pleading does not constitute a license to base claims of fraud on speculation or conclusory allegations. Where pleading is permitted on information and belief, a complaint must adduce specific facts supporting a strong inference of fraud or it will not satisfy a relaxed pleading standard.” Merrill Lynch, 1994 WL 88129, at *1. As the accompanying discussion indicates, such specific facts are evident here. 10 . For instance, the Plaintiff maintains that her numerous requests for information and an accounting constitute acts of mail fraud attributable to the Defendants, whose scheme supposedly “caused” such mailings. The Court rejects this argument on the basis that such letters were not in furtherance of the Defendant’s purported scheme. See, e.g., Thai Airways, 842 F.Supp. at 1571 (<HOLDING>). 11 . In light of this ruling, the court
holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud holding direct misrepresentations were not required for mail fraud conviction holding that letters sent by plaintiff to defendant which merely demanded return of allegedly stolen security deposit do not fall within mail fraud statute holding that the prosecution may establish the intent element of mail fraud by proving that the defendant was reckless holding clerks action in giving requested mail fraud and contract documents to jury without consulting counsel or judge was error but defendant was not prejudiced because virtually all exhibits were either contract or mail fraud documents