Epstein Secrets

by the person to whom it was made; (4) the intention that it should be acted upon; and (5) that the plaintiff acted upon it to his damages." in re Rockefeller Ctr. Props. Secs. Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir. 2002). Courts should apply Rule 9(b) with some flexibility and should not require plaintiffs to pl

follow-up telephone conversations during that same two week period, Davison and her associates r 5] made additional specific representations about the AIG Investment, without disclosing Citibank and AIG's relationship. Davison also during that period represented that Citibank had "done their due diligence" and w

e 12(b)(6) motion, I ac- cept all allegations in the complaint as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Int, 311 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir.2002). "The inquiry is not whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail in a trial on the merits, but whethe

F.34 at 1422). In Count I, plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct "constituted the mak- ing of fraudulent misrepresentations ... regarding the AIG Investment" that the defendants knew were materially mislead- ing "because of their failure to state or disclose the additional or qualifying infor- mation re

that would accompany 'the first paragraph of any newspaper story—that is, the 'who, what, when, where and how' of the events at issue." In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props.. Inc.. 311 F.3d at 217 (quoting In re Burlington, 114 F.3d at 1422). In Count I, plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct "constituted

14 F.3d at 1422). In Count I, plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct "constituted the making of fraudulent misrepresentations ... regarding the AIG Investment" that the defendants knew were materially misleading "because of their failure to state or disclose the additional or qualifying information regardi

round that would accompany 'the first paragraph of any newspaper story—that is, the 'who, what, when, where and how' of the events at issue." In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props.. Inc.. 311 F.3d at 217 (quoting In re Burlington, 114 F.3d at 1422). In Count I, plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct "constituted

14 F.3d at 1422). In Count I, plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct "constituted the making of fraudulent misrepresentations ... regarding the AIG Investment" that the defendants knew were materially misleading "because of their failure to state or disclose the additional or qualifying information regardi

an increased measure of protection for their reputations, and reduce[] the number of frivolous suits brought solely to extract settlements." In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc., 311 F.3d at 215 (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d at 1418). "Rule 9(b) requires a plaintiff to plead (1)

he Amended 1999 Note. (Id. Ex. A at 8-9; Ex. B at 7-8; Ex. D at 10; Ex. E at 2-3.) Sometime in the spring of 2001, Epstein and FTC discovered that the AIG Investment was "suddenly and rapidly deteriorating." (Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss, Epstein Decl. 1 20.) According to the plaintiffs, FTC's a

d that would accompany 'the first paragraph of any newspaper story' - that is the 'who, what, when, where and how' of the events at issue.'" In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc., 311 F.3d at 217 (quoting In re Burlington, 114 F.3d at 1422). However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the "require

) In follow-up telephone conversations during that same two week period, Davison and her associates made additional specific representations about the AIG Investment, without disclosing Citibank and AIG's relationship. Davison also during that period represented that Citibank had "done their due diligence" and