SEC - Legal Cases

  • 1959 - LC - SEC v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 359 U.S. 65
    • 1958 - LR - Regulation of Business - Securities Act of 1933 - SEC Loses Fight to Regulate Variable Annuity, by William J. Wise - 5p
    • 1960 - LR - A Discussion and Analysis of the VALIC Decision, by Laurence M. Jones - 31p
    • 1968 - LR - Administrative Law—Variable Annuity Held to Be Subject to Federal Securities Regulation, by Ronald J. Axelrod - 8p
    • 1969 - LR - The Status of the Variable Annuity as a Security: A Lesson in Legal Line Drawing, by Boe W. Martin - 37p
    • 2010 0729 (Updated) - CRS - Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 151A and Annuities: Issues and Legislation, Congressional Research Service - 15p

  • 1967 - LC - SEC v. United Benefit Life Insurance Co., 387 U.S. 202

  • 2009-2010 - LC - American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company v. Securities and Exchange Commission
    • 2011 - LR - Comment, Deference to the Rulemaker, Not to the Rule: The D. C Circuit's Enabling Rejection of the SEC's Fixed Indexed Annuities Rule in American Equity Investment Life Insurance Co. v. SEC, 52 B.C. L. REV. E. SUPP. 197, by Sebastian Waisman - 

    • On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Securities & Exchange Commission - 24p
      • Petitioners seek review of a rule promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) stating that fixed indexed annuities (FIAs) are not annuity contracts within the meaning of the Act. As a result of this new rule, FIAs are subject to the full panoply of requirements set forth by the Act, instead of being subject solely to state insurance laws. Petitioners argue that the Commission unreasonably interpreted the term “annuity contract” not to include FIAs. Petitioners also assert that the SEC failed to fulfill its statutory responsibility under the Act to consider the effect of the new rule on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. Because we hold that the SEC’s interpretation of “annuity contract” is reasonable under Chevron, we deny the petitions with respect to this issue. We grant the petitions, however, with respect to petitioners’ alternate ground that the SEC failed to properly consider the effect of the rule upon efficiency, competition, and capital formation. Accordingly, we vacate the rule.

  • 2012 - SEC - In the Matter of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company  ---  [BonkNote]  ---  10p
  • 2019 0916 - SEC - SEC Charges Prudential Subsidiaries For Misleading Funds They Advised, Generating Tens of Millions in Tax Benefits for Prudential - 2019-176 - sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-176
    • The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two subsidiaries of Prudential Financial Inc. with failing to disclose conflicts of interest and making misleading disclosures to the boards for 94 funds they advised.
    • According to the SEC's order, Prudential subsidiaries AST Investment Services Inc. and PGIM Investments LLC (PI) served as investment advisers to 94 insurance-dedicated mutual funds.