Upward modification was properly denied. In determining if there is a substantial change in circumstances so as to justify the modification requested, such change is measured by comparing the parties' financial circumstances at the time of the application for a modification and the time when the order sought to be modified was made (see Matter of Parascandola v Aviles, 59 A.D.3d 449, 450 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Matter of Solomon M. v Adelaide M., 192 A.D.3d 424, 425 [1st Dept 2021] [actual income, not imputed income, used as the basis for determination if a downward modification was warranted]). Based on the father's 2014 tax returns, which reflected his actual income at the time of the stipulation, the amounts shown in the father's 2018 and 2019 income documents were less than, not greater than, his 2014 income.

The husband's request for a downward modification of his child support obligations was properly denied without a hearing, as he failed to make a prima facie showing of a substantial, unanticipated change in circumstances (seeW.B. v. D. B., 114 A.D.3d 551, 552, 980 N.Y.S.2d 453 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Fabrikant v. Fabrikant, 77 A.D.3d 594, 594, 910 N.Y.S.2d 430 [1st Dept. 2010] ). To be entitled to a downward modification due to loss of employment, the husband must demonstrate that he was terminated from his employment through no fault of his own, and that he had diligently sought reemployment commensurate with his earning capacity (seeMatter of Solomon M. v. Adelaide M., 192 A.D.3d 424, 142 N.Y.S.3d 542 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Christopher H. v. Marisa S.H., 134 A.D.3d 469, 470, 21 N.Y.S.3d 220 [1st Dept. 2015] ). Here, the husband did not submit any evidence showing that his termination was involuntary, nor did he provide the court with any information as to his current business venture that would shed light on his compensation.

Still, plaintiffs insist that those risk warnings were materially false and misleading because they left reasonable investors with the impression that the subsidy reduction would only have the potential to adversely affect NIO's business. There was nothing misleading about the disclosure, however, given that it was still only a potential result at the time of the IPO in September 2018, months before the subsidy reduction actually began (seeLabourers’ Pension Fund of Cent. & E. Can. v. CVS Health Corp., 192 A.D.3d 424, 424, 144 N.Y.S.3d 16 [1st Dept. 2021] ). Plaintiffs also contend that NIO failed to disclose that certain customers were going to front-load their purchases before the subsidies were reduced.

Still, plaintiffs insist that those risk warnings were materially false and misleading because they left reasonable investors with the impression that the subsidy reduction would only have the potentialto adversely affect NIO's business. There was nothing misleading about the disclosure, however, given that it was still only a potential result at the time of the IPO in September 2018, months before the subsidy reduction actually began (see Labourers' Pension Fund of Cent. & E. Can. v CVS Health Corp., 192 A.D.3d 424, 424 [1st Dept 2021]).

Plaintiff also adequately alleged that the individual defendants "solicited the investing public to purchase securities issued pursuant [to the Offering Documents], hired and assisted the underwriters, planned and contributed to the SPO and Offering Documents, and attended or contributed to road shows or other promotions to meet with, and present favorable information to, potential NN investors." Therefore, plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim under § 12 (seeHawaii Structural Ironworkers, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 857 [deeming § 12 claim sufficiently pleaded where the plaintiffs alleged that individual defendants participated in both the preparation of the registration statement and road shows with investors]; cf. Labourers’ Pension Fund of Cent. & E. Can. v. CVS Health Corp., 192 A.D.3d 424, 144 N.Y.S.3d 16 [1st Dept. 2021] ). In support of its claims based on defendants’ alleged failure to comply with Item 303 and Item 503 of SEC Regulation S–K, plaintiff alleged that NN knew about the slowdown in China and the loss of customers prior to filing the offering documents.