KBR’s forum selection bylaw is void if it would operate to waive Securities Exchange Act claims: “[a]ny condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of [the Securities Exchange Act] or of any rule or regulation thereunder, or of any rule of a self- regulatory organization, shall be void.” 15 U.S.C.S. § 78cc (emphasis added); see also Boilermakers, 73 A.3d at 962 (a forum selection bylaw purporting to waive claims under the Securities Exchange Act would be void). Thus, even if the forum selection clause were valid and enforceable, which it is not, Delaware state courts have no jurisdiction and the forum selection clause may not operate to deprive Plaintiff and the Company of a federal forum for the Exchange Act claim.

FINRA Rule 13204(b)(1). C. The UBS Waiver is Void Under Section 29(a) of the Exchange Act Because it Violates FINRA Rules Under Section 29(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(a), Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder, or of any rule of a self-regulatory organization shall be void. By ruling that the UBS waiver of class and collective actions violated FINRA rules, the Panel essentially held that the UBS waiver was void.

Moreover, defendants’ arguments ignore that Congress demonstrated, in the counterpart section of the Exchange Act (§ 29(b)), that it knew how to exclude certain predicate provisions. See 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(b) (excluding predicate provision, and providing for a special statute of limitations period for another predicate provision, none of which have any private right of action to enforce them). Moreover, in § 29(b), Congress states that “no contract shall be deemed to be void by reason of this subsection in any action maintained in reliance upon this subsection [filed after the statute of limitations period],” which, in its own plain words, shows that Congress intended to create a private right of action for contract voiding under these contract voiding statutes.

Picture Patents, LLC v. Aeropostale, Inc., 2009 WL 2569121, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2009). Also, the two cases Defendants cite do not support a rule that offering circulars automatically Case 1:10-cv-07497-VM-DCF Document 243 Filed 08/06/15 Page 33 of 35 24 The jury may also determine that Class members were fraudulently induced to invest, rendering any such contracts void under § 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(b). See, e.g., Berckeley Inv.

A.) Similarly, the anti-waiver provision in the Exchange Act is an express and unequivocal directive that the rights and obligations under the securities laws cannot be waived. 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(a). Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate cases brought under U.S. securities laws.

 References to 1998 Statutes and Regulations. Unless otherwise indicated, references to the following regulations and statutes are to the versions in effect in February 1998: Regulation G (12 C.F.R. § 207) (Ex. 1); Regulation U (12 C.F.R. § 221) (Ex. 2); Regulation X (12 C.F.R. § 224) Case: 1:05-cv-00736 Document #: 375 Filed: 03/26/14 Page 9 of 55 PageID #:8215 xi (Ex. 3); section 7 of the Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78g) (Ex. 4); section 10 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78j) (Ex. 5); Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5) (Ex. 6); section 29 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78cc) (Ex. 7); section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. § 77q) (Ex. 8).  References to SIP Program Documents. Comdisco’s Shared Investment Plan is referred to herein as the “SIP.” SIP program participants’

See 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(b) (containing the same “any provisions” language, but then excluding a predicate provision, and providing for a special statute of limitations period for two other predicate provisions).

Such an agreement, however, would violate the anti- waiver provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, under which Plaintiffs sue, which provide that “[a]ny condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of [the Act] . . . shall be void.” 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(a). “The statutory framework of the 1934 Act compels the conclusion that individual securityholders may not be forced to forego their rights under the federal securities laws due to a contract provision.”

9 (D. Mass 1986) ................................................................................. 6, 11, 13 Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. 1997) ....................................................................................................... 6 Teradyne, Inc. v. Mostek Corp., 797 F.2d 43 (1st Cir. 1986) ......................................................................................................... 6 UBS Sec. LLC v. Voegeli, 684 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ................................................................................ 11, 12 Case 1:13-cv-10475-DJC Document 24 Filed 03/14/13 Page 3 of 20 iii Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Irizarry, 587 F.3d 464 (1st Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................... 6 Statutes 15 U.S.C. § 77n ............................................................................................................................... 9 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(a) ....................................................................................................................... 10 9 U.S.C. § 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Md. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns § 8-301(11) ............................................................................... 7 Rules Rule 14a-8(i)(2) ............................................................................................................................ 10 Other Authorities Pfizer, Inc., SEC No-Action Letter, available at 2012 WL 587597 .................................................................................................. 10 Case 1:13-cv-10475-DJC Document 24 Filed 03/14/13 Page 4 of 20 1 Plaintiffs Corvex Management LP (“Corvex”) and Related Fund Management, LLC (“Related”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this memorandum of law in support of their app

Such statements have no relevance to Morrison. In addition, Deutsche Bank’s reliance on contractual provisions to evade liability under the 1934 Act is contrary to Section 29 of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78cc. B. Arco’s Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Claim Is Timely Under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b), a Section 10(b) claim is timely if brought within five years of the “violation.”