This is an epic milestone in crypto-investing... c-ya @ the Lambo dealership.

What problem are you talking about? The Deutsche Bank's one? Everything's fine mate! Don't worry... The bank has made over €1.8 trillion over the past decade & the IMF believes DB is the biggest net contributor to global systemic risk. All the biggest funds management firms in the world have made billions with DB and all it's managers have filled their pockets as much as they could (before leaving of course...) And now that DB is on the verge of collapse, The EU will bailout them up by taxing your miserable salary! Everything will be alright

So what's the outcome?  Dismissed or laughed at?

Plaintiffs accuse Fraser, a minority investor in the Companies, of participating in an
alleged scheme by Garza and the Companies to defraud investors. They lard their accusations of
control person liability with references to Fraser’s occasional requests for information about the
Companies’ performance and business, his business relationship and friendship with Garza, and
conclusory catch-all allegations against Garza and the Companies, into which they conveniently
group Fraser. The correspondence between Garza and Fraser to which Plaintiffs point, however,
demonstrates that Fraser did not have the power to direct the management and policies of Garza
and the Companies. Rather, that correspondence reinforces Fraser’s limited role as a minority
investor who did not control the Companies’ daily operations, set their policies or determine how
their policies would be implemented. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not plead with the
requisite particularity that Fraser engaged in “culpable participation” in a primary securities
violation, which is also fatal to their Section 20(a) claim. Plaintiffs’ state law claims suffer
similar deficiencies. Accordingly, the claims against Fraser should be dismissed.

The article noted that Fraser
was “backing Mr. Garza” and was “a long-time backer of Mr. Garza’s projects,” but contains
no suggestion that Fraser held any role within the Companies other than that of a financial
investor.

The Complaint fails to state a claim against Fraser because Plaintiffs have not alleged,
with sufficient particularity, facts from which it could properly be inferred that Fraser controlled
a primary violator — here, Garza and the Companies — and culpably participated in the alleged
fraud.

Plaintiffs do not allege a single
policy, procedure or method of operation undertaken by Garza or the Companies that Fraser
directed or controlled, as the law requires. See In re Alstom, 406 F. Supp. 2d at 487. Plaintiffs
do not allege that Fraser held any voting rights in the Companies, nor do they allege that a
contract or other agreement exists between Defendants that would grant him any such power.
They do not allege that Fraser asked for — let alone received — any power, rights or position in
exchange for his minority investment in the Companies. See In re BioScrip, 95 F. Supp. 3d at
740 (having “a great deal of sway” did not “rise to the level of actual control”). In short,
Plaintiffs do not allege a single cognizable fact demonstrating that Fraser actually possessed the
ability to direct the actions of Garza or the management and policies of the Companies. See In re
Flag, 352 F. Supp. 2d at 458 (exercising “powers of persuasion” does not establish “actual
control”).