# kaal:claim:1765901-001

**Claim.** 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.

**Type.** mechanism  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

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

**Source quote.**

> 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

**From.** Kaal and Painter, *The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche* (2011), I. The Morrison Holding and its Ambiguities, page 2

**Cite as.** 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

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Painter%20-%202011%20-%20The%20Aftermath%20of%20Morrison%20v.%20National%20Australia%20Bank%20and%20Elliott%20Associates%20v.%20Porsche.pdf

**Topics.** securities-law, compliance

**Keywords.** extraterritoriality, section-10b, sec-enforcement, morrison, securities-fraud

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.