entity · derived
Morrison
Derived node: assembled mechanically from the claims carrying morrison. A roster, not an adjudicated definition.
Every claim under this term
- 1664809-002 : Congress intended the federal securities laws to cover only purchases and sales of securities that occur within the United States, a conclusion the authors reached with twenty-one law professors after
- 1664809-006 : Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Morrison v. NAB, Congress could overrule the holding, because the question presented is one of statutory construction and Congress may amend a statute whos
- 1664809-038 : European boards of directors and company lawyers should follow the Morrison decision and the section 7216 legislative process closely, prepare for the resulting changes, and ask Congress to reconsider
- 1765901-001 : 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
- 1765901-003 : 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 : 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
- 1765901-007 : The Supreme Court should have summarized its Morrison holding in language matching the opinion's logic, namely that Section 10(b) applies only to securities bought or sold in the United States; the Co
- 1765901-012 : Morrison provides no clear parameters for classifying privately negotiated transactions as domestic or foreign, because the case involved publicly traded securities and never reached the question.
- 1765901-016 : Treating the U.S. location of a broker as making the securities purchase domestic would circumvent most of the Morrison holding, since a foreign buyer of foreign securities could invoke U.S. law simpl
- 1765901-018 : For exchange traded securities, the location of the exchange rather than the location of the plaintiff's broker should be the controlling factor under Morrison, although it is uncertain whether all co
- 1765901-021 : Unless courts can construe Morrison for swap agreements and other derivatives consistently with both the logic and the language of the opinion, Congress will have to enact new clarifying legislation.
- 1765901-026 : Foreign-cubed rulings such as Morrison determined the size of the plaintiff class in private suits, but were irrelevant to the SEC's ability to enforce wherever a U.S. securities transaction is connec
- 2029983-001 : 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
- 2029983-005 : Because Morrison limits U.S. securities law to transactions inside the United States, plaintiffs' attorneys are predicted to look increasingly to European countries and other venues in which to file s
- 2029983-010 : 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
- 2029983-021 : 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,
- 2029983-030 : 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 execute
- 2029983-031 : Morrison's transactional test could prove relatively short lived because it is rooted in geography while an increasing number of securities transactions defy geographical boundaries.
- 2029983-033 : The authors propose a rule under which, unless a transaction is unambiguously inside the United States, the transaction is not inside the United States if the parties have expressly stated that intent
- 2029983-036 : 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 la
- 2029983-038 : Choice of law should replace the geographically based transactional test in those circumstances where geography is ambiguous.