{
 "@context": "https://schema.org",
 "@type": "DefinedTerm",
 "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/securities-litigation",
 "identifier": "kaal:entity:securities-litigation",
 "name": "Securities litigation",
 "termCode": "securities-litigation",
 "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/securities-litigation.md",
 "sha256": "cb447e884e4e2741cd1211c0752b9d56e38325b9f8fef4589ff44cd04d7db878",
 "additionalProperty": [
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "status",
   "value": "derived"
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "claim_count",
   "value": 4
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "work_count",
   "value": 3
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "year_span",
   "value": [
    "2010",
    "2012"
   ]
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "non_current_claims",
   "value": 0
  }
 ],
 "subjectOf": [
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1558614-031",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1558614-031",
   "text": "The United States compensates for its lenient corporate law treatment of risk taking under the business judgment rule with a comparatively strict disclosure regime and a robust securities class action litigation regime; substantive corporate law pushes the monitoring requirement toward leniency while securities enforcement pushes it back toward stringency.",
   "abstract": "In sum, what the United States lacks in its lenient approach to risk taking in the application of the business judgment rule the Unit- ed States may make up for with its relatively strict disclosure regime and robust securities class action litigation regime.",
   "citation": "Painter and Kaal, Initial Reflections on an Evolving Standard Constraints on Risk Taking by Directors and Officers in (2010). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1558614",
   "datePublished": "2010",
   "claim_type": "mechanism",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "e898211630f4116879329d6de8397523dca5b066864147421aa5cbc7429dc83b",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-002",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-002",
   "text": "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.",
   "abstract": "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'.",
   "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": [
    "pre-Morrison case law",
    "foreign-cubed securities litigation"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-020",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-020",
   "text": "If Section 10(b) were held to reach swap agreements based on stocks traded outside the United States, plaintiffs' attorneys would use that holding as precedent to limit Morrison broadly, and other courts might create a general exception for U.S. derivative contracts referencing non-U.S. securities.",
   "abstract": "If Section 10(b) is held to apply to cases involving swap agreements based on stocks traded outside the U.S., plaintiffs' attorneys would be encouraged to use such a holding in Porsche as precedent to limit the application of Morrison in a wide range of contexts.",
   "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": true,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "appellate reversal of the Porsche dismissal",
    "U.S. derivative contracts referencing foreign securities"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-003",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:2029983-003",
   "text": "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.",
   "abstract": "Jurisdictions that take steps only to expand the jurisdic- tion of their courts as venues for litigation engage in \"Forum Competition.\"",
   "citation": "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",
   "datePublished": "2012",
   "claim_type": "definitional",
   "confidence": "asserted",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "fde2ff611420eb283cbb49a6b681a2ae8efa2b4603ae71480e2d91483f0295f2",
   "status": "current"
  }
 ],
 "description": "4 claims in the published works of Wulf A. Kaal carry the concept tag 'securities-litigation'. Derived node: a roster, not an adjudicated definition."
}