The real engine of the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision inMorrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.was not the Court’s much-discussed invigorated presumption against extraterritoriality. On the ground, what matters to investors, companies, and judges is the oft-ignored secondMorrisonruling: the creation of a “focus” analysis for separating actionable “domestic” section 10(b) claims from foreclosed “extraterritorial” suits. Applying this analysis, the Court determined that the site of the transaction at issue determines whether a section 10(b) case can proceed: section 10(b) only covers “transactions in securities listed on [U.S.] domestic exchanges” or “domestic transactions in other securities.”

中文翻译：

---

政府将跨国证券欺诈者绳之以法的权力：Dodd-Frank 认为莫里森无关紧要

最高法院在莫里森诉澳大利亚国民银行有限公司一案中做出重磅判决的真正动力并不是最高法院备受争议的反对治外法权的推定。实际上，对投资者、公司和法官而言，重要的是经常被忽视的第二条莫里森规则：创建一个“焦点”分析，将可诉的“国内”第 10(b) 条索赔与取消赎回权的“域外”诉讼区分开来。应用此分析，法院确定有争议的交易地点决定了第 10(b) 节的案件是否可以继续进行：第 10(b) 节仅涵盖“在 [美国] 国内交易所上市的证券交易”或“国内交易”在其他证券中。”