%PDF-1.3
%%�����
%%Page: 1 1            
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 13 Tf 100 Tz
88.1395 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(FOR PUBLICATION) Tj
/F1 15 Tf 100 Tz
-78.2395 -24 Td
1.5 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
43.47 -16 Td
(FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-53.37 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
(�) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AMES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Individually) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(and on behalf of all others) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(similarly situated,) Tj
215.07 -9 Td
(No. 06-15677) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-134.082 -4.2 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
143.412 -13.8 Td
(D.C. Nos.) Tj
-224.4 -4.2 Td
(NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
201.468 -9 Td
(CV 04-0886 MHM) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-19.848 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-105.96 -2.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(Claimant-Appellant,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
125.808 -9 Td
(CV 04-1012 MHM) Tj
-118.968 -9 Td
(v.) Tj
141.84 -9 Td
(OPINION) Tj
-224.34 -9 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATRIXX) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITIATIVES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.; C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( J.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHNSON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLIAM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( J. H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EMELT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
65.688 -13.2 Td
(Defendants-Appellees.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
115.932 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
(�) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-142.878 -26.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
46.206 -13.2 Td
(for the District of Arizona) Tj
-42.606 -13.2 Td
(Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding) Tj
52.128 -26.2 Td
(Argued and Submitted) Tj
-44.526 -13.2 Td
(June 9, 2009�San Francisco, California) Tj
42.594 -26.2 Td
(Filed October 28, 2009) Tj
-73.302 -26.2 Td
(Before: Mary) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(M.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Schroeder, A.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Wallace) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Tashima and) Tj
58.002 -13.2 Td
(Carlos) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(T.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Bea, Circuit) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Judges.) Tj
6.132 -26.2 Td
(Opinion by Judge Tashima) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -65.95 m 183.8 -65.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -139.1 m 186.6 -73.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -221.4 m 186.6 -156.1 l s
.9 w 0 -228.35 m 183.3 -228.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
292.25 -664.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14507) Tj
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
3073
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2            
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -262.2 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -26.2 Td
1.32 Tw
(Joseph D. Daley, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(LLP, San Diego, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
4.75 Tw
(Michael G. Yoder, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Newport) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Beach, California, for the defendants-appellees.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -242.75 m 300 -242.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14510) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
955
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3            
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -25.9 Td
(TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
3 Tw
(Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. \() Tj
(�Matrixx) Tj
(�\) is a pharmaceutical) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.22 Tw
(company that sells cold products through its wholly-owned) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.77 Tw
(subsidiary, Zicam, LLC. One of its main products is Zicam) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.81 Tw
(Cold Remedy, which comes in several different forms.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
.66 Tw
(Plaintiffs-Appellants are lead plaintiff, NECA-IBEW Pension) Tj
0 -13 Td
.22 Tw
(Fund, and named plaintiff, James Siracusano, in a class action) Tj
0 -13 Td
.24 Tw
(brought against Matrixx and three Matrixx executives \(collec-) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.55 Tw
(tively ) Tj
(�Appellees) Tj
(�\) under the Private Securities Litigation) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.9 Tw
(Reform Act of 1995 \() Tj
(�PSLRA) Tj
(�\). Appellants alleged that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(Appellees violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(failing to disclose material information regarding Zicam Cold) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(Remedy � specifically, that Zicam causes a condition called) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(anosmia, which is a loss of the sense of smell, in its users. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(district court granted in part and denied in part Appellees') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(motion to strike portions of the complaint and granted Appel-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(lees' motion to dismiss the complaint and the action. We have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.7 Tw
(1291. We reverse and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(remand for further proceedings.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
104.334 -25.9 Td
(BACKGROUND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-94.334 -25.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.72 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(On June 16, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration \() Tj
(�FDA) Tj
(�\) issued) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
0 Tw
(a warning letter to Matrixx, setting forth the FDA's conclusion that several) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.38 Tw
(Zicam Cold Remedy products ) Tj
(�may pose a serious risk to consumers who) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
12.1 Tw
(use them.) Tj
(� http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/Warning) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
3.21 Tw
(Letters/ucm166909.htm \(visited July 19, 2009; information moved to) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm166931.htm\).) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1.09 Tw
(The FDA stated that it had received ) Tj
(�more than 130 reports of anosmia,) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.3 Tw
(\(loss of sense of smell, which in some cases can be long-lasting or perma-) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(nent\), associated with use of these products.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
10 -13.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.46 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The following allegations are taken from the Consolidated Amended) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
.61 Tw
(Complaint \() Tj
(�CAC) Tj
(�\). In reviewing the district court's dismissal for failure) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.85 Tw
(to state a claim, we accept the plaintiffs' allegations as true and construe) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.75 Tw
(them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Zucco Partners, LLC v.) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.99 Tw
(Digimarc Corp.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 552 F.3d 981, 989 \(9th Cir. 2009\). As such, the allega-) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(tions are hereafter stated as fact. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -319.65 m 300 -319.65 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14511) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
4136
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4            
19 0 obj
<<
/Length 20 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.44 Tw
0 Tc
(On April 27, 2004, Appellants filed a class action against) Tj
-12 -13 Td
3.32 Tw
(Matrixx and three individual defendants � Carl Johnson,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.62 Tw
(Matrixx's Chief Executive Officer, President and a director;) Tj
0 -13 Td
.38 Tw
(William Hemelt, Matrixx's Chief Financial Officer and Exec-) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.22 Tw
(utive Vice President; and Timothy Clarot, Matrixx's Vice) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.75 Tw
(President and Director of Research and Development � on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(behalf of investors who purchased Matrixx securities during) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.55 Tw
(the class period, October 22, 2003, to February 6, 2004.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(Zicam Cold Remedy accounted for approximately 70 percent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(of Zicam's sales during the class period. Zicam Cold Reme-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(dy's active ingredient is zinc gluconate and can be applied as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(a nasal spray or a gel. Appellants alleged that Appellees were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(aware that numerous users of Zicam had developed anosmia,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.09 Tw
(but that they failed to disclose the risk and instead issued false) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(and misleading statements regarding Zicam.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26 Td
(I.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Allegations of Adverse Information Regarding Zicam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
4.2 Tw
(In December 1999, Dr. Alan Hirsch, the Neurological) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(Director of the Smell & Taste Treatment and Research Foun-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.24 Tw
(dation, Ltd., ) Tj
(�called Matrixx's customer service line to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(inquire into the amount of zinc contained in Zicam nasal gel.) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.28 Tw
(CAC) Tj
( �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.28 Tw
(25. Hirsch spoke with a Mr. Landau and explained) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(that at least one of Hirsch's patients had developed anosmia) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(after using Zicam. ) Tj
(Hirsch stated that other studies had indi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(cated potential problems with ) Tj
(�intranasal application of zinc,) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(and offered to conduct a clinical study on the issue. Mr. Lan-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(dau declined his offer.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.5 Tw
(In September 2002, Clarot, Vice President of Research and) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(Development, called Miriam Linschoten, Ph.D., of the Uni-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.95 Tw
(versity of Colorado Health Sciences Center. Clarot contacted) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(Linschoten because a patient Linschoten had treated for loss) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.51 Tw
(of smell following use of Zicam also had complained to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
(Matrixx.) Tj
( Linschoten expressed concern that Zicam, an over-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(the-counter product, contained no warning that it could cause) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.77 Tw
(a loss of smell. Clarot told Linschoten that Matrixx had) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(received similar complaints from other customers as early as) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14512) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
20 0 obj
3552
endobj
18 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 19 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5            
22 0 obj
<<
/Length 23 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.32 Tw
0 Tc
(1999. ) Tj
(Linschoten asked whether Matrixx had performed any) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.86 Tw
(studies, told Clarot about existing studies linking zinc sulfate) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.83 Tw
(to the loss of smell, and offered to send Clarot information) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.95 Tw
(regarding those studies. ) Tj
(Clarot replied that Matrixx had not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.81 Tw
(done any studies but that ) Tj
(�it had hired a consultant to review) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(the product.) Tj
(�) Tj
( CAC �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(26. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
.33 Tw
(On September 20, 2002, Linschoten sent an email to Clarot) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.81 Tw
(including abstracts on the link between zinc sulfate and the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.16 Tw
(loss of smell. ) Tj
(Clarot called Linschoten to ask if she would) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.88 Tw
(participate in animal studies to be conducted by Matrixx, but) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.12 Tw
(Linschoten declined because she focused on human, not ani-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(mal, research.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1 Tw
(Linschoten, Dr. Bruce Jafek of the University of Colorado) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.62 Tw
(School of Medicine, and another colleague planned to submit) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.41 Tw
(their findings regarding ten patients who had developed anos-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.88 Tw
(mia following Zicam use in a presentation to the American) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.03 Tw
(Rhinologic Society on September 20, 2003. ) Tj
(On September 12,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.81 Tw
(2003, ) Tj
(�Matrixx sent a letter to Jafek stating that he did not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.93 Tw
(have permission to use Matrixx's name or the names of its) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.73 Tw
(products� in the presentation. CAC �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.73 Tw
(29. Jafek asked for per-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.27 Tw
(mission to use the Zicam name, but Matrixx refused. ) Tj
(The pre-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.55 Tw
(sentation to the American Rhinologic Society accordingly) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.47 Tw
