kaal:claim:2029983-036

U.S. courts have only a limited capacity to integrate parties' choice of law into a post-Morrison regime for defining transaction location, and adding variables raises the risk of inconsistent case law across districts and circuits.

The complexities in the above discussion suggest, however, that U.S. courts have a limited capacity to integrate choice of law into a post-Morrison regime defining transaction location.

Wulf A. Kaal, Richard W. Painter, Forum Competition and Choice of Law Competition in Securities Law after Morrison v. National Austral (2012), III.C. Integrating Choice of Law into Post-Morrison Securities Law, p. 68
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2029983 · source PDF

Wulf A. Kaal, Richard W. Painter, Forum Competition and Choice of Law Competition in Securities Law after Morrison v. National Austral (2012). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2029983

• absent a clear mandate in Morrison and given the statutory bar on opting out

failuresupport: arguedfailure: limited-judicial-capacityfamily: supervisory-capacity-gaplaw-and-legal-systems

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is fde2ff611420eb283cbb49a6b681a2ae8efa2b4603ae71480e2d91483f0295f2. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/1929a166f632ab2a...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-036.md | sha256sum