The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) precludes state law class actions involving misrepresentation made in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security.  The Circuits have developed different tests to determine whether a state law claim is sufficiently related to the purchase or sale of a covered security to be precluded by SLUSA.  On January 18, the Supreme Court granted review of three consolidated cases arising out of the Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme.  Roland v. Green, 675 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 977 (U.S. Jan. 18, 2013) (Nos. 12-79, 12-86, 12-88).  Plaintiffs sued certain Stanford entities, Stanford’s insurance broker, and Stanford’s attorneys.  The district court found the state law claims against these parties were sufficiently related to covered securities so as to be precluded by SLUSA.  The Fifth Circuit reversed.  It held that SLUSA’s “in connection with” requirement was satisfied where the fraud and stock sale “coincide or are more than tangentially related.”  Applying that standard, the court held that none of the misrepresentations were made in connection with transactions in covered securities, and thus the state law claim were not precluded by SLUSA.  It is expected that the Supreme Court will clarify the “in connection with” standard and define the scope permissible state law class actions in the securities context.