<?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/2014/09/02/so-much-for-bright-line-tests-on-extraterritorial-reach-of-us-securities-laws/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, 08 May 2026 11:32:19 +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>So Much for Bright-Line Tests on Extraterritorial Reach of US Securities Laws?</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/09/02/so-much-for-bright-line-tests-on-extraterritorial-reach-of-us-securities-laws/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=so-much-for-bright-line-tests-on-extraterritorial-reach-of-us-securities-laws</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/09/02/so-much-for-bright-line-tests-on-extraterritorial-reach-of-us-securities-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Extraterritoriality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 10(b)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. federal courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=65380?d=20141215144718EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its landmark 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, the Supreme Court articulated what seemed to be a bright-line test for determining the extent to which the U.S. securities laws apply to transactions with international elements. In so doing, the Court harshly rejected the fact-intensive &#8220;conduct/effects&#8221; tests propounded several decades ago by the [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Tuesday, September 2, 2014 </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.proskauer.com/professionals/jonathan-richman/" target="_blank">Jonathan E. Richman</a>, Partner in the Litigation Department and a co-head of the Securities Litigation Group at Proskauer Rose LLP, and is based on a Proskauer publication authored by Mr. Richman, <a href="http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/ralph-ferrara/" target="_blank">Ralph C. Ferrara</a>, <a href="http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/ann-ashton/" target="_blank">Ann M. Ashton</a>, and <a href="http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/tanya-dmitronow/" target="_blank">Tanya J. Dmitronow</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>In its landmark 2010 decision in <em>Morrison v. National Australia Bank</em>, the Supreme Court articulated what seemed to be a bright-line test for determining the extent to which the U.S. securities laws apply to transactions with international elements. In so doing, the Court harshly rejected the fact-intensive &#8220;conduct/effects&#8221; tests propounded several decades ago by the Second Circuit and followed by many other courts throughout the country.</p>
<p>Last week, the Second Circuit got its revenge. In a long-awaited decision in <em>ParkCentral Global Hub Limited v. Porsche Automobile Holdings SE</em>, the court declined &#8220;to proffer a test that will reliably determine when a particular invocation of [the Securities Exchange Act&#8217;s anti-fraud provision] will be deemed appropriately domestic or impermissibly extraterritorial.&#8221; Instead, the Second Circuit held that courts must carefully consider the facts and circumstances of each case to avoid the very result that the Supreme Court had hoped to prevent in <em>Morrison</em>: promiscuous application of the U.S. securities laws to transactions that have little, if any, relationship to the United States.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/09/02/so-much-for-bright-line-tests-on-extraterritorial-reach-of-us-securities-laws/#more-65380" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading So Much for Bright-Line Tests on Extraterritorial Reach of US Securities Laws?">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/09/02/so-much-for-bright-line-tests-on-extraterritorial-reach-of-us-securities-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
