Securities Law | Expert Legal Commentary
August 29, 2007
Ring: Establishing a Fine Distinction of What Is a Covered Security under SLUSA
Ring v. AXA Financial, Inc.
By
Josh Lawler of Zuber & Taillieu
While the cases of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006), Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir.2001), SEC v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. of Am., 359 U.S. 65 (1959) (“VALIC”), and Fisher v. Kanas, 2007 WL 1352713 (E.D.N.Y.), 487 F.Supp.2d 270 may have heightened the bar for filing class action lawsuits before state courts involving a “purchase and sale” of a “covered security” both as defined under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), the instant case of Ring v. Axa was a deviation from this line of cases, as the Court of Appeals established a fine distinction of what is a “covered security” and what is not within the meaning of the SLUSA.
To continue reading this article, subscribe now
It's FREE and only takes seconds
About the Author
Josh Lawler is a Partner of Zuber & Taillieu, specializing in corporate and securities transactions.