(was made without naming Zicam.) Tj
( ) Tj
(�Jafek's findings regarding) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.81 Tw
(Zicam were ultimately disclosed to the public on February 6,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(2004 on ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Good Morning America) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
2.34 Tw
(�As of April of 2004, Dr. Jafek had evaluated over 100) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.02 Tw
(cases of anosmia following Zicam use.) Tj
(� CAC �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.02 Tw
(30. Linscho-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.41 Tw
(ten had treated approximately 65 such patients, all of whom) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.61 Tw
(complained of ) Tj
(�an `immediate, severe burning' immediately) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.57 Tw
(following use of Zicam nasal gel, followed by a loss of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.17 Tw
(smell.� None of the patients had fully recovered. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Jafek and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.85 Tw
(Hirsch ) Tj
(�have observed that the Zicam nasal spray does reach) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.6 Tw
(the upper area of the nasal cavity where smell reception) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(occurs.�) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14513) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
3598
endobj
21 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 22 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6            
25 0 obj
<<
/Length 26 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(II.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Allegations of Misleading Statements) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.7 Td
4.58 Tw
(On October 22, 2003, Matrixx issued a press release) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.63 Tw
(announcing that its net sales for the third quarter of 2003 had) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.07 Tw
(increased by 163% over the third quarter of 2002. Johnson) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(was quoted in the press release as follows:) Tj
22 -26.7 Td
.47 Tw
(The Zicam brand is poised for growth in the upcom-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.04 Tw
(ing cough and cold season with improved retail) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.91 Tw
(exposure by virtue of three [new] unique oral deliv-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.78 Tw
(ery forms of our Zicam Cold Remedy product, the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.92 Tw
(resumption of our television advertising campaigns) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.91 Tw
(in recent weeks and the momentum from last year's) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.74 Tw
(successful season. Additionally, our retail partners) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.33 Tw
(have come to rely on the Zicam brand not only as an) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.32 Tw
(efficacious product for their customers, but also for) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.88 Tw
(the profitability that Zicam branded products pro-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(duce for their respective bottom-lines.) Tj
-22 -26.7 Td
3.83 Tw
(Matrixx 10/22/2003 press release. Appellants alleged that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.14 Tw
(these statements were materially false and misleading because) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.83 Tw
(they failed to disclose Appellees' awareness of the material) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(health risk that Zicam posed to consumers.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.67 Tw
(On October 23, 2003, Appellees held an earnings confer-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.44 Tw
(ence call, at which Johnson expressed his ) Tj
(�enthusiasm for the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.57 Tw
(most recently completed quarter) Tj
(� and his ) Tj
(�optimis[m] about) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(the future.) Tj
(� 10/23/03 Tr. at 1. Johnson explained that) Tj
22 -26.7 Td
4.51 Tw
(we have very strong momentum going into the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(upcoming cough and cold season. In addition, what) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.88 Tw
(lies behind these results is a unique product in the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.21 Tw
(Zicam product line, a product that offers a unique) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.24 Tw
(benefit, the ability for consumers to actually reduce) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.03 Tw
(the duration and severity of the common cold, not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.16 Tw
(just mask the symptoms, and tremendous support) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(that we are receiving from our retail customers.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14514) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
3077
endobj
24 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 25 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7            
28 0 obj
<<
/Length 29 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.07 Tw
0 Tc
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 2. Johnson further expressed the expectation for the year) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.61 Tw
(that ) Tj
(�our revenues will be up in excess of 50% and that earn-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(ings per share for the full year will be in the 25-30� range.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
4.27 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 5. Hemelt stated that the growth ) Tj
(�was driven by) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.47 Tw
(increased sales of all 10 of our Zicam products,) Tj
(� explaining) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(that approximately one-third of the increase in sales was due) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.57 Tw
(to ) Tj
(�three new Zicam oral cold remedy products,) Tj
(� and that the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(remainder of the increase ) Tj
(�was due to increased sales of our) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2 Tw
(other seven Zicam products.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 4. Johnson and Hemelt) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(then answered questions.) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
1.5 Tw
(At one point, they were asked to ) Tj
(�make any comment on) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.1 Tw
(the litigation MTXX or its officers are involved in, or whether) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.73 Tw
(or not there is any SEC [Securities and Exchange Commis-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.14 Tw
(sion] investigation.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 17. They replied that ) Tj
(�[t]he officers) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.3 Tw
(of this company are not involved in any litigation,) Tj
(� and that) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(they were not aware of any SEC investigation.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 17-18.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(Johnson concluded by reiterating ) Tj
(�the optimism we have for) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.45 Tw
(the future.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 32. There was no mention of the anosmia) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(issue.) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
.25 Tw
(On November 12, 2003, Matrixx filed its Form 10-Q report) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.52 Tw
(for the third quarter of 2003 with the SEC. The section of the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.16 Tw
(Form 10-Q that Appellants alleged was false and misleading) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(was this paragraph from the section on Risk Factors:) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -26.4 Td
1.08 Tw
(We may incur significant costs resulting from prod-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(uct liability claims) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.4 Td
1.41 Tw
(We are subject to significant liability should use or) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.94 Tw
(consumption of our products cause injury, illness or) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.33 Tw
(death. Although we carry product liability insurance,) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.03 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(A lawsuit was filed against Matrixx and Zicam on October 14, 2003,) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.1 Tw
(in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(alleging that Zicam caused anosmia. Matrixx was served on October 23,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.65 Tw
(2003, the day of the earnings conference call. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Christensen v. Matrixx Ini-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(tiatives, Inc.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 03-cv-0146, Docket No. 3. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.45 m 300 -432.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14515) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
29 0 obj
3901
endobj
27 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 28 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8            
32 0 obj
<<
/Length 33 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
.93 Tw
0 Tc
(there can be no assurance that our insurance will be) Tj
0 -13 Td
5.66 Tw
(adequate to protect us against product liability) Tj
0 -13 Td
.33 Tw
(claims or that insurance coverage will continue to be) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.16 Tw
(available on reasonable terms. A product liability) Tj
0 -13 Td
.81 Tw
(claim, even one without merit or for which we have) Tj
0 -13 Td
.61 Tw
(substantial coverage, could result in significant legal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.06 Tw
(defense costs, thereby increasing our expenses and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(lowering our earnings. Such a claim, whether or not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.53 Tw
(proven to be valid, could have a material adverse) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.95 Tw
(effect on our product branding and goodwill, result-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.28 Tw
(ing in reduced market acceptance of our products.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.9 Tw
(This in turn could materially adversely affect our) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(results of operations and financial condition.) Tj
-22 -26 Td
3.94 Tw
(CAC �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.94 Tw
(35. Appellants alleged that these statements were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(materially false and misleading because Appellees ) Tj
(�failed to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(disclose that a lawsuit alleging that Zicam caused anosmia) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(had already been filed and, given the findings of the research-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.6 Tw
(ers at the University of Colorado it was highly likely that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(additional suits would be filed in the future.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.2 Tw
(Matrixx issued a press release on January 7, 2004, in which) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.22 Tw
(it ) Tj
(�upwardly revised its guidance for fiscal year 2003. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(Company expects total 2003 revenues to grow by greater than) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(80 percent compared to 2002 and fully diluted earnings per) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.68 Tw
(share to be in the range of $0.33 to $0.38.) Tj
(� CAC ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.68 Tw
(37.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(Matrixx reported that ) Tj
(�[t]he increase in the guidance for 2003) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(reflects a much greater incidence of colds than previously) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(anticipated.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
5.74 Tw
(On January 30, 2004, an article in the Dow Jones) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(Newswires reported that the FDA was ) Tj
(�looking into com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(plaints that an over-the-counter common-cold medicine man-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(ufactured by a unit of Matrixx Initiatives Inc. \(MTXX\) may) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(be causing some users to lose their sense of smell.) Tj
(� The arti-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(cle stated that ) Tj
(�[t]he FDA's interest follows at least three law-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(suits filed by individuals against Matrixx and Zicam LLC, a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(wholly-owned subsidiary, by users of Zicam Cold Remedy.) Tj
(�) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14516) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
3534
endobj
31 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 32 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9            
35 0 obj
<<
/Length 36 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.1 Tw
0 Tc
(Appellants alleged that Matrixx's stock declined after this) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(report, ) Tj
(�falling from $13.55 per share on January 30, 2004 to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
($11.97 per share on February 2, 2004.) Tj
(� CAC �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(41.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.48 Tw
(On February 2, 2004, Matrixx issued a press release, ) Tj
(�re-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.7 Tw
(spond[ing] to the Dow Jones `In The Money report: FDA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(Looks Into Complaints About Zicam,' by Carol S. Remond,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(alleging that the FDA is investigating consumer complaints) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.95 Tw
(regarding intranasal zinc gluconate-induced loss of smell.) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Matrixx 2/2/2004 press release. The press release stated:) Tj
22 -26 Td
8.26 Tw
(Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., the manufacturer of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(Zicam\(R\) Cold Remedy, is not aware of an FDA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.95 Tw
(inquiry into the safety of our intranasal zinc-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(gluconate products . . . . ) Tj
0 -26 Td
1.33 Tw
