High Court limits application of phrase ‘in connection with’ for federal securities laws
By David M Furbush
On 26 February 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v Troice et al that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) does not preclude class action lawsuits asserting state law claims in connection with the notorious Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Allen Stanford and the Stanford International Bank. The decision turns on an interpretation of the meaning of the phrase ‘in connection with’ as used in SLUSA and other federal securities laws.
SLUSA forbids securities class actions asserting claims under state law that allege a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact ‘in connection with’ the purchase or sale of a covered security, where ‘covered security’ means securities traded on a national exchange.
Investors in ‘uncovered’ securities — CDs issued by Stanford International Bank — filed class action lawsuits asserting state law claims against various parties, including insurance brokers and law firms, alleging that they assisted Stanford International Bank in conducting or concealing its Ponzi scheme…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury briefing.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
In Peabody v Time Warner Cable, Time Warner contended that a former account executive was not entitled to overtime pay because she fell into the ‘commissioned employee’ exemption.
The IRS has issued final regulations that permit employers and IRA providers to offer ‘qualified longevity annuity contracts’ or ‘QLACs’ under defined-contribution plans and IRAs.