# kaal:claim:1765901-007

**Claim.** 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.

**Type.** design  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- judicial opinion drafting
- summary language of Morrison

**Source quote.**

> 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.

**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 6

**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.** judicial-drafting, morrison, statutory-interpretation, dual-listing

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