![NuclearHerbs's tweet photo. Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool.
Are you ready to look for some fraud today?
I hope everyone has seen @THoSdocumentary by now so you get that!
Well, I've read this Complaint more times than you have, and I can’t f**king find any fraud. Maybe you’ll have better luck.
Let’s take it from the top. What is fraud anyway?
Well, there are lots of different types, which really doesn’t help you one bit, does it? So let’s focus just on the one at issue in Richard’s case – securities fraud.
I was hoping to have this done a week ago, but the rabbit holes I’ve had to go down almost made me give up on the topic completely and post some cat videos instead. But since I have way too much time on my hands, and the NHL is on break for the all-star game, I decided to jump back in and try and decipher some of it for you.
To grossly oversimplify things, the SEC can bring an action for securities fraud, but so can you or I. When you or I do it, it’s called a private right of action, and we become the Plaintiffs. Because government likes to make the rules, they made the rules for the SEC simpler than the rules for private plaintiffs. Essentially, the SEC gets to short-cut a few things in order to win that you or I would have to prove in court. I was able to find a matrix outlining what needs to be proven in different private securities laws claims, and I posted it below. Since I’m not being paid for any of this, I’m not reading it. I like y’all a lot, but not enough to kill off that many brain cells.
So I went back to researching case law, and after sifting through myriad cases, all of which were painfully boring, I focused on a few 2nd Circuit cases, since that’s what’s important here. And recall that the fraud claims against Richard are under 10b-5 and 17(a)(1) and (a)(3). You can google them the next time you can’t sleep.
In SEC v. First Jersey Securities, 101 F.3d 1450 (2nd Cir 1996), the Court stated that in order to establish liability under Rule 10b-5, the Plaintiff “is required to prove that in connection with the purchase or sale of a security the defendant, acting with scienter, made a material misrepresentation (or a material omission if the defendant had a duty to speak) or used a fraudulent device.” A fraudulent device here doesn’t mean a fake iPhone. It means some sort of investment device.
So what the hell is “scienter”? It means “intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” This is also a quote from SEC v First Jersey. It’s a fancy way of saying someone intended to do something they knew was bad.
Now here’s where the SEC gets a break. In order to prove a claim under 17(a)(3) – one of the claims against Richard, you and I would have to prove scienter. The SEC doesn’t. Awesome, right? That’s what happens when government entities write the rules for government entities. At least the SEC still has to prove scienter for its 10b-5 and 17(a)(1) claims, so there’s that. It took the US Supreme Court to make that happen, though, in Aaron v SEC, 446 US 680 (1980).
All of that to get to the point. Richard’s attorneys claim that the SEC didn’t allege its fraud claims properly in the Complaint. And they’re right. You can’t plead fraud the same way you plead negligence or a breach of contract. Rule 9(b) is what we call a “heightened pleading standard,” which means you can’t just say “all the shit I put in the facts section above applies to this fraud claim.” Doesn’t work. But that’s what the SEC did, and that’s why Richard’s attorneys said they’ll raise this issue.
So what do you have to do to plead fraud then? I’m glad you asked. The 2nd Circuit has an answer for us. It said "securities fraud complaints [must] specify each misleading statement . . . [and] state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind."
And in order to plead scienter (state of mind) “so as to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind by either alleging facts (1) showing that the defendants had both motive and opportunity to commit the fraud or (2) constituting strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness."
You asleep yet? I just about nodded off myself.
Fine. If you don’t remember anything else, just get the principle here, which is that when you plead fraud, you must tell someone the exact reason you’re suing them, so they know what specific statement(s) they’re supposed to be defending.
Anyway, to close this out, the SEC pled claims 1 and 2 this way:
“Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Complaint by reference as if set forth verbatim in this Claim.”
I actually found a case where Plaintiffs did exactly this and got slapped down, then I lost it, couldn’t find it again, and eventually gave up looking in order to get this thing done. But basically, the court said you can’t do that in fraud claims (it’s generally ok in most other types of claims, fyi). But when pleading fraud, you have to tell someone the specific things they said that you believe were fraudulent, and why you believe the defendant knew they were fraudulent. You can’t just point to a few dozen or few hundred paragraphs and say “yeah, it’s somewhere in there, go figure it out.”
Bottom line:
1. The SEC didn’t draft its fraud claims properly.
2. This is a solid argument that I believe RH should prevail on.
3. Unfortunately, the likely remedy is that the SEC will get another swing at redrafting their Complaint.
4. If the SEC can’t cure the deficiency properly, you may see a second motion to dismiss on this issue.
5. All of the above assumes that the court has personal jurisdiction over Richard, which is an open question that will also be raised by his attorneys. Remember, no personal jurisdiction, no case.
6. All of the above also assumes that these things are securities, which is also an open question that I expect will be litigated in October (and perhaps again throughout this case if necessary).
Strictly my guess. I could be wrong. I’m wrong a lot. Nothing I say is legal advice.
But I honestly can’t wait to see what Richard’s all-star team comes up with in their motion.
#HEX #PLS #PLSX](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFXIHDmaQAALfFY.jpg)
![NuclearHerbs's tweet photo. Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool.
Are you ready to look for some fraud today?
I hope everyone has seen @THoSdocumentary by now so you get that!
Well, I've read this Complaint more times than you have, and I can’t f**king find any fraud. Maybe you’ll have better luck.
Let’s take it from the top. What is fraud anyway?
Well, there are lots of different types, which really doesn’t help you one bit, does it? So let’s focus just on the one at issue in Richard’s case – securities fraud.
I was hoping to have this done a week ago, but the rabbit holes I’ve had to go down almost made me give up on the topic completely and post some cat videos instead. But since I have way too much time on my hands, and the NHL is on break for the all-star game, I decided to jump back in and try and decipher some of it for you.
To grossly oversimplify things, the SEC can bring an action for securities fraud, but so can you or I. When you or I do it, it’s called a private right of action, and we become the Plaintiffs. Because government likes to make the rules, they made the rules for the SEC simpler than the rules for private plaintiffs. Essentially, the SEC gets to short-cut a few things in order to win that you or I would have to prove in court. I was able to find a matrix outlining what needs to be proven in different private securities laws claims, and I posted it below. Since I’m not being paid for any of this, I’m not reading it. I like y’all a lot, but not enough to kill off that many brain cells.
So I went back to researching case law, and after sifting through myriad cases, all of which were painfully boring, I focused on a few 2nd Circuit cases, since that’s what’s important here. And recall that the fraud claims against Richard are under 10b-5 and 17(a)(1) and (a)(3). You can google them the next time you can’t sleep.
In SEC v. First Jersey Securities, 101 F.3d 1450 (2nd Cir 1996), the Court stated that in order to establish liability under Rule 10b-5, the Plaintiff “is required to prove that in connection with the purchase or sale of a security the defendant, acting with scienter, made a material misrepresentation (or a material omission if the defendant had a duty to speak) or used a fraudulent device.” A fraudulent device here doesn’t mean a fake iPhone. It means some sort of investment device.
So what the hell is “scienter”? It means “intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” This is also a quote from SEC v First Jersey. It’s a fancy way of saying someone intended to do something they knew was bad.
Now here’s where the SEC gets a break. In order to prove a claim under 17(a)(3) – one of the claims against Richard, you and I would have to prove scienter. The SEC doesn’t. Awesome, right? That’s what happens when government entities write the rules for government entities. At least the SEC still has to prove scienter for its 10b-5 and 17(a)(1) claims, so there’s that. It took the US Supreme Court to make that happen, though, in Aaron v SEC, 446 US 680 (1980).
All of that to get to the point. Richard’s attorneys claim that the SEC didn’t allege its fraud claims properly in the Complaint. And they’re right. You can’t plead fraud the same way you plead negligence or a breach of contract. Rule 9(b) is what we call a “heightened pleading standard,” which means you can’t just say “all the shit I put in the facts section above applies to this fraud claim.” Doesn’t work. But that’s what the SEC did, and that’s why Richard’s attorneys said they’ll raise this issue.
So what do you have to do to plead fraud then? I’m glad you asked. The 2nd Circuit has an answer for us. It said "securities fraud complaints [must] specify each misleading statement . . . [and] state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind."
