Web Results


Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the extent to which state law securities fraud class action claims were preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). The Court unanimously ruled ...


Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 8–0, that the jurisdictional test established by §27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is the same as 28 USC §1331's test for deciding if a case "arises under" a federal law.


These Rules are “contractual in nature” and are binding on its members. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Georgiadis, 903 F.2d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 1990)(“The rules of a securities exchange are contractual in nature”); Scobee Combs Funeral Home, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 711 F. Supp. 605, 606 (S.D. Fla.


Case opinion for CA Court of Appeal CITY OF ATASCADERO v. MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER SMITH INC. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw .


Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 135 F.3d 266, 271 n.3 (3d Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, ..... No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. at 12 (1975); Plastis v. E.F. Hutton, No. G86- 1030CA5, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4828 (W.D. Mich. 1990); Investors Research. Corp.


Feb 22, 2011 ... has not been created. By contrast, in Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1985), a different conclusion was reached. The court held that CDs sold through a program under which a brokerage firm marketed the certificates and created a secondary ...


See, e.g., Romano v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 834 F.2d 523, 530. (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 2846 (1986); Leib v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce ..... BROKER AND DEALER DUTIES. This Article will focus primarily on two recent decisions, In re E.F. Hutton. & Co.,6 and Wasnick v. Refco, Inc.,7 both of which ...