despite knowing that the rating was imperiled. GE regularly made statements to the effect that it was committed to its AAA rating. (Id., ¶¶ 167, 168, 205, 234; see also id., ¶¶ 175, 178, 183a.) Such statements, however, are roughly equivalent to saying that GE wanted to keep its AAA rating. The mere fact that GE wished to maintain its credit rating does not suggest to the reasonable investor that it would be able to do so, especially since GE’s credit rating was determined by third parties. Similarly, when GE told investors that its AAA rating gave it a competitive advantage over lower-rated companies, it was merely stating a fact. Plaintiff thus has failed to demonstrate falsity with respect to these statements. See Lasker v. N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp., 85 F.3d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff claims that Immelt’s statements
holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements recognizing that not all statements obtained by the police after a person has been taken into custody are to be considered the product of interrogation holding that misrepresentations about profitability of business made recklessly with intent to deceive supported award of punitive damages holding that statements regarding a companys commitment to maintaining its level of profitability are not considered seriously by the marketplace and investors in assessing a potential investment holding that statements in motions and briefs are not evidence to be considered in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration