Today, Faith R. Sloan, through her attorney C. Peter R. Gossels, filed her response to the Plaintiff’s Opposition to her Motion to Dismiss. It starts off with this:
“the Plaintiff argues that “the Court must accept all factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and must draw all reasonable inference in the Commission’s favor.”
What the Commission ignores is that its Amended Complaint must plead sufficient facts to render its entitlement to relief plausible, and not merely possible.”
A bit farther down the filing:
“Ms. Sloan submits that the Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to render its entitlement to relief plausible, because it has not pleaded sufficient facts to prove cogently that Ms. Sloan made any material misrepresentations in connection with the sale of a security or that she consciously intended to defraud anyone or acted with a high degree of recklessness in selling a security.”
Then, we have a few references to the Amended Complaint (AC):
¶ 103 alleges that Ms. Sloan was a “prominent promoter of TelexFree”, a “great leader”, that she operated websites touting TelexFree and appeared in promotional videos posted on YouTube. Although Ms. Sloan operated TelexFreepowerprogram.com and was called a “great leader” by the Defendant, Steve Labriola, during a corporate phone call, Plaintiff’s allegations in ¶ 103 do not constitute a violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act in the light of ¶ 81 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, because promoters like Ms. Sloan were “not permitted to use marketing materials that … had not been approved by the (TelexFree and its owners)”.
This filing concludes with this:
As we have pointed out above, the Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient plausible facts to render it entitled to the relief it seeks against Ms. Sloan.
What utter nonsense.
I put the “Amended” response next to the one filed first; I can see no material difference, unless their sole point was to show the same thing happened with the SEC’s Complaint, namely, their Amended Complaint has nothing materially different than the original Complaint? Who knows with these clowns?