ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate Governance Blogs -> The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Corporate Governance

: The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog

F-Squared Claim Rejected

By Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance

ADVERTISEMENTS
Editor?s Note: Warren Stern is Of Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, where he concentrates on corporate and securities litigation. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum by Mr. Stern, George T. Conway III and Jonathan E. Goldin.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has strongly reaffirmed limitations on the extraterritorial application of U.S. securities laws, concluding that U.S. investors who buy shares in foreign companies on foreign exchanges may not be able to invoke Rule 10b-5 to redress alleged frauds that principally occurred overseas.

In In re European Aeronautic Defence & Space Company Securities Litigation, No. 08 Civ. 5389 (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2010), the court dismissed an action brought by an American pension fund on behalf of U.S. purchasers of shares of a European aerospace company. The pension fund alleged that the company?s disclosures with respect to the delivery schedule for a major aircraft violated Rule 10b-5. The purchases were made on European exchanges.

The court observed that ?[t]he only thing American about this case is? the plaintiff, and that allowing a class action where the relevant conduct occurred overseas could result in ?a very small tail . . . wagging an elephant.? That the putative class was limited to U.S. investors and that the plaintiff alleged ?generalized activities? in the U.S. by the defendant were not enough to warrant applying U.S. securities laws. The court added that even if U.S. law could apply, the case would have been dismissed because European courts are adequate alternatives and a U.S. court need not defer to a plaintiff?s choice of forum where the connection of the claims to the U.S. is a ?gossamer.?

This ruling came three days before the Supreme Court will hear argument in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2008), cert granted, 130 S. Ct. 783 (2009), which will address so-called ?f-cubed? securities claims?claims of foreign plaintiffs who purchased shares of foreign companies on foreign exchanges. In advance of that argument, the EADS decision shows that even in cases involving domestic plaintiffs American courts will exercise restraint in applying American securities laws extraterritorially.

Full post as published by The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog on April 10, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0023 secs (from cache 11/06/26 06:33:49)