{
 "@context": "https://schema.org",
 "@type": "DefinedTerm",
 "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/section-10b",
 "identifier": "kaal:entity:section-10b",
 "name": "Section 10b",
 "termCode": "section-10b",
 "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/section-10b.md",
 "sha256": "462e337f81ffa6cdc39eb33d3fdd5af0eaae676e3b76e6b9771af787b8bea647",
 "additionalProperty": [
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "status",
   "value": "derived"
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "claim_count",
   "value": 9
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "work_count",
   "value": 2
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "year_span",
   "value": [
    "2010",
    "2011"
   ]
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "non_current_claims",
   "value": 0
  }
 ],
 "subjectOf": [
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-002",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1664809-002",
   "text": "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 reviewing the legislative history.",
   "abstract": "had intended the federal securities laws only to cover purchases",
   "citation": "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",
   "datePublished": "2010",
   "claim_type": "definitional",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "reading of the 1933 Act and 1934 Act legislative history"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "2d5c8c30f969f8eb613bfa1fe6888a7cfa1a452e1027bcda0489618ceac62c20",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1664809-018",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1664809-018",
   "text": "Applying section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 together with the fraud on the market theory substantially increases the potential liability of issuers and can lead to questionable results, which is why EU jurisdictions may not want that rule applied to their securities markets.",
   "abstract": "theory substantially increases the potential liability of issuers and",
   "citation": "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",
   "datePublished": "2010",
   "claim_type": "failure",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": true,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "securities markets subjected to US antifraud litigation"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "2d5c8c30f969f8eb613bfa1fe6888a7cfa1a452e1027bcda0489618ceac62c20",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-001",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-001",
   "text": "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.",
   "abstract": "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",
   "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": "mechanism",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "Section 10(b) claims",
    "transactions executed outside the United States"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-003",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-003",
   "text": "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.",
   "abstract": "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,",
   "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": "failure",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": true,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "dually listed securities",
    "transactions executed on a foreign exchange"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-004",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-004",
   "text": "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.",
   "abstract": "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",
   "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": "failure",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "foreign issuers with U.S. registered ADRs or listed shares"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-005",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-005",
   "text": "There is no substantive difference between a foreign issuer listing ADRs on a U.S. exchange and listing its ordinary shares there, so Section 10(b) coverage of foreign transactions should not turn on which arrangement the issuer chose.",
   "abstract": "It also makes little sense to argue that the result would be different, and Section 10(b) would apply to transactions in NAB's ordinary shares outside the United States, if NAB had listed its ordinary shares for trading on the NYSE instead of listing the ADRs.",
   "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": "definitional",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "foreign issuers accessing U.S. markets through ADRs"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-009",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-009",
   "text": "Judge Baer's dismissal of the Porsche complaint reaches the correct result under Morrison, but parts of his reasoning require further refinement.",
   "abstract": "In sum, Judge Baer's holding is correct under Morrison, but some of the reasoning needs further refinement.",
   "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": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "security-based swap agreements referencing foreign traded stock"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-025",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-025",
   "text": "Section 929P(b) may not have been necessary, because Section 10(b) already gives the SEC enforcement authority whenever a single U.S. securities transaction is affected by the alleged fraud.",
   "abstract": "Section 929P(b) furthermore may not have been necessary. Section 10(b) al- ready gives the SEC enforcement authority whenever a single U.S. securities transaction is affected by the alleged fraud.",
   "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": "condition",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "SEC enforcement authority after Morrison"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@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"
  }
 ],
 "description": "9 claims in the published works of Wulf A. Kaal carry the concept tag 'section-10b'. Derived node: a roster, not an adjudicated definition."
}