In addition, plaintiffs appear to allege aiding and abetting only if the underlying tort is insufficiently pled as to that defendant but sufficiently pled against another defendant. See id. ¶¶ 237, 327, 396. For example, because plaintiffs have not brought a common law fraud claim against BoNY as a primary tortfeasor, they are not claiming that BoNY aided and abetted Morgan Stanley or the Rating Agencies in their fraud. 55 . Braten v. Kaplan, No. 07 Civ. 8498, 2009 WL 614657, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2009) (citing Wynn v. AC Rochester, 273 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir.2001)). 56 . 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3). 57 . 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a). 58 . City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (citations omit 1 U.S. 723, 749, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975) (<HOLDING>)). 63 . Blue Chip Stamps, 421 U.S. at 747, 95
holding that claims brought under section 10b of the securities exchange act and rico claims were arbitrable holding that  10b and rule 10b5 apply to frauds against brokers holding that a private plaintiff is not entitled to maintain an aiding and abetting action under  10b or rule 10b  5 holding only purchasers and sellers of securities can recover under section 10b and rule 10b5 holding that the wording of  10b making fraud in connection with purchase or sale of security a violation of the act is surely badly strained when construed to provide a cause of action not to purchasers or sellers of securities but to the world at large