SLUSA in Second Circuit After Troice Decision

, New York Law Journal


Williams & Connolly partners George A. Borden and John S. Williams write that the Supreme Court's holding in 'Troice,' with its unique circumstances, should not have a significant impact on the meaning of the phrase "in connection with," which more than any other determines whether an alleged fraud is sufficiently connected to the sale of securities that it can be a basis for a securities suit. This limited impact can be seen by examining litigation arising from the fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

Originally appeared in print as SLUSA in the Second Circuit After Supreme Court's Troice Decision

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202651526129

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.