1209 (11th Cir. 1981). He is also correct that the Court is bound by such precedent unless it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation. See In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789, 794 (11th Cir. 2015). However, the SEC rightly points out that Rule 14e-3, the supplementary rule Avent is charged with violating in Claim Two, was adopted after Smallwood was decided. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.14e-3; see also Doc. No. [1], p. 33 — 37, TO.00-109. Rule 14e-3 prohibits insider trading “without requiring a showing that the trading at issue entailed a breach of fiduciary duty.” United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 666-67, 117 S.Ct. 2199, 2214, 138 L.Ed. 2d 724 (1997). In this respect, a claim under § 14(e) and a claim under § 10(b) are distinctly different. See id. at 652, 117 S.Ct. 2199, 2214 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Court concludes that, to the extent
holding that the threeyear limitations period for section 10b and rule 10b5 claims begins to run upon the date a defendant makes an affirmative misrepresentation or in the case of an omission upon the date a duty to disclose the withheld information arises holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information holding that a person violates  10b and rule 10b5 when he misappropriates confidential information  in breach of a duty owed to the source of the information holding that  10b and rule 10b5 apply to frauds against brokers