context: "Mere retention" of securities during a period of an alleged violation does not satisfy the requirement that the violation be in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. Pollak v. Eastman Dillon, CCH Fed.See.L.Rep. P94,-987 at 97,412 (S.D.N.Y.1975); In re Hoe & Co., Inc., CCH Fed.See.L.Rep. P 94,553 at 95,923 (S.D.N.Y.1974). The Second Circuit has stated "[bjefore changes in the rights of a security holder can qualify as the 'purchase' of a new security under 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, there must be such significant change in the nature of the investment or in the investment risks as to amount to a new investment."
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 98 S.Ct. 2236, 2253
citation_a.parenthetical: modifications affected by the adoption of a new partnership agreement did not constitute the purchase and sale of new securities
citation_a.sentence: Abrahamson v. Fles chner, 568 F.2d 862, 868 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 905, 913, 98 S.Ct. 2236, 2253, 56 L.Ed.2d 403, 414 (1978) (modifications affected by the adoption of a new partnership agreement did not constitute the purchase and sale of new securities); see Rothstein v. Seidman & Seidman, 410 F.Supp. 244, 247 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (agreements permitting loans to remain outstanding did not constitute reinvestments).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 410 F.Supp. 244, 247
citation_b.parenthetical: agreements permitting loans to remain outstanding did not constitute reinvestments
citation_b.sentence: Abrahamson v. Fles chner, 568 F.2d 862, 868 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 905, 913, 98 S.Ct. 2236, 2253, 56 L.Ed.2d 403, 414 (1978) (modifications affected by the adoption of a new partnership agreement did not constitute the purchase and sale of new securities); see Rothstein v. Seidman & Seidman, 410 F.Supp. 244, 247 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (agreements permitting loans to remain outstanding did not constitute reinvestments).