Here are a few nice quotes:
"The test of whether an individual is a controlling person for the purposes of § 20(a) is not a categorical one that turns solely on the individual’s status as an officer or director. Rather, the inquiry is a functional one, as SEC regulations indicate.”
"Thus, control is adequately pled when there are factual allegations that “support a reasonable inference that defendants had the potential power to influence and direct the activities of the primary violator.”
Here is the biggest quote so far: The amended complaint plausibly pleads that Fraser controlled the Companies and Garza. It does so first by alleging that Fraser owned half of the equity in each of the Companies a well recognized indicator of control.
In other words Fraser was absolutely in control.
https://file.io/moutPF
Ohh, yeah, that is some serious stuff that will get him on the hook. He is going to get his..,in time.
holy shit what a nice twist. shouldn't have run the charity 9/11 scam
Less than an hour ago I got up to speed on the 9/11 scam.
Does anybody know if Garza and Fraser are directly related, e.g., cousins? I can't get over the notion that Fraser pulled Garza in on his small nefarious entities oppose to being the other way around.