U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 2A— SECURITIES AND TRUST INDENTURES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— DOMESTIC SECURITIES

15 U.S.C. § 77p

Additional remedies; limitation on remedies

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Remedies additional

Except as provided in subsection (b), the rights and remedies provided by this subchapter shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity.

(b) Class action limitationsNo covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging—(1) an untrue statement or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security; or(2) that the defendant used or employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security.(c) Removal of covered class actions

Any covered class action brought in any State court involving a covered security, as set forth in subsection (b), shall be removable to the Federal district court for the district in which the action is pending, and shall be subject to subsection (b).

(d) Preservation of certain actions(1) Actions under State law of State of incorporation(A) Actions preserved

Notwithstanding subsection (b) or (c), a covered class action described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph that is based upon the statutory or common law of the State in which the issuer is incorporated (in the case of a corporation) or organized (in the case of any other entity) may be maintained in a State or Federal court by a private party.

(B) Permissible actionsA covered class action is described in this subparagraph if it involves—(i) the purchase or sale of securities by the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer exclusively from or to holders of equity securities of the issuer; or(ii) any recommendation, position, or other communication with respect to the sale of securities of the issuer that—(I) is made by or on behalf of the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer to holders of equity securities of the issuer; and(II) concerns decisions of those equity holders with respect to voting their securities, acting in response to a tender or exchange offer, or exercising dissenters’ or appraisal rights.(2) State actions(A) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, nothing in this section may be construed to preclude a State or political subdivision thereof or a State pension plan from bringing an action involving a covered security on its own behalf, or as a member of a class comprised solely of other States, political subdivisions, or State pension plans that are named plaintiffs, and that have authorized participation, in such action.

(B) “State pension plan” defined

For purposes of this paragraph, the term “State pension plan” means a pension plan established and maintained for its employees by the government of the State or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality thereof.

(3) Actions under contractual agreements between issuers and indenture trustees

Notwithstanding subsection (b) or (c), a covered class action that seeks to enforce a contractual agreement between an issuer and an indenture trustee may be maintained in a State or Federal court by a party to the agreement or a successor to such party.

(4) Remand of removed actions

In an action that has been removed from a State court pursuant to subsection (c), if the Federal court determines that the action may be maintained in State court pursuant to this subsection, the Federal court shall remand such action to such State court.

(e) Preservation of State jurisdiction

The securities commission (or any agency or office performing like functions) of any State shall retain jurisdiction under the laws of such State to investigate and bring enforcement actions.

(f) DefinitionsFor purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:(1) Affiliate of the issuer

The term “affiliate of the issuer” means a person that directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls or is controlled by or is under common control with, the issuer.

(2) Covered class action(A) In generalThe term “covered class action” means—(i) any single lawsuit in which—(I) damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 persons or prospective class members, and questions of law or fact common to those persons or members of the prospective class, without reference to issues of individualized reliance on an alleged misstatement or omission, predominate over any questions affecting only individual persons or members; or(II) one or more named parties seek to recover damages on a representative basis on behalf of themselves and other unnamed parties similarly situated, and questions of law or fact common to those persons or members of the prospective class predominate over any questions affecting only individual persons or members; or(ii) any group of lawsuits filed in or pending in the same court and involving common questions of law or fact, in which—(I) damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 persons; and(II) the lawsuits are joined, consolidated, or otherwise proceed as a single action for any purpose.(B) Exception for derivative actions

Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term “covered class action” does not include an exclusively derivative action brought by one or more shareholders on behalf of a corporation.

(C) Counting of certain class members

For purposes of this paragraph, a corporation, investment company, pension plan, partnership, or other entity, shall be treated as one person or prospective class member, but only if the entity is not established for the purpose of participating in the action.

(D) Rule of construction

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the discretion of a State court in determining whether actions filed in such court should be joined, consolidated, or otherwise allowed to proceed as a single action.

(3) Covered security

The term “covered security” means a security that satisfies the standards for a covered security specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 77r(b) of this title at the time during which it is alleged that the misrepresentation, omission, or manipulative or deceptive conduct occurred, except that such term shall not include any debt security that is exempt from registration under this subchapter pursuant to rules issued by the Commission under section 77d(2) 11 See References in Text note below. of this title.

(May 27, 1933, ch. 38, title I, § 16, 48 Stat. 84; Pub. L. 105–353, title I, § 101(a)(1), Nov. 3, 1998, 112 Stat. 3227.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 77d(2) of this title, referred to in subsec. (f)(3), was redesignated section 77d(a)(2) of this title by Pub. L. 112–106, title II, § 201(b)(1), (c)(1), Apr. 5, 2012, 126 Stat. 314.

Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–353 amended section catchline and text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The rights and remedies provided by this subchapter shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1998 Amendment

Pub. L. 105–353, title I, § 101(c), Nov. 3, 1998, 112 Stat. 3233, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section and sections 77v, 77z–1, 78u–4, and 78bb of this title] shall not affect or apply to any action commenced before and pending on the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 3, 1998].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 305 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1939–2026 · leading case: Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006). · cites it 16× “[12] The funds argue 15 U. S. C. § 77p confers jurisdiction greater than that necessary to render the preclusion decision, analogizing § 77p(c) to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.”
L. Claire Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. & Hartford Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 14× “3227 (codified as amended in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p & 78bb(f)), which states, inter alia, that “no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging .”
Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 17× “SLUSA amended section 16 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act”), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p, and made a substantially identical amendment to section 28(f) of the 1934 Act, codified at 15 U.”
New York City Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Ebbers (In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.), 293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). · cites it 8× “§ 1441 , or pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77p, the class action removal provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, Pub.”
David Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 77p, individual diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.”
Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Investments, 779 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 7× “Northstar then filed an amended complaint that left those claims at risk of dismissal under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb, because it contained allegations that suggested that its claims were based on misrepresentations.”
Potter v. Janus Inv. Fund, 483 F. Supp. 2d 692 (S.D. Ill. 2007). · cites it 12× “3227 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)-(f) and 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)), which, as will be discussed in more detail presently, prohibits the maintenance of certain claims regarding securities as a class action under state law.”
Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins., 593 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 20× “Demings does not now dispute that his proposed class-action suit was a covered state-law class action that would generally be precluded under SLUSA’s terms.”
Greaves v. McAuley, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ga. 2003). · cites it 27× “According to the defendants, this court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“Uniform Standards Act” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f). 1 Also, the defendants believe that this court has…”
Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 6× “Whether Plaintiffs Claims Must Be Dismissed Because Of SLUSA Preemption Once it is determined that plaintiffs claims fall within the ambit of SLUSA’s removal provision, the complaint must be dismissed, as 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b) states that no covered class action based on state law…”
Winne v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 315 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). · cites it 11× “§ 1331 and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78 bb(f), arguing that SLUSA provides for sole federal jurisdiction over these claims.”
In re WorldCom, Inc. Erisa Litig., 263 F. Supp. 2d 745 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). · cites it 6× “17 Plaintiffs disregard the fact that other provisions of the securities laws, such as Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.”
Show all 305 citing cases →
15 U.S.C. § 77p(1)(b): 2 cases
In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 308 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Bell v. Ebbers, 308 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(a): 7 cases
David Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2016). “§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 77p, individual diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.”
Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 (2007).
North Sound Capital LLC v. Merck & Co Inc, 938 F.3d 482 (3d Cir. 2019).
Campbell v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. (Aig), 926 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D.D.C. 2013).
Zuri-Invest AG v. Natwest Fin. Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(b): 167 cases
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006). “[12] The funds argue 15 U. S. C. § 77p confers jurisdiction greater than that necessary to render the preclusion decision, analogizing § 77p(c) to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.”
Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009). “SLUSA amended section 16 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act”), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p, and made a substantially identical amendment to section 28(f) of the 1934 Act, codified at 15 U.”
Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007).
L. Claire Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. & Hartford Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001). “3227 (codified as amended in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p & 78bb(f)), which states, inter alia, that “no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging .”
Segal v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 581 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 2009).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)(1): 5 cases
Lasala v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 514 F. Supp. 2d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Portell v. Zayed, 375 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (E.D. Ill. 2019).
Atkinson v. Morgan Asset Mgmt.. Inc., 664 F. Supp. 2d 898 (W.D. Tenn. 2009).
Horvath v. Zayed, No. 1:18-cv-05414 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2019).
Donald Black v. Mantei & Assocs., Ltd., 145 F.4th 528 (4th Cir. 2025).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)(2): 8 cases
Potter v. Janus Inv. Fund, 483 F. Supp. 2d 692 (S.D. Ill. 2007). “3227 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)-(f) and 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)), which, as will be discussed in more detail presently, prohibits the maintenance of certain claims regarding securities as a class action under state law.”
Kazimierz J. Dudek Margaret Varley Dudek v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 295 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2002).
Winne v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 315 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “§ 1331 and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78 bb(f), arguing that SLUSA provides for sole federal jurisdiction over these claims.”
In re Edward Jones Holders Litig., 453 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
Portell v. Zayed, 375 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (E.D. Ill. 2019).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)(l): 15 cases
