![]() ![]() The alleged misrepresentations and omissions are separately listed and sufficiently detailed. at 1265 ("approximate time frame" sufficient). 983, 987 (N.D.Ill.1986) ("range of dates" sufficient) Trak Microcomputer Corp. In the present case, plaintiffs have sufficiently set forth the time period during which the misrepresentations and omissions are alleged to have been made. Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., 619 F. Generally, a complaint is considered sufficient if it sets forth the time, place, particular contents of the false representations, the identity of the party making the misrepresentations, and the consequences of the misrepresentations. Read together, the rules require the time, place, and contents of the fraud to be plead, but do not require the plaintiff to plead evidence. ![]() be stated with particularity" must be read together with the general requirements of Rule 8(a) that plaintiff need only plead a "short and plain statement of the claim" showing their entitlement to relief. ![]() Rule 9(b)'s requirement that "the circumstances constituting fraud. Defendants point to a number of deficiencies which the court finds do not require dismissal. Paine Webber seeks dismissal of those counts of the complaint based on fraud (all counts except VII, VIIA, and VIII) for failure to plead with the specificity required under Rule 9(b). The court will consider the arguments presented by Paine Webber in support of their motion in the order in which they are presented in its supportive memorandum. Count VII alleges Paine Webber recklessly breached its duty to supervise Gallagher's handling of plaintiffs' accounts. Counts VI and VIA allege common law fraud and Counts VII and VIIA are based on breach of contract. Counts V and VA allege the defendants engaged in "churning" in violation of Sections 10(b) and 15(c) (1) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Counts IV and IVA allege violations of Section 12 of the Illinois Securities Law of 1953 ("Illinois Securities Law"),. Counts III and IIIA allege violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act"), 15 U.S.C. the investment system was, and had been, sustaining great losses to each plaintiff." Plaintiffs allege Gallagher made numerous representations and material omissions (discussed more fully below) to induce them to permit defendants to invest funds on plaintiffs' behalf and to permit funds already invested to remain invested.Ĭounts I and IA of the amended complaint allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act"), 15 U.S.C. Plaintiffs allege that in November, 1986, the reports "altered dramatically, and it was confirmed. Plaintiffs allege they opened and invested in brokerage accounts in reliance on Gallagher's representations.Īfter plaintiffs opened and invested in the accounts, Gallagher verbally reported *1050 to the plaintiffs that the system was working successfully, meeting expectations, and either creating profits or sustaining small losses which would be made up quickly. Gallagher allegedly insisted his system was conservative and certain to succeed and assured plaintiffs that he would constantly monitor their accounts, employ stop liquidation when necessary, and provide them with accurate client reports. Gallagher allegedly told plaintiffs he employed a conservative, low-risk "investment system" which, through the utilization of certain investment strategies and the purchase of certain types of securities, would permit him to "get out" when the market turned against his expectations and restrict losses to 10-20% of the amount of plaintiff's investment at risk at any given time. Plaintiffs allege Gallagher, a registered securities salesman and agent of Paine Webber, solicited their investment in brokerage accounts by making certain representations concerning his qualifications as an investment broker and his ability to earn an average of 10% per month on investments. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Paine Webber moves to strike and dismiss pursuant to Rules 9(b), 12(b) (6), and 12(f). Plaintiffs brought a nine-count complaint against defendants, Paine Webber, Incorporated ("Paine Webber") and Jeffrey Gallagher. Lieberman, Schuyler, Roche & Zwirner, Chicago, Ill., for defendants. Ligon, Leo Feldman, Teller, Levit & Silvertrust, P.C., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs. PAINE WEBBER, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, and Jeffrey Gallagher, Defendants. Tucker, Koji Yaguchi, and Masaharu Yaguchi, Plaintiffs, Larocco, Dimitri Manolis, George Manolis, Georgia Manolis, Robert J. D'Antonio, Dale Destree, Richard Destree, Dave Ibarra, Gary Larocco, John A. Anthony Bruce CAPALBO, Anthony Mario Capalbo, Donald F. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |