RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ALVIN W. THOMPSON, District Judge.

The plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock from Xerox Corporation ("Xerox") during the period from October 22, 1998 through October 7, 1999, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The plaintiffs bring their claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a) respectively, and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 10(b). The defendants, Xerox Corporation ("Xerox") and Xerox executive officers Barry Romeril, Paul A. Allaire and Richard Thoman, move for summary judgment on all claims in the plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint"). For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is being granted.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Worldwide Restructuring

On April 7, 1998, Xerox announced a company-wide restructuring (the "Worldwide Restructuring"). The Worldwide Restructuring consisted of 150 initiatives in Europe, Africa, Latin America, Asia and the United States. Xerox announced:

Press Release, Xerox Corp., Xerox Announces Worldwide Restructuring To Enhance Competitiveness in the Digital World: Company Will Eliminate 9,000 Jobs and Take $1 Billion After-Tax Charge IRX-PROD-0033970-71 (Apr. 7, 1998) (Levine Decl. Ex. 3).

B. The 1998 Customer Business Organization Reorganization

Xerox's July 1998 reorganization of its Customer Business Organization ("the CBO Reorganization") was one of the Worldwide Restructuring initiatives. The Customer Business Organization provided administrative support to Xerox's U.S. sales force, also known as the North American Solutions Group ("NASG"). There were two major components of the CBO Reorganization. First, Xerox closed one of its four Customer Administration Centers and redistributed business among the remaining three centers, which it renamed Customer Business Centers ("CBCs"). CBC employees entered customer orders, recorded revenue, sent out bills, and answered customer questions. Second, Xerox removed Customer Business Representatives ("CBRs") from its 36 regional sales offices (the Customer Business Units or "CBUs") and transferred their duties, including order entry and processing and scheduling and delivery of equipment, to employees at the three remaining CBCs. CBRs were redeployed into other assignments at the CBUs. New employees were hired at the CBCs to perform the CBRs' former duties.

As Senior Vice President of Xerox's Customer Business Operations, Kenneth Baugher, observed in September 1999 that service level problems arose following the CBO Reorganization:

CBC Background Summary IRX-PROD-0110462 (Levine Decl. Ex. 87).1 Compounding these problems, Xerox assigned billing and collection personnel to order entry, so that there were fewer employees available to fix the bills and collect on them. By December 1998, A/R aged more than 120 days had increased 450% from $50 million in December 1997 to $225 million. DSO increased 17% from the second quarter of 1998, the quarter immediately preceding the implementation of the CBO Reorganization, to the third quarter of 1998, the first quarter following its implementation.

C. The 1999 Sales Force Realignment

On January 6, 1999, Xerox "announced a series of initiatives designed to allow the company to better capitalize on growing digital market opportunities and create greater value for customers and shareholders" (the "1999 Sales Force Realignment"). Press Release, Xerox Corp., Xerox Realigns Operations to Better Capitalize on New Growth Opportunities in the Digital Marketplace (Jan. 6, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 22). Xerox planned to realign its sales force territories from geography-based selling to industry-based selling and realign its document processing business under four operations: Industry Solutions, General Markets, Developing Markets and Business Group Operations. The process would evolve over the course of a "couple of years," with "no significant changes to sales force territories or compensation" planned in 1999. Id. Xerox began the planning and implementation of some aspects of the Sales Force Realignment in the first quarter of 1999. By the middle of 1999, there was unrest in the sales force as a result of the sales reorganization.

D. Internal Communications

Problems arising out of the CBO Reorganization were discussed or alluded to in various Xerox internal documents relied upon by the plaintiffs.

On September 25, 1998, Margaret Tytheley, a 26-year Xerox employee emailed Paul Alaire and Richard Thoman, stating that "It appears very [l]ittle planning, if any, went into this transition. Segment centers were not prepared for the magnitude of customer calls and inquiries." Email to Paul Allaire IRX-PROD-0036150 (Sept. 25, 1998) (Levine Decl. Ex. 9).

The plaintiffs have proffered a conclusion of their accounting expert, Charles R. Drott, that Xerox had established an accounts receivable reserve of only $16.6 million for the third quarter of 1998, which resulted in an understatement of reserves for uncollectible accounts that quarter of $20 million; Drott is critical of the fact that the reserve had only been increased by $3 million. See Charles R. Drott, Expert Report of Charles R. Drott ¶ 3.3, at 8 (Oct. 15, 2007) (Levine Decl. Ex. 111). Drott relies on an October 14, 1998 memorandum from Gary Kabureck, Vice President, Financial Services, to Daniel S. Marchibroda, the subject of which is "Third Quarter 1998 Reserve Reviews." In that memorandum, Kabureck observes that there has been "a significant reduction in the volume of write-off activity," with respect to both notes receivable and trade receivables, "due directly to the disruption resulting from the recent re-organization of the USCO Customer Administration Organization." Memorandum from Gary Kabureck to Daniel S. Marchibroda KPMGGIA002637B (Oct. 14, 1998) (Levine Decl. Ex. 10). However, Kaburek also notes that the third quarter trade receivable write-offs had also declined fairly significantly and concludes: "While we do not believe we have additional risk to the 6+6 provision outlook of $3.0M greater than Plan, we will continue to closely monitor balance of the year write-offs, recoveries and file aging to ensure the reserve balance is adequate." Id.

On October 26 and 27, 1998, accounting firm KPMG visited the Xerox North Texas customer administration center. Under the heading "CBC Transition Issues," an internal memo documenting that visit states:

Memorandum from KPMG on Xerox North Texas CBU Summary Memo KPMGGIA 008857-58 (Nov. 6, 1998) (Levine Decl. Ex. 116).

A November 6, 1998 internal memorandum prepared by Philip D. Fishbach and sent to the Operations Committee, which was received by defendants Allaire, Thoman and Romeril, states:

Memorandum from Philip D. Fishbach on Document Processing Non-financing Funds September YTD and Q4 Assessment to Operations Committee IRX-PROD-0142783 (Nov. 6, 1998) (Levine Decl. Ex. 117). The memorandum showed "Restructure savings" of $55 million. Id. at IRX-PROD-0142782.

On November 23, 1998, Tim White, Tim Egan and W.P. Tehan of KPMG visited the Xerox Chicago customer administration center. An internal memorandum to file, authored by Tehan, states that after the realignment the Chicago CBC handled 60% of Xerox's customer volume. However, 51% of the employees in Chicago had "less than one year of Xerox experience" which was a

Pl's. 56(A)(2) Statement ¶ 23 (quoting Anthony Saunders, Expert Report of Professor Anthony Saunders 23 n.75 (Oct. 15, 2007) (Levine Decl. Ex. 113)) (alterations in original).

On December 2, 1998, Tehan of KPMG drafted an internal memorandum documenting the KPMG field visit to the Chicago CBC. Under the heading "Customer Care," Tehan states:

Memorandum from W.P. Tehan to File, KPMG Field Visit to the Chicago Customer Business Center (CBC) KPMGGIA009730 (Levine Decl. Ex. 20). Under the heading, "Billing Quality," Tehan identified "[p]rocess errors," "[d]ata errors (i.e., human input)," "[d]elays in processing (market code or pricing table updated in Sale Range, but not updated in EBS)," and "[p]ricing (too complex)" as "[t]he top billing quality issues." Id. at KPMGGIA009731. He also stated that Lindsey Bates, a Billing Quality Manager at Xerox "concurred with problems associated with invoices not mailed in a timely fashion (this has been a re-occuring theme during our confirmation routine)." Id. Under the heading "Accounts Receivable," it states: "As of October 1998 Chicago's trade DSO was 59 days (an increase of approximately 2 weeks over the prior year). At October 1998 $110 million of their trade A/R file was aged greater than 120 days." Id.

On December 9, 1998, A. Barry Rand, Xerox's Executive Vice President, Customer Operations, sent an internal memo to Allaire, Buehler, Romeril and Thoman observing that he had discussed with them several times the need to minimize sales force disruption. See Memorandum from A. Barry Rand to Distribution IRX-PROD-0108847 (Dec. 9, 1998) (Levine Decl. Ex. 18). He pointed out that in 1993 and 1995 when Xerox had "major ground plans and/or sales compensation changes," sales force disruptions led to a decrease in revenues. Id. He stated that "change management is key to minimize disruption," and pointed to a number of factors with respect to 1999: "Public Sector created; CBC Impacts; NAM organization realigned and verticalized; Centralization of house accounts; Hybrid marketing launched; Entity/CBU resizing; Anxiety of changes to come." Id. at IRX-PROD-0109150-51.

Pl's. 56(A)(2) Statement ¶ 29 (quoting Anthony Saunders, Expert Report of Professor Anthony Saunders 24-25 (Oct. 15, 2007) (Levine Decl. Ex. 113)) (alterations in original).

On January 6, 1999, defendant Thoman gave a presentation to Xerox executives. One part of the presentation is entitled "Much to be worried about." Presentation IRX-PROD-0141480 (Jan. 6, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 21). In that section, he discussed digital players requiring high growth. He stated that "Restructuring is enabling us to deliver on earnings growth," and also stated that "Revenue growth has hit a wall." In addition, he stated "Our performance does not equal our promise." Id.

William Buehler sent a May 3, 1999 memorandum to Thomas Dolan, with copies to defendants Romeril and Thoman, reviewing issues related to the CBO Reorganization:

The submitted Full-Year profit assessments are nearly $500 million worse than plan (of which NASG is $200 million) and would deliver a year over year decline in profits in both Q2 and Full Year, which is obviously unacceptable. Memorandum from William F. Buehler to Thomas Dolan on 3+9 Direction IRX-PROD 0252096 (May 3, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 52).

