Pathways Around 'Morrison': Supplemental Jurisdiction for Securities Fraud Claims
New pathways have emerged for pursuing claims based on foreign exchange purchases, i.e., where the applicable U.S. and foreign law governing securities fraud are substantially similar.
March 16, 2021 at 11:45 AM
11 minute read
At first, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), seemed to sound a death knell for U.S. securities fraud claims predicated on stocks purchased abroad. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted, the express language of §10b of the Exchange Act of 1934 limits claims to those arising from transactions for "any security registered on a national securities exchange." Since "there is no affirmative indication in the Exchange Act that §10(b) applies extraterritorially [] we therefore conclude that it does not."
Nonetheless, new pathways have emerged for pursuing claims based on foreign exchange purchases, i.e., where the applicable U.S. and foreign law governing securities fraud are substantially similar. In a decision issued Jan. 22, 2021 in In re Teva Sec. Litig., (2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11905), the U.S. District Court of Connecticut permitted Teva investors to assert fraud claims for purchases on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE). In so ruling, the court recognized that Israeli securities law expressly permits TASE stocks to be "dual listed" in Israel and the United States, and to apply U.S. securities law to any fraud related claims regardless of where purchased. In so ruling the Teva court followed decisions involving other TASE dual listed companies, i.e., Perrigo Co.-Roofer's Pension v. Papa and Costas v. Ormat Technologies.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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.
You Might Like
View AllBig Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Are Dominated by Small Cap Listings
The Benefits of E-Filing for Affordable, Effortless and Equal Access to Justice
7 minute readA Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
13 minute readShifting Sands: May a Court Properly Order the Sale of the Marital Residence During a Divorce’s Pendency?
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Data Disposition—Conquering the Seemingly Unscalable Mountain
- 2Who Are the Judges Assigned to Challenges to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order?
- 3Litigators of the Week: A Directed Verdict Win for Cisco in a West Texas Patent Case
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5Womble Bond Becomes First Firm in UK to Roll Out AI Tool Firmwide
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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