For that reason, plaintiff claims that on May 20, 1983, he wrote a letter to Felices and on June 3, 1983, another letter to Ferrer demanding the immediate refund of the monies that he had entrusted to defendant. Plaintiff further maintains that in subsequent days he again tried to reach them by phone in order to halt the bond transaction but was equally unsuccessful. In view of this, plaintiff claims that he left word with Felices' secretary that he did not want to go ahead with the bond transaction. Plaintiff claims that shortly thereafter, but prior to the actual purchase of the bonds, he came to know of the deceitful misrepresentations made to him by defendant, whereupon he tried to contact Felices and Miguel Ferrer ("Ferrer") (defendant's principal executive in Puerto Rico) by phone, to no avail.
Treasury notes that had matured two days before and gave him a personal check to the order of defendant in the amount of $10,000. Plaintiff further alleges that when this conversation took place Felices was well aware that the "Washington State Public Power System" (sic) had for some time been undergoing very serious financial difficulties and that these difficulties, which could end up in bankruptcy, would erode the value and rating of the bonds.Īccording to plaintiff, on May 2, 1983, he delivered to Felices $90,000 in U.S.
Plaintiff claims, moreover, that Felices told him that the bonds would have a yield of a little over 10%, which yield was fairly good at the time. government agency, were easily marketable and were rated Aa/AA by Moody's and Standard and Poor's, respectively. According to plaintiff, Felices told him that the purchase of said bonds constituted an excellent investment inasmuch as they were fully guaranteed by an entirely reliable U.S. Felices ("Felices"), an authorized representative of defendant Paine Webber, visited plaintiff's residence in order to urge him to invest $100,000 in the purchase of "Washington State Public Power System's municipal bonds" (sic). Plaintiff Gonzalez Blanes alleges that in the evening of April 27, 1983, Federico A.
For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is granted. Defendant has moved, pursuant to Rule 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the averments therein do not state the circumstances constituting fraud with the required particularity and fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff's essential charge against defendant is that it engaged in fraudulent acts in connection with the purchase of securities. 3018) and diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.
#Paine webber puerto rico code
Plaintiff also asserts a pendent claim under Article 1054 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code (31 L.P.R.A. 240.10b-5) and Regulation T of the Federal Reserve Board (12 C.F.R. 78a, et seq.), particularly Sections 10(b), 7(a), (c), 20(a) and 29(b) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities Exchange Commission (17 C.F.R. Plaintiff, Hector Gonzalez Blanes, ("Gonzalez Blanes") seeks damages from defendant, Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Incorporated, ("Paine Webber") for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
0 kommentar(er)
