# kaal:claim:1765901-021

**Claim.** Unless courts can construe Morrison for swap agreements and other derivatives consistently with both the logic and the language of the opinion, Congress will have to enact new clarifying legislation.

**Type.** condition  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- derivative transactions with extraterritorial components

**Source quote.**

> Unless courts can clearly construe Morrison in the context of swap agreements and other derivative securities, in a manner that is consistent with the logic as well as the language of the Court's opinion, Congress will have to enact new legislation that clarifies this issue.

**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 12

**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.** legislative-clarification, derivatives, dodd-frank, morrison

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