Potter v. Janus Inv. Fund, 483 F. Supp. 2d 692 (S.D. Ill. 2007). “3227 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)-(f) and 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)), which, as will be discussed in more detail presently, prohibits the maintenance of certain claims regarding securities as a class action under state law.”
Miller v. Nationwide Life Ins., 391 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 2004).
Atkinson v. Morgan Asset Mgmt., Inc., 658 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2011).
Kirschner v. Bennett, 648 F. Supp. 2d 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Grant Thornton LLP v. Suntrust Bank, 133 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(c): 76 cases
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006). “[12] The funds argue 15 U. S. C. § 77p confers jurisdiction greater than that necessary to render the preclusion decision, analogizing § 77p(c) to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.”
United States v. Steven Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020).
California Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. WorldCom, Inc., 368 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2004).
L. Claire Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. & Hartford Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001). “3227 (codified as amended in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p & 78bb(f)), which states, inter alia, that “no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging .”
Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “Whether Plaintiffs Claims Must Be Dismissed Because Of SLUSA Preemption Once it is determined that plaintiffs claims fall within the ambit of SLUSA’s removal provision, the complaint must be dismissed, as 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b) states that no covered class action based on state law…”
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d): 11 cases
Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Investments, 779 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2015). “Northstar then filed an amended complaint that left those claims at risk of dismissal under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb, because it contained allegations that suggested that its claims were based on misrepresentations.”
Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009). “SLUSA amended section 16 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act”), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p, and made a substantially identical amendment to section 28(f) of the 1934 Act, codified at 15 U.”
Greaves v. McAuley, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ga. 2003). “According to the defendants, this court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“Uniform Standards Act” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f). 1 Also, the defendants believe that this court has…”
W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co. v. BT Sec. Corp., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (N.D. Ala. 2001).
Kathryn Campbell v. Am. Int'l Grp., 760 F.3d 62 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(1): 4 cases
Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Investments, 779 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2015). “Northstar then filed an amended complaint that left those claims at risk of dismissal under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb, because it contained allegations that suggested that its claims were based on misrepresentations.”
Northstar Fin. Advisors v. Schwab Investments, 904 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2018).
Northstar Fin. Advisors v. Schwab Investments, No. 11-17187 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2015).
Jerry L. Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co, No. 08-4476 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 2010).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(1)(A): 4 cases
Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009). “SLUSA amended section 16 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act”), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p, and made a substantially identical amendment to section 28(f) of the 1934 Act, codified at 15 U.”
David Rainero v. Archon Corp., No. 14-17106 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016).
Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, No. CA 2017-0931-JTL, 2018 WL 6719718 (Del. Ch. Dec. 19, 2018).
Madden v. Cowen & Co., No. 07-15900 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2009).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(1)(B): 1 case
Madden v. Cowen & Co., No. 07-15900 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2009).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(1)(B)(i): 1 case
Atkinson v. Morgan Asset Mgmt.. Inc., 664 F. Supp. 2d 898 (W.D. Tenn. 2009).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(1)(B)(ii): 2 cases
Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009). “SLUSA amended section 16 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act”), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p, and made a substantially identical amendment to section 28(f) of the 1934 Act, codified at 15 U.”
Madden v. Cowen & Co., No. 07-15900 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2009).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(2): 7 cases
New York City Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Ebbers (In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.), 293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “§ 1441 , or pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77p, the class action removal provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, Pub.”
L. Claire Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. & Hartford Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001). “3227 (codified as amended in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p & 78bb(f)), which states, inter alia, that “no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging .”
In re WorldCom, Inc. Erisa Litig., 263 F. Supp. 2d 745 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “17 Plaintiffs disregard the fact that other provisions of the securities laws, such as Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.”
Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins., 593 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2010). “Demings does not now dispute that his proposed class-action suit was a covered state-law class action that would generally be precluded under SLUSA’s terms.”
Campbell v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. (Aig), 926 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D.D.C. 2013).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(2)(A): 4 cases
Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins., 593 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2010). “Demings does not now dispute that his proposed class-action suit was a covered state-law class action that would generally be precluded under SLUSA’s terms.”
Ret. Sys. of Alabama v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (M.D. Ala. 2002).
Jerry L. Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co, No. 08-4476 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 2010).
Broyles, No. 3:10-cv-00854 (M.D. La. May 20, 2026).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(2)(B): 1 case
Broyles, No. 3:10-cv-00854 (M.D. La. May 20, 2026).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(3): 2 cases
L. Claire Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. & Hartford Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001). “3227 (codified as amended in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p & 78bb(f)), which states, inter alia, that “no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging .”
Patenaude v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 290 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2002).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(4): 12 cases
