kaal:claim:1765901-028

Section 929P(b) risks complications where the SEC proceeds unilaterally in situations in which coordinated enforcement with foreign regulators would be more effective, for example insider trading cases involving exchanges whose home regimes do not recognize comparable insider trading rules.

Source quote, verbatim

The provision risks complications if the SEC pursues cases unilaterally when coordinated enforcement with foreign regulators would be more effective.

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

unilateral SEC enforcement over foreign exchange transactions

Classification

failuresupport: arguedfailure: unilateral-enforcement-riskfamily: othersecurities-lawcomplianceinstitutional-design

Verify

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5. Extraction method: ocr.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/38d6be2d49e22ee5...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-028.md | sha256sum