And in order to plead scienter (state of mind) “so as to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind by either alleging facts (1) showing that the defendants had both motive and opportunity to commit the fraud or (2) constituting strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness."
You asleep yet? I just about nodded off myself.
Fine. If you don’t remember anything else, just get the principle here, which is that when you plead fraud, you must tell someone the exact reason you’re suing them, so they know what specific statement(s) they’re supposed to be defending.
Anyway, to close this out, the SEC pled claims 1 and 2 this way:
“Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Complaint by reference as if set forth verbatim in this Claim.”
I actually found a case where Plaintiffs did exactly this and got slapped down, then I lost it, couldn’t find it again, and eventually gave up looking in order to get this thing done. But basically, the court said you can’t do that in fraud claims (it’s generally ok in most other types of claims, fyi). But when pleading fraud, you have to tell someone the specific things they said that you believe were fraudulent, and why you believe the defendant knew they were fraudulent. You can’t just point to a few dozen or few hundred paragraphs and say “yeah, it’s somewhere in there, go figure it out.”
Bottom line:
1. The SEC didn’t draft its fraud claims properly.
2. This is a solid argument that I believe RH should prevail on.
3. Unfortunately, the likely remedy is that the SEC will get another swing at redrafting their Complaint.
4. If the SEC can’t cure the deficiency properly, you may see a second motion to dismiss on this issue.
5. All of the above assumes that the court has personal jurisdiction over Richard, which is an open question that will also be raised by his attorneys. Remember, no personal jurisdiction, no case.
6. All of the above also assumes that these things are securities, which is also an open question that I expect will be litigated in October (and perhaps again throughout this case if necessary).
Strictly my guess. I could be wrong. I’m wrong a lot. Nothing I say is legal advice.
But I honestly can’t wait to see what Richard’s all-star team comes up with in their motion.
#HEX #PLS #PLSX](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFXHtEiaEAAIz9w.jpg)
![NuclearHerbs's tweet photo. Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool.
Are you ready to look for some fraud today?
I hope everyone has seen @THoSdocumentary by now so you get that!
Well, I've read this Complaint more times than you have, and I can’t f**king find any fraud. Maybe you’ll have better luck.
Let’s take it from the top. What is fraud anyway?
Well, there are lots of different types, which really doesn’t help you one bit, does it? So let’s focus just on the one at issue in Richard’s case – securities fraud.
I was hoping to have this done a week ago, but the rabbit holes I’ve had to go down almost made me give up on the topic completely and post some cat videos instead. But since I have way too much time on my hands, and the NHL is on break for the all-star game, I decided to jump back in and try and decipher some of it for you.
To grossly oversimplify things, the SEC can bring an action for securities fraud, but so can you or I. When you or I do it, it’s called a private right of action, and we become the Plaintiffs. Because government likes to make the rules, they made the rules for the SEC simpler than the rules for private plaintiffs. Essentially, the SEC gets to short-cut a few things in order to win that you or I would have to prove in court. I was able to find a matrix outlining what needs to be proven in different private securities laws claims, and I posted it below. Since I’m not being paid for any of this, I’m not reading it. I like y’all a lot, but not enough to kill off that many brain cells.
So I went back to researching case law, and after sifting through myriad cases, all of which were painfully boring, I focused on a few 2nd Circuit cases, since that’s what’s important here. And recall that the fraud claims against Richard are under 10b-5 and 17(a)(1) and (a)(3). You can google them the next time you can’t sleep.
In SEC v. First Jersey Securities, 101 F.3d 1450 (2nd Cir 1996), the Court stated that in order to establish liability under Rule 10b-5, the Plaintiff “is required to prove that in connection with the purchase or sale of a security the defendant, acting with scienter, made a material misrepresentation (or a material omission if the defendant had a duty to speak) or used a fraudulent device.” A fraudulent device here doesn’t mean a fake iPhone. It means some sort of investment device.
So what the hell is “scienter”? It means “intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” This is also a quote from SEC v First Jersey. It’s a fancy way of saying someone intended to do something they knew was bad.