(All Zicam products are manufactured and marketed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(according to FDA guidelines for homeopathic medi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(cine. Our primary concern is the health and safety of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(our customers and the distribution of factual infor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.26 Tw
(mation about our products. Matrixx believes state-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.21 Tw
(ments alleging that intranasal Zicam products cause) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(anosmia \(loss of smell\) are completely unfounded) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(and misleading.) Tj
0 -26 Td
2.16 Tw
(In no clinical trial of intranasal zinc gluconate gel) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.77 Tw
(products has there been a single report of lost or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.26 Tw
(diminished olfactory function \(sense of smell\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(Rather, the safety and efficacy of zinc gluconate for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(the treatment of symptoms related to the common) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(cold have been well established in two double-blind,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.5 Tw
(placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials. In) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(fact, in neither study were there any reports of anos-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(mia related to the use of this compound. The overall) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(incidence of adverse events associated with zinc glu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(conate was extremely low, with no statistically sig-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(nificant difference between the adverse event rates) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(for the treated and placebo subsets.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14517) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
3156
endobj
34 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 35 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 10 10            
38 0 obj
<<
/Length 39 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
3.43 Tw
0 Tc
(A multitude of environmental and biologic influ-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.33 Tw
(ences are known to affect the sense of smell. Chief) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(among them is the common cold. As a result, the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.37 Tw
(population most likely to use cold remedy products) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.9 Tw
(is already at increased risk of developing anosmia.) Tj
0 -13 Td
6.06 Tw
(Other common causes of olfactory dysfunction) Tj
0 -13 Td
.57 Tw
(include age, nasal and sinus infections, head trauma,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.65 Tw
(anatomical obstructions, and environmental irritants.) Tj
0 -26 Td
1.94 Tw
(The circumstances surrounding the development of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.45 Tw
(Ms. Remond's column are extremely suspect. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(article appeared online in public financial message) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.98 Tw
(boards almost immediately following its availability) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
10.88 Tw
(through the Dow Jones `In The Money') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(subscription-only service. At least one of these mes-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(sage board postings was made by a registered user-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
7.38 Tw
(name frequently used by Floyd Schneider, a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.11 Tw
(defendant currently being sued for defamation by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(Matrixx Initiatives. From at least August 2001 to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(present, Schneider has posted false and defamatory) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(statements about Matrixx on various Internet mes-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(sage boards using a variety of anonymous aliases. It) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(has come to our attention that Schneider has also) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4 Tw
(attempted to interfere with Matrixx' business by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(contacting our retail customers.) Tj
0 -26 Td
.47 Tw
(Ms. Remond's article appears on today's Dow Jones) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(Newswire � the very day that Matrixx Initiatives is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(deposing Schneider. We believe that the timing of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(this article was manipulated by Schneider to inter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.61 Tw
(rupt the deposition process. We know that Ms.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(Remond and Schneider were in close communication) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(during the development of Ms. Remond's article and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(even discussed the disclosure statement detailing the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(basis for our suit against Schneider, which has not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.61 Tw
(yet been made public. Therefore, it is particularly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.65 Tw
(troubling that Ms. Remond neglected to mention the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(defamation action or that Schneider was one of her) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14518) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
39 0 obj
3206
endobj
37 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 38 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 11 11            
41 0 obj
<<
/Length 42 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
.2 Tw
0 Tc
(chief sources of information. We consider her failure) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.4 Tw
(to mention these facts to be a significant omission in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(fair and balanced reporting.) Tj
0 -26.7 Td
.9 Tw
(Matrixx Initiatives would like to underscore that we) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
7.92 Tw
(intend to vigorously pursue those individuals) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3 Tw
(involved in any effort to improperly discredit the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.76 Tw
(company and its products. Furthermore, we strongly) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.07 Tw
(urge Dow Jones to open its own investigation to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
6.46 Tw
(determine whether Dow Jones' credibility was) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.58 Tw
(undermined by the use of copyrighted material in an) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.44 Tw
(attempt to do further harm to the value and reputa-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion of Matrixx Initiatives and its products.) Tj
-22 -26.7 Td
5.83 Tw
(Matrixx 2/2/2004 press release. Appellants alleged that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(Matrixx's ) Tj
(�vigorous, but baseless, denials had their intended) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.34 Tw
(effect: the stock price rose, closing at $13.40 per share on) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(February 3, 2004.) Tj
(� CAC �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(41.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.82 Tw
(On February 6, 2004, the television show ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Good Morning) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.33 Tw
(America) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( did a report on Matrixx's zinc gluconate products) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.21 Tw
(and anosmia. Reporter John Ferrugia reported that Jafek had) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.48 Tw
(treated ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
(`more than a dozen patients') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
(� and that four lawsuits) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.5 Tw
(had been filed, and others were ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.5 Tw
(`being prepared.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.5 Tw
(� ) Tj
(CAC) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.7 Tw
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.7 Tw
(42. Appellants alleged that, ) Tj
(�[i]n response to the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Good) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.27 Tw
(Morning America) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( segment . . . , the price of Matrixx common) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(stock plummeted, falling from $13.05 per share on February) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.13 Tw
(5, 2004, to close at $9.94 per share on February 6 � a one-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.25 Tw
(day drop of 23.8% on unusually heavy trading volume.) Tj
(� CAC) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(43. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
.53 Tw
(On February 6, 2004, Matrixx issued another press release,) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.71 Tw
(describing the reports linking anosmia with zinc gluconate) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.95 Tw
(intranasal gels as ) Tj
(�completely unfounded and misleading.) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.62 Tw
(Matrixx 2/6/2004 press release. Matrixx ) Tj
(�assure[d] our con-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.81 Tw
(sumers that Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal zinc gluconate) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.95 Tw
(products are manufactured and marketed according to Food) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14519) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
42 0 obj
3463
endobj
40 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 41 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 12 12            
44 0 obj
<<
/Length 45 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.33 Tw
0 Tc
(and Drug Administration guidelines for homeopathic medi-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(cine.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Matrixx further asserted as follows:) Tj
22 -26 Td
2.16 Tw
(In no clinical trial of intranasal zinc gluconate gel) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.77 Tw
(products has there been a single report of lost or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.26 Tw
(diminished olfactory function \(sense of smell\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(Rather, the safety and efficacy of zinc gluconate for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(the treatment of symptoms related to the common) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(cold have been well established in two double-blind,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.5 Tw
(placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials. In) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(fact, in neither study were there any reports of anos-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(mia related to the use of this compound. The overall) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(incidence of adverse events associated with zinc glu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(conate was extremely low, with no statistically sig-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(nificant difference between the adverse event rates) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(for the treated and placebo subsets.) Tj
0 -26 Td
3.43 Tw
(A multitude of environmental and biologic influ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(ences are known to affect the sense of smell. Chief) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(among them is the common cold. As a result, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(population most likely to use cold remedy products) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(is already at increased risk of developing anosmia.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(. . . ) Tj
0 -26 Td
.33 Tw
(A few researchers have attempted to link nasal prod-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(ucts containing zinc to the onset of anosmia. How-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(ever, this hypothesis is based on data from polio) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(studies conducted in the 1930s using a concentrated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(zinc sulfate solution. Current nasal products, such as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(Zicam Cold Remedy, contain zinc gluconate, which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(is an entirely different compound.) Tj
-22 -26 Td
(Matrixx 2/6/2004 press release) Tj
(.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.2 Tw
(On February 19, 2004, Appellees filed a Form 8-K with the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(SEC, in which Matrixx stated that it had ) Tj
(�convened a two-day) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(meeting of physicians and scientists to review current infor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(mation on smell disorders.) Tj
(� CAC �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.46 Tw
(45. The form stated that) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14520) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
45 0 obj
3080
endobj
43 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 44 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 13 13            
47 0 obj
<<
/Length 48 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1 Tw
0 Tc
(the meeting was in response to the September 20, 2003, pre-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.12 Tw
(sentation to the American Rhinologic Society. ) Tj
(The form fur-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.27 Tw
(ther stated that, ) Tj
(�[i]n the opinion of the panel, there is) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.83 Tw
(insufficient scientific evidence at this time to determine if) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.58 Tw
(zinc gluconate, when used as recommended, affects a per-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(son's ability to smell.) Tj
(�) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
3.25 Tw
(On March 4, 2004, Ferrugia, the reporter on the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Good) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
4.8 Tw
(Morning America) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( segment, reported on TheDenverChan-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.44 Tw
(nel.com that Matrixx ) Tj
(�now admit[ted] that they don't know if) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.23 Tw
(their nasal gel could cause loss of smell.) Tj
(� ) Tj
(CAC �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.23 Tw
(47. The arti-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.66 Tw
(cle stated that ) Tj
(�[t]he stunning information came after a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.57 Tw
