New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund v. Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the case, based on claims related to certain mortgage-backed securities not traded or listed on any national exchange, “does not involve ‘covered securities”
• interpreting Pew to hold that CAFA’s third exception should apply to “disputes over the meaning of the terms of a security, which is spelled out in some formative document of the business enterprise, such as a certificate of incorporation”
• “On their face, the Securities Act of 1933’s anti-removal provision and CAFA’s removal provisions are in direct conflict with one another.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).