kaal:claim:1765901-027

Read as more than a jurisdictional grant, the Dodd-Frank provision becomes an open-ended statute rather than the targeted authority the SEC already held under Section 10(b) and Section 30, and it is undesirable for the SEC to use such powers unilaterally without consulting foreign regulators and the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

To the extent the provision gives the SEC additional powers, it may not be desirable that the SEC use these powers unilaterally without consulting with both foreign se- curities regulators and the United States foreign policy establishment.

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

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

• if Section 929P(b) is construed to confer substantive powers

normativesupport: arguedsecurities-lawcomplianceinstitutional-design

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5. Extraction method: ocr.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/a7e0ec3ae47cffce...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-027.md | sha256sum