Malhotra, the Defendants argue that the Malhotra’s claims should be dismissed because more than three years have passed since the alleged material omission. The Court agrees. Section 9(e) of the Exchange Act sets forth the relevant statute of limitations for claims brought pursuant to Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. This section states, “[n]o action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created under this section unless brought within one year after the discovery of the facts constituting the vi 04 WL 2166293, at *19 (E.D.Pa. Sept.24, 2004) (“[t]he relevant date for accrual of a section 10(b) claim is the date of a misrepresentation or omission, not the date of sale.”); Antell v. Arthur Andersen LLP, No. 97 C 3456, 1998 WL 245878, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7183 (N.D.Ill. May 4, 1998) (<HOLDING>). Here, Malhotra made his initial investment in
holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court holding as to a fraudulent misrepresentation claim under michigan law that the sixyear statute of limitations begins to run when the misrepresentation was perpetrated and not when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the misrepresentation holding that the threeyear limitations period for section 10b and rule 10b5 claims begins to run upon the date a defendant makes an affirmative misrepresentation or in the case of an omission upon the date a duty to disclose the withheld information arises holding that a rule 10b5 claim begins to run when a defendant makes an affirmative misrepresentation holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach