on June 25,1996. Not all members of the proposed class who purchased SS & C stock within the 25-day period have standing to bring a claim against Hambreeht & Quist or Alex. Brown under § 12(a)(2), however. Section 12(a)(2) further requires that plaintiffs “purchase their shares directly from a seller who makes use of a false or misleading prospectus.” Id. at 67. The term “seller” encompasses not only anyone who stands in privity with a purchaser, but also anyone “who successfully solicits the purchase [of a security], motivated at least in part by a desire to serve his own financial interests or those of the securities owner.” Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 646, 108 S.Ct. 2063, 100 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988); see Wilson v. Saintine Exploration & Drilling Corp., 872 F.2d 1124, 1126 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). In order to fall within this second category
recognizing that claims arising under the ihra are analyzed under the same standards as title vii claims holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding wyoming only had standing to pursue section 12a2 claims as to indx 2006ar11 holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims holding pinter analysis to apply to claims arising under  12a2