Replies to post #260421 on MyECheck, Inc. (fka MYEC)

[Mistral]

EQ - Maciora specifically claimed real estate purchases were omitted material information for shareholders in his Response/Answer to PMB's GRANTED Motion to Dismiss. Reference Docket #24 RESPONSE/ANSWER by plaintiff to defendants'12 MOTION to Dismiss.

See also PMB's Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss - Docket #25, Page 2 of 14, Line 20. That's a good read. It reveals that Maciora thought it was proof enough for him to believe it's ludicrous that MEC didn't report the properties (that they did not own). He acknowledged they were purchased prior to the MEC acquisition of GreenPay.

The Judge GRANTED PMB's Motion to Dismiss. He didn't exclude A.1. where Maciora couldn't prove material omissions involving real estate and therefore meet pleading requirements. He had the right to do so as an individual under the PSLRA.

EQ WROTE:

I'll repeat. The dismissed lawsuit had absolutely nothing to do with the judge ruling on whether the real estate existed. (No one suggested this was about existence of property. It was always about materiality.) It is simply not true, Read the lawsuit and read the opinion. The judge dismissed the lawsuit based on the fact that the plaintiff could not sue upon the causes of action in which the lawsuit was based. (This is 100% false! Ken couldn't reach the pleading requirements as stated above.) That means that in many cases, only the government can sue on a certain cause of action. A private citizen cannot sue. (See above - LMAO!) if you read the defenses motion to dismiss, they don't even address the real estate because the real estate had absolutely nothing to do with the motion to dismiss. (See referenced Docket items)