Now here’s where the SEC gets a break. In order to prove a claim under 17(a)(3) – one of the claims against Richard, you and I would have to prove scienter. The SEC doesn’t. Awesome, right? That’s what happens when government entities write the rules for government entities. At least the SEC still has to prove scienter for its 10b-5 and 17(a)(1) claims, so there’s that. It took the US Supreme Court to make that happen, though, in Aaron v SEC, 446 US 680 (1980).
All of that to get to the point. Richard’s attorneys claim that the SEC didn’t allege its fraud claims properly in the Complaint. And they’re right. You can’t plead fraud the same way you plead negligence or a breach of contract. Rule 9(b) is what we call a “heightened pleading standard,” which means you can’t just say “all the shit I put in the facts section above applies to this fraud claim.” Doesn’t work. But that’s what the SEC did, and that’s why Richard’s attorneys said they’ll raise this issue.
So what do you have to do to plead fraud then? I’m glad you asked. The 2nd Circuit has an answer for us. It said "securities fraud complaints [must] specify each misleading statement . . . [and] state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind."
And in order to plead scienter (state of mind) “so as to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind by either alleging facts (1) showing that the defendants had both motive and opportunity to commit the fraud or (2) constituting strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness."
You asleep yet? I just about nodded off myself.
Fine. If you don’t remember anything else, just get the principle here, which is that when you plead fraud, you must tell someone the exact reason you’re suing them, so they know what specific statement(s) they’re supposed to be defending.
Anyway, to close this out, the SEC pled claims 1 and 2 this way:
“Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Complaint by reference as if set forth verbatim in this Claim.”
I actually found a case where Plaintiffs did exactly this and got slapped down, then I lost it, couldn’t find it again, and eventually gave up looking in order to get this thing done. But basically, the court said you can’t do that in fraud claims (it’s generally ok in most other types of claims, fyi). But when pleading fraud, you have to tell someone the specific things they said that you believe were fraudulent, and why you believe the defendant knew they were fraudulent. You can’t just point to a few dozen or few hundred paragraphs and say “yeah, it’s somewhere in there, go figure it out.”
Bottom line:
1. The SEC didn’t draft its fraud claims properly.
2. This is a solid argument that I believe RH should prevail on.
3. Unfortunately, the likely remedy is that the SEC will get another swing at redrafting their Complaint.
4. If the SEC can’t cure the deficiency properly, you may see a second motion to dismiss on this issue.
5. All of the above assumes that the court has personal jurisdiction over Richard, which is an open question that will also be raised by his attorneys. Remember, no personal jurisdiction, no case.
6. All of the above also assumes that these things are securities, which is also an open question that I expect will be litigated in October (and perhaps again throughout this case if necessary).
Strictly my guess. I could be wrong. I’m wrong a lot. Nothing I say is legal advice.
But I honestly can’t wait to see what Richard’s all-star team comes up with in their motion.
#HEX #PLS #PLSX](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFXHq1lacAAbH3J.jpg)
Olivia
Online
marcus foster
@kryptokingHEX
Joined March 2022
176 Following
39 Followers
759 Posts
Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool.
Are you ready to look for some fraud today?
I hope everyone has seen @THoSdocumentary by now so you get that!
Well, I've read this Complaint more times than you have, and I can’t f**king find any fraud. Maybe you’ll have better luck.
Let’s take it from the top. What is fraud anyway?
Well, there are lots of different types, which really doesn’t help you one bit, does it? So let’s focus just on the one at issue in Richard’s case – securities fraud.
I was hoping to have this done a week ago, but the rabbit holes I’ve had to go down almost made me give up on the topic completely and post some cat videos instead. But since I have way too much time on my hands, and the NHL is on break for the all-star game, I decided to jump back in and try and decipher some of it for you.
To grossly oversimplify things, the SEC can bring an action for securities fraud, but so can you or I. When you or I do it, it’s called a private right of action, and we become the Plaintiffs. Because government likes to make the rules, they made the rules for the SEC simpler than the rules for private plaintiffs. Essentially, the SEC gets to short-cut a few things in order to win that you or I would have to prove in court. I was able to find a matrix outlining what needs to be proven in different private securities laws claims, and I posted it below. Since I’m not being paid for any of this, I’m not reading it. I like y’all a lot, but not enough to kill off that many brain cells.
