kaal:claim:1765901-003

The plaintiffs' reading that Section 10(b) covers transactions anywhere in any security of a class listed on a U.S. exchange is inconsistent with Morrison, because the opinion turns on the location of the transaction and on the holding that Section 10(b) has no extraterritorial application.

This interpretation is inconsistent with the basic thrust of the Morrison opin- ion, which focuses on the location of the transactions and the fact that Section 10(b) does not apply extraterritorially,

Kaal and Painter, The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche (2011), II. Open Questions After Morrison; 1. Does Section 10(b) Apply to Dually Listed Securities?, p. 5
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

• dually listed securities
• transactions executed on a foreign exchange

failuresupport: arguedfailure: listing-based-reading-of-morrisonfamily: otherinstitutional-design

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5. Extraction method: ocr.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/f314d2b09d7d5506...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-003.md | sha256sum