US: The practical nomad
UK nomads must be aware of US securities legislation when advising a US company on an AIM listing
December 13, 2006 at 07:03 PM
6 minute read
A UK nomad takes a US company public on the Alternative Investment M a rket (AIM) and is sued in the US by an investor under the anti-fraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In the complaint, the investor alleges that the admission document failed to include an expert's warning that the oil exploration project might result in a dry well. Has this ever happened? Not to the best of the author's knowledge. Could it happen? It absolutely could.
US courts of the third, eighth and ninth circuits have assumed jurisdiction in a variety of Section 10(b) cases involving non-US plaintiffs suing US companies and non-US companies in connection with the sale of securities not listed on any US securities exchange, where the sales took place outside of the US.
Cases in point are Continental Grain (Australia), Kauthar SDN BDH v Sternberg, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v Kasser and Grunenthal. In these cases the US courts found sufficient contact with the US to vest them with jurisdiction based on:
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1First Lawsuit Filed Alleging Contraceptive Depo-Provera Caused Brain Tumor
- 2BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 3The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 4The Growing Tension—And Opportunity—in Big Law Nonequity Tiers
- 5The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250