No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Morrison v. National Australia Bank: Defining the Domestic Interest in International Securities Litigation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2017
Abstract
- Type
- Harmony and Dissonance in Extraterritorial Regulation
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011
References
1 This approach is consistent with the jurisdictional analysis used in other substantive areas. See generally Restatement (THIRD) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §§ 401—403, 416 (1987).
2 Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 174 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2008).
3 Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2884 (2010).
4 Id.
5 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 814-15 (1993) ( Scalia, J., dissenting (quoting Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch 64, 118 (1804)))Google Scholar.
6 Morrison, 130 S.Ct. at 2877 (quoting EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991)).
7 Id.
8 Id. at 2882 (emphasis in original).
9 Id. at 2884.
10 Elliott Assocs. v. Porsche Auto. Holding SE, 2010 WL 5463846 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
11 See Buxbaum, Hannah L., Transnational Regulatory Litigation, 46 Va. J. Int’l L. 251 (2006)Google Scholar.
12 Morrison, 130 S.Ct. at 2877-78 (emphasis added).
13 See Buxbaum, Hannah L., Multinational Class Actions Under Federal Securities Law: Managing Jurisdictional Conflict, 46 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 14, 60-64 (2007)Google Scholar.