ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate & Securities Law Blogs -> Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Corporate & Securities Law

: Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation

By Jim Hamilton

ADVERTISEMENTS



Appeals Court Curtails Extraterritorial Application of Federal Securities Laws

A Second Circuit panel has ruled that the US federal securities laws did not apply to foreign investors alleging fraudulent statements by a foreign issuer when the conduct in the US was merely preparatory to the fraud and the acts directly causing loss to investors occurred in a foreign country. This is the so-called foreign-cubed securities fraud action, said the appeals panel, and it is judged by the same standard of any extraterritorial application of the federal securities laws, which is whether actions in the US directly caused the loss to investors. The panel described itself as an American court, not the world?s court, which cannot expend resources resolving cases that do not affect Americans or involve fraud emanating from America. Morrison v. National Australian Bank, Ltd., CA-2, No.07-0583, Oct. 23, 2008.

Foreign investors alleged that a US subsidiary sent false financial information to its Australian parent company, which in turn created and distributed public filings incorporating the false statements. The main issue before the court was what conduct comprised the heart of the alleged fraud.

The appeals panel concluded that actions taken by the parent company in Australia were significantly more central to the fraud, and more directly responsible for harming investors, than the alleged manipulation at the US subsidiary. The parent is the public company with oversight over all corporate operations and the duty to file accurate financial statements to the outside world.

The subsidiary did not send any false numbers to investors, reasoned the court, and those numbers had to pass through a number of checkpoints manned by company personnel at the Australian headquarters before reaching investors. If headquarters had monitored the accuracy of the subsidiary?s numbers before transmitting them to investors, said the panel, the numbers would have been corrected and no investor would have been harmed.

Full post as published by Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation on October 24, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 11/06/26 10:35:01)