Va. 2012). The only remaining provisions in section 77p aré the definitions in subsection (f). Unlike any other provision in section 77p, the definition of “covered class actions” can reasonably be incorporated by reference into the Jurisdiction Provision. Thus, the only logical reading of the amended Jurisdiction Provision is'that state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over “all suits in equity and -actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by” the Securities Act, except “with respect' to covered class actions,” as defined in 31 (PAC), 2009 WL 4067266, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2009) (same); Knox v. Agria Corp., 613 F.Supp.2d 419, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (same); Rubin v. Pixelplus Co., No. 06-CV-2964 (ERK), 2007 WL 778485, at *4-5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2007) (<HOLDING>); with Irra v. Lazard Ltd., No. 05-CV-3388
holding that appellate court could not consider objection to testimony when defendant objected at trial on different grounds holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds holding in favor of removability on different grounds holding that where the issue is one of arbitrability the federal presumption in favor of arbitration shifts to favor a court determination recognizing that a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigants claims on the merits with the policy in favor of finality