Search for: "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit" Results 1 - 20 of 23
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2009, 8:02 am
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith, Inc., 395 F.3d 25; 2005 U.S. [read post]
24 Jul 2007, 3:06 am
The lenders argued that their claims were based on the developer's misrepresentations relating to their loans, not to SLUSA "covered securities," but the court says the state suit is barred under Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2007, 10:28 am
  Applying the Supreme Court's "expansive view of SLUSA's preemptive scope" in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 5:45 am
The Supreme Court subsequently held that the district court erred in its conclusion that federal jurisdiction did not exist, see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 4:03 pm by John Stigi
This decision establishes important limits on SLUSA preclusion and the scope of the United States Supreme Court’s seminal SLUSA decision, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 7:23 am by Juan C. Antúnez
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 292 F.3d 1334, 1339 (11th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 7:23 am by Juan C. Antúnez
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 292 F.3d 1334, 1339 (11th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 10:03 am by John Stigi
The Court’s decision in Chadbourne would appear to limit SLUSA to cases where plaintiffs allegedly purchased, sold or held (see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 4:59 pm
"   [Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. ]Dabit , 547 U.S. [71,] 87 [(2006)]. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 4:30 am
    In an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that the common stock is a covered security, the plaintiffs argued that the stock must actually be traded to qualify, and cited Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 4:30 am
In an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that the common stock is a covered security, the plaintiffs argued that the stock must actually be traded to qualify, and cited Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 10:25 am
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 395 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2005), the plaintiff securities broker brought a putative state law class action alleging that the defendant investment firm had manipulated various stock prices, which allegedly caused the broker to hold overvalued securities. [read post]