Morrison

Subscribe to Morrison via RSS
Daniel J. Tyukody
Robert A. Horowitz

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank courts have struggled with application of the Morrison Court’s standard to securities lawsuits involving transactions in American Depository Receipts. As I noted in a prior blog post, one of the latest court rulings involving the application of Morrison to ADR transactions was the denial of the motion for class certification in the Toshiba case. In the following guest post, Daniel J. Tyukody and Robert A. Horowitz take a closer look that the class certification motion denial in Toshiba and consider the implications of the ruling.  Tyukody and Horowitz are Co-Chairs of Greenberg Traurig, LLP’s Securities Litigation Practice. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: The Elusive Search For Determining The Reach Of Section 10(b) Liability Following Morrison

One of the enduring questions following in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank is whether transactions in a non-U.S. company’s unsponsored Level I American Depository Receipts (ADRs) can be the subject of a damages action under the U.S. Securities laws. As I noted in a blog post at the time (here), a prior federal district court decision in the long-running Toshiba securities class action lawsuit established that a non-U.S. company whose Level I ADRs trade in the U.S. can be the subject of a U.S. securities suit – even if the ADRs are unsponsored. However, a recent decision at the class certification stage in the same Toshiba case suggests that while claimants may well be able to plead a claim based on trading in unsponsored Level I ADRs, the claimants may or may not be able to sustain the claim as a class action – or, at a minimum, the question of whether the claim can go forward as a class action can depend on minute details about how the named plaintiffs’ ADR transactions actually took place.
Continue Reading U.S. Securities Law Claims Based on Unsponsored Level I ADRs Cannot Proceed as Class Action

It has been over ten years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Morrison v National Australia Bank – yet the lower courts continue to struggle with its application in specific situations. Morrison clarified that the U.S. securities laws apply to securities transactions on U.S. securities exchanges and to domestic transactions in other securities. It is Morrison’s second prong, relating to domestic transactions in other securities, that continues to vex the courts.

In a recent decision, the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a securities lawsuit on the grounds that the underlying securities transaction, even if domestic, was so “predominantly foreign” as to be “impermissibly extraterritorial.” As discussed below, the Second Circuit’s decision underscores an ongoing question of how far beyond Morrison’s “domestic transaction” question courts should go in determining whether U.S. securities laws apply to a transaction. The Second Circuit’s January 25, 2021 decision in Cavello Bay Reinsurance Ltd v. Stein can be found here.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit Involving “Predominantly Foreign” Transaction

As discussed at length here, in January 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the U.S. securities class action lawsuit brought against Toshiba by investors who had purchased the company’s unsponsored Level I American Depository Receipts (ADRs) in the U.S. can proceed. As discussed in the following guest post from the Norton Rose Fulbright law firm and AIG, this ruling has important implications for non-U.S. companies whose ADRs trade in the U.S., as well as for companies contemplating issuing ADRs in the U.S. For more background on the risk of securities class actions and public companies via ADRs please see AIG’s earlier white paper on the subject. I would like to thank Norton Rose Fulbright and AIG for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. The memo follows below.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Post-Toshiba U.S. Securities Litigation Risk for Non-U.S. Companies

As I noted in a recent post, the securities class action lawsuit pending against Toshiba raises the question of whether or not the U.S. securities laws apply to transactions in unsponsored American Depository Receipts (ADRs). The company’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court posed the larger question of whether there are exceptions to the second-prong of the Morrison standard holding that the U.S. securities laws apply to domestic transactions in securities. A number of organizations and even governments filed amicus briefs urging the Court to take up the case. However, in a June 24, 2019, the Court denied the company’s petition, sending the case back to the lower courts and, as discussed below, leaving behind several unanswered questions.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Denies Cert in Toshiba Unsponsored ADRs Securities Suit

