in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, upon which plaintiff reasonably relied, proximately causing his injury.” Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1994). Stated differently, [A] plaintiff must allege (1) a material misstatement or omission, (2) made with scienter (an intent to deceive), (3) made in connection with the purchase of sale of a security, (4) furthered by the use of the mails or a national securities exchange, and (5) upon which plaintiff detrimentally relied. IDT Corp. v. eGlobe Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 30, 33 (D.D.C.2001) (citing Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276). Finally, a claim under Rule 10b-5 must also satisfy Rule 9(b)’s requirement that the plaintiff state the circumstances constituting fraud with particularity. Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1277-79 (<HOLDING>); In re Baan, 103 F.Supp.2d at 12 (same). In
holding despite collective allegations in complaint the complaint was not deficient under rule 8a because it stated with sufficient particularity facts establishing a causal connection between the defendants actions and the constitutional deprivation holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement holding that a rule 10b5 claim must be stated with particularity holding that relators failure to meet the particularity requirements of rule 9b did not bar his claim where the relator was a former employee of the defendants and lacked access to records and documents in the possession of the defendants that contained information necessary to plead with particularity holding that plaintiffs must provide more than conclusory allegations to satisfy rule 9bs requirement that circumstances of fraud be pleaded with particularity