for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Booth, it appears to this court, was not this holding of Maheu, a point with which count less other decisions applying the Howey test would disagree, but the point that a cause of action was available under the Securities Acts in Maheu against a dealer who improperly handled the commodities accounts of clients. Booth, 430 F.2d at 133, and compare Maheu, 282 F.Supp. at 429 (suit against dealer involved issues under the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, and therefore the court could not order arbitration). Nor do the other cases cited in Booth create the necessary implication that horizontal commonality has not been required by this circuit since 1970, as plaintiffs assert. See W.J. Abbott & Co. v. S.E.C., 276 F.Supp. 502 (W.D.Pa.1967) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Francis I. duPont & Co., 291
holding that morrison precludes securities claims brought by us investors who purchase securities on a foreign exchange even where those securities are also listed on a us exchange holding that even if the sec succeeded in showing defendants violated the exchange act or sec rules the sec is not entitled to a permanent injunction or an officerdirector bar holding that sec interpretation of federal securities law is entitled to deference if it is reasonable holding that the sec may subpoena records in a securities investigation even if the persons involved are also subject to regulation by the department of agriculture under the commodity exchange act holding that variable annuities are covered securities under slusa because they are securities and the subaccounts are registered with the sec under the investment company act