Section 10(b) context”); Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds 'by Proctor v. Vishay Intertech. Inc., 584 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Just as the Supreme Court observed that Section 10(b) should be construed not technically and restrictively, but flexibly to effectuate its remedial purposes, SLUSA should also be viewed as part of the remedial package of federal securities laws and should be construed accordingly.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). C. Plaintiffs’ Claims 1. Misrepresentation or om 10th Cir. 2003) (affirming SEC decision that violation of best execution duty violated federal securities laws); Newton v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 135 F.3d 266, 269-72, 274-75 (3d Cir. 1998) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The Securities and Exchange Commission has
holding breach of best execution duty is a material misrepresentation in connection with the purchase or sale of the securities holding proximate cause required for claim of breach of special duty recognizing a  10b claim for breach of duty of best execution holding that a  10b claim premised on an omission cannot lie absent a duty to speak recognizing a duty of best execution under federal securities law