kaal:claim:1765901-007

The Supreme Court should have summarized its Morrison holding in language matching the opinion's logic, namely that Section 10(b) applies only to securities bought or sold in the United States; the Court's summary language instead invited confusion.

The Supreme Court should have avoided confusion by summarizing its hold- ing in language that conforms with the logic of the opinion, which clearly supports the conclusion that Section 10(b) applies only to securities bought or sold in the United States.

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. 6
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

• judicial opinion drafting
• summary language of Morrison

designsupport: arguedinstitutional-design

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5. Extraction method: ocr.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/f44ae2bf5a24af7e...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-007.md | sha256sum