So I went back to researching case law, and after sifting through myriad cases, all of which were painfully boring, I focused on a few 2nd Circuit cases, since that’s what’s important here. And recall that the fraud claims against Richard are under 10b-5 and 17(a)(1) and (a)(3). You can google them the next time you can’t sleep.
In SEC v. First Jersey Securities, 101 F.3d 1450 (2nd Cir 1996), the Court stated that in order to establish liability under Rule 10b-5, the Plaintiff “is required to prove that in connection with the purchase or sale of a security the defendant, acting with scienter, made a material misrepresentation (or a material omission if the defendant had a duty to speak) or used a fraudulent device.” A fraudulent device here doesn’t mean a fake iPhone. It means some sort of investment device.
So what the hell is “scienter”? It means “intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” This is also a quote from SEC v First Jersey. It’s a fancy way of saying someone intended to do something they knew was bad.
Now here’s where the SEC gets a break. In order to prove a claim under 17(a)(3) – one of the claims against Richard, you and I would have to prove scienter. The SEC doesn’t. Awesome, right? That’s what happens when government entities write the rules for government entities. At least the SEC still has to prove scienter for its 10b-5 and 17(a)(1) claims, so there’s that. It took the US Supreme Court to make that happen, though, in Aaron v SEC, 446 US 680 (1980).
All of that to get to the point. Richard’s attorneys claim that the SEC didn’t allege its fraud claims properly in the Complaint. And they’re right. You can’t plead fraud the same way you plead negligence or a breach of contract. Rule 9(b) is what we call a “heightened pleading standard,” which means you can’t just say “all the shit I put in the facts section above applies to this fraud claim.” Doesn’t work. But that’s what the SEC did, and that’s why Richard’s attorneys said they’ll raise this issue.
So what do you have to do to plead fraud then? I’m glad you asked. The 2nd Circuit has an answer for us. It said "securities fraud complaints [must] specify each misleading statement . . . [and] state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind."
And in order to plead scienter (state of mind) “so as to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind by either alleging facts (1) showing that the defendants had both motive and opportunity to commit the fraud or (2) constituting strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness."
You asleep yet? I just about nodded off myself.
Fine. If you don’t remember anything else, just get the principle here, which is that when you plead fraud, you must tell someone the exact reason you’re suing them, so they know what specific statement(s) they’re supposed to be defending.
Anyway, to close this out, the SEC pled claims 1 and 2 this way:
“Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Complaint by reference as if set forth verbatim in this Claim.”
I actually found a case where Plaintiffs did exactly this and got slapped down, then I lost it, couldn’t find it again, and eventually gave up looking in order to get this thing done. But basically, the court said you can’t do that in fraud claims (it’s generally ok in most other types of claims, fyi). But when pleading fraud, you have to tell someone the specific things they said that you believe were fraudulent, and why you believe the defendant knew they were fraudulent. You can’t just point to a few dozen or few hundred paragraphs and say “yeah, it’s somewhere in there, go figure it out.”
Bottom line:
1. The SEC didn’t draft its fraud claims properly.
2. This is a solid argument that I believe RH should prevail on.
3. Unfortunately, the likely remedy is that the SEC will get another swing at redrafting their Complaint.
4. If the SEC can’t cure the deficiency properly, you may see a second motion to dismiss on this issue.
5. All of the above assumes that the court has personal jurisdiction over Richard, which is an open question that will also be raised by his attorneys. Remember, no personal jurisdiction, no case.
6. All of the above also assumes that these things are securities, which is also an open question that I expect will be litigated in October (and perhaps again throughout this case if necessary).
Strictly my guess. I could be wrong. I’m wrong a lot. Nothing I say is legal advice.
But I honestly can’t wait to see what Richard’s all-star team comes up with in their motion.
#HEX #PLS #PLSX
![NuclearHerbs's tweet photo. Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool.
Are you ready to look for some fraud today?
I hope everyone has seen @THoSdocumentary by now so you get that!
