With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and within -three years after such violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 78i(e); Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 363, 111 S.Ct. 2773, 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991). Equitable argues that Malhotra’s claims are barred by the three-year prong of the statute of limitations. Under this prong, known as the “three-year statute of repose,” “a claimant has ‘no more than three years after the occurrence’ of the conduct inducing the Plaintiff to make its securities purchase to file a section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 claim.” Isanaka v. Spectrum Technologies USA Inc., 131 F.Supp.2d 353, 356 (N.D.N.Y.2001) (citing Ceres Partners v. GEL Assocs., 918 F.2d 349, 364 (2d Cir.1990); see also In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer. Sales Practices Litigation, 975 F.Supp. 584, 605 (D.N.J.1996)) (<HOLDING>); Northwestern Human Servs., Inc. v. Panaccio,

A: 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
B: holding that section 10b violation occurs on date of alleged misrepresentation not the date of the sale or purchase of securities
C: holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered
D: holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made
A.