points to an avalanche of ad verse publicity about Citigroup’s financial condition prior to December 8', 2008. 8 . The Citi I plaintiffs’ motion to amend consisted of a footnote at the end of their opposition brief in which they "respectfully requested] leave to amend” without specifying any- new facts that they would allege. See Citi I Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, at 59 n. 77 (ECF No. 87). Neither Judge Stein nor the Court of Appeals took note of that request. ' 9 . The plaintiffs also argue that their prudence claim is timely because the defendants had a "continuing obligation” to review the Plans' assets throughout the course of the class period, which extended past December 2008. See Bona v. Barasch, No. 01cv2289, 2003 WL 1395932, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2003) (<HOLDING>). However, the plaintiffs cannot rely on the
holding that to the extent plaintiffs present action is based on conduct subsequent to the original action it is not barred by the prior litigation holding the delays of more than six years did not amount to the denial of access to the courts holding that the defendants had a continuing duty to review investments and that the action was not barred to the extent breaches occurred within six years of filing the complaint holding that as long as alleged breach of a continuing duty occurred within six years of the filing of the lawsuit the claim is timely holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal