# kaal:claim:1765901-025

**Claim.** 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.

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

**Holds when.**

- SEC enforcement authority after Morrison

**Source quote.**

> 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?, page 20

**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.** securities-law, compliance

**Keywords.** dodd-frank, sec-enforcement, section-10b, regulatory-redundancy

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