liability company. See Nelson v. Stahl, 173 F.Supp.2d 153, 164 (S.D.N.Y.2001) ("The Exchange Act’s definition of security does not refer to membership interests in limited liability companies.”). Nonetheless, plaintiffs asserted in their complaint and in briefing to the district court that DynaVision's interest in Signature was a security. Peeples did not question this assertion, nor did the district court analyze this issue on its own initiative. Our independent research of this issue indicates that whether DynaVision's interest could be considered a security is problematic. We are satisfied, however, that plaintiffs’ allegation that DynaVision's interest was a security passes the threshold test set forth in Bell v. Hood. See Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 416 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). In the absence of any briefing on this issue
holding that the plaintiffs allegation that joint venture interests were securities was not so obviously frivolous as to fail the low jurisdictional bar in bell v hood holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action holding that when a warrant did not describe the items to be seized at all it was so obviously deficient that we must regard the search as warrantless  holding on a motion to dismiss that plaintiffs allegation that defendants actions were without justification based on the legitimate business interests of the employer and were performed maliciously was sufficient to prove actions taken to serve personal interests