547 U.S. 71 (2006) Cited 672 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law class action securities fraud claims brought by “holders” of securities are, just like those of “purchasers” and “sellers,” preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
430 U.S. 462 (1977) Cited 1,067 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Securities Exchange Act is limited in scope to its textual provisions and does not conflict with state law regarding corporate misconduct, particularly corporate mismanagement
Holding that to allow plaintiffs to "receive the full purchase price of the stock and also retain the stock itself" would violate "the principle of rescission"
Holding that ambiguity as to whether district court's remand order was based on specific remand provision of Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)(D), or on general remand statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c), was inconsequential, as provision governing remand orders in general, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), prohibited appellate review in either case
Reversing district court's dismissal of pendent state claims without prejudice after dismissing federal claims for failure to state claim when plaintiff possibly time-barred from reasserting state claims in state courts
Concluding that SLUSA prohibits "state-law claims that a trustee breached its fiduciary duty by failing to disclose conflicts of interest in its selection of nationally-traded investment securities"
Listing appropriate factors to be considered in managing trust assets, including "[g]eneral economic conditions" and "[a]n asset's special relationship or special value . . . to the purpose of the trust or to one or more of the beneficiaries"