discovery process in the hope of uncovering some sort of wrongdoing or of obtaining a substantial settlement.” Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, Ltd., 681 F.2d 111, 116 (2d Cir.1982). Accordingly, courts have not been hesitant to dismiss securities fraud complaints on findings of insufficient allegations of fraudulent intent. See, e.g., Thornton v. Micrografx, Inc., 878 F.Supp. 931 (N.D.Tex.1995); Kriendler v. Chemical Waste Mgmt., Inc., 877 F.Supp. 1140 (D.C.Ill.1995); Sheldon Co. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust v. Smith, 828 F.Supp. 1262 (W.D.Mich.1993); Gordon v. Diagnostek, Inc., 812 F.Supp. 57 (E.D.Pa.1993); Martin v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 639 F.Supp. 931 (D.Md.1986); see also In re Cryomedical Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, 884 F.Supp. 1001 (D.Md.1995 , 374-75 (D.Md.1991) (<HOLDING>). Rule 9(b) provides that “in all averments of
holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement holding that the public harm requirement applies to fraudulent inducement claims because the fraud claims arise from related contract claims holding that particularity requirement under rule 9b for allegations of fraud applied to claims by shareholders under federal securities laws for false registration statements and false prospectus even though such provisions do not contain scienter requirement but where gist of claims involved fraudulent scheme