Greaves v. McAuley, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ga. 2003). “According to the defendants, this court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“Uniform Standards Act” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f). 1 Also, the defendants believe that this court has…”
Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009). “SLUSA amended section 16 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act”), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p, and made a substantially identical amendment to section 28(f) of the 1934 Act, codified at 15 U.”
Araujo v. John Hancock Life Ins., 206 F. Supp. 2d 377 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).
Cape Ann Investors LLC v. Lepone, 296 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D. Mass. 2003).
In re Lord Abbett Mut. Funds Fee Litig., 463 F. Supp. 2d 505 (D.N.J. 2006).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(B): 1 case
Lasley v. New England Variable Life Ins., 126 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(B)(ii)(I): 2 cases
Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009). “SLUSA amended section 16 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act”), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p, and made a substantially identical amendment to section 28(f) of the 1934 Act, codified at 15 U.”
Madden v. Cowen & Co., No. 07-15900 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2009).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(l): 7 cases
L. Claire Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. & Hartford Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001). “3227 (codified as amended in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p & 78bb(f)), which states, inter alia, that “no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging .”
Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Investments, 779 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2015). “Northstar then filed an amended complaint that left those claims at risk of dismissal under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb, because it contained allegations that suggested that its claims were based on misrepresentations.”
Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins., 593 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2010). “Demings does not now dispute that his proposed class-action suit was a covered state-law class action that would generally be precluded under SLUSA’s terms.”
Campbell v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. (Aig), 926 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D.D.C. 2013).
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Grp., Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 763 (D. Ariz. 2009).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(l)(A): 13 cases
David Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2016). “§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 77p, individual diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.”
New York City Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Ebbers (In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.), 293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “§ 1441 , or pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77p, the class action removal provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, Pub.”
In re WorldCom, Inc. Erisa Litig., 263 F. Supp. 2d 745 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “17 Plaintiffs disregard the fact that other provisions of the securities laws, such as Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.”
Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Investments, 135 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
Greaves v. McAuley, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ga. 2003). “According to the defendants, this court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“Uniform Standards Act” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f). 1 Also, the defendants believe that this court has…”
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(l)(B): 8 cases
Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009). “SLUSA amended section 16 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act”), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p, and made a substantially identical amendment to section 28(f) of the 1934 Act, codified at 15 U.”
Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Investments, 135 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
Atkinson v. Morgan Asset Mgmt., Inc., 658 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2011).
Greaves v. McAuley, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ga. 2003). “According to the defendants, this court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“Uniform Standards Act” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f). 1 Also, the defendants believe that this court has…”
Campbell v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. (Aig), 926 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D.D.C. 2013).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(l)(B)(i): 1 case
Atkinson v. Morgan Asset Mgmt.. Inc., 664 F. Supp. 2d 898 (W.D. Tenn. 2009).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(l)(B)(ii): 3 cases
Greaves v. McAuley, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ga. 2003). “According to the defendants, this court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“Uniform Standards Act” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f). 1 Also, the defendants believe that this court has…”
Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Investments, 135 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
Madden v. Cowen & Co., 556 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2009).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(e): 15 cases
New York City Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Ebbers (In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.), 293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “§ 1441 , or pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77p, the class action removal provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, Pub.”
L. Claire Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. & Hartford Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001). “3227 (codified as amended in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p & 78bb(f)), which states, inter alia, that “no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging .”
Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “Whether Plaintiffs Claims Must Be Dismissed Because Of SLUSA Preemption Once it is determined that plaintiffs claims fall within the ambit of SLUSA’s removal provision, the complaint must be dismissed, as 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b) states that no covered class action based on state law…”
Atkinson v. Morgan Asset Mgmt., Inc., 658 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2011).
Dudley v. Putnam Inv. Funds, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (S.D. Ill. 2007).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f): 2 cases
Knox v. Agria Corp., 613 F. Supp. 2d 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Schwartz v. Concordia Int'l Corp., 255 F. Supp. 3d 380 (E.D.N.Y. 2017).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(2): 20 cases
New York City Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Ebbers (In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.), 293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “§ 1441 , or pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77p, the class action removal provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, Pub.”
Newby v. Enron Corp., 302 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2002).
Susan Nielen-Thomas v. Concorde Inv. Servs., 914 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2019).
Newby v. Enron Corp., 338 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2003).
Potter v. Janus Inv. Fund, 483 F. Supp. 2d 692 (S.D. Ill. 2007). “3227 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)-(f) and 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)), which, as will be discussed in more detail presently, prohibits the maintenance of certain claims regarding securities as a class action under state law.”
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(2)(A): 19 cases
Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “Whether Plaintiffs Claims Must Be Dismissed Because Of SLUSA Preemption Once it is determined that plaintiffs claims fall within the ambit of SLUSA’s removal provision, the complaint must be dismissed, as 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b) states that no covered class action based on state law…”
LaSala v. Bank of Cyprus Pub. Co., 510 F. Supp. 2d 246 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
LaSala v. UBS, AG, 510 F. Supp. 2d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Greaves v. McAuley, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ga. 2003). “According to the defendants, this court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“Uniform Standards Act” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f). 1 Also, the defendants believe that this court has…”
Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (S.D. Ill. 2007).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(2)(A)(i): 15 cases
In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Sec. Litig., 151 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
In re WorldCom, Inc. Erisa Litig., 263 F. Supp. 2d 745 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “17 Plaintiffs disregard the fact that other provisions of the securities laws, such as Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.”
Charles H. Behlen v. Merrill Lynch, 311 F.3d 1087 (11th Cir. 2002).
Araujo v. John Hancock Life Ins., 206 F. Supp. 2d 377 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).
Grund v. Delaware Charter Guarantee & Trust Co., 788 F. Supp. 2d 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(2)(A)(ii): 5 cases
Newby v. Enron Corp., 542 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2008).
Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins., 593 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2010). “Demings does not now dispute that his proposed class-action suit was a covered state-law class action that would generally be precluded under SLUSA’s terms.”
Kuwait Inv. Off. v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 128 F. Supp. 3d 792 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Ex Parte Regions Fin. Corp., 67 So. 3d 45 (Ala. 2010).
Jerry L. Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co, No. 08-4476 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 2010).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(2)(A)(n): 1 case
Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins., 593 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2010). “Demings does not now dispute that his proposed class-action suit was a covered state-law class action that would generally be precluded under SLUSA’s terms.”
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(2)(B): 6 cases
Seafarers Pension Plan v. Robert Bradway, 23 F.4th 714 (7th Cir. 2022).
Potter v. Janus Inv. Fund, 483 F. Supp. 2d 692 (S.D. Ill. 2007). “3227 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)-(f) and 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)), which, as will be discussed in more detail presently, prohibits the maintenance of certain claims regarding securities as a class action under state law.”
Greaves v. McAuley, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ga. 2003). “According to the defendants, this court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“Uniform Standards Act” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f). 1 Also, the defendants believe that this court has…”
In re Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS, One Grp., & Putnam Mut. Fund Litig., 320 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D. Md. 2004).
In re Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS, One Grp., Putnam Mut. Fund Litig., 320 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D. Md. 2004).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(2)(C): 4 cases
LaSala v. Bank of Cyprus Pub. Co., 510 F. Supp. 2d 246 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
LaSala v. UBS, AG, 510 F. Supp. 2d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Lasala v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 514 F. Supp. 2d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Picard v. HSBC Bank PLC, 450 B.R. 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(2)(D): 2 cases
In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 308 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Bell v. Ebbers, 308 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(3): 36 cases
Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009). “SLUSA amended section 16 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act”), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77p, and made a substantially identical amendment to section 28(f) of the 1934 Act, codified at 15 U.”
New York City Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Ebbers (In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.), 293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “§ 1441 , or pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77p, the class action removal provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, Pub.”
Miller v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 979 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2020).
L. Claire Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. & Hartford Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001). “3227 (codified as amended in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p & 78bb(f)), which states, inter alia, that “no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging .”
In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA, 284 F. Supp. 2d 511 (S.D. Tex. 2003).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(4): 1 case
Greaves v. McAuley, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ga. 2003). “According to the defendants, this court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“Uniform Standards Act” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f). 1 Also, the defendants believe that this court has…”
15 U.S.C. § 77p(f)(l): 1 case
Greaves v. McAuley, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ga. 2003). “According to the defendants, this court has original jurisdiction over the cause of action pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“Uniform Standards Act” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f). 1 Also, the defendants believe that this court has…”
15 U.S.C. § 77p(fX2): 1 case
L. Claire Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. & Hartford Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001). “3227 (codified as amended in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p & 78bb(f)), which states, inter alia, that “no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging .”
15 U.S.C. § 77p(fX3): 1 case
L. Claire Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. & Hartford Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001). “3227 (codified as amended in part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p & 78bb(f)), which states, inter alia, that “no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging .”
15 U.S.C. § 77p(i)(2)(A): 1 case
In re Metro. Sec. Litig., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (E.D. Wash. 2007).
15 U.S.C. § 77p(i)(2)(B): 1 case
Patenaude v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 290 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2002).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.