Case addressed 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 that SLUSA barred state law "holder" claims, which are based on losses caused when a shareholder retains stock due to fraud instead of selling it, even though federal securities laws only provided a private cause of action to those suffering losses caused by the purchase or sale of stock
• The Court's decision resolved a split among the circuits and closed a significant loophole in the coverage of SLUSA, which it based on the broad language used in the Act and the policies behind it

Supreme Court decides Merrill Lynch v Dabit

• Holds that SLUSA preempts state law securities actions brought by holders

• Those investors who claim they would have sold
  but for an alleged misstatement or omission

• Closes a loophole used by plaintiffs lawyers to bring parallel class action claims in state court

Opinion

• Supreme Court opinion 3.21.06

Litigants

• Petitioner's brief
• Respondent's brief
• Petitioner's reply brief

Amicus briefs

• SIA - BMA

Law firms

• Wachtell Lipton
• Skadden Arps