a choice as to whether to enter into a transaction, the transaction could still be considered a sale if the exchange "effected such significant change in the nature of [plaintiff's] investment ... as to amount to a new investment.” In re Union Carbide Corp. Consumer Prods. Bus. Sec. Litig., 676 F.Supp. 458, 476 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (citation and quotations omitted). The forced seller doctrine does not apply in this case because a prerequisite to the application of this doctrine is an exchange. Here, stockholders of Adelphia Communications were not forced to exchange their ACC stock for ABIZ stock; rather, they received ABIZ stock in addition to the ACC stock they already held, and their investment in ACC remained unchanged. See Vine v. Beneficial Fin. Co., 374 F.2d 627, 634-35 (2d Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>); see also Blau v. Hodgkinson, 100 F.Supp. 361,
holding minority shareholders to be forced sellers for the purpose of 10b because corporation forced shareholders to sell their shares for cash or else realize no value from the stock holding that after the sale of stock former shareholders have no standing to file a claim against the corporation holding that derivative actions do not require the support of a majority of shareholders or even all of the minority shareholders holding a shareholders cause of action accrued for statute of limitations purposes when shareholders and directors of a company asserted a right to stock which was hostile to the plaintiffs claim to the stock holding that in a merger shareholders are effectively purchasing shares in a new corporation while losing their status as shareholders in the previous corporation