kaal:claim:1765901-001

Because Morrison ties Section 10(b) to the location of the securities transaction rather than to the place where the deception originated, the logic of the holding implies that the SEC likewise has no enforcement rights over securities transactions occurring outside the United States.

The logic of the holding strongly suggests that there would also be no enforcement rights for the SEC with respect to securities transactions taking place outside the United States

Kaal and Painter, The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche (2011), I. The Morrison Holding and its Ambiguities, p. 2
https://ssrn.com/abstract=1765901 · source PDF

Kaal and Painter, The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche (2011). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1765901

• Section 10(b) claims
• transactions executed outside the United States

mechanismsupport: arguedsecurities-lawcompliance

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5. Extraction method: ocr.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/3021a6f3a54f11bd...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-001.md | sha256sum