b'with the West Virginia Attorney General arising out of aThe court also held that plaintiffs failed to plead a prior unsuccessful acquisition, which led to thousandsviable claim as to statements related to billing issues of customer complaints. The company subsequentlybecause plaintiffs did not adequately allege when the acquired the wireline operations on April 1, 2016, andstatements were made, that the statements were false, continued to tout the success of the acquisition overor that knowledge of billing issues would have made the next several weeks. a difference to a reasonable investor at the time these In May 2016, the chair of the California State Assemblysstatements were made.Utilities & Commerce Committee cited several As to defendants statements about the viability of alarming . problems with the acquisition that left citiestheir video on demand service, the court held that unable to live stream council meetings and residentsplaintiffs allegations lacked the particularity required unable to dial 911, and announced that the Committeeto be actionable. The court noted that some alleged would hold formal hearings concerning Frontier. Thereafter,misrepresentations regarding defendants video indexing on November 1, 2016, Frontier disclosed that the integrationprocesses and third-party vendors were based only on cost 66% more than the $450 million it projected. Theinformation from a single confidential former employee, companys stock price fell 13.7% the next day. but plaintiffs had failed to allege any facts with sufficient On May 2, 2017, Frontier announced a revenue declineparticularity to support the probability that a person in of $53 million from the previous quarter, in part duethe position occupied by the source would possess the to cleanup of nonpaying accounts obtained in theinformation alleged. Plaintiffs allegations as to Frontiers acquisition. Frontier also announced that it was cuttingvice presidents statement that Frontier had quickly its dividends by 62%. Frontiers stock price fell 16.6%been able to adapt, get the video library rapidly up the next day. Frontier later announced on October 31,were more robust, but they also ultimately lacked the 2017, that it would miss 2017 EBITDA guidance, andparticularity required to be actionable because plaintiffs Frontiers stock price fell 26.8% the next day. Finally,similarly failed to allege with sufficient particularity on February 27, 2018, Frontier announced, amongthat a person in the position of plaintiffs confidential other things, that the total cost of integrating the CTFinformants positions would possess the information Acquisition was $962 million, and that Frontier wasalleged. Finally a text message attributed to Frontiers suspending its dividends completely. Frontiers stockSoutheast area president, which stated steve g [CTO price fell 23.9% to $7.03. Steve Gable] tells me 6/6 for USA TV FX on demand, was not actionable because the message could not Investors filed a putative class action asserting claimssupport the allegation that the vice presidents statement under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the 1933 Act andwas false or misleading.Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5With respect to statements about the progress of CTF promulgated thereunder against Frontier, several of itsIntegration, the court rejected plaintiffs allegations that executives, its directors, and the underwriters of thedefendants misrepresented their progress in resolving June 2015 offerings. Defendants moved to dismiss, andthe integration by speaking optimistically about thethe court granted the motion with leave to file a motionwrap-up of integration spending and the Companys to amend to address deficiencies the court identified.imminent return to normal operations, holding that such Plaintiffs moved to amend the class action complaintstatements were not actionable because plaintiffs did not only as to their two claims against Frontier and fourmake any allegations that would disprove the statements, corporate officers for alleged violations of the 1934 Act.and plaintiffs did not describe with particularity how the Defendants opposed the motion for leave to amend,former employees who reported the information had arguing that the proposed second amended complaintpersonal knowledge of the statements.did not remedy any of the deficiencies outlined byFinally, the court held that plaintiffs did not address the court in dismissing the first amended complaint,the concerns it identified in its initial motion to dismiss including a failure to plead loss causation, failure toregarding defendants statements that they had allege any of the statements were materially falsechanged their accounting practices in a fashion that when made, and a failure to plead scienter. The courtbenefited their EBITDA, stating that plaintiffs still denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend, dismissingfail[ed] to allege with particularity that the former plaintiffs claims with prejudice. employees on whose reports they rely had access to The court held that statements that only 1% ofspecific information disproving Defendants statements, customers experienced service problems, if untrue,and they have not added allegations as to where could be material misrepresentations of existing fact;or when the former employees learned about such however, that the companys public statements werea policy change. Additionally, the court agreed not false but rather were puffery and forward-lookingwith defendants that the complaint lacked sufficient statements of optimism.particularity to show that any omissions were material.62'