# kaal:claim:1765901-003

**Claim.** 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.

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

**Holds when.**

- dually listed securities
- transactions executed on a foreign exchange

**Source quote.**

> 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,

**From.** 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?, page 5

**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.** listing-based-reading-of-morrison  (family: other)

**Topics.** institutional-design

**Keywords.** dual-listing, section-10b, extraterritoriality, statutory-interpretation, morrison

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