(citing 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(1)). In addition, the Complaint fails to set forth any allegations with respect to the relationship between Sandberg and PaineWebber and Equitable, except that “PaineWebber is one of the distribution channels for Equitable Life’s annuity products, as developed by defendant Equitable Distributors.” Again, this allegation is so lacking in particularity that it cannot impute liability to Equitable Without particular pleadings as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), even if NASD Conduct Rule 2310 establishes an affirmative duty to disclose the alleged omission, the Court finds that no Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 claim was sufficiently alleged. See Burekovitch v. Hertz, No. 01 CV 1277(ILG), 2001 WL 984942, *9, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12173, at *27 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2001) (<HOLDING>); see also Rombach, 2002 WL 1396986, *4, 2002
holding that a cause of action based on an omission requires the plaintiff to show how an alleged omitted fact negates the truth of or renders misleading the statements actually made holding that an omission claim could not be maintained where plaintiff did not point to previous statements that were misleading without further disclosures holding that to state cause of action based on an omission a plaintiff must explain how an alleged omitted fact negates the truth of or renders misleading the statements actually made holding under texas law that appellants could not have prevailed on the merits of their negligent misrepresentation claim because they had not identified any statements of fact by boa that were actually false  or so incomplete as to be misleading holding that omission was not plain error