fails to meet the scienter requirements of paragraph (2) of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b) and will be dismissed. D. The Alleged Misleading Statements Were Not “in Connection with” the Purchase or Sale of a Security, Nor Could They be Relied upon by Plaintiffs. Alternatively, Count one fails to satisfy the third Kline factor, that is, it does not plead fraud “in connection with” the sale or purchase of a security, as that phrase has come to be defined judicially. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has cautioned “that courts should adopt a case-by-case approach for determining the proper scope of the ‘in connection with’ requirement,” and that “too broad an interpretation of § 10(b) is unwarranted.” See Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 764 F.2d 939, 945-46 (3d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Courts have been careful to distinguish mere
holding that loss causation is a necessary element of a rule 10b5 claim holding that misrepresentation of credit terms of margin account however satisfied in connection with language of rule 10b5 holding that the in connection with requirement of rule 10b5 was satisfied where investors were injured as investors through respondents deceptions and the scheme to defraud and the sale of securities coineided recognizing a rebuttable presumption of reliance in rule 10b5 holding that a rule 10b5 claim begins to run when a defendant makes an affirmative misrepresentation