that was different is that their plan — strategic plan, their budget, their model had more financial forward-looking information in it than the prospectus did. The prospectus virtually had no forward-looking financial information with it. “A: ... But with Mr. Lee, the question led into what was I told, I believe was your question, or the question was what was I told or what did I receive from them. And the conversation moved to what I was told. And I was told that Nexity was progressing as per their model and doing well, general comment. “Q: Was that the extent of what you were told, that’s as specific as it got? “A: That’s correct. Now, your other question — your other question is are you telling me that Nexity — or you asked me a question, are you telling m .3d 617, 631 (1st Cir.1996)(<HOLDING>). Blackmon received the POM, which contained a
holding that where an authorized disclosure is voluntarily made to a nonfederal party whether or not that disclosure is denominated confidential the government waives any claim that the information is exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege holding that federal securities law focuses on disclosure of backwardlooking hard information not on information such as internal projections and budgets and that the mere fact that intraquarterly results lagged behind internal projections does not without more require disclosure holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant recognizing that information disclosed in private is not a public disclosure under the fca holding by federal district court that before a court orders disclosure of educational records the party seeking disclosure is required to demonstrate a genuine need for the information that outweighs the privacy interest of the students