No. 21-552
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al. v. Edward Anderson, et al.
Amici (1)
Tags: chadbourne-v-troice circuit-split covered-securities in-connection-with merrill-lynch-v-dabit securities-exchange-act securities-litigation slusa statutory-interpretation uniform-standards-act
Latest Conference:
2022-01-14
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with other Courts of Appeals, erred in concluding that Troice narrowed Dabit's interpretation of SLUSA's "in connection with" prong to require that the alleged deception induce a specific transaction in a particular covered security.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that Troice narrowed Dabit's interpretation of SLUSA's 'in connection with' prong to require that the alleged deception induce a specific transaction in a particular covered security
Docket Entries
2022-01-18
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.
2021-12-29
Reply of petitioners Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2021-12-15
Brief of respondents Edward Anderson, et al. in opposition filed.
2021-11-15
Brief amici curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, et al., filed.
2021-10-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 15, 2021.
2021-10-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 15, 2021 to December 15, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-10-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 15, 2021)
Attorneys
Edward Anderson, et al.
Robert S. Peck — Center for Constitutional Litigation, PC, Respondent
Michael Davitt Murphy — Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C., Respondent
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.
James Forrest Bennett — Dowd Bennett LLP, Petitioner
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Financial Services institute