30 Cited authorities

Merrill v. Dabit
547 U.S. 71 (2006) Cited 671 times 43 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
Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green
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
Rowinski v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
398 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005) Cited 141 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that SLUSA precluded certain claims under Pennsylvania law for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and deceptive consumer practices
Ambassador Hotel Co. v. Wei-Chuan Investment
189 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 147 times
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"
LaSala v. Bordier Et Cie
519 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 66 times
Holding that SLUSA applies when a misrepresentation "gives rise to liability" and is not "merely an extraneous detail"
Spielman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
332 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 69 times
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
In re Ames Dept. Stores Inc. Stock Litigation
991 F.2d 953 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 79 times
Holding that an investor's reliance need not be envisioned to give rise to liability under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
O'Brien v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co.
593 F.2d 54 (7th Cir. 1979) Cited 115 times
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
Siepel v. Bank of America, N.A.
239 F.R.D. 558 (E.D. Mo. 2006) Cited 39 times
Holding that "[n]o showing of bad faith is required" for an award of fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d)
Siepel v. Bank of America
526 F.3d 1122 (8th Cir. 2008) Cited 30 times
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"
Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cited 17,919 times 315 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices
Section 78bb - Effect on existing law
15 U.S.C. § 78bb Cited 907 times 30 Legal Analyses
Adopting definition of "covered security" found in paragraphs and of section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933
Section 78i - Manipulation of security prices
15 U.S.C. § 78i Cited 663 times 7 Legal Analyses
Granting right of action to " the person . . . injured" by manipulation of security prices
Section 77p - Additional remedies; limitation on remedies
15 U.S.C. § 77p Cited 449 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing certain securities class actions to be removed to federal court
Section 16047 - Circumstances considered in investing and managing trust assets
Cal. Prob. Code § 16047 Cited 47 times
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"

Stoody-Broser v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

30 Cited authorities

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

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 SLUSA precluded certain claims under Pennsylvania law for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and deceptive consumer practices

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 SLUSA applies when a misrepresentation "gives rise to liability" and is not "merely an extraneous detail"

Holding that an investor's reliance need not be envisioned to give rise to liability under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

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

Holding that "[n]o showing of bad faith is required" for an award of fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d)

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"

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Adopting definition of "covered security" found in paragraphs and of section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933

Granting right of action to " the person . . . injured" by manipulation of security prices

Allowing certain securities class actions to be removed to federal court

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"