entity · derived

Extraterritoriality

24 claims across 4 works, 2010–2025.

Derived node: assembled mechanically from the claims carrying extraterritoriality. A roster, not an adjudicated definition.

Every claim under this term

• 1664809-001 2010 empirical: In securities regulation the SEC has continuously expanded its extraterritorial reach, and it has done so with strong support from the judiciary, most notably the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
• 1664809-009 2010 condition: 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 defenda
• 1664809-013 2010 predictive: If section 7216 becomes law and permits extraterritorial application of US antifraud provisions, it would further incentivize forum shopping by plaintiffs' attorneys.
• 1664809-016 2010 failure: For European jurisdictions the extraterritorial application of US law creates confusion and legal uncertainty and makes it harder to regulate private parties who engage in regulatory arbitrage by taki
• 1664809-019 2010 condition: Under section 7216 US law could apply to EU companies accused of conduct violating US securities laws even if those companies have no securities traded in the United States.
• 1664809-021 2010 condition: A European company retains some ability to avoid the Sarbanes-Oxley Act by declining to list its securities in the United States, an escape route that expansive extraterritorial securities litigation
• 1664809-033 2010 definitional: Overlapping regulation must be distinguished from conflicting regulation: only conflicting regulation could violate international law, because the territorial integrity of a state is breached only whe
• 1664809-034 2010 condition: If US law requires disclosure of information that another country's law prohibits from being disclosed, whether for privacy or other reasons, there could be a true conflict of law and a credible case
• 1664809-036 2010 design: Exporting and imposing rules through extraterritorial reach could be counterproductive not only for US diplomacy but also for international cooperation in combating securities fraud, whereas cooperati
• 1765901-001 2011 mechanism: Because Morrison ties Section 10(b) to the location of the securities transaction rather than to the place where the deception originated, the logic of the holding implies that the SEC likewise has no
• 1765901-002 2011 failure: 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
• 1765901-003 2011 failure: The plaintiffs' reading that Section 10(b) covers transactions anywhere in any security of a class listed on a U.S. exchange is inconsistent with Morrison, because the opinion turns on the location of
• 1765901-004 2011 failure: Morrison itself refutes a listing based reading of Section 10(b): the Court knew that National Australia Bank had registered and listed shares in New York, yet held that Section 10(b) did not reach tr
• 1765901-006 2011 condition: Section 30 of the Exchange Act is Congress's only articulation of the extraterritorial reach of Section 10(b), and Congress did not intend the Exchange Act to have extraterritorial effect beyond that
• 1765901-024 2011 predictive: There is a substantial likelihood that U.S. courts will read the Dodd-Frank Act as giving some extraterritorial effect to SEC and DOJ suits, so Morrison cannot be expected to survive intact in actions
• 1765901-029 2011 predictive: Expanded SEC enforcement under the Dodd-Frank provision runs a serious risk of being perceived as an encroachment on the corporate governance of foreign companies.
• 1765901-033 2011 normative: Changing national rules in a spirit of cooperation among states and regulators is more productive for preventing securities fraud than imposing U.S. rules on foreign nations through extraterritorial i
• 1765901-036 2011 design: Because of the ambiguities in Morrison and Dodd-Frank and the consequences of a broad reading for persons and companies in European and other jurisdictions, Congress should clarify its intent in Secti
• 1765901-037 2011 predictive: A clear and restrained U.S. approach to extraterritoriality will bring predictability to global securities markets and avoid a downturn in international economic cooperation.
• 2029983-001 2012 condition: After Morrison, parties to securities transactions can be confident that U.S. law will not apply in private suits so long as their transactions are definitively located outside the United States, a ce
• 2029983-010 2012 failure: Defined geographic borders for securities transactions, the overarching assumption behind Morrison, are an unstable basis for limiting the extraterritorial reach of either private litigation or govern
• 2029983-015 2012 failure: Geographic tests create the risk of a no man's land transaction: defendants may persuade the courts of every jurisdiction that the transaction took place outside their borders, leaving the transaction
• 2029983-026 2012 predictive: Given the Fortis and Converium decisions, it is conceivable that Dutch courts will expand their extraterritorial reach beyond the enforcement of settlements to cases litigated as class actions.
• 5554218-028 2025 failure: Unilateral regulation of artificial intelligence by a single jurisdiction produces global ripple effects, but that approach reaches its limits because AI systems remain accessible worldwide over the i

json · markdown · entity index