(7NEWS investigation found that some consumers who have) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.93 Tw
(used Zicam report the loss of smell.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The article reported) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(that Matrixx initially ) Tj
(�told us its studies showed the product) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.3 Tw
([was] safe,) Tj
(� but that it would begin studies to determine if the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.93 Tw
(product could cause the loss of smell. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(alteration in origi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(nal\). The article further provided as follows:) Tj
22 -26.6 Td
3.57 Tw
(Doctors at the University of Colorado Taste and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.47 Tw
(Smell Clinic have an increasing number of patients) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.47 Tw
(who say they lost their sense of smell after using) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.66 Tw
(Zicam intranasal gel, which contains zinc gluconate.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.42 Tw
(Dr. Bruce Jafek has been documenting the cases) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.05 Tw
(from around the country, and there have been several) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.03 Tw
(lawsuits in at least five states. All along, Matrixx Ini-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.08 Tw
(tiatives, the maker of Zicam, said the product was) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.17 Tw
(safe. But now it admits there are no studies dealing) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4 Tw
(with the issue. In a filing to the Securities and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.06 Tw
(Exchange Commission on issues affecting stock-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.83 Tw
(holders, Matrixx now discloses: ) Tj
(�There is insuffi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.25 Tw
(cient evidence at this time to determine if zinc) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.66 Tw
(gluconate, when used as recommended, affects a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(person's ability to smell.) Tj
(� What's more, after our ini-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.05 Tw
(tial investigation, dozens of consumers have filed) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(complaints with the Food and Drug Administration.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(In response, the company formed a medical advisory) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14521) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
3559
endobj
46 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 47 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 14 14            
51 0 obj
<<
/Length 52 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
4.37 Tw
0 Tc
(panel in February. It says it will now conduct:) Tj
0 -13 Td
.96 Tw
(�. . . animal and human studies to further character-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.26 Tw
(ize these post-marketing complaints.) Tj
(� Study findings) Tj
0 -13 Td
.66 Tw
(are expected to be available in 12 months. ) Tj
(�It seems) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.82 Tw
(to me that those studies should have been done) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(before they put the product on the market,) Tj
(� said) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Jafek.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.13 Tw
(On March 19, 2004, Matrixx filed its Form 10-K with the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(SEC, stating that ) Tj
(�numerous suits alleging that its Zicam pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(duct\(s\) caused anosmia had been filed.) Tj
(� CAC ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.21 Tw
(48. ) Tj
(�As of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(December 31, 2003, suits involving three users of the Zicam�) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(Cold Remedy nasal gel products had been filed in various fed-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(eral and state courts.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Appellants stated that, ) Tj
(�[a]ccording) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(to Matrixx's own SEC filings, from late 2003 through Octo-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(ber 2004 Matrixx has been sued by approximately 284 indi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(viduals in 19 different lawsuits alleging that Zicam caused) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(damage to their sense of smell,) Tj
(� and included in the complaint) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.54 Tw
(a table detailing the lawsuits. ) Tj
(CAC �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.54 Tw
(49. The table included) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(suits filed on October 14, 2003, December 8, 2003, December) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.09 Tw
(18, 2003, and January 23, 2004, as well as numerous suits fol-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(lowing the close of the class period.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.88 Tw
(Appellants alleged that the financial information contained) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(in Matrixx's Form 10-Q filed on November 12, 2003, was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(false and misleading and violated SEC rules and the Gener-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(ally Accepted Accounting Principles \() Tj
(�GAAP) Tj
(�\) promulgated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.38 Tw
(by the Financial Accounting Standards Board \() Tj
(�FASB) Tj
(�\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(Appellants asserted that, at the time Matrixx filed the Form) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(10-Q, ) Tj
22 -26.1 Td
3.32 Tw
(Matrixx should have disclosed, if not provided a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(reserve for, a potential contingency that had arisen) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(related to safety issues concerning its products. Dur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(ing the Class Period, Matrixx did not disclose that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(several lawsuits had been filed against the Company,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14522) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj
3382
endobj
50 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 51 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 15 15            
54 0 obj
<<
/Length 55 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
1.47 Tw
0 Tc
(including one prior to the start of the Class Period,) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.26 Tw
(alleging that the Company's zinc gluconate-based) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.95 Tw
(products had caused plaintiffs to suffer from anos-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.28 Tw
(mia and that anecdotal evidence had surfaced ques-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.94 Tw
(tioning the safety of the Company's mainstay cold) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(medication. The failure to disclose these known con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tingencies violated GAAP.) Tj
-22 -26 Td
3.9 Tw
(CAC �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.9 Tw
(55. Appellants listed the FASB rules violated by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.32 Tw
(Matrixx's Form 10-Q and asserted that ) Tj
(�the undisclosed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(adverse information concealed by defendants during the Class) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(Period is the type of information which, because of SEC regu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(lations, . . . is expected by investors . . . to be disclosed and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(is known by corporate officials . . . to be the type of informa-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.1 Tw
(tion which is expected to be and must be disclosed.) Tj
(� ) Tj
(CAC) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(��) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(56-57.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.05 Tw
(Appellants alleged that, ) Tj
(�[a]s a result of defendants' materi-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(ally false and misleading statements and failure to disclose) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.6 Tw
(adverse information regarding Zicam, Matrixx securities) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(CAC ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.93 Tw
(58. Appellants also alleged that, ) Tj
(�[d]uring the Class) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.88 Tw
(Period, defendants materially misled the investing public,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(thereby inflating the price of Matrixx common stock, by pub-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(licly issuing false and misleading statements and omitting to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(disclose material adverse facts regarding Zicam, necessary to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(make defendants' statements, as set forth herein not false and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(misleading.) Tj
(� CAC ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(59.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.07 Tw
(In the section of the complaint entitled ) Tj
(�Additional Scienter) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Allegations,) Tj
(� Appellants alleged as follows:) Tj
22 -26 Td
2 Tw
([D]efendants acted with scienter in that defendants) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(knew that the public statements or documents issued) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(or disseminated in the name of the Company were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.55 Tw
(materially false and misleading; knew that such) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.04 Tw
(statements or documents would be issued or dissemi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(nated to the investing public; and knowingly and) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14523) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
55 0 obj
3373
endobj
53 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 54 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 16 16            
57 0 obj
<<
/Length 58 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
1.88 Tw
0 Tc
(substantially participated or acquiesced in the issu-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.32 Tw
(ance or dissemination of such statements or docu-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.1 Tw
(ments as primary violations of the federal securities) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.17 Tw
(laws. As set forth elsewhere herein in detail, defen-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
5.04 Tw
(dants, by virtue of their receipt of information) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.28 Tw
(reflecting the true facts regarding Matrixx, their con-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2 Tw
(trol over, and/or receipt and/or modification of the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.32 Tw
(Company's alleged materially misleading misstate-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.66 Tw
(ments and/or their associations with the Company) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.21 Tw
(which made them privy to confidential proprietary) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.74 Tw
(information concerning Matrixx, participated in the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(fraudulent scheme alleged herein.) Tj
0 -27 Td
1.67 Tw
(Defendants were aware since at least September of) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.67 Tw
(2003, that numerous users of their Zicam product) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.1 Tw
(had experienced a rare condition known as anosmia) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.87 Tw
(or loss of smell. Findings of post treatment anosmia) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.03 Tw
(were reported by Dr. Bruce Jafek, Miriam R. Lin-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.28 Tw
(schoten and Bruce W. Morrow of the University of) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.05 Tw
(Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Otolar-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.04 Tw
(yngology at a medical conference in September of) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.23 Tw
(2003. At the time, Dr. Jafek had reported 10 cases of) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.77 Tw
(anosmia after Zicam use. As of April of 2004, Dr.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.12 Tw
(Jafek had evaluated over 100 such cases. On Sep-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.92 Tw
(tember 12, 2003, over one month before the start of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(the Class Period, Matrixx informed Dr. Jafek that ) Tj
(�as) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.14 Tw
(a legal matter) Tj
(� he did ) Tj
(�not have their permission to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.75 Tw
(use their company name or product trademarks) Tj
(� in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.83 Tw
(the poster reporting Dr. Jafek's research. In order to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.32 Tw
(avoid threatened legal action from the Company, Dr.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.48 Tw
(Jafek deleted any reference to Zicam or Matrixx) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.11 Tw
(from the poster which he used to present his research) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(at a medical conference.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -26.6 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.07 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We do not disturb the district court's order granting, in part, Appellees') Tj
-10 -11.5 Td
0 Tw
(motion to strike portions of the CAC related to research published after the) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1 Tw
(close of the class period. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -454.45 m 300 -454.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14524) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
58 0 obj
3457
endobj
56 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 57 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 17 17            
60 0 obj
<<
/Length 61 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(CAC ��) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(63-64.) Tj
12 -27.2 Td
.77 Tw
(Appellees filed a motion to strike any allegations that con-) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
2.25 Tw
(cerned user complaints and lawsuits that occurred after the) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.63 Tw
(close of the class period. The district court denied the motion) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.36 Tw
(in part and granted it in part. The court reasoned that the rele-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.47 Tw
(vant inquiry was not whether there was a link between Zicam) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.71 Tw
(and anosmia, but whether Appellees knew that their state-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.3 Tw
(ments were false at the time they were made. The court there-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
3 Tw
(fore denied the motion to strike as to the complaints and) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.58 Tw
(lawsuits that were filed because those allegations were rele-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.67 Tw
(vant to Appellees' knowledge of user complaints. However,) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.73 Tw
(the court granted the motion to strike as to Jafek's ultimate) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.52 Tw
(conclusions, which were published after the close of the class) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(period.) Tj
12 -27.2 Td
3.28 Tw
(The district court then dismissed the complaint without) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
2.04 Tw
(prejudice, reasoning, that the allegations of user complaints) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.41 Tw
(were not material because they were not statistically signifi-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.07 Tw
(cant. The court also found that Appellants had failed suffi-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(ciently to allege scienter.) Tj
12 -27.2 Td
3.41 Tw
(The court further stated that any amendment would be) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
4.34 Tw
(futile ) Tj
(�[a]bsent allegations Defendants ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(knew) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( there was a) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.51 Tw
(definitive and statistically significant link between Zicam and) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.07 Tw
(anosmia ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(during the Class Period) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( that was `sufficiently serious) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.33 Tw
(and frequent to affect future earnings.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(�) Tj
( The court therefore) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.32 Tw
(granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1 Tw
(without prejudice. The court then entered judgment, dismiss-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.95 Tw
(ing the complaint and the action without prejudice.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Appel-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(lants timely appealed.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.08 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Although the judgment dismisses the action without prejudice, it is) Tj
-10 -11.6 Td
.02 Tw
(�final for purposes of [28 U.S.C.] �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.02 Tw
(1291 [because] it \(1\) is a full adjudica-) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.38 Tw
(tion of the issues, and \(2\) clearly evidences the judge's intention that it be) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
2.34 Tw
(the court's final act in the matter.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Elliott v. White Mountain Apache) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1 Tw
(Tribal Court) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 566 F.3d 845, 846 \(9th Cir. 2009\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -430.85 m 300 -430.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14525) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
61 0 obj
3729
endobj
59 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 60 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 18 18            
63 0 obj
<<
/Length 64 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
79.134 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(STANDARD OF REVIEW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-67.134 -26 Td
1.13 Tw
(The district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.62 Tw
(reviewed de novo. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(552 F.3d 981, 989 \(9th Cir. 2009\). We accept the plaintiffs') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(allegations as true and construe them in the light most favor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(able to the plaintiffs. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Dismissal is ) Tj
(�inappropriate unless the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.6 Tw
(plaintiffs' complaint fails to `state a claim to relief that is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(plausible on its face.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.86 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twom-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(bly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 550 U.S. 544, 570 \(2007\)\).) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
113.328 -26 Td
(DISCUSSION) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-101.328 -26 Td
.18 Tw
([1]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
(�Section 10\(b\) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.18 Tw
(78j\(b\),) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(in combination with SEC Rule 10b-5, prohibits `any act, prac-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(tice, or course of business which operates or would operate as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the pur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(chase or sale of any security.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.36 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rubke v. Capitol Bancorp) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(Ltd.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 551 F.3d 1156, 1164 \(9th Cir. 2009\) \(quoting 17 C.F.R.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.8 Tw
(240.10b-5\(c\)\). In order adequately to allege a violation of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.15 Tw
(Rule 10b-5, ) Tj
(�a plaintiff must [allege] `\(1\) a material misrepre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(sentation or omission of fact, \(2\) scienter, \(3\) a connection) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(with the purchase or sale of a security, \(4\) transaction and loss) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(causation, and \(5\) economic loss.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.36 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Daou) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(Sys., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 411 F.3d 1006, 1014 \(9th Cir. 2005\)\). The district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Appellants) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(failed adequately to allege the first two elements; therefore,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(we address only those two elements. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26 Td
(I.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Materiality) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.95 Tw
([2]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Appellants contend that Appellees' failure to disclose) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.24 Tw
(information regarding the possible link between Zicam and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(anosmia constituted the omission of a material fact. ) Tj
(�An omit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.72 Tw
(ted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(reasonable shareholder would consider it important in decid-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(ing how to vote.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 426 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(438, 449 \(1976\). ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14526) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
64 0 obj
3930
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 63 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 19 19            
66 0 obj
<<
/Length 67 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.08 Tw
0 Tc
([3]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.08 Tw
(`Questions of materiality . . . involv[e] assessments) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.7 Tw
(peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.7 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(SEC v.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.62 Tw
(Talbot) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 530 F.3d 1085, 1097 \(9th Cir. 2008\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arring-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.96 Tw
(ton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 651 F.2d) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.06 Tw
(615, 619 \(9th Cir. 1981\)\) \(alterations in original\). Thus, ) Tj
(�the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.33 Tw
(ultimate issue of materiality [is] appropriately resolved `as a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(matter of law') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
(� only where the omissions are ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
(`so obviously) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.21 Tw
(important to an investor, that reasonable minds cannot differ) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.63 Tw
(on the question of materiality.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.63 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(TSC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 426 U.S. at 450 \(quot-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.56 Tw
(ing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Hutton) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 422 F.2d 1124, 1129 \(4th) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Cir. 1970\)\). ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
3.75 Tw
(The district court summarized the ) Tj
(�allegations of links) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
5.1 Tw
(between Zicam and anosmia for which Defendants had) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.57 Tw
(knowledge� as follows: ) Tj
(�a phone conversation between a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.56 Tw
(Matrixx vice-president and University of Colorado researcher) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.22 Tw
(discussing one anosmia complaint, a 1999 study recognizing) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(a possible link, and a University of Colorado study citing 11) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.63 Tw
(cases of anosmia in Zicam users.) Tj
(�) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( District Ct. Order at 11.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(The court then found that Appellants had failed adequately to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
(allege materiality because the number of complaints of which) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(Appellees were aware was not ) Tj
(�statistically significant.) Tj
(� The) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.18 Tw
(court relied on the statistical significance standard used by the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.28 Tw
(Second Circuit in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Carter-Wallace, Inc. Securities) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.4 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.03 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The district court also reasoned that ) Tj
(�Matrixx conducted a double-blind) Tj
-10 -11.4 Td
1.51 Tw
(study regarding Zicam and not a single case of anosmia was reported.) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.95 Tw
(This was presumably a reference to Matrixx's February 2, 2004, press) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.25 Tw
(release, which states that ) Tj
(�the safety and efficacy of zinc gluconate for the) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.62 Tw
(treatment of symptoms related to the common cold have been well estab-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.15 Tw
(lished in two double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials.) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.19 Tw
(The press release, however, does not state that any tests established that) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.22 Tw
(the application of zinc gluconate to the nose is safe. In fact, as reported) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.26 Tw
(by Ferrugia on March 4, 2004, Matrixx allegedly subsequently admitted) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.55 Tw
(that ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.55 Tw
(`they don't know if their nasal gel could cause loss of smell,') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.55 Tw
(� and) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.08 Tw
(that they would ) Tj
(�begin . . . testing to determine whether its zinc compound) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.95 Tw
(could be harmful when sprayed in the nose.) Tj
(� Moreover, the complaint) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.39 Tw
(alleged that Clarot told Linschoten in September 2002 that Matrixx had) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(not conducted any studies and asked her to participate in studies. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -329.35 m 300 -329.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14527) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
67 0 obj
4627
endobj
65 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 66 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 20 20            
70 0 obj
<<
/Length 71 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.83 Tw
0 Tc
(Litigation) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 150 F.3d 153, 157 \(2d Cir. 1998\), and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.42 Tw
(Carter-Wallace, Inc. Securities Litigation) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 220 F.3d 36 \(2d) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.11 Tw
(Cir. 2000\). We conclude, however, that the district court erred) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.16 Tw
(in relying on the statistical significance standard to conclude) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(that Appellants failed adequately to allege materiality.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.7 Td
3.58 Tw
([4]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The Supreme Court has rejected the adoption of a) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
5.05 Tw
(bright-line rule to determine materiality because ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5.05 Tw
(`[t]he) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.21 Tw
(determination [of materiality] requires delicate assessments of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.76 Tw
(the inferences a ) Tj
(�reasonable shareholder) Tj
(� would draw from a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.34 Tw
(given set of facts and the significance of those inferences to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.22 Tw