In an internal memo dated May 21, 1999, William Buehler stated that "`Sales people spend 25-35% of each day on the administrative duties (equivalent to 1800 full time people).'" Pl's. 56(A)(2) Statement ¶ 30 (quoting Anthony Saunders, Expert Report of Professor Anthony Saunders 29 (Oct. 15, 2007) (Levine Decl. Ex. 113)). Buehler also stated that "Customers [are] refusing to pay bills that are 4-6 months late. . . . [It is] difficult to collect on an inaccurate, late bill." Id. ¶ 31 (quoting Anthony Saunders, Expert Report of Professor Anthony Saunders 26 (Oct. 15, 2007) (Levine Decl. Ex. 113)). Buehler further stated that "[t]he overriding issue in North America is the terrible condition of our administrative processes—CBC and ISC." Id. (quoting Memorandum from William Buehler on Roundtable Meetings to Al Dugan IRX-PROD-0015597 (May 21, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 114)).

An internal Xerox document prepared in May 1999 states "CBR's in Chicago are a problem.—Don't know what they are doing—Don't return phone calls—Don't know where to get help." Pl's. 56(A)(2) Statement ¶ 32 (quoting Anthony Saunders, Expert Report of Professor Anthony Saunders 25 (Oct. 15, 2007) (Levine Decl. Ex. 113)).

In a July 1, 1999 internal memorandum from Patrick Fulford to Baugher, Ciaschi and others not including any of the individual defendants, with the subject line "NASG State of Emergency," Fulford stated:

Memorandum from Patrick Fulford on NASG State of Emergency IRX-PROD-0254292 (July 1, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 67).

An internal Xerox presentation document dated July 22, 1999 discusses problems related to the CBO Reorganization. The first line addresses headcount. The three bullet points at the bottom read:

Strategy Contract Slides IRX-PROD-0222989 (July 22, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 70). The next slide discusses the "Current State." One portion of it reads: "We have a five alarm fire—major impact on customers and sales productivity." Id. at IRX-PROD-0222990. The slide discusses "Characteristics" and "Results" of those characteristics, with four bullet points under the Results:

Id. A subsequent slide, captioned "CBO Performance Gap Root Causes," identified four categories, "Reduced resources without major enablers," "Loss of experience/skill," "Disruption," and "Loss of alignment with Sales." Id. at IRX-PROD-0222991. The presentation then set forth a "90 Day Recovery Plan," which included adding headcount as had been reflected in the [6+6 projection]. Id. at IRX-PROD-0222993.

On July 26, 1999, Kenny R. Baugher, who had joined CBO as a senior vice president in the NASG Customer Business Operations the prior month, sent a memorandum to Customer Business Operations Employees on the subject of "CBO Recovery." Memorandum from Kenny R. Baugher on CBO Recovery to Customer Business Operations Employees IRX-PROD-0250787 (July 26, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 73). Among other things, he stated:

He then summarized the steps that had been taken in three areas: improving "support to the CBU's and their effort to drive revenue growth," improvement with respect to DSO, which had reached an all time high in the second quarter of 1999, and improvements in the area of billing accuracy and timeliness. Id. at IRX-PROD-0250788.

On August 10, 1999, Romeril sent an internal memorandum to Thoman and Buehler, which had in the subject line "$165 mn Restructuring Reserve/XE/2000 Annual Plan." Romeril wrote:

Memorandum from B.D. Romeril on $165 mn Restructuring Reserve/XE/2000 Annual to G.R. Thoman & W.F. Buehler IRX-PROD-0124662 (Aug. 10, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 77).

On September 17, 1999, a "CBC Background Summary," which had been reviewed by Baugher was distributed to certain NASG personnel in connection with internal presentations to be made by Buehler. The background summary included a summary of the background of the reorganization of the CBCs, the problems as of that date, and the root causes of those problems, as quoted above. See supra Section I.B. After a discussion of the root cause, the summary discussed the priorities: "The restoration of CBC service has been established as a major Corporate priority. Bill Buehler is deeply involved, as is Tom Dolan. The organization has new leadership with Ken Baugher now reporting directly to Tom Dolan. An intensive recovery effort is now underway." CBC Background Summary IRX-PROD-0110462 (Levine Decl. Ex. 87). The summary also contained an assessment of the current status of efforts to address the problems:

Id. at IRX-PROD-0110463.

On September 27, 1999, Thoman sent a memorandum to the Operations Committee, the subject of which was "Headcount Approval." He stated:

Memorandum from G. Richard Thoman on Headcount Approval to Operations Committee Members IRX-PROD-0241963 (Sept. 27, 1999) (Levin Decl. Ex. 89). He then informed the recipients that, with certain exceptions, all hires must be approved in advance by a member of the strategy committee. He concluded: "We must regain control of manpower and I expect each of you to lead the way." Id.

On October 6, 1999, Romeril sent an internal memorandum to Thoman sharing some thoughts and questions in preparation for the phone-in on the following day of preliminary third quarter results, which would be followed by a meeting later in the day at which Romeril did not have good news. One of the questions he asked, with the expectation that it would help frame the discussion at the meeting, was: "What happened to restructuring benefits? If they were real, they must have been spent, delayed or offset by deterioration elsewhere." Memorandum from B.D. Romeril to G.R. Thoman IRX-PROD-0020863 (Oct. 6, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 90).

In an October 18, 1999 internal Xerox memo, Thoman stated "Sales reps tell me that up to 40 percent of their time is spent dealing with admin-type problems—at [a] time when they should be freed up to be out selling." Pl's. 56(A)(2) Statement ¶ 39 (quoting Anthony Saunders, Expert Report of Professor Anthony Saunders 29 (Oct. 15, 2007) (Levine Decl. Ex. 113)).

An internal Xerox presentation document dated October 20, 1999 estimated that "`Sales Disruption' resulted in "3%-5% lower field sales for 1999." Pl's. 56(A)(2) Statement ¶ 40 quoting Anthony Saunders, Expert Report of Professor Anthony Saunders 29 (Oct. 15, 2007) (Levine Decl. Ex. 113)).

E. External Communications

During the relevant time period there were numerous statements made by the defendants, in the form of press releases, public filings, statements during investor conferences or teleconferences and interviews with analysts, as well as reports that were issued by analysts who followed Xerox and newspaper articles.

In an April 17, 1998 press release concerning the Worldwide Restructuring, Xerox predicted that "[w]hen fully implemented the ongoing pre-tax savings from the initiatives will be approximately $1 billion annually." Press Release, Xerox Corp., Xerox Announces Worldwide Restructuring To Enhance Competitiveness in the Digital World: Company Will Eliminate 9,000 Jobs and Take $1 Billion After-Tax Charge IRX-PROD-003971 (Apr. 7, 1998) (Levine Decl. Ex. 3).

On October 22, 1998, Xerox issued a press release that stated, among other things, financial results for the company's third quarter 1998 ended September 30, 1998. See Press Release, Xerox Corp., Xerox Earnings Up 18 Percent in Third Quarter: Eight Consecutive Quarter of Double-Digit Operating Earnings Growth IRX-PROD-0161430-41 (Oct. 22, 1998) (Levine Decl. Ex. 12). The October 22, 1998 press release stated, among other things, that "Xerox Corporation's third quarter diluted earnings per share ["EPS"] increased 18 percent to $1.05 and income increased 19 percent to $381 million, primarily as a result of outstanding growth in digital product revenues and improved operating margins, including the initial benefits from the worldwide restructuring program," and that "Operating profit margin improved by 1.7 percentage points in the quarter, reflecting the company's continued focus on productivity and the initial benefits of the Restructuring program announced in April." Id. at IRX-PROD-0161430. The press release also stated:

Id. With respect to a decrease in the number of employees, the press release stated: "In connection with the restructuring program, 1,700 employees left the company during the third quarter, bringing the total to 3,200. Approximately 9,000 jobs will be eliminated . . ." Id. at IRX-PROD-0161435.

Id. at 16. In addition to the foregoing, Xerox disclosed that there had been some increase in DSO as a result of the CBO Reorganization:

Id. at 22.

On November 20, 1998, Romeril, Xerox's Chief Financial Officer, met with Dave Ravera of Putnam Securities. Romeril said that Xerox had not done well on inventory and receivables management but also "[said] it's temp & we're all over it." Notes of Leslie F. Varon IRX-PROD-0062963 (Nov. 20, 1998) (Varon Aff. Ex. A). Romeril further indicated that the consolidation of the U.S. administrative centers, i.e. the CBO Reorganization, resulted in the loss of tenured employees and controls. According to Romeril, the problem would be temporary, and in 1999, Xerox would go back to the ratios it had in 1997 and go forward from there. The meeting notes also indicate that Romeril told Ravera: "Have sent Europeans to U.S. for lesson learned." Id.

On December 14, 1998, Romeril met with Kirk Mayer, a securities analyst at Wellington Management. Romeril indicated that there was a temporary disruption in receivables in the United States due to the administrative restructuring, which would be fixed by the end of 1999. Notes of Leslie F. Varon IRX-PROD-0062956-57 (Dec. 14, 1998) (Varon Aff. Ex. B). On December 16, 1998, Romeril met with Steven Milunovich of Merrill Lynch. Romeril told Milunovich that Xerox's poor cash flow in 1998 was caused in part by a receivables problem stemming from the U.S. consolidation in customer administration and changes in collection processes. He also observed that DSO had temporarily increased, that it was not a "write-off" issue and that Xerox would "claw back." Notes of Leslie F. Varon IRX-PROD-0062944 (Dec. 16, 1998) (Varon Aff. Ex. C).

According to Xerox's December 31, 1998 Form 10-K, Key initiatives of the restructuring include[d]:

Xerox Corp., Annual Report (Form 10-K) 13 (Mar. 22, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 40).

On January 6, 1999, Xerox announced a new initiative to realign its sales force to provide industry-oriented global document solutions, i.e. the Sales Force Realignment. See Xerox Realigns Operations to Better Capitalize on New Growth Opportunities in the Digital Marketplace, Business Wire, Jan. 6, 1999 (Levine Decl. Ex. 22). Thoman stated: "This migration to an industry global account and solutions focus will evolve over the next couple of years. In 1999, there will be no significant changes to sales force territories or compensation." Id.

