Abstract
This article examines the recent Supreme Court decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank and its broad implications for private securities litigants going forward. Morrison overturned forty years of jurisprudence when it rejected the conduct and effects tests used in some form by every Circuit Court when determining the extraterritorial reach of Section 10(b) of the Securities Act. The Court instead adopted a transactional test requiring that the security be traded in the United States or otherwise domestic, substantially cutting back the reach of Section 10(b). As a result, many securities litigants will be forced to bring claims in the country in which the security originated. To fully explore the broad implications of Morrison, this article engages a comparative law analysis to gauge the ability of these investors to bring private securities claims in these foreign jurisdictions. Specifically, this article examines securities laws, as well as rules surrounding group litigation, in Australia, China, United Kingdom, and Canada. This article concludes by recommending a tweak in the current U.S. regulatory regime to strike a better balance towards achieving optimum investor protection, while still promoting efficient capital markets.
Recommended Citation
Grant Swanson,
A Comparative Law Analysis of Private Securities Litigation in the Wake of Morrison v. National Australia Bank,
87
Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
965
(2012).
Available at:
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol87/iss3/11
