Posts tagged arising under”.
The Supreme Court held May 16 that the exclusive federal jurisdiction provision of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act means the same as the "arising under" test for federal-question jurisdiction and does not pre-empt state law claims unless they require proving a violation of a rule or regulation under the Act.
Manning and other shareholder plaintiffs filed suit against Merrill Lynch and others in New Jersey state court alleging naked short selling in violation of SEC Regulation SHO (which requires a "good locate" at the time of a short trade to prevent naked shorting). But ...
Posted in: Securities Act of 1933, Supreme Court
Tags: 1934 Securities Exchange Act, arising under”, burr forman, securities litigation, Securities Litigation & Arbitrarion blog, Securities Litigation & Arbitration