# kaal:claim:1765901-004

**Claim.** Morrison itself refutes a listing based reading of Section 10(b): the Court knew that National Australia Bank had registered and listed shares in New York, yet held that Section 10(b) did not reach trades in those ordinary shares in Australia.

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

**Holds when.**

- foreign issuers with U.S. registered ADRs or listed shares

**Source quote.**

> The entire point of the Morrison opinion, however, is that Section 10(b) did not apply to trades in NAB's ordinary shares in Australia. This is inconsistent with a theory that the Court would apply Section 10(b) to any security listed on a U.S. exchange

**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

**Topics.** institutional-design

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

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