then a law applicable only to civil securities actions would be more specific. But § 22(a) of the 1933 Act is not a subset of the 2005 Act. Section 22(a) covers only securities actions, but it includes all securities actions — single-investor suits as well as class actions, small class actions as well as large multi-state ones. The 2005 Act, by contrast, covers only large, multi-state class actions. Is the 1933 Act more specific because it deals only with securities law, or is the 2005 Act more specific because it deals only with nationwide class actions? There is no answer to such a question, which means that the canon favoring the specific law over the general one won’t solve our problem. Cf. California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. World-Com, Inc., 368 F.3d 86 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The language of the 2005 Act, rather than a
holding for this reason among others that the specificity canon does not prevent the bankruptcyremoval provision 28 usc  1452 from superseding  22a of the 1933 act to the extent of any inconsistency holding that 28 usc  1331 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity holding that the rule of unanimity does not apply to 28 usc  1442 holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 regardless of whether defendant was doing business in the district within the meaning of 28 usc  1391 holding that a district courts denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 28 usc  1291 to the extent that it turns on an issue of law