# kaal:claim:1765901-009

**Claim.** Judge Baer's dismissal of the Porsche complaint reaches the correct result under Morrison, but parts of his reasoning require further refinement.

**Type.** normative  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- security-based swap agreements referencing foreign traded stock

**Source quote.**

> In sum, Judge Baer's holding is correct under Morrison, but some of the reasoning needs further refinement.

**From.** Kaal and Painter, *The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche* (2011), II. Open Questions After Morrison; 2. Does Section 10(b) Apply to Derivative Transactions in the U.S. that Are Based on Foreign Traded Stocks?, page 10

**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.** porsche, swap-agreements, section-10b, judicial-reasoning

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