The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 11, 2008:

• Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities Inc. (Jones, C.J., Wiener, Clement, JJ.; opinion by Clement, J.) (appeal from N.D. Tex.). Affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s federal securities fraud claims. Pursuant to a Private Placement Memorandum representing a return of 12 percent annually, plaintiff purchased promissory notes from defendant Portfolio Equities Inc. (”PEI”), the proceeds of which were to finance real estate developer and defendant Charter Home Funding (”CHF”), which was allegedly under the control of defendants James and Harold Barnes. PEI failed to pay the principal or accrued interest on the notes’ maturity date, and H. Barnes informed investors that PEI had received no security interest in the properties purchased by CHF with the notes’ proceeds. Plaintiff Dorsey then filed this putative class action on behalf of PEI investors, and was subsequently granted leave by the district court to amend his complaint to properly allege the elements of fraud under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (”PSLRA”). The district court dismissed all but one of Dorsey’s claims on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and Dorsey voluntarily dismissed that claim and the petition to certify the class, then appealed from the dismissal of his individual claims for fraud under federal securities law and Texas state law. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed Dorsey’s claims of fraud arising from the purchase of additional promissory notes after his initial 1998 purchase because he did not allege in his complaint that he made such additional purchases, disregarding new allegations made by Dorsey on appeal; that Dorsey’s state common law fraud claims against PEI sufficiently pleaded scienter through inferences drawn from the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations of corporate officers J. and H. Barnes; that Dorsey’s state statutory fraud claims did not adequately allege real estate or stock fraud; and that Dorsey had sufficiently pleaded causes of action under the aider or abettor provisions of the Texas Securities Act.
• U.S. v. Rabhan (Jones, C.J., Wiener, Clement, JJ.; opinion by Wiener, J.) (appeal from N.D. Miss.). Reversing district court’s order refusing to reconsider dismissal of indictment on count of aiding and abetting conspiracy regarding overvaluing of land sold to FDIC-insured financial institution. The district court dismissed the indictment on the aiding and abetting count, finding that the five-year statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) applied to aiding and abetting charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1014. The Fifth Circuit held that the ten-year statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3293 should apply because the aiding and abetting mechanism of 18 U.S.C. § 2 was not a separate offense: “A person is not guilty of a § 2 offense; rather, through § 2 a person is guilty of an underlying offense, such as § 1014.” Slip op. at 8.