further confirmed by the Supreme Court’s subsequent description of Naftalin as having “applied] § 17(a) of the 1933 Act to con duct also prohibited by § 10(b) of the 1984 Act,” Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 383, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983), and by its recent affirmation that section 10(b) “does not confine its coverage to deception of a purchaser or seller of securities,” O’Hagan, 521 U.S. at 651, 117 S.Ct. 2199. See also SEC v. Jakubowski, 150 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir.1998) (noting that Naftalin was “a case under § 17 of the 1933 Act, which requires proof that the fraud occurred ‘in’ an offer or sales of securities — a tighter link, one might suppose, than ‘in connection with’ ”) (citation omitted); A. T. Brod & Co. v. Perlow, 375 F.2d 393, 396-97 (2d Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>). Graham also contends that there cannot have
holding that actions asserting claims based on  10b and rule 10b5 must be initiated within a year of discovering the facts establishing the violation holding that a person violates  10b and rule 10b5 when he misappropriates confidential information  in breach of a duty owed to the source of the information holding that a private plaintiff is not entitled to maintain an aiding and abetting action under  10b or rule 10b  5 holding that  10b and rule 10b5 apply to frauds against brokers holding only purchasers and sellers of securities can recover under section 10b and rule 10b5