State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 123 Ariz. 324, 331, 599 P.2d 777, 784 (Ariz.1979), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gunnison, 127 Ariz. 110, 618 P.2d 604 (1980). The Court also concludes that it need not resolve the arguments of Jensen, Morbeck, Seminoff, and Stephens that the Amended Complaint fails to state an aiding and abetting claim given its requirement that the plaintiff file a second amended complaint. The Court will note, however, that it cannot not accept Jensen and Morbeck’s argument that such aiding and abetting liability should no longer be recognized in Arizona. Although they may be correct that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994) (<HOLDING>), should be adopted in Arizona, the Arizona
holding that a  10b private civil action did not extend to aiders and abettors holding that a private plaintiff is not entitled to maintain an aiding and abetting action under  10b or rule 10b  5 holding that an implicit congressional intent to impose  aiding and abetting liability could not plausibly be inferred from the statutory silence in  10b of the securities exchange act of 1934 holding aiding and abetting is not a discrete criminal offense holding that a pledge is a sale and purchase of a security under  10b