breach of contract, breach of implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligent training and supervision, and unjust enrichment do not involve reliance. An individual issue with respect to one element of a small portion of plaintiffs’ claims does not outweigh the multitude of issues common to the remaining elements and claims. 65.And plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims stem largely from misleading omissions, Second Am. Compl. at ¶¶43, 58-59, for which reliance may generally be presumed. For example, under the Securities Exchange Act section 10(b), individual reliance is presumed if the defendant’s omission is material. See Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 152-54, 92 S.Ct. 1456, 1471-72, 31 L.Ed.2d 741 (1972) [hereinafter Ute Citizens ] (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson
holding that reliance on a material omission may be presumed in a rule 10b5 case recognizing a rebuttable presumption of reliance in rule 10b5 holding that options traders may assert rule 10b5 claims holding that loss causation is a necessary element of a rule 10b5 claim holding that in a case involving misrepresentations in violation of securities and exchange commission rule 10b5 under the circumstances of this case involving primarily a failure to disclose positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery