is actionable as securities fraud is not inconsistent with the Court’s earlier memorandum (Doc. 181) at the motion to dismiss stage. At that time, the in-depth factual analysis needed to determine whether the contracts at issue were “securities” precluded the Court from fully addressing the issue of whether the alleged conduct was actionable as securities fraud. Because the annuity contracts, aside from the QPA-2, were “securities,” the connection between the alleged fraud and the purchase or sale of securities is not as attenuated as the twice-removed relationship described in the earlier memorandum. (See Doc. 181 at 37-38.) Accordingly, the alleged pay-to-play scheme may form the basis of section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 securities fraud violations. See Burton, 127 F.Supp.2d at 676- 77 (<HOLDING>), vi. Conclusion as to PSLRA The Court
holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted holding that pslra barred rico claims based on pension fund scheme involving failure to disclose conflicts of interest and commission arrangements holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that the failure to optout precluded challenge to adequate representation based upon purported conflicts of interest between subclasses holding that if a fireman contributed to a pension fund on the basis of his salary plus longevity payments he would be entitled to pension payments computed on the same basis