I love these statements:
1) But the R&R went even further, finding that the Complaint pled additional facts about Defendants’ spoofing activity that make the inference of scienter even stronger, including the fact that they each signed yearly certifications in accordance with FINRA rules attesting to the fact that they had sufficient policies in place to detect and prohibit manipulative trading.
2)Defendants do not cite a single spoofing case agreeing with any of their objections to this element and offer no reason why this Court should depart from all others that have considered and rejected these same arguments
3) Indeed, Defendants cite to no case (because there is none) that limits “parking” allegations in the way they suggest, and the R&R is correct that “it is not essential for a spoofing complaint to include allegations of ‘parking’ in order to survive a motion to dismiss” in the first place.
4)They also assert that the R&R failed to consider competing inferences, but what they really mean is that the R&R failed to adopt their version of the facts instead of presuming the well-pled allegations in the Complaint to be true,