On January 26, 1999, Xerox held its earning release conference for the fourth quarter of 1998. At that conference, Romeril made the following statements:

Barry Romeril, Xerox Corporation Fourth Quarter Earnings Release Teleconference 3:21-4:7 (Jan. 26, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 30).

Id. at 4:20-23.

Id. at 10:5-10.

Id. at 10:10-17.

Id. at 11:16-20.

Id. at 11:21-25.

Alex Henderson of Prudential Securities asked Romeril: "I was wondering if you could give us some input on where you are with respect to the restructuring." Id. at 29:14-16. In response, Romeril stated:

Id. at 30:19-31:9. With respect to selling, general and administrative expense, Romeril stated as to DSO and other matters:

Id. at 31:14-32:3. In response to a question as to when costs would actually start to accrue, Romeril responded "Second half of 1999 I would say." Id. at 32:18-19.

On January 26, 1999, Xerox issued a press release that stated the benefits and impact of the Worldwide Restructuring on Xerox's financial performance for its fourth quarter ended December 31, 1998 and year ended December 31, 1998. See Press Release, Xerox Corp., Xerox Earnings Up 16 Percent in Fourth Quarter: Board Approves 11 Percent Dividend Increase, 2-For-1 Stock Split IRX-PROD-005100-02 (Jan. 26, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 29). The press release contained, among others, the following statements regarding the Worldwide Restructuring:

Id. at IRX-PROD-0005100.

Id.

In discussing the "Outlook for 1999 and Beyond," the press release stated "`While economic uncertainty could hinder our ability to achieve double-digit revenue growth in the near term, the global growth opportunities for document processing products and solutions remain substantial.'" Id. at IRX-PROD-0005101 (quoting Rick Thoman, Xerox President and Chief Operating Officer). With respect to headcount, Xerox reported that 2,300 employees left the company during the fourth quarter, making a total of 5,500, and approximately 9,000 jobs would be eliminated as part of the Worldwide Restructuring. Id.

Also on January 26, 1999, Romeril spoke with Rebecca Runkle of Morgan Stanley. He told her that Xerox had experienced a growth in receivables because of the restructuring in the United States. He stated: "We were too optimistic believing [that the] DSO spike in [the] U.S. would be too temp[orary]." Notes of Leslie F. Varon IRX-PROD-0062940 (Jan. 26, 1999) (Varon Aff. Ex. D). He also stated that Xerox had been "too ambitious," that it had "put some resources back," and that "[he had] no doubt it's temp[orary]." Id. On January 27, 1999, Runkle issued a report warning investors that Xerox was experiencing increased levels of receivables and DSO:

Rebecca Runkle, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Xerox: Xerox Swaggers On—Reiterate Outperform IRX-PROD-0042746, IRX-PROD-0042748 (Jan. 27, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. 34). Under the heading "Restructuring Update—Benefits Continue to Show," the report further stated: "Worldwide employment decreased by 200 in the quarter to 92,700 (down from 92,900 in 4Q98 and 91,400 in 4Q97)." (Id. at IRX-PROD-0042752.) She noted, however, that "[t]he decrease of 2,200 employees due to the restructuring program was partially offset by the net hiring of 2,000 employees. . . ." Id.

On February 16, 1999, Runkle reiterated that "receivables/days' sales outstanding proved disappointments in 1998." Rebecca Runkle, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Xerox (XRX): Xerox Swaggers On—Reiterate Outperform; Raise Target MS00038, MS00039 (Feb. 16, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 35). Runkle issued another report on February 25, 1999, which stated:

Rebecca Runkle, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Xerox (XRX): Preliminary Update on Year-End Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Items IRX-PROC-0000222, 0000223 (Feb. 25, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 36).

On March 1, 1999, Romeril met Philip Rueppel, a securities analyst with BT Alex. Brown. Notes from the meeting indicate that Romeril discussed the "[r]eceiv[ables] issue in [the] U.S. assoc[iated] w[ith] restruc[turing]." Notes of Leslie F. Varon IRX-PROD-0062471 (Mar. 1, 1999) (Varon Aff. Ex. E). Romeril stated that the issue "[would] reverse in '99." Id. On March 2, 1999, Rueppel issued a report stating:

Philip C. Rueppel, Alex Brown, XRX: Meeting With CFO Confirms Positive Business Tone—Brazil Remai[n]—Strong Buy, IRX-PROD-0011038, IRX-PROD-0011039 (Mar. 2, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 37).

Also on March 2, 1999, Henderson of Prudential Securities issued a report, which stated:

B. Alex Henderson, Prudential Securities, XRX: Xerox Accelerating Cost Cutting Beyond Restructuring—Reiterating Strong IRX-PROD-0000264, IRX-PROD-0000268 (Mar. 2, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 38). On March 15, 1999, Runkle issued a report stating:

Rebecca Runkle, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Xerox (XRX): Preliminary Update on Year-End Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Items MS00054, MS00055 (Mar. 15, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 39).

In its Form 10-K for 1998, dated March 22, 1999, Xerox disclosed: "Accounts receivable growth reflects strong equipment sales in 1998 and some increase in days sales outstanding due to temporary effects from the reorganization and consolidation of U.S. customer administrative centers." Xerox Corp., Annual Report (Form 10-K) 53 (Mar. 22, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 40).

On April 19, 1999, the Center for Financial Research and Analysis ("CFRA") issued a report stating that Xerox was experiencing "Rapid Receivables Growth." Ctr. for Financial Research & Analysis, Inc., CFRA Company Report: Xerox Corporation IRX-PROD-0060214 (Apr. 19, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 41). The CFRA report identified "[s]igns of possible operational deterioration for XRX during 1998 includ[ing] a surge in receivables and inventory relative to revenue and a growing operating cash flow shortfall." Id. It also reported that Xerox "attributed the December-to-December DSO increase to temporary effects from the reorganization and consolidation of U.S. customer administrative centers." Id.

In a press release dated April 22, 1999, Thoman stated "Although we are pleased that we achieved earnings growth of 14 percent, our revenue performance in the quarter was clearly disappointing but not indicative of our expectations for the full year." Press Release, Xerox Corp., Xerox Earnings Up 14 Percent in First Quarter: Tenth Consecutive Quarter of Double-Digit Operating Earnings Growth IRX-PROD-0060120 (Apr. 22, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 45). He stated "`The turmoil in Brazil and the economic slowdown in other Latin American countries, combined with several operational factors in the U.S. and Europe, depressed our first quarter revenues.'" Id. (quoting Rick Thoman, Xerox President and Chief Executive Officer). He further stated:

Id. (quoting Rick Thoman). In discussing Xerox's operating profit margin, the press release stated that "The operating profit margin of 12.8 percent in the quarter represented a 1.1 percentage point improvement." Id. at IRX-PROD-0060121. Thoman further stated that "The operating margin improvement reflects the benefits of our restructuring program . . ." Id. When discussing headcount in connection with the Worldwide Restructuring, the press release stated that "1,000 employees left the company in the first quarter, bringing the total to 6,400." Id.

During an April 22, 1999 earnings release teleconference for the first quarter of 1999 Romeril stated: "I would encourage you to focus on the total growth of service, outsourcing and rental, rather than the constituent parts, as looking at the total, avoids the possibility of misinterpretation about any constituent part where substitution may have been an important driver in any year-over-year comparison." Barry Romeril, Xerox Corporation First Quarter Earnings Release Teleconference 7:15-21 (Apr. 22, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 46). He further stated:

Id. at 10:12-19. In discussing headcount changes associated with the Worldwide Restructuring, Romeril stated: "In connection with the restructuring program, 1,000 employees left the company during the first quarter, bringing the total to 6,400 since the program was announced." Id. at 11:24-12:3. During the teleconference, Henderson asked, "So you're really characterizing the miss here in the revenues in the first quarter as a one-time event. And you are going to snap back fully in the second quarter." Id. at 19:6-10. Romeril responded: "We're going to come back Alex, significantly. And we're going to see the sort of number—you gave us a nice range. I'm not sure that I want to get into forecasting precise numbers. But it will be a significant rebound." Id. at 19:11-16. Later, Runkle asked: "Is it fair to expect that the DSO's in the inventory balances net net still going to take another I would say two quarters or so to really normalize back down to levels that you're happy with?" Id. at 21:19-23. Romeril answered "Yes" and stated that "The run rate we should be significantly better as we exit the year than we were last year. And I mean significantly. It's the path there that you know, is not a necessarily a smooth one everywhere around the world." Id. at 21:24-22:4.

On April 23, 1999, Lehman Brothers reported:

Lehman Bros., Xerox: Renewed Focus on Top Line; We Regard 1Q Slip As Temporary IRX-PROD-0000454 (Apr. 23, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 42).

On April 23, 1999, Milunovich of Merrill Lynch issued a report stating:

Steven Milunovich, Merrill Lynch, Xerox Corporation: Revenue Challenged 2 (Apr. 23, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 75).

On April 27, 1999, Investor's Business Daily reported that Rick Thoman, Xerox's chief executive said "`We had salespeople away from customers more than we should have. . . . But we should see benefits going forward.'" Michael Lyster, Digital Copiers: Xerox Ticket to Networking Service Plans, Investor's Bus. Daily, Apr. 27, 1999, at A6, IRX-PROD-0050433 (quoting Rick Thoman) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 43). The article also states: "Thoman blames the [revenue] drop on Xerox's ongoing restructuring and the realignment of its sales force. Financial trouble in Brazil, a key market, didn't help either." Id.

