v. Rossford, 149 Ohio App.3d 645, 652, 778 N.E.2d 619, 624 (Ohio Ct.App.2002) (quoting Bronaugh v. R. & E. Dredging Co., 16 Ohio St.2d 35, 40-41, 242 N.E.2d 572 (Ohio 1968)). Under the circumstances of the exchange of stock between the parties to this action, we hold that plaintiffs should be regarded as purchasers for purposes of Ohio’s Blue Sky Law. “The sale of a security ... means among other things an exchange of securities, and as one who acquires by sale is a purchaser, so is a purchaser one who acquires by an exchange of securities.” Indem. Ins. Co. of North America v. Kircher, 47 Ohio App. 140, 145, 191 N.E. 374, 376 (Ohio Ct.App.1934). See also Mader v. Armel, 19 Ohio Misc. 97, 402 F.2d 158, 160 (6th Cir.1968) (citing Dasho v. Susquehanna Corp., 380 F.2d 262 (7th Cir.1967)) (<HOLDING>); Sec. Exch. Comm’n v. Nat’l Sec., Inc., 393
holding that the owner of retail store should receive the interest it had paid on interim financing and the rent paid on the old building for the period of delay until substantial completion holding only purchasers and sellers of securities can recover under section 10b and rule 10b5 holding that a claim for breach of a provision in a merger agreement arises from the purchase or sale of the debtors securities holding that in the context of a rule 10b5 claim when the merger was approved and the exchange of securities occurred the owner of stock had in effect purchased a new security and paid for it by turning in his old one holding that in a case involving misrepresentations in violation of securities and exchange commission rule 10b5 under the circumstances of this case involving primarily a failure to disclose positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery