Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice; Willis of Colorado Inc. v. Troice; Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice
Whether SLUSA precludes a state-law class action alleging a scheme of fraud that involves misrepresentation about transactions in SLUSA covered securities.
Whether a covered state law class action complaint that unquestionably alleges “a” misrepresentation “in connection with” the purchase or sale of a SLUSA-covered security nonetheless can escape the application of SLUSA by including other allegations that are farther removed from a covered securities transaction.
Does the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p(b), 78bb(f)(1), prohibit private class actions based on state law only where the alleged purchase or sale of a covered security is “more the tangentially related” to the “heart, crux or gravamen” of the alleged fraud?
Cert. petition filed 7/18/12. Granted 1/28/13. Argued 8/7/13. Decided 2/26/14.