PPMs and had to sign off on them prior to their finalization. (Id., ¶¶ 50-51, 302-303). These allegations place Ellison in a position roughly equivalent to that of John Mayeron in Zazzali v. Swenson. Since scienter for RICO claims need only be averred generally, Ellison’s apparent absence from the weekly “cash meetings” discussed in Zazzali v. Swenson is not fatal to the Trustee’s claims. Since substantive RICO violations have been adequately pled, the claim for RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) survives as well. For these reasons, the Court recommends that the federal RICO claims (Counts 1, 2 F.Supp.2d 827, 855-56 (N.D.Iowa 2009) (same); Ling v. Deutsche Bank, 2005 WL 1244689 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2005) (same); cf., Howard v. America Online, 208 F.3d 741, 749 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Thus, if the TIC investments are properly
holding that fraud creates an exception to the rule holding that reliance is not an element to be proven under securities fraud in indiana holding that the securities fraud exception in section 1964c is conductbased holding that reliance is not a required element of securities fraud in a state enforcement action in idaho 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