Lewis v. Scottrade, Inc., No. 16-3808 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's putative class action alleging that Scottrade violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, breach of a common law fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleged that Scottrade routinely routes customer limit orders for the purchase and sale of securities to trading venues that pay rebates to sending brokers, violating Scottrade's duty of best execution in buying and selling securities on behalf of its customers. The court held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), 15 U.S.C. 78bb(f)(1), preempted plaintiff's action because the allegations in plaintiff's state law class action complaint, fairly read, alleged material misrepresentations or omissions, or the use of a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in connection with the purchase and sale of covered securities.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. In class action alleging defendant routed customer limit orders for the purchase and sale of securities to trading venues that pay "rebates" to sending brokers, thereby violating its "duty of best execution" in buying and selling securities on behalf of its customers, the district court did not err in concluding the claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec 78bb(f)(1); fraud or deception in trading that violates a broker's duty of best execution is misconduct "in connection with" the purchase and sale of covered securities to which the Act applies; fairly read, the allegations in the complaint allege material misrepresentations or omissions, or the use of a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in connection with the purchase and sale or covered securities, and the claims are precluded by the Act.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.