# kaal:claim:2029983-036

**Claim.** 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.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

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

**Source quote.**

> 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.

**From.** 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, page 68

**Cite as.** 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

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `fde2ff611420eb283cbb49a6b681a2ae8efa2b4603ae71480e2d91483f0295f2` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Painter%20-%202012%20-%20Forum%20Competition%20and%20Choice%20of%20Law%20Competition%20in%20Securities%20Law%20after%20Morrison%20v.%20National%20Austral.pdf

**Failure mode.** limited-judicial-capacity  (family: supervisory-capacity-gap)

**Topics.** law-and-legal-systems

**Keywords.** judicial-capacity, choice-of-law, doctrinal-consistency, morrison

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