or offered any factual basis from which the Court could infer that ASC 310-30 implementation is straightforward or simple. In addition, the authorities Plaintiff cites in support of its position are primarily from other circuits and are distingu s allegations regarding EFSC’s earnings restatements and GAAP violations do not raise the required strong inference of scienter. Having concluded that Plaintiffs § 10(b) claim fails, the Court also holds that the claims against the individual Defendants under § 20(a) must likewise be dismissed. “The plain language of the control-person statute dictates that, absent a primary violation, a claim for control-person liability must fail.” Lustgraaf, 619 F.3d at 873; see also In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, 299 F.3d 735, 748 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Because Plaintiff does not
holding that claim for sons suicide was not actionable holding that the plaintiffs stated a claim for conspiracy because they alleged an actionable tort holding communication to two people not actionable holding that speech must be a threat or coercion to be actionable holding that an actionable  20a claim must be preceded by an actionable primary violation under  10b