kaal:claim:1765901-025

Section 929P(b) may not have been necessary, because Section 10(b) already gives the SEC enforcement authority whenever a single U.S. securities transaction is affected by the alleged fraud.

Source quote, verbatim

Section 929P(b) furthermore may not have been necessary. Section 10(b) al- ready gives the SEC enforcement authority whenever a single U.S. securities transaction is affected by the alleged fraud.

From

Kaal and Painter, The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche (2011), III. The Dodd-Frank Act; 2. Was Section 929P(b) Necessary?, p. 20
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

SEC enforcement authority after Morrison

Classification

conditionsupport: arguedsecurities-lawcompliance

Verify

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5. Extraction method: ocr.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/ded2da68ba857eef...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-025.md | sha256sum