(him.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.22 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Basic Inc. v. Levinson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 485 U.S. 224, 236 \(1988\)) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.25 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(TSC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 426 U.S. at 450\) \(second alteration in original\).) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.8 Tw
(Instead, courts should engage in a ) Tj
(�fact-specific inquiry) Tj
(� in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.52 Tw
(assessing materiality. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 240. Thus, ) Tj
(�[d]etermining materi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.87 Tw
(ality in securities fraud cases `should ordinarily be left to the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.75 Tw
(trier of fact.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.75 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(SEC v. Phan) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 500 F.3d 895, \(9th Cir. 2007\)) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.36 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 886 F.2d 1109,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.41 Tw
(1113 \(9th Cir. 1989\)\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(No. 84 Employer-Teamster) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(Joint Council Pension Trust Fund v. Am. W. Holding Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.96 Tw
(320 F.3d 920, 934-35 \(9th Cir. 2003\) \(declining to adopt a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.53 Tw
(bright-line rule to determine materiality, engaging in the fact-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.74 Tw
(specific inquiry required by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Basic) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, and finding that the plain-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(tiffs had sufficiently pleaded materiality\).) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
3.25 Tw
([5]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In relying on the statistical significance standard to) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.37 Tw
(determine materiality, the district court made a decision that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.9 Tw
(should have been left to the trier of fact. Instead, we agree) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.27 Tw
(with the approach of the court in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Pfizer Inc. Securities) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.51 Tw
(Litigation) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 584 F. Supp. 2d 621 \(S.D.N.Y. 2008\), where the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.84 Tw
(United States District Court for the Southern District of New) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(York rejected the defendant pharmaceutical company's argu-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.81 Tw
(ment that the plaintiffs failed to plead materiality, which was) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.83 Tw
(based on the contention that three studies revealing adverse) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.08 Tw
(effects of the company's drug were not statistically signifi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
(cant. The court reasoned that it ) Tj
(�cannot determine as a matter) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.24 Tw
(of law whether such links were statistically insignificant) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14528) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
71 0 obj
4253
endobj
69 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 70 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 21 21            
73 0 obj
<<
/Length 74 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.18 Tw
0 Tc
(because statistical significance is a question of fact.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(635-36. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3.33 Tw
([6]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Thus, we are to engage in the fact-specific inquiry) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(required by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Basic) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. In doing so, we must take the allegations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(favorable to Appellants and determine whether the complaint) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(�fails to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.28 Tw
(Zucco) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 552 F.3d at 989 \(internal quotation marks omitted\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.73 Tw
(The following allegations in the CAC go to the question of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(whether the information regarding the possible link between) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(Zicam and anosmia was information that a reasonable inves-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tor would have considered significant:) Tj
0 -26 Td
.92 Tw
(�) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
.92 Tw
(In December 1999, Hirsch called Matrixx's customer ser-) Tj
16.2 -13.1 Td
3.38 Tw
(vice line and reported one patient who had developed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(anosmia after Zicam use and mentioned studies regarding) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(intranasal application of zinc.) Tj
-16.2 -26 Td
1.01 Tw
(�) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.01 Tw
(In September 2002, Clarot called Linschoten because one) Tj
16.2 -13.1 Td
2.31 Tw
(of her patients had complained to Matrixx about Zicam) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.77 Tw
(and anosmia. Clarot told Linschoten that Matrixx had) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(received similar complaints from other customers since) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.2 Tw
(1999, and Linschoten told Clarot about studies linking) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(zinc sulfate to loss of smell.) Tj
( ) Tj
-16.2 -26 Td
1.38 Tw
(�) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.38 Tw
(On September 20, 2002, Linschoten sent Clarot an email) Tj
16.2 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(with abstracts on the link between zinc sulfate and the loss) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(of smell.) Tj
( ) Tj
-16.2 -26 Td
1.18 Tw
(�) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.18 Tw
(In September 2003, Jafek presented findings about ten or) Tj
16.2 -13.1 Td
3.3 Tw
(eleven patients who suffered anosmia following Zicam) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.82 Tw
(use. ) Tj
(Matrixx, through Clarot, stopped Jafek from using) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Matrixx's and Zicam's names in the presentation.) Tj
( ) Tj
-16.2 -26.1 Td
3.72 Tw
(�) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
3.72 Tw
(On October 14, 2003, two plaintiffs filed suit against) Tj
16.2 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(Matrixx in the United States District Court for the Western) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.68 Tw
(District of Michigan, alleging that Zicam caused anosmia.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14529) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
74 0 obj
3411
endobj
72 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 73 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 22 22            
76 0 obj
<<
/Length 77 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.08 Tw
0 Tc
(�) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
.08 Tw
(On December 8, 2003, a plaintiff filed suit against Matrixx) Tj
16.2 -13.9 Td
.56 Tw
(in Los Angeles Superior Court regarding Zicam and anos-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(mia.) Tj
( ) Tj
-16.2 -27.5 Td
.81 Tw
(�) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
.81 Tw
(On December 18, 2003, another suit regarding Zicam and) Tj
16.2 -13.9 Td
.88 Tw
(anosmia was filed against Matrixx in Alabama state court) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(and removed to federal court.) Tj
( ) Tj
-16.2 -27.5 Td
1.97 Tw
(�) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.97 Tw
(On January 23, 2004, five plaintiffs filed a consolidated) Tj
16.2 -13.9 Td
2.63 Tw
(suit against Matrixx in the Superior Court of Maricopa) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.35 Tw
(County, Arizona regarding Zicam and anosmia. An addi-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.64 Tw
(tional 261 plaintiffs later joined this action, after the close) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(of the class period. ) Tj
-16.2 -27.5 Td
2.42 Tw
(�) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
2.42 Tw
(By April 2004, Jafek ) Tj
(�had evaluated over 100 cases of) Tj
16.2 -13.9 Td
1.68 Tw
(anosmia following Zicam use,) Tj
(� and Linschoten had seen) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.45 Tw
(65 cases, although the time period of these allegations is) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(not clear.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-4.2 -27.5 Td
.92 Tw
([7]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We believe that the foregoing allegations are sufficient) Tj
-12 -13.9 Td
2.21 Tw
(to meet the pleading requirement under the PSLRA, which) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(requires that:) Tj
22 -27.5 Td
.42 Tw
(the complaint shall specify each statement alleged to) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.46 Tw
(have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.61 Tw
(statement is misleading, and, if an allegation regard-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
0 Tw
(ing the statement or omission is made on information) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.04 Tw
(or belief, the complaint shall state with particularity) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(all facts on which that belief is formed.) Tj
-22 -27.4 Td
.07 Tw
(15 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.07 Tw
(78u-4\(b\)\(1\). The allegations in the CAC are suffi-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.9 Tw
(cient to meet that standard and, as well, to ) Tj
(�nudge[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.9 Tw
(] [Appel-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.21 Tw
(lants'] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.8 Td
4.8 Tw
(Twombly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 550 U.S. at 570. Appellants have sufficiently) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.52 Tw
(alleged materiality, and the district court's finding to the con-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(trary is reversed.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14530) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
77 0 obj
3075
endobj
75 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 76 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 23 23            
79 0 obj
<<
/Length 80 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(II.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Scienter) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.3 Tw
([8]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In order to plead scienter, the PSLRA requires the com-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.06 Tw
(plaint to ) Tj
(�state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.66 Tw
(inference that the defendant acted with the required state of) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.71 Tw
(mind.� 15 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.71 Tw
(78u-4\(b\)\(2\). The plaintiff ) Tj
(�must allege) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.24 Tw
(that . . . the defendant had an intention `to deceive, manipu-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.46 Tw
(late, or defraud.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.46 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls.,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 540 F.3d 1049, 1065-66 \(9th Cir. 2008\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ernst) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(& Ernst v. Hochfelder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 425 U.S. 185, 193 \(1976\)\). ) Tj
(�[I]n deter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
(mining whether the pleaded facts give rise to a `strong' infer-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(ence of scienter, the court must take into account plausible) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(opposing inferences.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(Ltd.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 551 U.S. 308, 310 \(2007\). The complaint will survive a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(motion to dismiss ) Tj
(�only if a reasonable person would deem) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.94 Tw
(the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.17 Tw
(any opposing inference one could draw from the facts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.02 Tw
(alleged.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 324. This does not mean that a plaintiff must) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(�plead more than she would be required to prove at trial.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.46 Tw
(at 311. Rather, ) Tj
(�[a] plaintiff alleging fraud under �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.46 Tw
(10\(b\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(action . . . must plead facts rendering an inference of scienter) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(at least as likely as) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( any plausible opposing inference.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.44 Tw
([9]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( To establish scienter, ) Tj
(�a complaint must `allege that the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(defendants made false or misleading statements either inten-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(tionally or with deliberate recklessness.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.66 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Zucco) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 552 F.3d at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(991 \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Daou) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 411 F.3d at 1015\). We must first ) Tj
(�deter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.04 Tw
(mine whether any of the plaintiff) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.04 Tw
('s allegations, standing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(alone, are sufficient to create a strong inference of scienter.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 992. If not, we are to ) Tj
(�conduct a `holistic' review of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.61 Tw
(same allegations to determine whether the insufficient allega-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(tions combine to create a strong inference of intentional con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(duct or deliberate recklessness.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Recklessness is defined as) Tj
22 -26 Td
6.8 Tw
(a highly unreasonable omission, involving not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(merely simple, or even inexcusable negligence, but) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(care, and which presents a danger of misleading buy-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14531) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
80 0 obj
4335
endobj
78 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 79 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 24 24            
82 0 obj
<<
/Length 83 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
.4 Tw
0 Tc
(ers or sellers that is either known to the defendant or) Tj
0 -13 Td
.53 Tw
(is so obvious that the actor must have been aware of) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(it.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
.39 Tw
(In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 183 F.3d 970, ) Tj
(976 \(9th) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.98 Tw
(Cir. 1999\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hollinger v. Titan Capital Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 914) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(F.2d 1564, 1569 \(9th Cir. 1990\) \(en banc\)\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.25 Tw
(The district court here concluded that the CAC failed to) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.77 Tw
(allege the requisite scienter because it ) Tj
(�fails to allege any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.6 Tw
(motive or state of mind with relation to the alleged omis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(sions.� In order adequately to allege scienter, Appellants rely) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(on their allegations that Appellees knew about the problems) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.88 Tw
(with Zicam but chose not to reveal them. Appellants also) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(argue that the importance of Zicam to Matrixx's business sup-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5 Tw
(ports the inference that Appellees intentionally withheld) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(information of the link between Zicam and anosmia. Appel-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(lants also point to the revelations following the close of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(class period that, contrary to their statements during the class) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(period, Matrixx actually did not know if Zicam caused anos-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(mia and decided to conduct studies after they had already) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(vouched for the safety of Zicam.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.04 Tw
(Matrixx's first allegedly misleading statement was its Octo-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(ber 22, 2003, press release, announcing the 163% net sales) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(increase, attributed to Zicam, and stating that the Zicam brand) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(was ) Tj
(�poised for growth.) Tj
(� The second statement was the con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(ference call on October 23, 2003, again attributing the compa-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(ny's positive results to Zicam and projecting further growth.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.24 Tw
(By ) Tj
(the time of the press release and the conference call,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(Hirsch had called the customer service line regarding one) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.04 Tw
(patient, Clarot had spoken with Linschoten regarding cus-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(tomer complaints, Jafek had presented his report of eleven) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(patients, and the first lawsuit against Matrixx had been filed.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.76 Tw
(Appellees accordingly were aware of at least fourteen com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(plaints regarding Zicam and anosmia at the time they made) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.94 Tw
(these statements. In addition, Appellants alleged that Clarot) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5 Tw
(told Linschoten in the September 2002 phone call that) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14532) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
83 0 obj
3512
endobj
81 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 82 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 25 25            
85 0 obj
<<
/Length 86 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.58 Tw
0 Tc
(�Matrixx had received customer complaints of loss of smell) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(as early as 1999.) Tj
(� Appellants then alleged that the November) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.87 Tw
(12, 2003, Form 10-Q was misleading because it spoke of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.32 Tw
(risk of product liability actions against the company without) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(revealing that a lawsuit already had been filed.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.2 Td
1 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Berson v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 527 F.3d 982 \(9th) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.07 Tw
(Cir. 2008\), the defendants argued that a passage in the compa-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.67 Tw
(ny's SEC filings regarding backlogged work alerted reason-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.57 Tw
(able investors to the risk that the company might not get paid) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.04 Tw
(for work that had actually been stopped. We rejected the argu-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.39 Tw
(ment, stating that ) Tj
(�[t]he passage . . . speaks entirely of as-yet-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.42 Tw
(unrealized risks and contingencies. Nothing alerts the reader) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.63 Tw
(that some of these risks may already have come to fruition,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.33 Tw
(and that what the company refers to as backlog includes work) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.07 Tw
(that is substantially delayed and at serious risk of being can-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.37 Tw
(celled altogether.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 986. We therefore disagreed with the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.41 Tw
(district court's finding that the statements were not mislead-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.11 Tw
(ing, reasoning that, ) Tj
(�once defendants chose to tout the compa-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.79 Tw
(ny's backlog, they were bound to do so in a manner that) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.07 Tw
(wouldn't mislead investors as to what that backlog consisted) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 987; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cf. ) Tj
(In re Elan Corp. Sec. Litig.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 543 F. Supp.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.7 Tw
(2d 187, 208 \(S.D.N.Y. 2008\) \() Tj
(�By choosing to speak about) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.17 Tw
(the safety of [their drug], Defendants assumed a duty to dis-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.23 Tw
(close material information regarding adverse events.) Tj
(�\). After) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.03 Tw
(addressing scienter and loss causation, we reversed the district) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.33 Tw
(court's dismissal of the complaint. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Berson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 527 F.3d at 987-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(90.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.2 Td
3.62 Tw
([10]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Similar to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Berson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the passage in the Form 10-Q) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
4.17 Tw
(speaks about the risks of product liability claims in the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.85 Tw
(abstract, with no indication that the risk ) Tj
(�may already have) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.79 Tw
(come to fruition.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 986. At the time that Appellees filed) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.9 Tw
(the Form 10-Q, the CAC alleges facts sufficient for a jury to) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
3.33 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(As Matrixx later admitted, up to and including the class period,) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.29 Tw
(Matrixx had conducted no studies on the safety of Zicam regarding any) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(link to anosmia. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14533) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
86 0 obj
4148
endobj
84 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 85 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 26 26            
89 0 obj
<<
/Length 90 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.96 Tw
0 Tc
(find that Clarot was aware of the potential anosmia problem.) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.85 Tw
(Moreover, the inference that high-level executives such as) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.82 Tw
(Johnson, Hemelt, and Clarot would know that the company) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.77 Tw
(was being sued in a product liability action is sufficiently) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(strong to survive a motion to dismiss.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.53 Tw
(In response to the January 30, 2004, article in the Dow) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.28 Tw
(Jones Newswires that the FDA was investigating complaints) Tj
0 -13 Td
.3 Tw
(of anosmia linked to Zicam, Matrixx issued a press release on) Tj
0 -13 Td
.06 Tw
(February 2, 2004. By the time of this press release, three more) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.28 Tw
(lawsuits regarding anosmia had been filed against Matrixx.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(This press release cites the two double-blind studies regarding) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(the ) Tj
(�safety and efficacy of zinc gluconate for the treatment of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(symptoms related to the common cold,) Tj
(� but, again, the press) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(release did not say whether Matrixx studied the intranasal use) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.34 Tw
(of zinc gluconate for safety, as opposed to efficacy. The press) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.18 Tw
(release also states that ) Tj
(�statements alleging that intranasal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(Zicam products cause anosmia . . . are completely unfounded) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.37 Tw
(and misleading,) Tj
(� and then devotes three paragraphs to dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(crediting the author of the article and urging Dow Jones to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(investigate the author.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.6 Tw
([11]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( By the time of the February 2, 2004 press release, a) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(strong inference can be drawn that Appellees knew that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(statements alleging a link between Zicam and anosmia were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(not ) Tj
(�completely unfounded and misleading.) Tj
(� Appellees alleg-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(edly knew about the presentation by Jafek to the American) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(Rhinologic Society, Clarot's conversation with Linschoten,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(and several lawsuits alleging that Zicam caused anosmia. In) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.1 Tw
(addition, Matrixx's statements in the press release, that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(Zicam's safety was ) Tj
(�well established) Tj
(� by their trials, conflict) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(with the allegations that Clarot told Linschoten in September) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(2002 that Matrixx had not conducted any studies and asked) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.93 Tw
(her to participate in studies. The references in the press) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(release to clinical trials establishing Zicam's safety also con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.32 Tw
(flict with the March 4, 2004, news report that Matrixx did not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(know if Zicam could cause anosmia and formed a medical) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(advisory panel to conduct studies.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14534) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
90 0 obj
3599
endobj
88 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 89 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 27 27            
92 0 obj
<<
/Length 93 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.57 Tw
0 Tc
(Matrixx's February 6, 2004, press release, following the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.5 Td
1.71 Tw
(Good Morning America) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( segment regarding Jafek's findings,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.18 Tw
(repeated the statements that the safety of zinc gluconate to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.45 Tw
(treat cold symptoms had been established in clinical trials,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.77 Tw
(stated that the common cold affects the sense of smell, and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.33 Tw
(stated that the studies linking zinc to anosmia were conducted) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.78 Tw
(in the 1930s using a different zinc compound. Matrixx) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(2/6/2004 press release.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
3.85 Tw
(Appellants have not alleged that Appellees engaged in) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.6 Tw
(unusual or suspicious stock sales at the same time that they) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.44 Tw
(were attempting to downplay the reports of anosmia. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Sili-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.33 Tw
(con Graphics) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 183 F.3d at 986 \(stating that ) Tj
