In Murphy v. BDO Seidman (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 687, the investor plaintiffs alleged fraud based on two accounting firms' falsely rosy reports of a firm's assets; the plaintiffs relied on the report in investing in the company and approving a merger. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer on the grounds the complaint failed to allege fraud with sufficient particularity. (Id. at p. 689-690.) However, plaintiffs had pleaded that contributing to the company's inflated value were the representations that one report valued its assets at $ 121,274,018, when in fact they were worth only $ 6,951,667; its broadcast license was worth $ 79,048,589, when in fact it was worth less than $ 1 million if GAAP principles were applied; the report falsely represented it had $ 6,643,427 in annuities when no such annuities existed. (Id. at pp. 692-693.) Murphy found these allegations sufficient to put defendants on notice of the purported falsehoods they would need to defend. (Id. at p. 693.)