# kaal:claim:1765901-002

**Claim.** Before Morrison, U.S. courts refused to adopt a bright line rule for the extraterritorial reach of Section 10(b), and the resulting case by case conduct and effects analysis was applied inconsistently.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- pre-Morrison case law
- foreign-cubed securities litigation

**Source quote.**

> U.S. courts had avoided a bright line rule for determining which cases can be litigated in U.S. courts and which cannot. As a result, U.S, courts applied the conduct and effects tests inconsistently'.

**From.** Kaal and Painter, *The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche* (2011), 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

**Failure mode.** inconsistent-conduct-and-effects-application  (family: other)

**Topics.** law-and-legal-systems, securities-law

**Keywords.** conduct-and-effects-test, extraterritoriality, legal-uncertainty, securities-litigation

**Related claims.**

- restates: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-003

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