and the statute of limitations did not start to run, prior to that date. It was in January 2006 that Gottex alleges it first learned that Veras would be allocating the Settlement Expense among its investors on a pro rata basis and, as a result, Gottex would lose some of its principal investment. According to Gottex, prior to January 2006, it believed, based on representations made by Veras, that its portion of the Settlement Expense would not exceed the amount of its profits. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 97, 107-114. [14] However, in a securities fraud action, the injury occurs “at the time an investor enters ... a transaction as a result of material misrepresentations.” Lenz, 833 F.Supp. at 370; see also CSI Investment Partners II, L.P. v. Cendant Corp., 180 F.Supp.2d 444, 457-59 (S.D.NY.2001) (<HOLDING>). Gottex alleges that if it “had known of the
holding accrual of cause of action for purposes of statute of limitations occurs on the date on which the right to institute and maintain a suit first arises holding that for a section 10b violation the sec must prove that the defendant in connection with the purchase or sale of securities made a materially false statement or omitted a material fact with scienter and that the plaintiffs reliance on the defendants action caused injury to the plaintiff holding that section 10b violation occurs on date of alleged misrepresentation not the date of the sale or purchase of securities holding that for statute of limitations purposes the injury in a section 10b action occurs at the time of plaintiffs entry into purchase agreement not on later date when plaintiffs failed to receive expected payment holding that a purchase agreement for a foreign corporations stock is not subject to section 10b even if the closing occurred in the united states