
    Donald BRADFISCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEMPLETON FUNDS, INC. and Templeton Global Advisors, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees. Vince Kwiatkowski, Edmund Woodbury and Joseph Parise, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 05-3390, 05-3558, 05-3559, 05-3586.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted April 18, 2006.
    Decided May 19, 2006.
    Robert L. King, Korein Tillery, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Frank N. Gundlach, Armstrong Teasdale, St. Louis, MO, Daniel A. Pollack, Pollack & Kamnisky, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, and Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.
   Order

These four appeals are governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 1503, 164 L.Ed.2d 179 (2006). Athough the plaintiffs maintain that Dabit does not control because (in their view) the defendant funds have been negligently managed, they have not sought relief through derivative litigation and therefore cannot take advantage of the exception for that kind of suit in the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. For direct litigation, labels are not material, as we explained in Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 403 F.3d 478 (7th Cir.2005), cert, granted on other grounds, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 969, 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006), a decision that the Supreme Court approved in Dabit. These appeals are not affected by the grant of certiorari in Kircher. The Supreme Court limited the writ to a dispute about appellate jurisdiction of appeals by defendants from remand orders under the SLUSA. These defendants did not appeal from the district court’s orders in 2004 remanding the suits. They removed again following the decision on the merits in Kircher, and the only appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs.

On the authority of Dabit and Kircher, the judgments are affirmed.  