answer in this case. b. “Purchaser” Standing I am satisfied the plaintiff also has purchaser standing under the Exchange Act. It is well-settled that a plaintiff may bring a 10(b) action only if it is related to a “purchase or sale” of securities. See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975). Thus, a plaintiff in a securities fraud case must show that it was an actual purchaser of stock to have standing to sue under the Exchange Act. Defendants argue that although BPI Global did actually purchase the Sonus stocks in this case, it did so as an agent for BPI Capital and thus was not t at the actual authority exercised by the investment advisor for its clients. See Lemanik, S.A. v. McKinley Allsopp, Inc., 125 F.R.D. 602, 607 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (<HOLDING>); Monetary Mgmt. Group of St. Louis, Inc. v.
holding parent corporation which controlled litigation on behalf of subsidiary bound by judgment recognizing distinction between corporate officer acting on behalf of himself and corporate officer acting on behalf of his corporation holding that a fiduciary corporation was a purchaser within the meaning of  12a2 and was entitled to bring suit on its own behalf or on behalf of its clients holding that an officer or director generally owes a fiduciary duty only to the corporation over which he exercises management authority and any breach of fiduciary duty claims arising out of injuries to the corporation in most cases may only be brought by the corporation itself or derivatively on its behalf holding that a nonattorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation