Case Name: Robert F. WARDROP, II, Mark Metro, Donald Turnwall, Nancee L. Turnwall, Jack Gentry, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMWAY ASIA PACIFIC LTD., New AAP Limited, Stephen A. Van Andel, Richard M. De Vos, Jr., Douglas L. De Vos, Eoghan M. McMillan, Jack C.K. So, John C.C. Chan, L.H. Choong, Eva Cheng, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-29
Citations: 26 F. App'x 89
Docket Number: Docket No. 01-7461
Parties: Robert F. WARDROP, II, Mark Metro, Donald Turnwall, Nancee L. Turnwall, Jack Gentry, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMWAY ASIA PACIFIC LTD., New AAP Limited, Stephen A. Van Andel, Richard M. De Vos, Jr., Douglas L. De Vos, Eoghan M. McMillan, Jack C.K. So, John C.C. Chan, L.H. Choong, Eva Cheng, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 26
Pages: 89–90

Head Matter:
Robert F. WARDROP, II, Mark Metro, Donald Turnwall, Nancee L. Turnwall, Jack Gentry, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMWAY ASIA PACIFIC LTD., New AAP Limited, Stephen A. Van Andel, Richard M. De Vos, Jr., Douglas L. De Vos, Eoghan M. McMillan, Jack C.K. So, John C.C. Chan, L.H. Choong, Eva Cheng, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Defendants-Appellees.
Docket No. 01-7461.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 29, 2002.
Clinton Krislov, Krislov & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Appellants.
Jayant Tambe, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, N.Y., NY, for Appellees Amway Asia Pacific Ltd., New AAP Ltd., Van Andel, De Vos, De Vos, Choong, and Cheng.
Howard S. Zelbo, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, N.Y., NY, for Appellees McMillan, So, and Chan.
Daniel J. Beller, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, N.Y., NY, for Appellee Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Present JON O. NEWMAN, KEARSE, Circuit Judges and RAKOFF, District Judge .
Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was argued by counsel.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed. The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint on the ground, inter alia, that it failed adequately to plead the reliance element of plaintiffs' claims or to present any logical basis on which reliance could be proven or presumed. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Chin's Memorandum Decision dated March 19, 2001, discussing reliance and transaction causation.
We have considered all of plaintiffs' contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.