at *66-67 (S.D.Tex. June 5, 2006) (listing cases and concluding an advisor with discretionary authority qualifies as a purchaser), with In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Sec. Litig., 226 F.R.D. 298, 311 (S.D.Ohio 2005) (noting disagreement and concluding an advisor does not qualify as a purchaser). Some courts have focused on whether an investment advisor is authorized to be its clients’ attorney-in-fact. Id. “[W]hen the investment advisor is also the attorney-in-fact for its clients with unrestricted decision making authority, the investment advisor is considered the ‘purchaser’ under the federal securities law with standing to sue in its own name.” Weinberg v. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, 216 F.R.D. 248, 255 (S.D.N.Y.2003); see also Kaplan v. Gelfond, 240 F.R.D. 88, 95 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (<HOLDING>). Rather than relying on formal
holding that an investment advisor has standing in a securities fraud litigation because its clients appointed it as their attorneyinfact holding that investment advisors with authority to make investment decisions for their clients have standing holding that an africanamerican investment advisor who accompanied two clients into a bank could assert a  51 claim alleging discrimination against the bank even though his clients were the actual customers of the bank holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud holding banks that bought securities on behalf of their clients had sufficient interest in the case to serve as lead plaintiffs