(�unusual or suspi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
6.14 Tw
(cious stock sales by corporate insiders may constitute) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
6.34 Tw
(circumstantial evidence of scienter) Tj
(�\) \(internal quotation) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.25 Tw
(marks omitted\). The Supreme Court has stated, however, that,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.57 Tw
(�[w]hile it is true that motive can be a relevant consideration,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.4 Tw
(and personal financial gain may weigh heavily in favor of a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.82 Tw
(scienter inference, we agree with the Seventh Circuit that the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.53 Tw
(absence of a motive allegation is not fatal.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tellabs) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 551 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(at 324.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
1.5 Tw
(On a holistic review of the CAC, the following picture is) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.71 Tw
(alleged. Matrixx received some customer complaints about) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.26 Tw
(Zicam and anosmia from 1999 to 2002. In 2002, Clarot was) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.83 Tw
(sufficiently concerned that he called Linschoten about one of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.45 Tw
(her patients who had complained and then called to ask if she) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.65 Tw
(would participate in studies. In September 2003, Matrixx) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.5 Tw
(knew that Jafek and his colleagues were presenting findings) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3 Tw
(about ten or eleven patients who developed anosmia after) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.07 Tw
(Zicam use and did not allow Jafek to use Matrixx's or) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(Zicam's name in the presentation. In October 2003, Matrixx) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.51 Tw
(touted the potential for growth and profitability of Zicam in) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.66 Tw
(a press release and an earnings conference call. A lawsuit) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.14 Tw
(alleging anosmia in one Zicam user was filed in October) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
(2003. In November 2003, Matrixx filed a Form 10-Q, but did) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.51 Tw
(not disclose the lawsuit in the section entitled ) Tj
(�Risk Factors.) Tj
(�) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14535) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
93 0 obj
3600
endobj
91 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 92 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 28 28            
95 0 obj
<<
/Length 96 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.5 Tw
0 Tc
(More lawsuits were filed in December 2003 and January) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(2004. ) Tj
12 -25.7 Td
4.75 Tw
(On February 2, 2004, Matrixx issued a press release) Tj
-12 -12.9 Td
.2 Tw
(responding to the January 30, 2004, Dow Jones report that the) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.12 Tw
(FDA was investigating Zicam and anosmia. This press release) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.61 Tw
(called the report ) Tj
(�completely unfounded and misleading) Tj
(� and) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.44 Tw
(asserted that clinical trials had established the safety of zinc) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
3.71 Tw
(gluconate. On February 6, 2004, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Good Morning America) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.9 Td
0 Tw
(reported on the possible link between Zicam and anosmia, and) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.25 Tw
(Matrixx issued another press release asserting that zinc gluco-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
3.96 Tw
(nate's safety was well established in clinical trials, even) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.11 Tw
(though it was subsequently reported that Matrixx had not con-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.7 Tw
(ducted such studies. In a February 19, 2004, filing with the) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.9 Tw
(SEC, Matrixx stated that it had convened a panel of physi-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2.58 Tw
(cians and scientists to review the information and asserted) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.25 Tw
(that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether zinc) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.77 Tw
(gluconate affected the sense of smell. On March 4, 2004, a) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.16 Tw
(news article reported that Matrixx would begin studies to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(determine if Zicam caused anosmia.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -25.7 Td
.3 Tw
([12]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Viewing the CAC as a whole, the inference of scienter) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.93 Tw
(is ) Tj
(�cogent and at least as compelling) Tj
(� as any ) Tj
(�plausible non-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.95 Tw
(culpable explanation[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.95 Tw
(]) Tj
(� for Appellees' conduct. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tellabs) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 551) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.44 Tw
(U.S. at 324. Withholding reports of adverse effects of and) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.24 Tw
(lawsuits concerning the product responsible for the compa-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.83 Tw
(ny's remarkable sales increase is ) Tj
(�an extreme departure from) Tj
0 -13 Td
.27 Tw
(the standards of ordinary care) Tj
(� and ) Tj
(�presents a danger of mis-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(leading buyers or sellers.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Silicon Graphics) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 183 F.3d at 976.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(We therefore conclude that the inference that Appellees with-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.71 Tw
(held the information intentionally or with deliberate reckless-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.13 Tw
(ness is at least as compelling as the inference that Appellees) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(withheld the information innocently.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.6 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.85 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We do not address Appellants' allegations that Appellees violated) Tj
-10 -11 Td
.14 Tw
(GAAP and FASB principles in the November 12, 2003, Form 10-Q. ) Tj
(�Vio-) Tj
0 -11 Td
.66 Tw
(lations of GAAP standards can . . . provide evidence of scienter,) Tj
(� but the) Tj
0 -11 Td
.67 Tw
(violations must be described with sufficient particularity. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Daou) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 411 F.3d) Tj
0 -11 Td
1 Tw
(at 1016. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -433.95 m 300 -433.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14536) Tj
52.6525 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
96 0 obj
4015
endobj
94 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 95 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 29 29            
98 0 obj
<<
/Length 99 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
109.332 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(CONCLUSION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-97.332 -26.2 Td
1.95 Tw
(The district court's reliance on the statistical significance) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.83 Tw
(standard to conclude that Appellants failed to establish mate-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.91 Tw
(riality is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's rejection of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.5 Tw
(bright-line rules and its emphasis on having materiality deter-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.52 Tw
(mined by the trier of fact. Viewing the CAC in the light most) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.75 Tw
(favorable to Appellants, we conclude that Appellants have) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.43 Tw
(sufficiently pled materiality to survive dismissal. Similarly,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.81 Tw
(the inference that Appellees withheld the information regard-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.08 Tw
(ing Zicam and anosmia intentionally or with deliberate reck-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.25 Tw
(lessness is at least as compelling as any plausible nonculpable) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.91 Tw
(explanation. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.91 Tw
(district court is ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(REVERSED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and the case ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(REMANDED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( for) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(further proceedings consistent with this opinion.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.2 Td
(REVERSED and REMANDED.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14537) Tj
-219.8475 0 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRACUSANO) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. NECA-IBEW P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENSION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UND) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
99 0 obj
1839
endobj
97 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 98 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
100 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
101 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 100 0 R
/FontDescriptor 101 0 R
>>
endobj
102 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
103 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 102 0 R
/FontDescriptor 103 0 R
>>
endobj
104 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
105 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 104 0 R
/FontDescriptor 105 0 R
>>
endobj
106 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
107 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 106 0 R
/FontDescriptor 107 0 R
>>
endobj
108 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
109 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 108 0 R
/FontDescriptor 109 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 110 0 R
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 110 0 R
>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/Kids [46 0 R 50 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R 62 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 110 0 R
>>
endobj
68 0 obj
<<
/Kids [65 0 R 69 0 R 72 0 R 75 0 R 78 0 R 81 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 110 0 R
>>
endobj
87 0 obj
<<
/Kids [84 0 R 88 0 R 91 0 R 94 0 R 97 0 R]
/Count 5
/Type /Pages
/Parent 110 0 R
>>
endobj
110 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 49 0 R 68 0 R 87 0 R]
/Count 29
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 110 0 R
>>
endobj
111 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Tuesday October 27, 2009 08:19:25)          
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)   
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 112
0000000000 65535 f
0000109057 00000 n
0000121972 00000 n
0000003199 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000003176 00000 n
0000110524 00000 n
0000113180 00000 n
0000114738 00000 n
0000117389 00000 n
0000121269 00000 n
0000004452 00000 n
0000003413 00000 n
0000004429 00000 n
0000008867 00000 n
0000004646 00000 n
0000008843 00000 n
0000120044 00000 n
0000012721 00000 n
0000009084 00000 n
0000012697 00000 n
0000016598 00000 n
0000012915 00000 n
0000016574 00000 n
0000019965 00000 n
0000016803 00000 n
0000019941 00000 n
0000024156 00000 n
0000020170 00000 n
0000024132 00000 n
0000121386 00000 n
0000027992 00000 n
0000024373 00000 n
0000027968 00000 n
0000031438 00000 n
0000028197 00000 n
0000031414 00000 n
0000034925 00000 n
0000031634 00000 n
0000034901 00000 n
0000038669 00000 n
0000035121 00000 n
0000038645 00000 n
0000042041 00000 n
0000038876 00000 n
0000042017 00000 n
0000045892 00000 n
0000042248 00000 n
0000045868 00000 n
0000121504 00000 n
0000049566 00000 n
0000046099 00000 n
0000049542 00000 n
0000053231 00000 n
0000049773 00000 n
0000053207 00000 n
0000056969 00000 n
0000053427 00000 n
0000056945 00000 n
0000060991 00000 n
0000057177 00000 n
0000060967 00000 n
0000065225 00000 n
0000061210 00000 n
0000065201 00000 n
0000070144 00000 n
0000065432 00000 n
0000070120 00000 n
0000121622 00000 n
0000074701 00000 n
0000070363 00000 n
0000074677 00000 n
0000078404 00000 n
0000074908 00000 n
0000078380 00000 n
0000081771 00000 n
0000078611 00000 n
0000081747 00000 n
0000086398 00000 n
0000081978 00000 n
0000086374 00000 n
0000090202 00000 n
0000086605 00000 n
0000090178 00000 n
0000094654 00000 n
0000090421 00000 n
0000094630 00000 n
0000121740 00000 n
0000098557 00000 n
0000094873 00000 n
0000098533 00000 n
0000102438 00000 n
0000098753 00000 n
0000102414 00000 n
0000106745 00000 n
0000102645 00000 n
0000106721 00000 n
0000108888 00000 n
0000106964 00000 n
0000108864 00000 n
0000109090 00000 n
0000110243 00000 n
0000111746 00000 n
0000112899 00000 n
0000114398 00000 n
0000114471 00000 n
0000115952 00000 n
0000117105 00000 n
0000118606 00000 n
0000119759 00000 n
0000121851 00000 n
0000122029 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 112
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 111 0 R
>>
startxref
122167
%%EOF
%BeginExifToolUpdate
111 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (D:20170723141820-07'00')
/ModDate (D:20170723141820-07'00')
>>
endobj
112 0 obj
<<
/Type /Metadata
/Subtype /XML
/Length 3047
>>
stream
<?xpacket begin='' id='W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d'?>
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x='adobe:ns:meta/' x:xmptk='Image::ExifTool 10.31'>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'>

 <rdf:Description rdf:about=''
  xmlns:exif='http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/'>
  <exif:DateTimeOriginal>2017-07-23T14:18:20-07:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
 </rdf:Description>

 <rdf:Description rdf:about=''
  xmlns:xmp='http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/'>
  <xmp:CreateDate>2017-07-23T14:18:20-07:00</xmp:CreateDate>
  <xmp:ModifyDate>2017-07-23T14:18:20-07:00</xmp:ModifyDate>
 </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
<?xpacket end='w'?>
endstream
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 110 0 R
/Metadata 112 0 R
>>
endobj
xref
0 1
0000000000 65535 f
2 1
0000127769 00000 n
111 2
0000124524 00000 n
0000124628 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 113
/Root 2 0 R
/Prev 122167
/Info 111 0 R
>>
%EndExifToolUpdate 124502
startxref
127845
%%EOF