
    James M. NATHENSON, etc.; et al., Plaintiffs, James M. Nathenson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Amit Sanghvi; Robert Strassman; Arno Hausmann, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ZONAGEN INC.; Joseph Podolski; Steven Blasnik; Martin P. Sutter, Defendants-Appellees, Amit Sanghvi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Zonagen Inc.; Joseph Podolski; Steven Blasnik; Martin P. Sutter, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-20655.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 16, 2004.
    Donald J. Enright, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, Washington, DC, Roger B. Greenberg, Schwartz, Junell, Campbell & Oathout, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    David D. Sterling, Samuel Woolin Cooper, Douglas Brady Roberson, Baker Botts, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

After reviewing the record in this case and considering the briefs and argument of the parties, we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.

On the merits, the question of reliance in plaintiffs’ fraud-on-the-market case is controlled by Greenberg v. Crossroads Systems, Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir.2004). Under the reasoning of that case, we agree with the district court that the defendants successfully rebutted the presumption that the plaintiffs purchased the Zonagen stock in reliance on defendants’ false statements. For these reasons and the reasons stated by the district court in its careful opinion of June 13, 2003, the district court’s judgment is.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR. R. 47.5.4.
     