Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 JUNE 2018

State Securities Fraud Class Actions

Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Contributor
Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown is a leading international law firm positioned to represent the world’s major...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mayer Brown

Recent years have seen significant growth in Securities Act of 1933 class actions filed in California state courts, based on conflicting readings of the jurisdictional provisions of SLUSA.

United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law

Recent years have seen significant growth in Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act") class actions filed in California state courts, based on conflicting readings of the jurisdictional provisions of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA").  SLUSA was designed, among other things, to prevent certain state private securities class action lawsuits alleging fraud from being used to frustrate the objectives of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). However, the jurisdictional provisions of SLUSA proved to be vague and unclear, resulting in a circuit split.  Some courts had found that SLUSA covered class actions filed in state court alleging only 1933 Act claims must be heard in federal courts.  In Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund,  the Supreme Court unanimously held that state courts have jurisdiction over class actions that allege federal violations under the 1933 Act and defendants are not permitted to remove

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from