kaal:claim:1765901-010

The Porsche swap transactions were not the functional equivalent of a transaction on a U.S. securities exchange, but neither were they the functional equivalent of a transaction on a German exchange, contrary to the implication of Judge Baer's opinion.

In the actual Porsche case, however, the swap transactions were not the func- tional equivalent of a transaction on a U.S. securities exchange, even if they also were not the functional equivalent of a transaction on an exchange in Germany.

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?, p. 10
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

• over-the-counter security-based swap agreements

failuresupport: arguedfailure: reference-security-equivalence-fallacyfamily: otherinstitutional-design

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5. Extraction method: ocr.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/404c02fe7f3c18d0...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-010.md | sha256sum