Opinion ID: 201098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Original Claim.

Text: 21 ASC's first amended complaint alleged in substance that LEDA failed to disclose that merger talks were ongoing between it and Synopsys, but, rather, downplayed the discussions and characterized the contemplated relationship as merely a technical partnership that would not affect the outcome of the ASC-LEDA negotiations. ASC further alleged that it relied on these knowingly false representations to its detriment. 5 Despite the fervor with which ASC denounced this treachery, it did not provide any details as to who allegedly uttered the misleading statements, to whom they were made, where they were made, when they occurred, and what actions they engendered. See ASC I, 2001 WL 920029, at . In short, ASC's misrepresentation claim was wholly conclusory and lacking any semblance of specific detail. Given the strictures of Rule 9(b), the district court's dismissal of that barebones claim was entirely proper. See, e.g., Powers, 926 F.2d at 111; Lopez v. Bulova Watch Co., 582 F.Supp. 755, 766 (D.R.I.1984).