It's amazing what plaintiffs' lawyers deem to be material for purposes of the sale.

• Was it material that an agent received 95% of the first year's premium?
• Was it material that the agent could have sold you essentially the same policy, particularly in a universal life scenario, and received only 40%?
• Those are things that you see in these lawsuits.

--  James F. Jorden

1996 - SOA - Legal Issues Affecting Nontraditional Products, Society of Actuaries - 14p

• “The test for whether a statement is materially misleading under Section 12(a)(2) is identical to that under Section 10(b) and Section 11: whether representations, viewed as a whole, would have misled a reasonable investor.” Rombach v. Chang, 355 F.3d 164, 178, n. 11 (2d Cir.2004).

WestLaw - Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3768146 (S.D.N.Y.) - 24p