and within -three years after such violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 78i(e); Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 363, 111 S.Ct. 2773, 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991). Equitable argues that Malhotra’s claims are barred by the three-year prong of the statute of limitations. Under this prong, known as the “three-year statute of repose,” “a claimant has ‘no more than three years after the occurrence’ of the conduct inducing the Plaintiff to make its securities purchase to file a section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 claim.” Isanaka v. Spectrum Technologies USA Inc., 131 F.Supp.2d 353, 356 (N.D.N.Y.2001) (citing Ceres Partners v. GEL Assocs., 918 F.2d 349, 364 (2d Cir.1990); see also In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer. Sales Practices Litigation, 975 F.Supp. 584, 605 (D.N.J.1996)) (<HOLDING>); Northwestern Human Servs., Inc. v. Panaccio,
holding that section 10b violation occurs on date of alleged misrepresentation not the date of the sale or purchase of securities holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered 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