|
||||
|
||||
The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. PorscheWulf A. KaalUniversity of St. Thomas, Minnesota - School of Law Richard W. PainterUniversity of Minnesota Law School February 21, 2011 European Company and Financial Law Review, Vol. 1, 2011 Abstract: 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 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: February 22, 2011 ; Last revised: August 17, 2011Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.594 seconds