History
  • No items yet
midpage
357 F. Supp. 3d 70
D.D.C.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint (SCAC) alleging TelexFree was a Ponzi/pyramid scheme and that multiple financial institutions (including Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) and TD Bank) provided services that enabled it.
  • Allegations against BANA/TD: maintained TelexFree deposit accounts; received large volumes of deposits and transfers; allowed TelexFree to identify them as account-holders in promotional materials; processed transfers to promoters, principals, and affiliates; and provided credit services.
  • Plaintiffs contend banks had actual knowledge of the scheme (via sign-up materials, on-line procedures, prior bank sanctions, and transaction patterns) yet continued to provide services and fees.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and (as to fraud-based claims) Rule 9(b), arguing the allegations describe routine, passive banking services and lack the particularized facts showing actual knowledge or substantial assistance.
  • The court evaluated whether plaintiffs pleaded (a) a viable aiding-and-abetting cause of action under M.G.L. c.93/c.93A, (b) unjust enrichment tied to banks’ receipt of fees/interest, and (c) tortious aiding-and-abetting requiring actual knowledge and substantial assistance.
  • Ruling: The court granted BANA and TD Bank’s motions to dismiss the Third (aiding/abetting statutory claims), Fourth (unjust enrichment), and Tenth (tortious aiding and abetting) claims for the reasons below.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Existence of private aiding-and-abetting claim under M.G.L. c.93 and c.93A Banks aided and abetted violations of §§12, 69 and c.93A by enabling TelexFree’s scheme Massachusetts statutes do not expressly create private aiding-and-abetting liability; precedent limits such liability to certain fiduciary contexts No separate cause of action for aiding-and-abetting under these statutes; claim dismissed
Unjust enrichment based on fees/interest Banks were unjustly enriched by fees, interest, and service charges related to TelexFree funds Fees were routine payments for banking services; any benefit was conferred by TelexFree (not plaintiffs), so plaintiffs lack standing Dismissed for failure to allege unjustness or proper conferral/standing
Tortious aiding-and-abetting (knowledge and substantial assistance) Banks knowingly and substantially assisted TelexFree (long banking relationships, transfers, allowing use of bank name, processing payments to principals) Allegations at best show passive, routine banking services; plaintiffs failed to plead actual knowledge or facts showing substantial, active assistance Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to plead actual knowledge and substantial assistance plausibly
Pleading particularity for fraud-based aiding claims (Rule 9(b)) Complaint alleges many transactions and some specific transfers, nearly meeting particularity Most allegations are omnibus and lack specificity tying particular acts to particular banks or showing causation/intent Plaintiffs largely failed Rule 9(b) particularity; remaining specific allegations (e.g., payments to Merrill) insufficient to show bank causation/active role

Key Cases Cited

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility requires more than conclusory allegations)
  • Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (private aiding-and-abetting liability not implied absent statutory text)
  • FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC, 838 F.3d 158 (entity acting with knowledge may be liable where it directly participates or controls deceptive practice)
  • In re Sharp Int'l Corp., 403 F.3d 43 (elements of tortious aiding and abetting require knowledge and substantial assistance)
  • Arcidi v. Nat'l Ass'n of Gov't Employees, Inc., 447 Mass. 616 (Massachusetts discussion of aiding/abetting standards)
  • Cahaly v. Benistar Prop. Exch. Trust, 451 Mass. 343 (actual knowledge requirement for aiding-and-abetting in Massachusetts)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: In re Telexfree Sec. Litig.
Court Name: District Court, District of Columbia
Date Published: Jan 29, 2019
Citations: 357 F. Supp. 3d 70; MDL No. 4:14-md-02566-TSH
Docket Number: MDL No. 4:14-md-02566-TSH
Court Abbreviation: D.D.C.
Log In
    In re Telexfree Sec. Litig., 357 F. Supp. 3d 70