On April 27, 1999, The Wall Street Journal reported that "Xerox has reorganized its 14,000-person sales force away from geographical coverage toward coverage of specific industries. . . . Xerox said last week that sales retraining was part of the reason its first-quarter earnings were disappointing." Alec Klein, Xerox Reorganizes Sales Force in Push to Bundle Services to Corporate Clients, Wall St. J., Apr. 27, 1999, at B15, IRX-PROD-0050431 (Levine Decl. Ex. 49).

On May 6, 1999, Stephen Weber, a securities analyst with SG Cowen Securities Inc., issued a report stating that Xerox's "revenues grew just 3% . . . in Q1, owing to extra sales training (i.e., time not on the street) and organizational dislocations, both in the U.S. and Europe." Steven Weber, SG Cowen, Xerox Corporation: The Tenets of This Growth Story Very Much Intact IRX-PROD-0012720 (May 6, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 44). The report also states that "[a]s Q1's disrupting factors abate, we think revenue growth will accelerate markedly." Id.

On May 14, 1999, Xerox hosted its annual Investors Conference which was attended by Henderson of Prudential Securities, Ben Reitzes of PaineWebber, Weber of SG Cowen, Jerry Hersch from MTD, Steven Raphael from RBC Dominion Securities, Jack Kelly from Goldman Sachs, Milunovich from Merrill Lynch, Flay Lewis from Compton Capital, John Rosenthal from Salomon Smith Barney, Pete Enderlin from FAC Equities, Ted Kuntz from Needham, Runkle from Morgan Stanley, Peter Boyson from Lazard Asset Management and Fred Weiss from Pell Rudman. See Barry Romeril, Xerox Corporation Investor Conference 134:18-19, 140:22-23, 147:16-17, 152:22-23, 154:25-155:1, 156:8-9, 159:3-4, 161:6-7, 164:5-6, 175:19-20, 180:18, 186:22-23, 196:16-17, 200:5-6 (May 14, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 45). Romeril stated the following:

Id. at 122:23-123:15. At the same conference, Thoman stated:

Id. at 136:24-137:19.

The plaintiffs highlight that Romeril edited one portion of his notes for the conference. That portion of his notes originally read:

Remarks for Rick Thoman IRX-PROD-0056273 (May 14, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 57). After the edits that portion of his notes read:

Id.

In its Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 1999, filed with the SEC on May 14, 1999, Xerox stated:

Xerox Corp., Form 10-Q: Quarterly Report 13 (May 14, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 26).

Id. at 12.

Id. at 16.

Id. at 16-17.

On May 17, 1999, Runkle issued a report stating "the U.S. and Europe each fell short by about $75-80 million due to low sales productivity and the consolidation of Xerox's administration efforts. Management believes these were one-time issues and that the company will get back on its growth track going forward—with material improvement in the second quarter." Rebecca Runkle, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Xerox (XRX): Annual Investor Meeting Review IRX-PROD-0000675 (May 17, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 46). Also on May 17, 1999, Enderlin of FAC Equities reported:

Pete Enderlin, FAC Equities, XRX—Xerox Projects Double-Digit Revenue Growth IRX-PROD-000666 (May 17, 1999)(Goldstein Decl. Ex. 76).

On May 17, 1999, CIBC World Markets issued an analyst report recommending Xerox stock with a "Strong Buy" rating, stating that cash flow in 1999 was expected to rebound to 1997 levels, one of two topics the author found "encouraging." Rudolf A. Hokanson, CIBC World Markets, XRX Holds Investor Meeting, Raising Target to $82 Per Share IRX-PROD-0097419 (May 17, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 61). On May 26, 1999, Runkle of Morgan Stanley reported:

Rebecca Runkle, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Xerox (XRX): Annually Investor's Meeting Review MS00107 (May 26, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 47).

On June 1, 1999, Romeril met with Jonathan Rosenzweig of Salomon Smith Barney. See Notes of Leslie F. Varon IRX-PROD-0060244-47 (June 1, 1999) (Varon Aff. Ex. F). Romeril (who is identified as "BDR") stated that Xerox "took out too many admin people—didn't heed warning signs." Id. at IRX-PROD-0060244. Romeril also explained that Xerox was "[h]iring back with good payback over time (about 150 people)," and that it did not expect to see improvement in cash flow until the second half of 1999. Id. In that meeting, Romeril also discussed the status of the Worldwide Restructuring efforts in the United States, Canada and Europe. Id. at IRX-PROD-0060245.

On June 2, 1999, Rosenzweig issued a report stating:

Rosenzweig & Kalinowski, Salomon Smith Barney, XRX: Introducing Fortune 500 Survey and Mtg. w/ Mgmt. IRX-PROD-0099513 (June 2, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 48); see also Rosenzweig & Kalinowski, Salomon Smith Barney, XRX: Introducing Fortune 500 Survey and mtg w/ Mgmt. Part 2 2 (June 4, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 50).

On June 3, 1999, Romeril spoke at the Prudential Imaging Technology Conference. He stated:

Barry Romeril, Xerox Vice Chairman & CFO, Remarks at Prudential Imaging Technology Conference IRX-PROD-0027213-14 (June 3, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 49).

On June 4, 1999, Romeril told Ben Reitzes of PaineWebber that the United States had experienced a training and administrative disruption as a result of the CBO Reorganization and that DSO had increased by about 10 days. Notes from the meeting also state: "[b]y end '99/Q1 '00 will get to '97 yrend DSO. Will begin Q3" and "[c]urrently hiring/training admin people to fix. Lots of sr. mgt focus." Notes of Leslie F. Varon IRX-PROD-0060223 (June 4, 1999) (Varon Aff. Ex. G).

On June 7, 1999, Reitzes issued a report stating:

Ben Reitzes, PaineWebber, XEROX: Meeting With CFO Eases Many of Our Concerns IRX-PROD-0000313 (June 7, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 51). He further stated: "Xerox's sales force intensity is improving on plan, after an intensive training program and reorganization in 1Q 1999. In addition, distractions from restructuring appear to be on the decline. . . ." Id. at IRX-PROD-0000315. Reitzes also reported on the impact of the CBO Reorganization program on the company's receivables in the fourth quarter of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999:

Id. The report also states that "[i]mprovements are already underway and Xerox expects significant improvement in receivables by second half 1999." Id.

On June 8, 1999, Romeril met with Milunovich of Merrill Lynch. Notes from that meeting read:

Notes of Leslie F. Varon IRX-PROD-0060241 (June 8, 1999) (Varon Aff. Ex. H).

On June 9, 1999, Merrill Lynch reported that "[t]he cash conversion cycle is under intense scrutiny," that "[m]anagement thinks it can reduce inventories by $300-400 million" for both 1999 and 2000, that "[r]eceivables could also improve by about $400 million," and that "[c]ash flow improvements should put share repurchases back on the radar screen early next year." Steven Milunovich, Merrill Lynch IRX-PROD-0051058 (June 9, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 52).

On June 9, 1999, Reitzes of PaineWebber reported:

Benjamin Reitzes, PaineWebber, Xerox Corporation: Meeting with CFO Eases Many of Our Concerns 2 (June 9, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 53).

On June 28, 1999, Henderson of Prudential Securities issued a report based on Romeril's remarks at the June 3, 1999 Prudential Imaging Technology Conference. Henderson reported:

B. Alex Henderson, Prudential Securities, Xerox Delivers Upbeat Presentation At Prudential Securities' 2nd Annual Imaging Technology Conference AS-PROD-00309 (June 28, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 54).

On July 1, 1999, Henderson reported: "No Distractions-No Excuses. Xerox cited a laundry list of distractions which encumbered the sales force in 1Q. Many sales offices were closed or moved as a result of the restructuring. Salespeople were distracted by too many training programs." B. Alex Henderson, Prudential Securities, XRX: We Expect XRX to Report at Least the First Call Consensus and Believe a Strong 2Q Could Lift Shares Higher IRX-PROD-0011190 (July 1, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 55). Henderson also reported, though, that "Management sent out an edict to the sales force to double face time with clients, and we think this will deliver better revenue growth in 2Q." Id. at 0011190. Henderson reported Xerox's belief that the "stabilization of [its] back office" would contribute to "a fairly sharp rebound in the top line." Id. at IRX-PROD-0011192. Henderson further reported:

Id. at 0011192. The report also states: "The stabilization and recovery of Brazil, stabilization of back-office operations, and the cessation of salesforce training cost which caused roughly a 5% 1Q decline in salesforce productivity should drive a fairly sharp rebound in the top line." Id.

On July 22, 1999, Xerox held a teleconference with analysts concerning second quarter 1999 earnings. Romeril stated:

Barry Romeril, Xerox Corporation Second Quarter Earnings Release Teleconference 3:23-4:6 (July 22, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 72).

Id. at 11:14-19.

Id. at 12:10-16.

Id. at 12:22-23.

Id. at 15:5-11.

During the question and answer portion of the teleconference, Romeril also stated:

Id. at 24:6-17. In talking about the restructuring in Europe, Romeril stated: "We're a little more cautionary how we've gone about some of the customer admin things there to make sure we don't repeat any of the United States experiences, but I would say that is not significant." Id. at 31:5-11.

On July 22, 1999, Xerox issued a press release which announced financial results for Xerox's second quarter ended June 30, 1999. The press release stated:

Press Release, Xerox Corp., Xerox Earnings Up 15 Percent in Second Quarter: Significant Revenue Growth Improvement in U.S. and Europe IRX-PROD-0010509 (July 22, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 71).

Id. at IRX-PROD-0010510.

Id. at IRX-PROD-0010514.

Id. at IRX-PROD-0010515.

Xerox's Form 10-Q for the Second Quarter of 1999, filed with the SEC on August 11, 1999, included the following statements:

Xerox Corp., Form 10-Q: Quarterly Report 11-12 (Aug. 11, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 76).

Id. at 15.

On August 13, 1999, Rosenzweig of Salomon Smith Barney reported:

Rosenzweig & Kalinowski, Salomon Smith Barney, XRX: Comments on the 10Q IRX-PROD-0010522 (Aug. 13, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 56).

Notes from an August 16, 1999 meeting between Romeril and Rosenzweig state: "[b]y Q4, [we] hope DSO is at/slightly better than a [year] ago—w[ith] signif[icant] momentum going into 2000/2001." Notes of Leslie F. Varon IRX-PROD-0059675 (Aug. 16, 1999) (Varon Aff. Ex. I); see also Varon Aff. ¶ 11. On the same day, under the heading "Cash Flow Should Improve in Second Half," Rosenzweig reported:

Rosenzweig & Kalinowski, Salomon Smith Barney, XRX: Upbeat Conversation with Management IRX-PROD-0000175 (Aug. 16, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 57).

On August 16, 1999, Weber authored a report stating: "Revenue growth rebounded to 4% in constant currency terms in Q2 (+7% ex Brazil), as Q1's disruptive factors—extra training, reorganizations, channel inventory adjustments—abated and the growth in recurring revenue accelerated by a full point to 4%." Stephen R. Weber, SG Cowen, Growth Prospects Still Terrific; Stock Very Undervalued 5 (Aug. 16, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 72). On the same page, the report also states in the margins "Overcoming Major Obstacles" and "Should be back on track." Id.

On August 18, 1999, Romeril met with Henderson of Prudential Securities. Notes from that meeting read:

Notes of Leslie F. Varon IRX-PROD-0059676 (Aug. 18, 1999) (Varon Aff. Ex. J).

The plaintiffs assert that there were two corrective disclosures. The first corrective disclosure they identify is a September 16, 1999 report by Henderson, a Prudential Securities analyst. Under the heading "Xerox to Implement Another Round of Salesforce Realignments in 1Q00-Lowers Revenue Visibility and Likely to Pressure XRX Until Impact can be Determined" the report states:

A. Henderson, Prudential Securities, XRX: Another Salesforce Realignment Slated for 1Q00 At Xerox IRX-PROD-0000292-93 (Sept. 16, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 30).

On September 16, 1999, Reuters published an article entitled "Xerox shares tumble amid fresh growth concerns." Eric Auchard, Xerox Shares Tumble Amid Fresh Growth Concerns, Reuters News, Sept. 16, 1999, 1 (Levine Decl. Ex. 79). The article stated:

Id. The article quoted Henderson as stating, "Most people thought they had done the bulk of the sales-force realignment earlier this year." Id. "`These new moves extend the uncertainty for another six months,' he said, referring to the first half of [2000]." Id. The article also stated: "`I am not sure that the world was privy to the entire plan in January,' the Xerox spokesman allowed, but said that the scope of the plan had been communicated to company employees. He said the latest sales changes involved no job cuts." Id.

On the same day, Dow Jones Business News Reported that "Xerox Shares Tumble On Word Of Plan To Further Realign Sales Force," noting "that the second phase of a sales-force realignment will pressure earnings in the first half of 2000." Dow Jones Business News, Xerox Shares Tumble on Word of Plan to Further Realign Sales Force, Sept. 16, 1999, 1 (Levine Decl. Ex. 81). It mentioned "that the company made an internal announcement [the preceding] week that it would expand the sales-force realignment it began in January to include all 4,300 sales employees." Id.

Reitzes of PaineWebber issued a report dated September 17, 1999 entitled "Xerox: What Did we Learn That is New?" See Ben Reitzes, PaineWebber, Xerox: What Did We Learn That is New? 1 (Sept. 17, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 85). Under "Key Points," the following were stated:

Id.

During a September 22, 1999 teleconference with securities analysts that began at 11:30 a.m., Romeril stated:

Barry Romeril, Xerox Corporation Tektronix Announcement 4:16-5:3 (Sept. 22, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 58).

Id. at 5:6-6:9.

Id. at 6:20-8:5 (emphasis added).

At 3:19 p.m. on September 22, 1999, Weber of SG Cowen reported:

Stephen R. Weber, SG Cowen, XRX/The Acquisition A Solid Move IRX-PROD-0011066 (Sept. 22, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 59). There was no specific reference in the report to the Worldwide Restructuring or the CBO Reorganization.

On September 22, 1999, Moody's Investors Services reported "The rating agency said that it expects . . . continued investment requirements and some sales force disruption stemming from its ongoing restructuring activities commenced in mid 1998." Press Release, Moody's Investors Serv., Moodys Confirms Credit Ratings of Xerox Corporation and its Supported Subsidiaries (Senior at A2) IRX-PROD-0027058 (Sept. 22, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 60). There was no other reference in the Moody's press release to the Worldwide Restructuring or the CBO Reorganization.

On October 8, 1999, Xerox announced that it would miss its projected earnings for the third quarter of 1999. Press Release, Xerox Corp., Xerox Announces Preliminary Third Quarter Results, Business Wire IRX-PROD-0095847 (Oct. 8, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 31). The press release stated:

Id.

F. Communications Following the October 8, 1999 Pre-Announcement

Kunstler of J.P. Morgan issued a report later in the day on October 8, 1999. He stated:

Daniel Kunstler, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Our Disappointment is Bigger Than the 3Q Miss IRX-PROD-001139A-001139B (Oct. 8, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 92).

On October 11, 1999, Reitzes of PaineWebber issued a research note entitled "XRX: What We Learned & What to Look for Going Forward." Benjamin Reitzes, PaineWebber, XRX: What We Learned & What to Look for Going Forward (Oct. 11, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 93). Under the heading "The Perils of Restructuring Too Much, Too Fast (A Look at Management's Major Moves Since 1998)," he stated:

Id. at 2.

G. Savings Realized as a Result of the Worldwide Restructuring

The plaintiffs contend that although Xerox realized $550 million in savings as a result of the Worldwide Restructuring during the Class Period, those savings were offset by at least $775 million in costs caused by the CBO Reorganization during the Class Period. Because there were no net savings from the Worldwide Restructuring, the plaintiffs argue, the defendants' statements regarding the benefits of the Worldwide Restructuring were materially misleading. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs' analysis with respect to the savings realized as a result of the Worldwide Restructuring (net of costs caused by the CBO Reorganization) contains numerous errors, and that there was $613 million in undisputed Worldwide Restructuring savings during the Class Period while the total maximum costs caused by the CBO Reorganization during the Class Period was $154 million dollars. Thus, the defendants contend, their statements were not just literally true, but entirely accurate and not misleading.

Drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, the court concludes that Xerox realized savings from the Worldwide Restructuring of $254.5 million during the Class Period, which does not include $63 million in undisputed pre-Class Period savings.

The plaintiffs contend that the court should consider $50 million per quarter as a "conservative sales loss" amount when determining the net benefit realized by Xerox from the Worldwide Restructuring. This amount appears to be speculative and without support in the record. As a result, the court does not consider the plaintiffs' figure for sales losses during the Class Period.

The plaintiffs contend that the court should consider $100 million of alleged accounting manipulations occurring during fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The plaintiffs' claims as to accounting manipulations were the subject of a separate lawsuit and are no part of this case. Therefore, there should not be any offset for alleged accounting manipulations.

The plaintiffs have submitted the report of their accounting expert Charles R. Drott (the "Drott Report"). See Levine Decl. Ex. 111. Drott opines as to the amount of adverse restructuring effects resulting from the CBO Reorganization for the fourth quarter of 1998 and the first and second quarters of 1999.2 Drott opines with respect to four categories: inadequate reserves for uncollectible accounts receivable, inadequate reserves for uncollectible notes receivable, billing errors and excess DSO interest. Drott concludes that, during the Class Period, Xerox incurred adverse restructuring effects of $49.6 million in inadequate reserves for uncollectible accounts receivable, $35.6 million in inadequate reserves for uncollectible notes receivable, $87.8 million in billing errors and $19.5 million in interest on the increase in DSO, for a total of $192.5 million.

The defendants have submitted a chart prepared by Xerox employee Patrick Fulford (the "Fulford Chart"), which quantifies many expenses that are included in the Drott Report for calendar year 1999.3 (See Goldstein Decl. Ex. 63.) The Fulford Chart includes expenses for accommodations, bad debt/bad notes, higher general and administrative expenses, billing adjustments, sales disruption and interest on higher DSO. The Fulford Chart shows that during the Class Period Xerox incurred expenses of $10 million for accommodations, $42 million for bad debt/bad notes, $25 million for higher general and administrative expenses, $15 million for billing adjustments, $32 million for sales disruption and $23 million for interest on DSO, for a total of $147 million.

Together the Fulford Chart and the Drott Report indicate that approximately $339.5 million in expense was incurred during the Class Period as a result of the CBO Reorganization. However, both the Fulford Chart and the Drott Report include estimated amounts for the first and second quarters of 1999. Furthermore, both the Fulford Chart and the Drott Report include amounts for uncollectible bad notes and accounts receivable, billing adjustments and interest on DSO. Therefore, to avoid double-counting expenses with respect to the first half of 1999 that are included in both the Drott Report and the Fulford Chart, the amount of the expense must be decreased by $29 million in bad debts and $15 million in interest on DSO.4 Therefore, together the Drott Report and the Fulford Chart show a total combined expense of $295.5.

According to the plaintiffs, Xerox recognized an undisputed $550 million in cost savings for the Worldwide Restructuring. Therefore, Xerox had a net cost savings from the Worldwide Restructuring of at least $254.5 million.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment may not be granted unless the court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219, 1223 (2d Cir.1994). Rule 56(a) "mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must respect the province of the jury. The court, therefore, may not try issues of fact. See, e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Donahue v. Windsor Locks Bd. of Fire Comm'rs, 834 F.2d 54, 58 (2d Cir. 1987); Heyman v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 524 F.2d 1317, 1319-20 (2d Cir. 1975). It is well-established that "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of the judge." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Thus, the trial court's task is "carefully limited to discerning whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be tried, not to deciding them. Its duty, in short, is confined. . . to issue-finding; it does not extend to issue-resolution." Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1224.

