kaal:claim:1765901-016

Treating the U.S. location of a broker as making the securities purchase domestic would circumvent most of the Morrison holding, since a foreign buyer of foreign securities could invoke U.S. law simply by routing the order through a U.S. broker.

Source quote, verbatim

The U.S. broker places the order based on an order from a foreign client, and U.S. securities law arguably would apply to the securities purchase, even if executed on a non-US. exchange. This line of argument would circum- vent most of the holding in Morrison.

From

Kaal and Painter, The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche (2011), II. Open Questions After Morrison; 4. Does a Transaction Take Place in the U.S. if a U.S. Broker Is Involved?, p. 15
https://ssrn.com/abstract=1765901 · source PDF

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

Holds when

orders placed through U.S. brokers for execution on foreign exchanges

Classification

failuresupport: arguedfailure: broker-location-loopholefamily: otherregulatory-failure

Verify

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5. Extraction method: ocr.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/84dec0aeea32ad93...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-016.md | sha256sum