The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche
Wulf A. Kaal
University of St. Thomas, Minnesota - School of Law; European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Richard W. Painter
University of Minnesota Law School
February 21, 2011
European Company and Financial Law Review, Vol. 1, 2011
This article evaluates the ambiguities and shortcomings of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Morrison with a particular emphasis on the implications of the recent Porsche decision in the Southern District of New York. We conclude that the ambiguities in Morrison and the implications of interpreting Morrison for persons and companies in European jurisdictions and elsewhere in the world make it necessary for the U.S. Congress to further clarify the extraterritorial reach of the implied right of action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We also conclude that the U.S. Congress should clarify its intent in Section 929P(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 to give extraterritorial enforcement authority to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and U.S. Department of Justice. An SEC study of private rights of action is also required by the Dodd-Frank Act, but regardless of the outcome of this study, Congress should decline to reinstate private rights of action in “foreign-cubed” cases. Restraining and clarifying the U.S. approach to extraterritoriality could help provide certainty to international securities markets and avoid a downturn in international economic cooperation.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 23
Keywords: Foreign-Cubed, Dodd-Frank Act, Securities Regulation, Securities Litigation, Morrison, Porsche, Section 929P(b), Section 929Y, Jurisdiction, Section 10(b)
JEL Classification: K2, K22
Date posted: February 22, 2011 ; Last revised: August 17, 2011
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.218 seconds