Tag Archives: Extraterritorial jurisdiction

Guest Post: U.S. Long Arm Jurisdiction Creates New Terrorism Headaches for Banks (Among Others!)

In prior posts (most recently here), I have noted the growing problems involved with the increasing willingness of U.S. regulators to exert their regulatory and enforcement authority outside of the U.S. In the following guest post, Francis Kean of Willis examines a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit … Continue Reading

SEC Releases Study on Cross-Border Private Securities Litigation

On April 11, 2012, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC released its study of cross-border private securities litigation, entitled “Study on the Cross-Border Scope of the Private Right of Action Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (here). This Commission study considers possible alternative approaches to the question of cross-border … Continue Reading

The Second Circuit Takes a Whack at Morrison’s Second Prong

In its June 2010 decision in the Morrison v. National Australia Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court enunciated a "transactions" test to determine the applicability of the U.S. securities laws. The Court said that the U.S. securities laws apply only to "transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges and domestic transactoins in other securities." Subsequent courts have … Continue Reading

Guest Post: The Applicability of Morrison v. NAB to Foreign-Cubed Claims by the SEC

I am pleased to present below a guest post from Angelo G. Savino of the Cozen O’Connor law firm discussing the Southern District of New York’s application of the Morrison decision in an SEC enforcement action pending against Goldman Sachs employee Fabrice Tourre. This guest post will also be published and distributed in the future as … Continue Reading

Under Morrison, Section 10(b) Does Not Apply to Swap Transactions in U.S Referencing Non-U.S. Securities

In the latest demonstration of just how far the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Morrison v. National Australia Bank may restrict Section 10(b) claims involving foreign companies, on December 30, 2010, Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer held that U.S.-based hedge funds could not pursue the claims that Porsche and certain of its … Continue Reading

Guest Post: A Response to the Vivendi Plaintiffs About Morrison v. National Australia Bank.

Earlier this week, I hosted a guest post from the counsel for the plaintiffs in the Vivendi securities class action lawsuit, in which plaintiffs’ counsel summarized their position on the impact that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank had on their case.   In response to their post, University of … Continue Reading

O.K., F-Cubed Claims Are Out, But What About F-Squared Claims?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month in the Morrison v. National Australia Bank case made it clear U.S. securities laws do not allow so-called "f-cubed" cases — securities claims against foreign domiciled companies and brought by foreign-domiciled claimants who purchased their company shares on foreign exchanges — in U.S. courts. The securities laws, the … Continue Reading