therein. He also allegedly participated in the decision to cancel the final feasibility study and knew of the S & Y’s withdrawal from the project. Likewise, given the Fain Group’s prominent role in obtaining the Event Center’s financing and the Fain Group’s decision to commission the 2005 Report before cancel-ling a final analysis, it seems “hard to believe” that senior officials, who allegedly managed the day-to-day operations of this relatively small, family-owned company, were unaware of the alleged misrepresentations. See id. (citing Berson v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., 527 F.3d 982, 989 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>)). Given these allegations, which are plausible
holding that a sherman act  1 claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter taken as time to suggest that an agreement was made holding that a literal interpretation should not be adhered to when it would lead to absurd results holding that a statute cannot be construed in a manner that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result holding that contracts should be interpreted to avoid absurd results holding that the subjectmatter of the alleged omissions was prominent enough that it would be absurd to suggest that top management was unaware of them