# Extraterritoriality `kaal:entity:extraterritoriality` **Status.** derived This node is assembled mechanically from the 24 claims that carry the concept tag `extraterritoriality`. 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 24 claims across 4 works, 2010 to 2025. **2010** - [1664809-001](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-001) [empirical/asserted] -- 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. > the SEC has continuously expanded its extraterritorial reach 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 - [1664809-013](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-013) [predictive/argued] -- If section 7216 becomes law and permits extraterritorial application of US antifraud provisions, it would further incentivize forum shopping by plaintiffs' attorneys. > further incentivize forum shopping by plaintiffs' attorneys. 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 - [1664809-016](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-016) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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 taking their litigation to the United States when convenient. > US law can create confusion, legal uncertainty, and difficulties 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 - [1664809-019](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-019) [condition/argued] -- 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. > conduct violating US securities laws, even if they have no securi- 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 - [1664809-021](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-021) [condition/argued] -- 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 would close. > A European company, however, has some ability to avoid the Sarbanes-Oxley Act if it avoids listing its securities in 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 - [1664809-033](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-033) [definitional/argued] -- 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 where there is a specific true conflict in the substantive legal norms of the respective states. > It is important to distinguish 'overlapping' from 'conflicting' regulation. Conflicting regulation could violate international law. 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 - [1664809-034](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-034) [condition/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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 that the United States is in breach of international law. > disclosure of information that another country's law would prohibit to be disclosed, whether for privacy reasons or other reasons, there could be a true conflict of law and a credible case that the United States is in breach of international law. 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 - [1664809-036](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-036) [design/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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 cooperative mutual adjustment between the US and the EU is the better course. > Exporting and imposing rules through extraterritorial reach, on the other hand, could be counterproductive not only for US diplomacy but also for international cooperation in combating 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** - [1765901-001](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-001) [mechanism/argued] -- 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 enforcement rights over securities transactions occurring outside the United States. > The logic of the holding strongly suggests that there would also be no enforcement rights for the SEC with respect to securities transactions taking place outside the United States 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 - [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 - [1765901-003](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-003) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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 the transaction and on the holding that Section 10(b) has no extraterritorial application. > This interpretation is inconsistent with the basic thrust of the Morrison opin- ion, which focuses on the location of the transactions and the fact that Section 10(b) does not apply extraterritorially, 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 - [1765901-004](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-004) [failure/argued] -- 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 trades in those ordinary shares in Australia. > The entire point of the Morrison opinion, however, is that Section 10(b) did not apply to trades in NAB's ordinary shares in Australia. This is inconsistent with a theory that the Court would apply Section 10(b) to any security listed on a U.S. exchange 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 - [1765901-006](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-006) [condition/argued] -- 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 provision. > The Morrison opinion also makes it clear that Con- gress did not intend the extraterritorial effect of the Exchange Act to go beyond the specific provisions of Section 30, which is Congress's only artic- ulation of the extraterritorial reach of Section 10(b)?2. 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 - [1765901-024](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-024) [predictive/argued] -- 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 brought under Section 929P(b). > There is substantial likelihood that U.S. courts could find that Congress has provided for some extraterritorial effect for SEC and DOJ suits in the Dodd-Frank Act and that therefore Morrison cannot be upheld in its entirety in suits by the SEC or the DOJ under Section 929P(b). 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 - [1765901-029](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-029) [predictive/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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. > There is serious risk that such SEC enforcement actions would be perceived to encroach upon the corporate governance of foreign companies 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 - [1765901-033](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-033) [normative/argued] -- 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 imperialism. > Cooperation among nation states and their regulators to prevent securities fraud could help improve foreign relations. Changing national rules in the spirit of cooperation is likely to be more productive than imposing rules on foreign nations through extraterritorial imperialism. 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 - [1765901-036](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-036) [design/argued] -- 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 Section 929P(b) with respect to SEC and DOJ suits over securities transactions outside the United States. > Congress should also clarify its intent in Section 929P(b) with respect to SEC and DOJ suits over securities transac- tions outside the United States. 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 - [1765901-037](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-037) [predictive/argued] -- A clear and restrained U.S. approach to extraterritoriality will bring predictability to global securities markets and avoid a downturn in international economic cooperation. > A clear and restrained approach to extraterri- toriality in the U.S. will bring predictability to global securities markets and avoid a downturn in international economic cooperation. 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 **2012** - [2029983-001](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-001) [condition/argued] -- 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 certainty that did not exist under the prior conduct and effects tests. > after Morrison transacting parties can be confident that U.S. law will not apply in private suits provided their transac- tions are definitively outside the United States. 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 - [2029983-010](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-010) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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 government regulation. > Defined geographic borders for securities transactions—the overarching assumption behind the Morrison decision—are an unstable basis for limiting the extraterritorial reach of both private litigation and government regulation. 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 - [2029983-015](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-015) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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 governed by no law and with no available forum. > Alternatively, defendants might successfully persuade courts in all jurisdictions that a transaction took place outside their borders or for some other reason outside their jurisdictions. Such a "no man's land" transaction would be governed by no law and there would be no forum. 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 - [2029983-026](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-026) [predictive/argued] -- 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. > Given the developments in the Fortis and Converium decisions, it is conceivable that Dutch courts could expand their exterritorial reach beyond settlements. 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 **2025** - [5554218-028](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5554218-028) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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 internet. > clear that unilateral regulation by one jurisdiction can have global ripple effects. However, this approach faces limitations when AI systems are accessible globally via the internet. Furrer Andreas, Wulf A. Kaal, Universal Digital Law Codex (UDLC) Building the Legal Infrastructure for the Digital Era (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5554218 ## 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/extraterritoriality.md | sha256sum **Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.