United States: US Supreme Court Upholds State Court Jurisdiction For Class Actions Under Securities Act Of 1933

In a decision that has implications for both corporate and individual defendants, the US Supreme Court ruled that class actions being brought under the Securities Act of 1933 must remain in state court. As a result, defendants may have to litigate 1933 Act class actions in multiple jurisdictions, whether both state and federal courts or more than one state court, leaving defendants with greater risk and higher litigation costs.

On March 20, in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund,1 the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a California Superior Court ruling that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA)2 left intact state court jurisdiction over claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act).3 Specifically, the Court held that SLUSA’s amendments to the 1933 Act did not bar state court jurisdiction over class actions alleging only 1933 Act violations, nor did it authorize the removal of such suits from state to federal court.4


In 2014, the Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (the Fund), a pension fund that had purchased Cyan stock at its initial public offering, filed a class action in California Superior Court alleging only violations of the 1933 Act. Cyan moved to dismiss, arguing that the 1933 Act, as amended by SLUSA, deprived the court of jurisdiction over the action. The Superior Court rejected Cyan’s argument and denied the motion; the state appellate court denied review. The US Supreme Court then granted certiorari to resolve a split among federal and state courts about whether SLUSA deprived state courts of jurisdiction over class actions that allege only 1933 Act claims.

The 1933 Act requires companies offering securities to the public to make “full and fair disclosure” of relevant information.5 The statute creates private rights of action, authorizes federal and state courts to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over those private suits, and bars removal of actions from state to federal court.6 One year later, Congress enacted the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act),7 which regulates not the original issuance of securities but their subsequent trading. The 1934 Act also provides for enforcement through private actions, but federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over those suits.8

In 1995, Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA)9 to amend the 1933 and 1934 Acts and address concerns of “abuses of the class-action vehicle in litigation involving nationally traded securities.”10 As a result, plaintiffs and their representatives began bringing class actions under state law to circumvent the PSLRA’s substantive and procedural hurdles.11

In 1998, Congress enacted SLUSA to further amend both Acts.12 SLUSA added a significant qualification to the 1933 Act’s authorization of concurrent federal and state court jurisdiction: State courts now exercise concurrent jurisdiction “except as provided in section 77p . . . with respect to covered class actions.”13 Interpretation of this clause, called the “except clause,” determines whether the Fund’s 1933 Act class action may be adjudicated in state court.

State Court Jurisdiction over 1933 Act Claims

In its brief, Cyan urged that the term “covered class action,” defined in Section 77p(f)(2) of the 1933 Act as a suit seeking damages on behalf of more than 50 persons, informed the scope of the except clause. According to Cyan, class actions of more than 50 persons were exempted from state court jurisdiction—regardless of whether the action was based on the 1933 Act or state securities law.14

The Court rejected that interpretation of the except clause as giving too much weight to a definitional provision and insufficient consideration to other provisions in Section 77p. The Court first observed that the 1933 Act gave state courts concurrent jurisdiction, and that SLUSA’s imposition of the except clause “is drafted as a limitation on that rule.”15 In other words, where the general rule and the except clause conflict, the except clause controls.16 Examining SLUSA’s amendments of provisions in the section, the Court noted that Section 77p(b) disallows, in both state and federal courts, any class actions in which damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 persons that are founded on state securities law with respect to a nationally traded security’s purchase or sale.17 As a corollary, Section 77p(c) requires any class action set forth in Section 77p(b) and brought in state court to be removed to federal court and dismissed.18 However, as the Court explained, “the section says nothing, and so does nothing, to deprive state courts of jurisdiction over class actions based on federal law.”19 Therefore, the Court concluded, the except clause does not prevent state courts from exercising jurisdiction over class actions based on the 1933 Act.20

The Court also considered the US solicitor general’s middle-ground position that, although state courts had jurisdiction over 1933 Act class actions, those suits may be removed to federal court.21 The government explained, “Congress would not have been content to leave” such suits “stuck in state court,” where the PSLRA’s protections do not apply.22 Although the Court voiced no disagreement over Congress’s intent, it reasoned that the government’s position contravened the “straightforward reading” of statutory provisions that limited removal to those class actions under Section 77p(b).23 The Court declined to “‘disregard clear language’ based on an intuition that ‘Congress must have intended something broader.’”24

Cyan also pointed to statements in SLUSA’s legislative reports that the purpose of the statute was “to prevent plaintiffs from seeking to evade the protections that Federal law provides against abusive litigation by filing suit in State, rather than Federal court.”25 Given that SLUSA was enacted to finish the work of the PSLRA, Cyan argued that the only way to do so was by divesting state courts of jurisdiction over all 1933 Act class actions that qualified as “covered class actions.”26

The Supreme Court disagreed, observing that SLUSA “largely accomplished the purpose articulated in the Conference Report” of moving securities class actions to federal court.27 Notwithstanding, the Court acknowledged, “We do not know why Congress declined to require as well that 1933 Act class actions be brought in federal court,”28 noting that “[i]f further steps are needed, they are up to Congress.”29


This decision leaves unresolved “the bizarre situation where class actions alleging only state claims or both state and federal claims must be removed to federal court, but those alleging only [1933 Act] claims may remain in state court.”30 As a result, corporate and individual defendants may have to litigate 1933 Act class actions in multiple jurisdictions, such as in both state and federal court, or in multiple state courts.31 Litigation in multiple state courts could become a particular concern: According to a recent Cornerstone Research annual report, in 2017, all 1933 Act class suits filed in California state court involved parallel state court actions.32 In state court, where the PSLRA’s substantive and procedural protections may be unavailable,33 judges are far less likely to dismiss these actions, and may not stay discovery pending any motion to dismiss.34 This leaves defendants with greater risk and higher litigation costs.35 Until Congress acts—if it does—Cyan likely will increase the number of 1933 Act suits invoking state court jurisdiction, and corporations will have to carefully navigate the risks of litigating complex securities matters in state courts.


1 No. 15-1439, 583 U.S. __ (2018). This LawFlash cites to page numbers in the slip opinion.

2 112 Stat. 3227.

3 48 Stat. 74, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a et seq.

4 Slip op. at 24.

5 Id. at 1 (citing Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 646 (1988)).

6 See § 22(a), 48 Stat. 86, 87.

7 48 Stat. 881, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a et seq.

8 Slip op. at 2 (citing Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 752, 730, and n.4 (1975)).

9 109 Stat. 737.

10 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 81 (2006).

11 Slip op. at 3.

12 Id.

13 112 Stat. 3230.

14 Slip op. at 8.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id. at 4.

18 Id. at 8.

19 Id. (emphasis in original).

20 Id.

21 Id. at 18-20.

22 Id. at 18 (quoting Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae at 15).

23 Id. at 20.

24 Id. at 24 (citing Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. at __, slip op. at 11 (2014)).

25 Id. at 13 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-803, p. 13 (1998)).

26 Id. at 12.

27 Id. at 14.

28 Id. at 15.

29 Id. at 24.

30 Brief of Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Petitioners, Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Emps. Ret. Fund, at 15 (emphasis in original).

31 Kevin LaCroix, U.S. Supreme Court: Notwithstanding SLUSA, State Courts Retain Concurrent Jurisdiction for ’33 Act Claims, The D&O Diary (Mar. 20, 2018).

32 Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action Filings 2017 Year in Review.

33 Slip op. at 2-3.

34 Brief of Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Petitioners at 11-12.

35 Id. at 12-13.

This article is provided as a general informational service and it should not be construed as imparting legal advice on any specific matter.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Mayer Brown
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Mayer Brown
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions