This comment will examine the Supreme Court's analysis in Morrison and why it overruled four decades of securities fraud jurisprudence by the Second Circuit. Part I of this comment briefly reviews the jurisprudence on the extraterritorial application of section 10(b), the anti fraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in the Second Circuit. Part II of this comment will analyze the Morrison decision, the subsequent decisions in the district courts applying Morrison, and the congressional response to partly overturn the decision. Part III of this comment will survey securities fraud laws in Australia, England, Canada, and China to demonstrate the difficulty that investors may have bringing private securities claims in foreign jurisdictions after Morrison. And finally. Part IV of this comment will analyze the efficacy of the current securities regime in the United States relative to other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Chicago Kent Law Review is the property of Chicago Kent Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
A Comparative Law Analysis of Private Securities Litigation in the Wake of Morrison v. National Australia Bank,
Chi.-Kent. L. Rev.
Available at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol87/iss3/11