the other hand, prior to the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, we strictly applied Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements in securities fraud cases even when the fraud related to matters peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendants because of our concern that "a plaintiff with a largely groundless claim will bring a suit and conduct extensive discovery in the hopes of obtaining an increased settlement.” Id. at 288; see also Hayduk v. Lanna, 775 F.2d 441, 443 (1st Cir.1985) (in a securities fraud case, Rule 9(b) "does not permit a complainant to file suit first, and subsequently to search for a cause of action”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 10 . For the rare cases, see, for example, Wilkins ex rel. United States v. Ohio, 885 F.Supp.1055 (S.D.Ohio 1995)(<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Kozhukh v.
holding that plaintiff failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity but stating that party may be entitled to lenient application of rule 9b where information is in possession of corporate defendant 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 rule 9b was satisfied where the relator was a nurse practitioner in the defendants employ whose conversations about the defendants billing practices  with the defendants office manager formed the basis for the relators belief that claims were actually submitted to the government