Well, I've read this Complaint more times than you have, and I can’t f**king find any fraud. Maybe you’ll have better luck.
Let’s take it from the top. What is fraud anyway?
Well, there are lots of different types, which really doesn’t help you one bit, does it? So let’s focus just on the one at issue in Richard’s case – securities fraud.
I was hoping to have this done a week ago, but the rabbit holes I’ve had to go down almost made me give up on the topic completely and post some cat videos instead. But since I have way too much time on my hands, and the NHL is on break for the all-star game, I decided to jump back in and try and decipher some of it for you.
To grossly oversimplify things, the SEC can bring an action for securities fraud, but so can you or I. When you or I do it, it’s called a private right of action, and we become the Plaintiffs. Because government likes to make the rules, they made the rules for the SEC simpler than the rules for private plaintiffs. Essentially, the SEC gets to short-cut a few things in order to win that you or I would have to prove in court. I was able to find a matrix outlining what needs to be proven in different private securities laws claims, and I posted it below. Since I’m not being paid for any of this, I’m not reading it. I like y’all a lot, but not enough to kill off that many brain cells.
So I went back to researching case law, and after sifting through myriad cases, all of which were painfully boring, I focused on a few 2nd Circuit cases, since that’s what’s important here. And recall that the fraud claims against Richard are under 10b-5 and 17(a)(1) and (a)(3). You can google them the next time you can’t sleep.
In SEC v. First Jersey Securities, 101 F.3d 1450 (2nd Cir 1996), the Court stated that in order to establish liability under Rule 10b-5, the Plaintiff “is required to prove that in connection with the purchase or sale of a security the defendant, acting with scienter, made a material misrepresentation (or a material omission if the defendant had a duty to speak) or used a fraudulent device.” A fraudulent device here doesn’t mean a fake iPhone. It means some sort of investment device.
So what the hell is “scienter”? It means “intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” This is also a quote from SEC v First Jersey. It’s a fancy way of saying someone intended to do something they knew was bad.
Now here’s where the SEC gets a break. In order to prove a claim under 17(a)(3) – one of the claims against Richard, you and I would have to prove scienter. The SEC doesn’t. Awesome, right? That’s what happens when government entities write the rules for government entities. At least the SEC still has to prove scienter for its 10b-5 and 17(a)(1) claims, so there’s that. It took the US Supreme Court to make that happen, though, in Aaron v SEC, 446 US 680 (1980).
All of that to get to the point. Richard’s attorneys claim that the SEC didn’t allege its fraud claims properly in the Complaint. And they’re right. You can’t plead fraud the same way you plead negligence or a breach of contract. Rule 9(b) is what we call a “heightened pleading standard,” which means you can’t just say “all the shit I put in the facts section above applies to this fraud claim.” Doesn’t work. But that’s what the SEC did, and that’s why Richard’s attorneys said they’ll raise this issue.
So what do you have to do to plead fraud then? I’m glad you asked. The 2nd Circuit has an answer for us. It said "securities fraud complaints [must] specify each misleading statement . . . [and] state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind."
And in order to plead scienter (state of mind) “so as to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind by either alleging facts (1) showing that the defendants had both motive and opportunity to commit the fraud or (2) constituting strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness."
You asleep yet? I just about nodded off myself.
Fine. If you don’t remember anything else, just get the principle here, which is that when you plead fraud, you must tell someone the exact reason you’re suing them, so they know what specific statement(s) they’re supposed to be defending.
Anyway, to close this out, the SEC pled claims 1 and 2 this way:
“Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Complaint by reference as if set forth verbatim in this Claim.”
I actually found a case where Plaintiffs did exactly this and got slapped down, then I lost it, couldn’t find it again, and eventually gave up looking in order to get this thing done. But basically, the court said you can’t do that in fraud claims (it’s generally ok in most other types of claims, fyi). But when pleading fraud, you have to tell someone the specific things they said that you believe were fraudulent, and why you believe the defendant knew they were fraudulent. You can’t just point to a few dozen or few hundred paragraphs and say “yeah, it’s somewhere in there, go figure it out.”
Bottom line:
1. The SEC didn’t draft its fraud claims properly.
2. This is a solid argument that I believe RH should prevail on.
3. Unfortunately, the likely remedy is that the SEC will get another swing at redrafting their Complaint.
4. If the SEC can’t cure the deficiency properly, you may see a second motion to dismiss on this issue.
5. All of the above assumes that the court has personal jurisdiction over Richard, which is an open question that will also be raised by his attorneys. Remember, no personal jurisdiction, no case.
6. All of the above also assumes that these things are securities, which is also an open question that I expect will be litigated in October (and perhaps again throughout this case if necessary).
Strictly my guess. I could be wrong. I’m wrong a lot. Nothing I say is legal advice.
But I honestly can’t wait to see what Richard’s all-star team comes up with in their motion.
#HEX #PLS #PLSX](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFXILodbUAA0AA7.jpg)
Bro literally me.
#TRUMP WOULD BE THE BEST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME IF HE CAME IN AND SAID NO TAXES ON CRYPTO.
We are hanging on by a thread. So close to completely giving up.
Who to follow
Heathen
@Heathen1st
Realist - Identitarian - Separatist - In A World Where Only White Life Matters - o/
Buck
@Buck29710568
XRP, HEX, Blues Master, Fender, Defender of America from domestic enemies, Enemy of Evil, Formerly my own worst enemy, aka BlockchainBuck. Jesus Saves Us.
👤
@bagboyeddy
Losing money LLC
Top #Pulsechain memecoins
1. #Teddybear
2. $PTGC
3. $Blast
Are you in any of these coins? If not, do you like gains?
Look at this alpha!
Amazing alpha, amazing observation, and it kicked off with a huge spike in volume from @iambroots
$BEAR having a much needed and healthy pullback before a send?
Hopefully it will close the gap to $PLS and we see it rise against the price of #PulseChain
Hey @MetaMask,
#PulseChain is now the top wanted feature for your w*llet, when will you be supporting 369?
Who wants to see MM support #PulseChain as a native network, with $ values too 👀?
https://t.co/BUvbRlwJpU
open with STICK in hand🤑🤑🤑🤑
There's a knock at your door. You check your ring camera. You see this. Do you open the door?
Your answer might reveal something about yourself.
There's a knock at your door. You check your ring camera. You see this. Do you open the door?
Your answer might reveal something about yourself.
If you watch crypto banter you are just helping ran line his pockets
It’s all finally coming out
#Bitcoin. You didn't sell the at $65k when I called the top 1,000 days ago. If you bought $20k in 2017 and waited 2,227 days you did a 2.2x. $PLS, $PLSX, $HEX and $INC have all done those kind of gains in 30 days. AFTER THE $BTC ETF LAUNCHED!!!. BEFORE THE FTX, GOX, Finex hackers & silk road hackers dumps. Consider joining the winning team. Why wait another crypto lifetime for a 2x or 3x? #Ethereum bros are enjoying the free coins and early free transactions. You see them bridging over $ETH constantly. Winning feels great!
there’s an exodus of pls holdings getting sold off for stables to buy HOA.. its bizarre but it speaks to the sheer capitulation of those who were never capable of supporting growth if left to their own devices.. welcome..
I am 100% privatizing my twitter account after a certain date. I am doing something new and fresh and if it doesn't work out the way I want to, then all will be good either way.
No Jeets or shady scammers will be allowed. Subscribers may or may not be taught up on a new edition of the Laws of Memecoins. The current subscibers are begging me for it, but I have not decided on this yet. Please do not subscribe thinking you are getting a new edition of The Laws of Memecoins. It isn't guaranteed. There will be a cut off date and time.
I told ya I wouldn't be around forever!
ONLY $9.99 a month
$120 a year
@sam701it plsx
#HEX & #PulseChain holding the lines like god damn legends while I take a dip on the Gold Coast and dreaming of what’s to come 👏🏼 So ready for the exciting year ahead!! 🚀
You can become a millionaire in crypto with just $1,000 and a plan..........
I tried out the #PulseX limit orders using https://t.co/Zoakqo6pwF and it worked! Reminds me of the old Matcha back in the day.
Well done @StuMan5555 Thank you for building something great on #PulseChain
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.4M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers