Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

With her on the brief were David M.   Voss' chal 

lenge depends solely upon the exoneration of Graham.  Be 

cause we conclude that the Commission's decision was reason 

able and supported by substantial evidence. 

     Voss is the owner and president of an independent discount 

brokerage firm. 

Virginia.  Graham began working in the securities industry in 

1982 and joined VCI in September of 1984.  She was a 

registered representative. 1 as well as VCI's cashier and back 

office assistant.  She was also VCI's primary ".

This is a securities class action lawsuit brought by shareholders of Apple South.

This is a securities class action lawsuit brought by shareholders of Apple South.

brief were David M. The district court should have abstained

under principles of international comity. He did not violate

the securities laws of the United States because the interests

Swiss Trade sold were not securities. Neither summary

judgment nor the relief granted the SEC are warranted.

Some of Blackwell's arguments are not properly before this

court. The others are without merit. The individual investor was not a party to

the Endeavor Trust agreement and was not ordinarily ap

prised of the terms of the trust arrangement prior to invest

ing. Was directed at low income

individuals to whom Blackwell privately referred as

A portion of the investors' funds then purportedly was wired to Capital Management International (CMI) and Asset Management Funding (AMF) in the Bahamas. AMF was a holding company for clearing houses. While CMI was the clearing house responsible for carrying out Unique's option trades. Unique representatives were extremely hard to reach and often failed to return phone calls. 801 (38%) was wired to the Bahamas to the alleged clearing houses. The remainder of the investors' money was divided as follows: approximately $700. 000 was paid to Unique sales representatives.

A portion of the investors' funds then purportedly was wired to Capital Management International (CMI) and Asset Management Funding (AMF) in the Bahamas. AMF was a holding company for clearing houses. While CMI was the clearing house responsible for carrying out Unique's option trades. Unique representatives were extremely hard to reach and often failed to return phone calls. 801 (38%) was wired to the Bahamas to the alleged clearing houses. The remainder of the investors' money was divided as follows: approximately $700. 000 was paid to Unique sales representatives.

This court has not yet ruled on what is required to plead scienter in a securities fraud case that falls under the PSLRA. We find that they have not pled facts giving rise to a strong inference that Defendants intentionally or recklessly failed to disclose the pending litigation in a manner that would give rise to liability for securities fraud. Because we find that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled a primary violation of the securities laws. Inc. (

The basis for the lawsuit is the plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants made misleading statements about Kinder Morgan's profitability during the class period. They claim that the defendants reported that a key business of the Company was profitable when in fact it was losing money. Section 78u 4(b)(1) requires plaintiffs to specify the statements by the defendants they allege were misleading. The reasons why the statements were misleading. If the allegations in their complaint are made upon information and belief. To state with particularity all facts supporting their belief that the statements were false or misleading. Section 78u 4(b)(2) requires that plaintiffs' allegations give rise to a strong inference of scienter.

We have previously ruled on what is required for plaintiffs to plead scienter sufficiently under

An informal. (2) the SARs were not

An informal. (2) the SARs were not

In 1994. DISCUSSION

A.

We must first decide whether we have jurisdiction over Calvo's appeal. The jurisdictional question focuses on whether there is a case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Both Calvo and the government contend that we have jurisdiction. Although neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has ever expressly held that we have jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court's disbarment order. There is an abundance of authority from the Supreme Court and this Court that strongly suggests that we do.

First. The Court stated:

Where relief is thus sought in a state court against the action of a committee. The Court emphasized that

In 1994. DISCUSSION

A.

We must first decide whether we have jurisdiction over Calvo's appeal. The jurisdictional question focuses on whether there is a case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Both Calvo and the government contend that we have jurisdiction. Although neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has ever expressly held that we have jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court's disbarment order. There is an abundance of authority from the Supreme Court and this Court that strongly suggests that we do.

First. The Court stated:

Where relief is thus sought in a state court against the action of a committee. The Court emphasized that

II. BACKGROUND

Dunne was engaged by PanWorld Minerals International. Counts I through III of the indictment involved only Weeks and Hesterman and are not relevant to this appeal. DUNNE signed an audit opinion for the 1993 financial statements stating his audit of PanWorld was done in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) and the financial statements were presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Knew that the financial statements were not presented in accordance with GAAP. DUNNE took no steps to satisfy the requirements of generally accepted auditing standards to determine if the Washington Gulch interest was properly included in the PanWorld financial statements. 1993 were presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Such was not the case.

GCX was a Delaware corporation that publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (