b'concerning Sonuss quarterly revenue estimates and guidance for the first quarter of 2015. The company and two officers consented to entry of the cease-and-desist order, agreeing, without admitting liability, to pay civil penalties totaling $1.97 million to settle the charges. Investors filed a putative class action, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants knew that the companys revenue would fall short of its forecast even as defendants repeated that projection throughout the first quarter of 2015. Relying on internal communications and documents disclosed in the cease-and-desist order, the amended complaint alleged that sales personnel warned defendants, among other things, that the stretch numbers remained unrealistic based on then-existing sales figures.Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that plaintiffs had cut and paste the SECs cease-and-desist order into a complaint in order to effectively revive a suit that plaintiffs attorneys had filed earlier against the company based on the same alleged misstatements, and which had been dismissed with prejudice in 2017. Defendants argued that the combination of plaintiffs earlier deficient allegations and the SECs cease-and-desist order based on negligent conduct did not support a strong inference of scienter. Defendants further contended that the amended complaint was time-barred, and that the alleged misstatements were immunized as forward-looking projections. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in November 2019, and oral argument was heard on February 12, 2020. The motion to dismiss is still under submission.93'