Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re TelexFree Securities Litigation
Citations: 256 F. Supp. 3d 99; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95662Docket: MDL No. 4:14-md-02566-TSH
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; June 21, 2017; Federal District Court
Ann Genet, a defendant in the TelexFree multidistrict securities litigation, has moved to dismiss all counts against her in the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (SCAC) under Rule 12(b)(6). TelexFree was a pyramid scheme operating from February 2012 to April 2014, affecting about two million participants, many of whom incurred financial losses. Numerous plaintiffs have sought recovery against various defendants, prompting the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these actions in the District of Massachusetts. Genet is identified in the SCAC as an agent or advisor for TelexFree, facing claims for multiple violations of Massachusetts laws, including consumer protection and fraud, among others. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must present plausible claims for relief, moving beyond mere speculation. The court noted that the SCAC lacks specific factual allegations against Genet, instead presenting vague and conclusory statements about her role. The SCAC claims she was linked to TelexFree's operations, but fails to detail her actions or contributions that would substantiate the allegations of unlawful conduct. The SCAC's references to Genet's involvement are insufficient, as they do not provide concrete facts regarding her services, knowledge of illegal activities, or any tortious actions. Although plaintiffs argue that Genet's dismissal motion is flawed due to her lack of specificity regarding the counts, the absence of factual allegations specific to her actions means no reasonable inference can support any claims against her. Consequently, the court indicated that the claims against Genet lack the necessary detail to proceed. Genet was alleged to have served as an advisor for Mobile, Electric, and all TelexFree entities, but the Plaintiffs failed to provide specific details regarding the services or advice she offered. The court noted that the Plaintiffs did not present any facts that could lead to an inference of Genet's culpability or establish a substantive theory of tortious conduct based on her alleged actions. The assertion that Genet performed "integral services" and provided "essential advice" was deemed insufficient, lacking clarity on how these contributions furthered TelexFree's unlawful activities. Although the Plaintiffs referenced Paragraph 1075 of the Complaint, which discusses actions by "said Defendants" in relation to securities, it was pointed out that Genet was not included among those specifically enumerated as involved in these activities. Furthermore, even if the claim were to be interpreted as including Genet, the description of her actions remained conclusory and did not meet the factual pleading requirements established by Iqbal and Twombly. Consequently, the court granted Genet's motion to dismiss all counts against her.