Summary judgment is inappropriate only if the issue to be resolved is both genuine and related to a material fact. Therefore, the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. An issue is "genuine . . . if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (internal quotation marks omitted). A material fact is one that would "affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. As the Court observed in Anderson: "[T]he materiality determination rests on the substantive law, [and] it is the substantive law's identification of which facts are critical and which facts are irrelevant that governs." Id. Thus, only those facts that must be decided in order to resolve a claim or defense will prevent summary judgment from being granted. When confronted with an asserted factual dispute, the court must examine the elements of the claims and defenses at issue on the motion to determine whether a resolution of that dispute could affect the disposition of any of those claims or defenses. Immaterial or minor facts will not prevent summary judgment. See Howard v. Gleason Corp., 901 F.2d 1154, 1159 (2d Cir.1990).

When reviewing the evidence on a motion for summary judgment, the court must "assess the record in the light most favorable to the non-movant and . . . draw all reasonable inferences in its favor." Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 902 F.2d 174, 177 (2d Cir.1990)). Because credibility is not an issue on summary judgment, the nonmovant's evidence must be accepted as true for purposes of the motion. Nonetheless, the inferences drawn in favor of the nonmovant must be supported by the evidence. "[M]ere speculation and conjecture is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Stern v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305, 315 (2d Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Western World Ins. Co. v. Stack Oil, Inc., 922 F.2d 118, 121 (2d. Cir.1990)). Moreover, the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmovant's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which [a] jury could reasonably find for the [nonmovant]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Finally, the nonmoving party cannot simply rest on the allegations in its pleadings since the essence of summary judgment is to go beyond the pleadings to determine if a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. "Although the moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact," Weinstock, 224 F.3d at 41, if the movant demonstrates an absence of such issues, a limited burden of production shifts to the nonmovant, who must "demonstrate more than some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, . . . [and] must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Aslanidis v. United States Lines, Inc., 7 F.3d 1067, 1072 (2d Cir.1993) (quotation marks, citations and emphasis omitted). Furthermore, "unsupported allegations do not create a material issue of fact." Weinstock, 224 F.3d at 41. If the nonmovant fails to meet this burden, summary judgment should be granted.

III. DISCUSSION

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by misrepresenting the success of the Worldwide Restructuring. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants' statements were materially false and misleading because they claimed the benefits of the Worldwide Restructuring without disclosing problems associated with the CBO Reorganization that negated those benefits. The plaintiffs claim the defendants were required to, but did not, disclose the negative impact of the CBO Reorganization on Xerox's administrative operations in the areas of order processing, billing and collections; the negative impact of the CBO Reorganization on the performance of Xerox's sales force; and the ongoing nature of the problems associated with the CBO Reorganization.5

The defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based on the fact that their statements about the Worldwide Restructuring were at all times accurate because the Worldwide Restructuring produced millions of dollars of benefits during the Class Period. Also, the defendants contend that they had no duty to disclose the operational problems associated with the CBO Reorganization but, despite not having a duty to do so, did fully disclose the allegedly concealed problems. In addition, the defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiffs cannot establish loss causation.

To prevail on a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim, the plaintiffs must prove six elements:

Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005) (internal citations omitted).

The court concludes that, even if the defendants had a duty to disclose, the plaintiffs cannot show an actionable misrepresentation or omission, and in addition, that the plaintiffs cannot establish loss causation.

A. Duty to Disclose

The defendants argue that there is no evidence that their statements about the benefits of the Worldwide Restructuring were false and also that their statements about the benefits of the Worldwide Restructuring did not create a duty to disclose information about the CBO Reorganization.

With respect to the defendants' argument concerning a duty to disclose, "a duty to update opinions and projections may arise if the original opinions or projections have become misleading as the result of intervening events." In re Time Warner Inc. Sec. Litig., 9 F.3d 259, 267 (2d Cir.1993).

Id. at 267-68 (citations omitted).

The defendants argue that they had no duty to speak out about the CBO Reorganization's problems, even assuming those problems would have been material to investors, because (i) the alleged misstatements refer to the Worldwide Restructuring as a whole, (ii) the defendants never touted the benefits of the CBO Reorganization or any of the other individual initiatives that comprised the Worldwide Restructuring and (iii) there is no evidence that the defendants ever misstated the impact of the Worldwide Restructuring. The defendants contend that the law is clear that under such circumstances, they had no duty to disclose. They rely primarily on In re Raytheon Sec. Litig., 157 F.Supp.2d 131 (D.Mass.2001), and In re Winn-Dixie Stores, 531 F.Supp.2d 1334 (M.D.Fla.2007), and they characterize Raytheon as directly on point.

In Raytheon, the corporate defendant had undertaken "a massive consolidation and cost reduction program" in one of its segments, Raytheon Systems Company ("RSC"). 157 F.Supp.2d at 141. The plaintiff alleged that, the defendants never disclosed that a "dearth of software engineers was directly attributable to the inhospitable employment climate created by RSC's aggressive and far-reaching consolidation program." Id. at 142. "At various times, [the defendants] reported publicly on the progress of RSC's consolidation efforts. . . . What the defendants did not disclose was that the ongoing consolidation was impairing Raytheon's ability to attract and retain new engineers for several important projects." Id. at 149. "At the end of the Class Period, Raytheon disclosed that nearly one-third of the company's 1999 revenue shortfall—approximately $170 million—was attributable to the shortage of engineers." Id. at 142. The court held:

Id. at 150. At issue in Raytheon was a plan for reducing costs and the omitted disclosures related to a situation that lead to a shortfall in revenues. However, here what is at issue is a plan to reduce costs and claims of failure to disclose not only conditions which lead to a shortfall in revenue, but also additional costs that offset the savings expected to be realized pursuant to the plan. Thus, the court does not view Raytheon as directly on point.

In re Winn-Dixie Stores involved a chain of grocery stores that had undertaken a centralization and restructuring program. While the court concluded that the "[d]efendants had no duty to discuss the bumps along the road to centralization, or the fact that centralization posed new challenges in Winn-Dixie's respective divisions," pivotal in the court's analysis was its determination that "the Consolidated Complaint's description of centralization's alleged failure . . . is a description of alleged mismanagement." In re Winn-Dixie Stores, 531 F.Supp.2d at 1348. The court held that:

Id. at 1347.

In view of the net savings realized by Xerox from the Worldwide Restructuring, the court agrees that there is no genuine issue as to the fact that the defendants' statements about the benefits of the Worldwide Restructuring were not false. However, the court concludes that Raytheon, Winn-Dixie and the other cases cited by the defendants6 do not establish that as a matter of law the defendants in this case had no duty to speak about the CBO Reorganization's problems because what must be considered in determining whether there was a duty to disclose is the particular prior statement, the particular undisclosed information and whether disclosure of the omitted fact(s) at issue would be viewed by a reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix of the information available.7 Thus, the court cannot conclude that, as a matter of law, when a corporation makes statements about a restructuring as a whole, it has no duty to disclose with respect to any of the components of that restructuring so long as the statements about the restructuring as a whole are literally true. Cf. Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 236, 108 S.Ct. 978, 99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988) ("Any approach that designates a single fact or occurrence as always determinative of an inherently fact-specific finding such as materiality, must necessarily be overinclusive or underinclusive."). Here, the defendants' argument that they had no duty to disclose is premised on the court finding that as a matter of law there is no duty to disclose under such circumstances. There is no analysis of whether disclosure of the allegedly omitted facts would have been viewed by a reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix of information available. Therefore, the court concludes that the defendants have not met their initial burden in moving for summary judgment as to this point.

B. Full Disclosure

The defendants argue, in the alternative, that if they did have a duty to disclose the impact of the CBO Reorganization they fully met that obligation. The court agrees with the defendants that they are not limited to a "truth-on-the-market defense." Cf. Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co., 228 F.3d 154, 167 (2d Cir.2000) (Under the truth-on-the-market defense "[a] defendant may rebut the presumption that its misrepresentations have affected the market price of its stock by showing that the truth of the matter was already known."). "[I]t is indisputable that there can be no omission where the allegedly omitted facts are disclosed." In re Progress Energy, Inc., 371 F.Supp.2d 548, 552 (S.D.N.Y.2005). Furthermore, the identity of the individual or group disclosing the allegedly omitted information does not affect the disclosure analysis. See Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund v. Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co., 432 F.Supp.2d 571, 580 (E.D.Va.2006) ("Where information about a company was made available in an analyst report, or by newspaper articles, any withholding of information by the company is immaterial and cured any omissions by the company." (emphasis in original)). "Because an alleged misrepresentation or omission must be examined in light of the information available to the market, no securities law disclosure violation can occur when information allegedly omitted from a corporation's public disclosures is already available to the market." Stepak v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co., Civ. No. H:90CV00886(AVC), 1994 WL 858045 at *7 (D.Conn. Aug. 29, 1994).

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants failed to disclose information to the marketplace in three areas: first, the impact of the CBO Reorganization on Xerox's operations in the areas of order processing, billing and collections; second, the impact of the CBO Reorganization on the performance of Xerox's sales force; and third, the ongoing nature of the problems associated with the CBO Reorganization. The court finds that there is no genuine issue as to the fact that such information was disclosed to the market. Thus, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

1. The Impact on Operations

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants failed to disclose that the CBO Reorganization was interfering with operations and that this interference was offsetting dramatically the claimed benefits from the Worldwide Restructuring. The record shows, however, that the defendants repeatedly disclosed metrics, such as the increase in both accounts receivable and DSO, that were indicative of operational difficulties.8 The plaintiffs argue that the defendants attributed these problems to the Sales Force Realignment rather than to the CBO Reorganization in an attempt to mask problems with the CBO Reorganization. However, the record shows that the defendants attributed increases in accounts receivable and DSO to both the CBO Reorganization and the Sales Force Realignment.9 Consistent terminology is not always used in documents created by the defendants and by market analysts, and where there it is ambiguous as to whether a document refers to, e.g. the CBO Reorganization, reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiffs.

The internal memorandum from Fishbach to Allaire, Thoman and Romeril stating that the deterioration in DSO at September 30, 1998 was largely driven by the CBO Reorganization is dated November 6, 1998. On November 10, 1998, Xerox's third quarter 10-Q stated that accounts receivable had increased "due to stronger equipment sales growth and some increase in days sales outstanding due to the temporary effects from the reorganization and consolidation of U.S. customer administrative centers . . ." Xerox Corp. Form 10-Q 22(Nov. 10, 1998) (Goldstein Decl., Ex. 20).

On February 25, 1999, Morgan Stanley disclosed that both the CBO Reorganization and the Sales Force Realignment were negatively affecting accounts receivable, stating that "receivables ballooned as Xerox attempted to restructure several operations in the US. The reorganization and reorientation of business units (from geographical to customer-focused) led to the disruption in billing cycle productivity." Rebecca Runkle, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Xerox (XRX): Preliminary Update on Year-End Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Items IRX-PROC-0000222, 0000223 (Feb. 25, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 36). Morgan Stanley made the same statement on March 15, 1999. See Rebecca Runkle, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Xerox (XRX): Preliminary Update on Year-End Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Items MS00054, MS00055 (Mar. 15, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 39). On March 22, 1999, Xerox issued its 10-K for 1998, in which it disclosed that "[a]ccounts receivable growth reflects strong equipment sales in 1998 and some increase in days sales outstanding due to temporary effects from the reorganization and consolidation of U.S. customer administrative centers." Xerox Corp., Annual Report (Form 10-K) 53 (Mar. 22, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 40).

In a report issued by CFRA on April 19, 1999, "operational deterioration" was linked with "the December-to-December DSO increase due to temporary effects from the reorganization and consolidation of U.S. customer administrative centers." Ctr. for Financial Research & Analysis, Inc., CFRA Company Report: Xerox Corporation IRX-PROD-0060214 (Apr. 19, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 41). Statements attributed to Thoman in April 1999 link disappointing sales performance in the first quarter with "Xerox's ongoing restructuring and the realignment of its sales force." Michael Lyster, Digital Copiers: Xerox Ticket to Networking Service Plans, Investor's Bus. Daily, Apr. 27, 1999, at A6, IRX-PROD-0050433 (quoting Rick Thoman) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 43); see also Steven Milunovich, Merrill Lynch, Xerox Corporation: Revenue Challenged 2 (Apr. 23, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 75).

During the May 14, 1999 annual Investor's Conference hosted by Xerox, Romeril tied the deterioration in DSOs and receivables to the CBO Reorganization:

Barry Romeril, Xerox Corporation Investor Conference 122:23-123:5 (May 14, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 45). Romeril made a similar link during his comments at the Prudential Imaging Technology Conference on June 3, 1999 where he stated: "The growth in accounts receivable is primarily the result of the reorganization and restructuring of our U.S. administrative support activities. . . ." Barry Romeril, Xerox Vice Chairman & CFO, Remarks at Prudential Imaging Technology Conference IRX-PROD-0027213 (June 3, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 49).

Analyst reports disclosing a link between the CBO Reorganization and operational difficulties continued to be issued during the period from May to July of 1999. See Steven Weber, SG Cowen, Xerox Corporation: The Tenets of This Growth Story Very Much Intact IRX-PROD-0012720 (May 6, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 44) (referring to "organizational dislocations" in the U.S. and Europe); Rebecca Runkle, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Xerox (XRX): Annualy Investor's Meeting Review MS00107 (May 26, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 47) ("[T]he U.S. and Europe each fell short by about $75-80 million due to low sales productivity and the consolidation of Xerox's administration efforts."); Benjamin Reitzes, PaineWebber, Xerox Corporation: Meeting with CFO Eases Many of Our Concerns 2 (June 9, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 53) ("It appears that Xerox's restructuring program in the U.S. had quite an adverse effect on the company's receivables . . . [t]he company reduced the number of its U.S. administrative centers to three from four. . . ."); B. Alex Henderson, Prudential Securities, Xerox Delivers Upbeat Presentation At Prudential Securities' 2nd Annual Imaging Technology Conference AS-PROD-00309 (June 28, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 54) (reporting remarks by Romeril that "on the receivables side, we cut back too fast and too many in the administrative side as we restructured in the United States"); and B. Alex Henderson, Prudential Securities, XRX: We Expect XRX to Report at Least the First Call Consensus and Believe a Strong 2Q Could Lift Shares Higher IRX-PROD-0011190 (July 1, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 55) (reporting Xerox's belief that "stabilization of back-office operations" would contribute to "a fairly sharp rebound in the top line").

Then, on July 22, 1999, Romeril stated during an earnings release teleconference that "With receivables, we have had to work through the bow wave of U.S. customer administration dislocation, and we are now looking forward to substantial improvements in the coming months in the United States." Barry Romeril, Xerox Corporation Second Quarter Earnings Release Teleconference 15:5-11 (July 22, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 72).

Also, on August 13, 1999, Salomon Smith Barney released an analyst report that stated that Xerox was "adding over 100 people back to its customer admin centers, in part to help bolster collections efforts, which were damaged by headcount reductions during the restructuring. This will be an important issue to monitor for improvement in Q3 and Q4." Rosenzweig & Kalinowski, Salomon Smith Barney, XRX: Comments on the 10Q IRX-PROD-0010522 (Aug. 13, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 56). On August 16, 1999 Salomon Smith Barney also reported:

Rosenzweig & Kalinowski, Salomon Smith Barney, XRX: Upbeat Conversation with Management IRX-PROD-0000175 (Aug. 16, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 57).

Thus, the court concludes that information as to the negative impact of the CBO Reorganization on Xerox's operations in the areas of order processing, billing and collections was disclosed to the market both by the defendants and by market analysts prior to September 16, 1999.

2. The Impact on the Sales Force

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants failed to disclose that implementation of the CBO Reorganization had a negative impact on the performance of Xerox's sales force. The record shows, however, that information was disclosed to the market prior to September 16, 1999 about the negative impact that the CBO Reorganization had on the sales force.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants attributed problems to the Sales Force Realignment rather than to the CBO Reorganization in an attempt to mask problems with the CBO Reorganization. Then, on or around April 27, 1999, when Thoman was talking to Investor's Business Daily about Xerox's strategy for a focus on industry selling, Thoman attributed Xerox's drop in revenue for the preceding quarter to both "Xerox's ongoing restructuring and the realignment of its sales force." Michael Lyster, Digital Copiers: Xerox Ticket to Networking Service Plans, Investor's Bus. Daily, Apr. 27, 1999, at A6, IRX-PROD-0050433 (quoting Rick Thoman) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 43).

Also, Buehler's May 3, 1999 memorandum sent to Thomas Dolan (with copies to Romeril and Thoman) reviewing issues related to the CBO Reorganization mentioned "Sales Coverage/Productivity," Memorandum from William F. Buehler to T. Dolan on 3+9 Direction IRX-PROD 0252096 (May 3, 1999)(Levine Decl. Ex. 52), and an internal Xerox document prepared in May 1999 made a reference to the CBRs in Chicago being a problem. Then, at Xerox's annual Investor Conference on May 14, 1999, Romeril spoke about problems with the CBO Reorganization. Romeril disclosed that Xerox had reduced the headcount at too fast a rate and that it was "too much change, too fast." Barry Romeril, Xerox Corporation Investor Conference 122:23-123:15 (May 14, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 45). At the same conference he stated: "[T]here was no question that we had, as we rolled out our G & A program, individual areas where we caused some lack of focus on our sales force because of our G & A activities. For example, we talked about our Chicago center." Id. at 136:24-137:4. This is a concern highlighted by Kenneth Baugher in his September 1999 analysis of the problems that had arisen with the CBO Reorganization.

Many of the statements about the diversion of the sales force for training and low sales productivity are or appear to be linked to the Sales Force Realignment. But the record shows that although the Sales Force Realignment announced on January 6, 1999 was described by Thoman at that time as something that would evolve over the next couple of years, Xerox began the planning and implementation of some aspects of the Sales Force Realignment during the first quarter of 1999. During that quarter, the sales force spent more time than usual out of the field attending training sessions associated with the new focus on industry selling. On April 16, 1999, Thomas Dolan sent an internal memorandum to Romeril concerning Xerox's "poor sale activity level" in the first quarter and observed that:

Memorandum from Thomas J. Dolan to Barry D. Romeril on Second Quarter/Second Half IRX-PROD 0124539 (April 16, 1999)(Goldstein Decl. Ex. 18).

Thus, the court concludes that information as to the negative impact of the CBO Reorganization on the performance of Xerox's sales force was disclosed to the market prior to September 16, 1999.

3. Ongoing Nature of the Problems

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants disguised the ongoing nature of the problems associated with the CBO Reorganization. The plaintiffs have failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to this contention.

First, as reflected in the discussion of the two prior contentions, there was a series of disclosures about problems associated with the CBO Reorganization from at the latest November 10, 1998 to at least August 16, 1999. These continuing disclosures conveyed that the problems were ongoing in nature.

Second, while the defendants' initial statements about the problems associated with the CBO Reorganization characterized the problems as temporary, the market was informed well before September 16, 1999 that it would take through the end of 1999 to remedy the problems. On March 15, 1999, a Morgan Stanley report stated that:

Rebecca Runkle, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Xerox (XRX): Preliminary Update on Year-End Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Items MS00054, MS00055 (Mar. 15, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 39). On April 23, 1999, Lehman Brothers reported that "it may be another quarter or two before there is meaningful improvement in DSOs and inventories." Lehman Bros., Xerox: Renewed Focus on Top Line; We Regard 1Q Slip As Temporary IRX-PROD-0000454 (Apr. 23, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 42). Also, in June 1999, a Prudential Securities Analyst Report was issued based on statements made by Romeril earlier that month. The report recited that Romeril acknowledged Xerox's disappointing performance with respect to inventory and accounts receivable in 1998, stated that there had been no progress in the first quarter of 1999 and that little if any progress should be expected in the second quarter, and expressed an expectation that cash flow should improve by the end of the year. See B. Alex Henderson, Prudential Securities, Xerox Delivers Upbeat Presentation At Prudential Securities' 2nd Annual Imaging Technology Conference AS-PROD-00309 (June 28, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 54). Moreover, as discussed above, the August 13, 1999, Salomon Smith Barney report reflected that by the end of 1999 DSOs could be even with or down versus the prior year.

C. Loss Causation

Loss causation "is the causal link between the alleged misconduct and the economic harm ultimately suffered by the plaintiff." Emergent Capital, 343 F.3d at 197. "The burden of establishing loss causation rests on the plaintiff." In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 541 F.Supp.2d 546, 551 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(4)).

Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 396 F.3d 161, 174 (2d Cir.2005) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Emergent Capital, 343 F.3d at 199) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Loss causation can be established either where (1) the market reacted negatively to a corrective disclosure or (2) the materialization of the risks that were concealed by the alleged misrepresentations or omissions proximately caused plaintiffs' loss." In re Omnicom Grp., 541 F.Supp.2d at 551.

In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 399 F.Supp.2d 298, 307 (S.D.N.Y.2005). "[T]o establish loss causation, `a plaintiff must allege . . . that the subject of the fraudulent statement or omission was the cause of the actual loss suffered', i.e., that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security. Otherwise, the loss in question was not foreseeable." Lentell, 396 F.3d at 173.

To be "corrective" a disclosure must "reveal the falsity of the alleged misstatements." In re Omnicom Grp., 541 F.Supp.2d at 552. However, there is no requirement that the corrective disclosure "`take a particular form or be of a particular quality. . . . It is the exposure of the falsity of the fraudulent representation that is the critical component of loss causation." Id. at 551 (quoting In re Winstar Comm'ns, No. 01 Civ. 3014(GBD), 2006 WL 473885, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2006)) (alteration in original). "While a disclosure need not reflect every detail of an alleged fraud, it must reveal some aspect of it." Id. "Moreover, the disclosed fact must be new to the market," and therefore "[a] recharacterization of previously disclosed facts cannot qualify as a corrective disclosure." Id. at 551-52.

The plaintiffs contend there are two corrective disclosure dates, September 16, 1999 and October 8, 1999. The court concludes that the plaintiffs have not created a genuine issue of material fact as to loss causation with respect to either date, and thus the defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

1. September 16, 1999

On September 16, 1999, a report by a Prudential Securities analyst stated that Xerox would be conducting "another round of salesforce account realignment similar to the program which disrupted the first half 1999 revenue performance." A. Henderson, Prudential Securities, XRX: Another Salesforce Realignment Slated for 1Q00 At Xerox IRX-PROD-0000292-93 (Sept. 16, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 30). On the same day, Dow Jones News reported that "the second phase of a sales-force realignment will pressure earnings in the first half of 2000." Dow Jones Business News, Xerox Shares Tumble on Word of Plan to Further Realign Sales Force 1 (Sept. 16, 1999) (Levine Decl. Ex. 81).

During a teleconference with analysts on September 22, 1999, Romeril explained that Xerox was not planning a second realignment of the sales force:

Barry Romeril, Xerox Corporation Tektronix Announcement 5:16-6:2 (Sept. 22, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 58). Romeril also explained that the time lost by the sales force in connection with training and communications related to the Sales Force Realignment had been in addition to problems related to the CBO Reorganization:

(Id. at 7:18-7:25).

Although the reports on September 16, 1999 made no connection between the disruption of sales efforts and the CBO Reorganization, the plaintiffs argue that "[o]n September 16, 1999, the market learned for the first time that sales disruptions were an ongoing issue that would persist into the future, a fact which Xerox knew as early as 1998 and failed to disclose, and which Xerox deliberately concealed from the market in the first quarter of 1999." (Pl's Mem. in Opp. at 25.) The plaintiffs point out that under their theory it is immaterial that the market did not learn until September 22, 1999 that the real reason for the ongoing sales disruptions, which would persist into the future, was the CBO Reorganization. The plaintiffs' position is that, while the market did not recognize the connection to the CBO Reorganization, the market did recognize the only critical fact, namely that contrary to the defendants' representations the sales disruptions were ongoing and would persist into the future. See In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 375 F.Supp.2d 278, 307 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("That the true extent of the fraud was not revealed to the public until February—after Parmalat shares were worthless and after the close of the Class Period—is immaterial where, as here, the risk allegedly concealed by defendants materialized during that time and arguably caused the decline in shareholder and bondholder value.")

Thus the plaintiffs' ability to prove loss causation with respect to a September 16, 1999 corrective disclosure date hinges on their ability to prove that the defendants "led the market to believe that it was the sales realignment—not the CBO Reorganization—that had caused Xerox to miss its revenue growth targets for the first quarter of 1999." (Pl's. Mem. in Opp. at 25.) However, as discussed above, the disclosures by the defendants and market analysts explicitly attributed Xerox's first quarter 1999 sales disruptions to both the Sales Force Realignment and the CBO Reorganization. Moreover, there were repeated disclosures throughout 1999 as to the ongoing effects of the CBO Reorganization, which included disclosures with respect to the negative impact of the CBO Reorganization on the performance of Xerox's sales force.

Therefore, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have not created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether September 16, 1999 can be a corrective disclosure date.

2. October 8, 1999

On October 8, 1999, Xerox announced that it expected to report "essentially flat revenue for the third quarter and about a 10-12 percent decline in diluted earnings per share from 53 cents in the 1998 third quarter." Press Release, Xerox Corp., Xerox Announces Preliminary Third Quarter Results, Business Wire IRX-PROD-0095847 (Oct. 8, 1999) (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 31). Xerox attributed its poor performance to "a combination of weaker revenues together with unfavorable product mix and increased competitive pressures, which significantly impacted operating margins. Sales productivity was affected by the continued realignment to an industry-oriented approach and in the U.S. by the ongoing impact of the customer administration restructuring . . ." (Id.)

The plaintiffs argue that the facts defendants have admitted establish loss causation with respect to the October 8, 1999 press release. The plaintiffs point to the fact that the defendants "concede that the press release identifies the `ongoing impact of customer administration [CBO] restructuring' as one of the factors responsible for the disappointing earnings. And they do not dispute that the announcement of this decline in earnings caused the price of Xerox's stock to drop 24.9%, or $10.65 per share, on October 8." (Pl's. Mem. in Opp. at 37.) This argument is in substance that loss causation is established simply because the announcement of the declining earnings caused the price of Xerox's stock to drop. It is undisputed that during the September 22, 1999 teleconference Romeril stated that Xerox had significantly underestimated the revenue impact in the first quarter of 1999 of the negative impact of the CBO Reorganization on the sales force. The plaintiffs fail to identify what new fraud-related information was included in the press release. "While a disclosure need not reflect every detail of an alleged fraud, it must reveal some aspect of it." In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 541 F.Supp.2d at 551. Thus, this argument is unavailing.

The plaintiffs also contend that the October 8 press release was corrective because it revealed the materialization of a risk that was previously undisclosed. They maintain that the defendants "concealed from investors the magnitude of the problem and its likely ultimate effects," (Pl's. Mem. in Opp. at 39), and "that Xerox's October 8 press release concerning the expected earnings miss reveal[ed] the seriousness and magnitude of the problems caused by the CBO Reorganization, resulting in a 24.9% drop in the price of Xerox's stock." Id. In addition, the plaintiffs maintain, the defendants "intentionally misled investors by reiterating expectations of mid- to high-teens earnings per share growth, despite internal documents showing this was not possible." Id. at 40.

In support of this argument, the plaintiffs rely on Steiner v. MedQuist Inc., Civil No. 04-5487(JBS), 2006 WL 2827740 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2006). However in Steiner, the relevant disclosure revealed that the defendants' fraud had caused the company to be delisted from NASDAQ. Here, the plaintiffs have pointed to no new fraud-related information that was in the October 8 press release. "[I]t is not enough to argue that [a statement] concealed the risk that [the defendants] would be unable to meet future revenue projections, because the mere failure to meet earnings forecasts is insufficient to establish loss causation." In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Sec. Litig., 503 F.Supp.2d 666, 678-79 (S.D.N.Y.2007); see also In re IPO Sec. Litig., 399 F.Supp.2d 261, 266 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("[A] failure to meet earnings forecasts has a negative effect on stock prices, but not a corrective effect.") Thus, this argument is also unavailing.

Finally, the plaintiffs assert that the defendants cannot meet their burden at the summary judgment stage of demonstrating there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a truth on the market defense. However, the plaintiffs rely on Freeland v. Iridium World Commc'ns, Ltd., 545 F.Supp.2d 59 (D.D.C.2008), where the court treated loss causation as an affirmative defense, which it is not. See In re Omnicom Grp., 541 F.Supp.2d at 551 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(4)). Thus, this argument is also unavailing.

Therefore, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have not created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether October 8, 1999 can be a corrective disclosure date.

D. Control Person Liability

"Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act provides for control person liability `to the same extent as' the controlled entity that committed the violation." In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 541 F.Supp.2d 546, 554 (S.D.N.Y.2008). Because the plaintiffs have failed to establish an underlying violation of federal securities law by Xerox, the motion for summary judgment is being granted as to the § 20(a) claims.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 436) is hereby GRANTED.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

It is so ordered.