kaal:claim:1765901-005

There is no substantive difference between a foreign issuer listing ADRs on a U.S. exchange and listing its ordinary shares there, so Section 10(b) coverage of foreign transactions should not turn on which arrangement the issuer chose.

It also makes little sense to argue that the result would be different, and Section 10(b) would apply to transactions in NAB's ordinary shares outside the United States, if NAB had listed its ordinary shares for trading on the NYSE instead of listing the ADRs.

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

• foreign issuers accessing U.S. markets through ADRs

definitionalsupport: arguedinstitutional-design

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5. Extraction method: ocr.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/b016e02007fac90d...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-005.md | sha256sum