F.Supp.2d 575, 627 (S.D.N.Y.2004). 66 . CAC ¶ 64. 67 . Id. ¶ 65. 68 . See Medinol, 346 F.Supp.2d at 606. 69 . Id. at 627. 70 . Mot. Dismiss Hr'g Tr. 5:1-5, Jan. 30, 2007 (Paper # 65). 71 . See CAC ¶¶ 57, 62. 72 . Mot. Dismiss Hr'g Tr. 7:14-15, Jan. 30, 2007. 73 . App. Public Rs., Ex. A, p. 42, Ex. B, p. 68-69, Ex. C, p. 67. 74 . Id. 75 . CAC ¶ 61. 76 . In re Citigroup, Inc. Sec. Litig., 330 F.Supp.2d 367, 377 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (finding that plaintiff's claim that Citigroup violated securities laws by failing to disclose that its revenues were derived from allegedly unsustainable and illegitimate sources, including Enron-related activities, did not support a section 10(b) action); see also Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund v. Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co., 432 F.Supp.2d 571, 586 (E.D.Va.2006) (<HOLDING>). That court also noted that "Rule 10b-5 was
holding that defendant insurance company could not be held liable in negligence to a plaintiff for failure to disclose the insureds medical condition where defendant insurance company had not assumed a professional and expert position with respect to the insureds physical condition holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud holding that defendants in securities fraud case had no duty to disclose that defendant insurance company employed practices which illicitly and improperly relied on nonstandard commissions holding that insurance company operating under a reservation of rights had the right and the duty to control the defense until such time as it was determined that it had no liability insurance coverage recognizing defense in securities case