# Conduct and effects test

`kaal:entity:conduct-and-effects-test`

**Status.** derived

This node is assembled mechanically from the 3 claims that carry the concept tag `conduct-and-effects-test`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself.

## Every claim under this term

3 claims across 2 works, 2010 to 2011.

**2010**

- [1664809-003](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-003) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The Second Circuit's conduct and effect test was too unpredictable, and a clear rule keyed to the location of the securities transaction would be more predictable for issuers and investors.
  > Circuit was too unpredictable. A clear rule focused on the location
  Richard W. Painter, Wulf A. Kaal, Extraterritorial Application of US Securities Law – Will the US Become the Default Jurisdiction for (2010). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1664809
- [1664809-009](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-009) [condition/argued] -- The significant steps standard of section 7216 is probably broader than the Second Circuit's conduct and effect test, and the proposed statutory language would therefore reach a wider range of defendants.
  > statutory language in section 7216 is arguably broader than the
  Richard W. Painter, Wulf A. Kaal, Extraterritorial Application of US Securities Law – Will the US Become the Default Jurisdiction for (2010). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1664809

**2011**

- [1765901-002](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-002) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Before Morrison, U.S. courts refused to adopt a bright line rule for the extraterritorial reach of Section 10(b), and the resulting case by case conduct and effects analysis was applied inconsistently.
  > U.S. courts had avoided a bright line rule for determining which cases can be litigated in U.S. courts and which cannot. As a result, U.S, courts applied the conduct and effects tests inconsistently'.
  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

Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust.

    curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/conduct-and-effects-test.md | sha256sum

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.