Skip to main content

CLAIM

Merrill Lynch, et al. v. Greg Manning, et al.

Issues

Does Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over state law claims based on violations of the Exchange Act, or may state courts hear those state law claims?

 

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) provides federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over state law claims based on violations of the Exchange Act or whether state courts are permitted to hear such state law claims. See Brief for Petitioner, Merrill Lynch, et al. at i. Merrill Lynch argues that Manning relies on Regulation SHO, a federal regulation, and therefore federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction under the Exchange Act. See id. at 19. On the other hand, Manning argues that, because his claims are based on state law, state courts have jurisdiction over this case, even if some elements of his claim rely on federal law. See Brief for Respondent, Greg Manning, et al. at 25. Ultimately, the Court’s decision has the potential to affect whether uniformity in decision-making is necessary to enforce Regulation SHO and whether state courts can govern duties arising under federal regulations. See Brief of Amicus Curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, in Support of Petitioner at 8–9.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provide federal jurisdiction over state law claims  seeking  to establish liability based on violations of the Act or its regulations or seeking to enforce duties created by the Act or its regulations?

Greg Manning and others (hereinafter “Manning”), brought a lawsuit against Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.Knight Capital Americas L.P.UBS Securities LLC

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to CLAIM