<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/28/morrisons-impact-on-institutional-investors/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:32:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Morrison&#8217;s Impact on Institutional Investors</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/28/morrisons-impact-on-institutional-investors/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=morrisons-impact-on-institutional-investors</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/28/morrisons-impact-on-institutional-investors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:57:20 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Institutional Investors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Council of Institutional Investors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=26105?d=20190520101454EDT</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[American securities law is at an important crossroads, and the direction it takes will affect investors well into the future. For decades, federal securities law protected U.S. domiciled and citizen investors against fraud affecting the securities they purchased, even if purchased on foreign markets. Under the longstanding conduct and effects tests, the antifraud provisions of [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;">The following post comes to us from <a href="http://www.cii.org/JeffMahoney" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jeffrey P. Mahoney</a>, General Counsel at the Council of Institutional Investors, and is based on the executive summary of a CII white paper prepared by <a href="http://www.yettercoleman.com/profiles/christian-j-ward/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Christian J. Ward</a> and <a href="http://www.yettercoleman.com/profiles/barker-j-campbell/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">J. Campbell Barker</a>, available in full <a href="http://www.cii.org/UserFiles/file/CII_Morrison_FINAL%20VERSION.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>American securities law is at an important crossroads, and the direction it takes will affect investors well into the future. For decades, federal securities law protected U.S. domiciled and citizen investors against fraud affecting the securities they purchased, even if purchased on foreign markets. Under the longstanding conduct and effects tests, the antifraud provisions of U.S. securities law covered all conduct that injured American investors. Fraudsters could not escape a private right of action for securities fraud by consummating a transaction abroad.</p>
<p><a name="1b"></a>The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2010 ruling in <em>Morrison v. National Australia Bank</em> <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/02/28/morrisons-impact-on-institutional-investors#1">[1]</a> changed the landscape for U.S. investors. In <em>Morrison</em>—a dispute about the territorial reach of the antifraud provisions of U.S. securities law—the Supreme Court rejected four decades of federal court jurisprudence applying the conduct and effects tests and adopted a new rule that focuses narrowly on the location where securities were purchased and sold. Under prior law, if the fraud involved conduct in the United States or had an effect in the United States, victims had a private right to bring suit. Under <em>Morrison’s</em> new test, so long as the fraud relates to securities that trade only on foreign exchanges or other foreign platforms, no amount of harm to American investors triggers the antifraud protection of U.S. securities law, even if investors submitted their orders from the United States.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/28/morrisons-impact-on-institutional-investors/#more-26105" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Morrison&#8217;s Impact on Institutional Investors">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/28/morrisons-impact-on-institutional-investors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
