"I mean, this case is Australian plaintiff, Australian defendant, shares purchased in Australia. It has ‘Australia’ written all over it."
— Justice Ginsburg, March 29, 2010
Following up on yesterday’s pre-game analysis of oral argument in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Hannah Buxbaum over at the Conglomorate blog, has posted an excellent post-game analysis of this pivotal U.S. Supreme Court case. We thank her for providing a link to the transcript, embedded below:
After reviewing the transcript, Hannah is of the opinion that the Court "will have no problem concluding that f-cubed cases are not governed by U.S. securities law." But she notes that "the bright-line test advocated by respondents, under which U.S. law would apply only if the securities transaction in question took place in the United States, wouldn’t just foreclose those cases — it would also foreclose cases involving American investors who had invested abroad. Would that be throwing the baby out with the bathwater?"
That’s a great point. What about protecting the interests of defrauded U.S. investors? What do you think?