# kaal:claim:1765901-027

**Claim.** 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.

**Type.** normative  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

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

**Source quote.**

> 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.

**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, institutional-design

**Keywords.** dodd-frank, sec-enforcement, regulatory-coordination, open-ended-statute

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