# Forum competition `kaal:entity:forum-competition` **Status.** derived This node is assembled mechanically from the 7 claims that carry the concept tag `forum-competition`. 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 7 claims across 1 works, 2012 to 2012. **2012** - [2029983-003](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-003) [definitional/asserted] -- The authors stipulate that jurisdictions which take steps only to expand the jurisdiction of their courts as venues for litigation, rather than to attract transactions, engage in Forum Competition. > Jurisdictions that take steps only to expand the jurisdic- tion of their courts as venues for litigation engage in "Forum Competition." 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 - [2029983-004](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-004) [mechanism/argued] -- Most Forum Competition turns on a jurisdiction's attractiveness to lawyers ex post: such jurisdictions ignore the preferences of transacting parties at the time of contracting and appeal only to the preferences of some parties and their lawyers after a dispute has arisen. > but most Forum Competition turns on a jurisdiction's attractiveness to lawyers ex post. These jurisdictions ignore the preferences of transact- ing parties ex ante and appeal only to the preferences of some transacting parties and their lawyers after a dispute has aris- 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 - [2029983-021](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-021) [mechanism/argued] -- The Dutch unfair trade practice and misrepresentation provisions invoked in Fortis, taken together, approximate the legal protections available in the United States under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, which makes the Dutch legal system a possible avenue for circumventing the restrictions imposed by Morrison. > Combined, these sections approximate legal protections available in the United States under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Given the comparability, the Dutch legal system could present a possible avenue for circumventing the restrictions imposed by the Morrison decision. 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 - [2029983-027](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-027) [mechanism/argued] -- Because the Dutch Supreme Court's World Online presumption of reliance can be extended to ad hoc disclosure violations and misleading periodic reports, the Dutch legal system could compete effectively with the United States by lowering the crucial reliance threshold in securities actions. > These developments suggest that the Dutch legal system could effectively compete with the United States, at least as it pertains to lowering the crucial threshold re- quirement of reliance in securities actions. 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 - [2029983-030](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-030) [condition/argued] -- Canada could engage in Forum Competition with the United States if its courts allow suits under Canadian law over all transactions in securities listed for trading in Canada, even transactions executed in the United States, assembling a class of Canadian and U.S. investors that Morrison forbids in U.S. courts. > Canada thus has an opportunity to engage in Forum Competition with the United States if its courts assume a different posture and allow suits under Canadian law with respect to all transactions in securities listed for trading in Canada, even if some of those transactions take place in the 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 - [2029983-039](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-039) [design/speculative] -- If Forum Competition between the United States and Europe expands, the acceptable outer bounds of jurisdictional competition may eventually have to be defined by treaty or other multilateral agreement. > Depending on future developments in this context, however, the acceptable outer bounds of jurisdictional competition by both Europe and the United States might eventually be defined by treaty or other multilateral agreement. 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 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/forum-competition.md | sha256sum **Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.