LD 509
pg. 36
Page 35 of 183 An Act To Adopt the Maine Uniform Securities Act Page 37 of 183
Download Bill Text
LR 441
Item 1

 
One of the goals of this Act is to align state and federal
law. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a variable
annuity is a security in SEC v. Variable Annuity Life
Insurance Company of America, 359 U.S. 65 (1959). More
recently, it has been confirmed that variable insurance
products are "covered securities" as defined in the National
Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA) and in
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
(SLUSA), see Lander v. Hartford Life Annuity Ins., 251 F.3d
101 (2d Cir. 2001).

 
When variable products are included in the definition of
security and exempted from registration, state securities
administrators can bring enforcement actions concerning
variable insurance sales practices. This approach toward
functional regulation is supported by the National
Association of Securities Dealers as evidenced by a February
2001 letter from Mary Schapiro, President of Regulatory
Policy & Oversight: "Based on our experience, we have found
that variable products' sales-related problems parallel
those of mutual funds and other securities . . . Because of
the substantial similarities between variable contracts and
other securities products, we believe it is incongruous for
agents and sales practices involved in variable annuities
not to be covered by state securities laws."

 
State securities regulators support the functional
regulation of agents because: 1) insurance companies are not
affected since state securities regulators are preempted
from requiring the registration of variable products; 2) the
vast majority of broker-dealer subsidiaries of insurance
companies are already registered to sell securities in most
states; and 3) the vast majority of agents are already
dually licensed to sell insurance and securities in most
states.

 
Section 102(28)(C) includes the exclusion in RUSA from the
1956 definition of security for "an interest in a contributory or
noncontributory pension or welfare plan subject to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974."

 
The first clause in Section 102(28)(D) is derived from the
leading case of SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), which
has been widely followed by federal and state courts. The second
clause in Section 102(28)(D) is based, in part, on the leading
case of SEC v. Glenn W. Turner Enter., Inc., 474 F.2d 476, 482
n.7 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 900 (1974).

 
The courts have divided over the interpretation of the "common
enterprise" element of an investment contract. The courts


Page 35 of 183 Top of Page Page 37 of 183