Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T07:24:41.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extraterritoriality’s Watchdog After Morrison v. National Australia Bank

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

George T. Conway III
George T. Conway III*
Affiliation:
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Mr. Conway argued the cause for the respondents in , Morrison v. National Australia Bank
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Harmony and Dissonance in Extraterritorial Regulation
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 105 , 2011 , pp. 394 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010).

2 See, e.g., Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 704-05 (1962) (citing United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am. (Alcoa), 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945).

3 See Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 405 F.2d 200, 208 (2d Cir.) (citing Alcoa, 148 F.2d at 443-44), modified en banc on other grounds, 405 F.2d 215 (2d Cir. 1968).

4 See Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Inc., 519 F.2d 974, 993 (2d Cir. 1975).

5 Brief for the Republic of France as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents 17, Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010).

6 See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 454-56 (2007) (presumption against extraterritoriality); F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 164 (2004) (citing Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804)); EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248-59 (1991) (presumption against extraterritoriality).

7 See Empagran, 542 U.S. at 159-60, 163-69.

8 Id. at 169.

9 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b).

10 See Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2877-78, 2882.

11 See id. at 2881-83; cf., e.g., Bench, 519 F.2d at 993.

12 See Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2878-82.

13 See id. at 2878-79.

14 Id. at 2884.

15 See Dodge, William S., The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality After Morrison Google Scholar, infra.

16 See Parrish, Austen L., Evading Legislative Jurisdiction, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2012 Google Scholar).

17 See Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 3886 n.11; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 814 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

18 See, e.g., In re Rhodia S.A. Sec. Litig., 531 F. Supp. 2d 527, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

19 See Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2895 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).

20 See, e.g., In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 5571 (RJH), 2011 WL 590915, at *10-*11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2011) (citing cases).

21 Cf. Elliott Assocs. v. Porsche Auto. Holding Se, No. 10 Civ. 0532 (HB), 2010 WL 5463846, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2010) (holding that, under Morrison, federal law does not apply to derivatives contracts referencing foreign stock even if the contracts are made in the United States).

22 Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2884.

23 Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 377 & note 4, at 457 (1934).