With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". also stating that in case of doubt as to the nature of the cause of action, the prayer of the complaint may be looked to). If any significance is to be attached to the prayer for relief, it is that the amended complaint seeks compensatory damages, whereas the state court petition sought injunctive relief and restitution. This is indicative of the fact that Green now intends the action to sound purely in contract. In summary, I construe the amended complaint as alleging nothing other than a claim for breach of express agreements by Ameritrade to provide members of the plaintiff class with “real time, last sales information” on option quotes. As such, I conclude that the claim is not preempted by SLUSA because no proof of scienter is required. See Burns v. Prudential Securities, supra (<HOLDING>). B. Mandatory Remand The next issue to be

A: holding that slusa did not preempt statelaw claims for conversion breach of contract breach of fiduciary duty and negligent supervision against securities brokerage firm
B: holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract
C: holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract
D: holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations
A.