Replies to post #287632 on MyECheck, Inc. (fka MYEC)

[WhiteFish]

Actually if you read the ruling you will see at NO TIME did the judge opine on the accuracy of the financials or the existence of real estate. In fact, the rulings were issued on the basis those facts were true. Here are the court reasoning for dismissal of the case


https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/3YZODRI/Maciora_v_PMB_Helin_Donovan_LLP_et_al__wawdce-16-00295__0029.0.pdf



Quote:The Court finds that Mr. Maciora concedes that there is no private cause of action for aiding and abetting violations of Section 13a, Section 13b, and related rules 17 C.F.R. § 240.13a-1; 13a-13; 12b-20 and 13b2-1. Accordingly, Mr. Maciora’s second, third, fourth, and fifth claims, as well as the part of his first claim alleging violations of Section 17(a), are precluded as a matter of law and will be dismissed.



Quote: Instead, Mr. Maciora alleges that he bought Mr. Zalunardo’s shares without any representations by PMB, and only after purchasing these shares contacted PMB to demand that his newly purchased shares be recognized. These facts, accepted as true, do not state a claim to relief that is “plausible on its face,” nor can the Court draw the “reasonable inference” that these Defendants are liable for the alleged harm under fraud. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court finds that the lack of a material misrepresentation or omission and lack of causation cannot be remedied by amendment without directly contradicting the existing pleadings, and that therefore these claims must be dismissed with prejudice.




Quote:Under Washington or Texas law, regardless of whether a duty was owed to Mr. Maciora, the facts of this case simply do not support the claim that any negligent action by Defendants caused Mr. Maciora to purchase the shares from Mr. Zalunardo—the facts as pled can only support the conclusion that Mr. Maciora bought the shares without knowledge of or in spite of Defendants’ audit of the Form 10 and financial statements. These facts, accepted as true, do not state a claim to relief that is “plausible on its face,” nor can the Court draw the “reasonable inference” that the Defendants are liable for the alleged harm under a theory of negligence. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.