{
 "@context": "https://schema.org",
 "@type": "DefinedTerm",
 "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/private-right-of-action",
 "identifier": "kaal:entity:private-right-of-action",
 "name": "Private right of action",
 "termCode": "private-right-of-action",
 "inDefinedTermSet": {
  "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/index.json"
 },
 "author": {
  "@type": "Person",
  "name": "Wulf A. Kaal",
  "identifier": "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0757-275X"
 },
 "dateModified": "2026-07-29",
 "canonicalForm": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/private-right-of-action.md",
 "sha256": "8df7d69149b64f6955fb6ea0feee95ffa7c702db3846a8f91977b345825329ba",
 "additionalProperty": [
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "status",
   "value": "derived"
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "claim_count",
   "value": 5
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "work_count",
   "value": 2
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "year_span",
   "value": [
    "2011",
    "2013"
   ]
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "non_current_claims",
   "value": 0
  }
 ],
 "subjectOf": [
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-031",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-031",
   "text": "Extending private rights of action extraterritorially would expose non-U.S. companies to Section 10(b) liability based on any U.S. conduct, including conduct inside U.S. business operations alleged to have produced securities fraud abroad, and much of global securities litigation would migrate to the United States.",
   "abstract": "Non-U.S. companies could be subject to liability under Section 10(b) if they have any conduct in the U.S. - for example conduct inside U.S. business operations — that could be alleged to have resulted in securities fraud outside the U.S.",
   "citation": "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",
   "datePublished": "2011",
   "claim_type": "predictive",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "if Congress legislatively overrules Morrison for private plaintiffs"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-032",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-032",
   "text": "A private right of action in foreign-cubed cases would compel EU companies to modify U.S. business operations that expose them to Section 10(b) litigation, including operations unrelated to U.S. securities markets or U.S. investors.",
   "abstract": "If Congress decided to impose a private right of action in foreign-cubed cases, EU companies could be compelled to modify their U.S. business operations that expose them to Section 10(b) litigation, including business operations that have nothing to do with U.S. securities markets",
   "citation": "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",
   "datePublished": "2011",
   "claim_type": "predictive",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "if Congress imposes a private right of action in foreign-cubed cases",
    "EU companies with U.S. operations"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-034",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-034",
   "text": "Regardless of what the SEC study concludes, Congress should decline to reinstate private rights of action in foreign-cubed cases.",
   "abstract": "An SEC study of private rights of action is also required by the Dodd-Frank Act, but regardless of the outcome of this study, Congress should decline to reinstate private rights of action in \"foreign-cubed\" cases.",
   "citation": "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",
   "datePublished": "2011",
   "claim_type": "normative",
   "confidence": "asserted",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "the Section 929Y study of private rights of action"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-035",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-035",
   "text": "The SEC study is very unlikely to produce an extraterritorial extension of private rights of action so long as Republicans control the House of Representatives.",
   "abstract": "The SEC study, whatever it recommends, is very unlikely to result in extend- ing private rights of action extraterritorially so long as the Republicans control the House of Representatives.",
   "citation": "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",
   "datePublished": "2011",
   "claim_type": "predictive",
   "confidence": "asserted",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "U.S. political control of the House of Representatives"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2337268-040",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:2337268-040",
   "text": "Enforcement of the IAA's prohibited transactions provision is limited because the Supreme Court in Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis held that a violation of that provision does not support an implied private right of action.",
   "abstract": "The enforcement of a violation of prohibited transactions under the IAA is limited. In Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis107 the Supreme Court determined that a violation of the IAA's prohibited transactions provision108 does not allow for implied private rights of action.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Investment Adviser Regulation (2013). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2337268",
   "datePublished": "2013",
   "claim_type": "failure",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": true,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "violations of the IAA prohibited transactions provision"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7075ce35282a8ee75b81ae3dec0e19f68631beae7f3c3a00ab2827538dc9e302",
   "status": "current"
  }
 ],
 "description": "5 claims in the published works of Wulf A. Kaal carry the concept tag 'private-right-of-action'. Derived node: a roster, not an adjudicated definition."
}