I have been fortunate in recent years to be able to travel around the world and to speak to D&O insurance professionals in a wide variety of different countries. One recurring question I get in these meetings has to do with non-U.S. companies that have Level I American Depository Receipts (ADRs) trading in the U.S. The question is usually something along the lines of – “these Level 1 ADR companies don’t have U.S. securities litigation exposure, right?” This question always puzzles me, given the several high profile cases in recent years (discussed below) demonstrating that —  while there may be  an interesting question between sponsored and unsponsored ADRs — transactions in Level 1 ADRs certainly can be subject to the U.S. securities litigation.  
Continue Reading The U.S. Securities Litigation Exposure of Non-U.S. Companies with Level I ADRs

As I have previously noted, the dramatic recent rise in Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and in transactions involving cryptocurrencies generally has been accompanied by a number of securities class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the digital currencies’ issuers or sponsors failed to register the coins or tokens as securities with the SEC as required by the federal securities laws. These lawsuits raise a number of novel and interesting issues, including jurisdictional issues and other concerns arising from the cross-border nature of many of these transactions. On August 7, 2018, in a detailed decision in the securities class action relating to the 2017 Tezos ICO, Northern District of California Judge Richard Seeborg ruled on a number of these threshold issues. Among other things, Judge Seeborg’s decision contains an interesting analysis of the place of the ICO transactions took place in order to determine whether or not the U.S. securities laws apply. Judge Seeborg’s order can be found here.
Continue Reading Tezos ICO Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Denial Addresses Key Threshold Issues

One of the questions that courts have wrestled with as they have struggled to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison is whether or not the U.S. securities laws apply to transactions in American Depositary Receipts (ADRs). In the U.S. securities class action lawsuit filed against Toshiba in the wake of the company’s massive accounting scandal, the district court granted the company’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Exchange Act did not apply to the plaintiffs’ over-the-counter (OTC) transactions in the company’s unsponsored American Depositary Receipts (ADRs). The plaintiffs appealed. In a July 17, 2018 decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case in order for the plaintiffs’ to have the opportunity to try to plead facts that might be sufficient to establish that the securities laws apply, notwithstanding the fact that the ADRs were unsponsored. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading 9th Circ. Reverses Ruling That U.S. Securities Laws Do Not Apply to Toshiba’s Unsponsored ADRs

daimlerFollowing the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank (here), the lower federal courts have set about implementing the Morrison decision’s holding that the U.S. securities laws do not apply extraterritorially. One issue that the courts have wrestled with is whether or not the U.S. securities laws apply to over-the-counter (OTC) transactions in the U.S. of a foreign company’s American Depositary Receipts (ADRs). A series of recent cases suggest the courts are closer to having these issues sorted out. Most recently, a May 31, 2017 decision by Central District of California Judge James Otero held, consistently with other recent federal district court decisions, that the U.S. securities laws do apply to OTC transactions in Daimler, A.G.’s sponsored level 1 ADRs.  A copy of Judge Otero’s decision can be found here.
Continue Reading U.S. Securities Laws Apply to OTC Transactions in Daimler’s Sponsored ADRs

utahPrior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, U.S. courts held that the U.S. securities laws could be applied extraterritorially if there was sufficient fraudulent conduct or were sufficient effects from that conduct in the U.S.  In Morrison the Supreme Court rejected this “conduct or effects” test, ruling that the U.S. securities laws apply to allegedly fraudulent transactions, not to alleged fraudulent conduct or its effects, and further that the securities laws apply only to domestic transactions. However, within days after the Morrison decision, the U.S. Congress, as part of its enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, purported to provide the SEC and the U.S. DOJ “jurisdiction” to pursue enforcement actions based not on transactions in the U.S., but rather based on conduct or its effects in the U.S.

Despite the passage of time, no court reached the question of how to interpret and apply this Dodd-Frank provision in light of the Morrison decision – until now. In a detailed March 28, 2017 decision (here), District of Utah Judge Jill N. Parrish held, notwithstanding Morrison and in reliance on the Dodd-Frank Act provision, that the SEC may bring an enforcement action based on transactions outside the U.S. and involving non-U.S. residents if there was sufficient conduct in the U.S. The ruling potentially has important implications for U.S. regulatory authorities’ reach for securities enforcement actions involving foreign actors or non-U.S. transactions.
Continue Reading U.S. Securities Enforcement Authorities’ Extraterritorial Reach Under Morrison, Dodd-Frank Act