Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit posts two today
Kircher, Carl v. Putnam Funds Trust (SD Ill.) [10 pp.]
Before EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.USA v. Askew, Ulice (ND Ill.) [23 pp.]
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Complaints filed in the circuit court of Madison County, Illinois, charge several mutual funds with setting prices in a way that arbitrageurs can exploit. The funds removed the suits to federal court and asked the district judges to dismiss them under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). Instead the federal judges remanded each suit. Last year we held that these remands are appealable. See Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 373 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2004). Now we must decide whether SLUSA blocks litigation in state court. (Plaintiffs have asked us to overrule our decision about appellate jurisdiction, but their arguments are unpersuasive.) * * *
We hold that SLUSA is as broad as §10(b) itself and that limitations on private rights of action to enforce §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not open the door to litigation about securities transactions under state law. Plaintiffs’ claims are connected to their own purchases of securities and thus are blocked by SLUSA, whose preemptive effect is not confined to knocking out state-law claims by investors who have winning federal claims, as plaintiffs suppose. It covers both good and bad securities claims—especially bad ones. The judgments of the district courts are reversed, and the cases are remanded with instructions to undo the remand orders and dismiss plaintiffs’ state-law claims.
Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
KANNE, Circuit Judge. Ulice Askew challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute PCP. He argues that the only credible evidence against him established one PCP spot purchase amounting to a buyer-seller relationship only, not a conspiracy. Relatedly, Askew argues that the district judge committed plain error by failing to supply the jury with a buyer-seller instruction. He also asserts that the judge failed to answer appropriately the jury’s questions during deliberations about the conspiracy count. His final ground for appeal alleges that the judge committed plain error when she failed to suppress evidence obtained through an unconstitutional stop that led to his arrest. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. * * *
III. Conclusion. Because we find no merit in any of the arguments Askew raises on appeal, his conviction is AFFIRMED. As to Askew’s sentence, however, we order a limited remand of this case in accordance with the remedial procedure adopted by this circuit in Paladino. The district court is directed to return this case to us at the completion of its sentencing determination, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Paladino.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 5, 2005 12:41 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions