Master The Supreme Court limited Exchange Act §10(b) to domestic securities transactions, rejecting extraterritorial private suits based on foreign trades even if some conduct occurred in the U.S. with this comprehensive case brief.
Morrison v. National Australia Bank is a landmark Supreme Court decision that reshaped the landscape of transnational securities litigation. Before Morrison, lower courts used a flexible conduct-and-effects framework to decide whether U.S. securities law could reach foreign securities purchases when some allegedly fraudulent conduct or market effects were felt in the United States. That approach produced significant uncertainty for multinational issuers and investors alike. Morrison replaced it with a bright-line, text-driven rule anchored in the presumption against extraterritoriality.
The Court held that §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act applies only to purchases or sales of securities listed on a domestic exchange or to other securities transactions that occur in the United States. The decision not only curtailed so-called foreign-cubed suits (foreign plaintiffs suing foreign issuers over securities traded on foreign exchanges) but also clarified that extraterritorial reach is a merits question, not a jurisdictional bar. Morrison thus stands at the intersection of securities regulation, statutory interpretation, and federal courts doctrine, and it has had enduring influence on later cases concerning the geographic scope of federal statutes.
561 U.S. 247 (2010), Supreme Court of the United States
National Australia Bank Ltd. (NAB), an Australian bank whose ordinary shares traded primarily on foreign exchanges, acquired HomeSide Lending, Inc., a Florida-based mortgage servicer. Plaintiffs, foreign investors who purchased NAB ordinary shares on foreign exchanges, alleged that HomeSide and certain U.S.-based executives manipulated valuation models for mortgage servicing rights, which in turn inflated NAB's consolidated financial statements. After NAB announced substantial write-downs of HomeSide's assets in 2001 and 2002, NAB's share price declined. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the Southern District of New York under §10(b) and Rule 10b-5, contending that deceptive conduct in Florida led to false public statements abroad and harmed foreign purchasers of NAB shares. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under then-prevailing Second Circuit conduct-and-effects tests; the Second Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether §10(b) applies extraterritorially to such claims.
Does §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act provide a private cause of action for foreign plaintiffs who bought shares of a foreign issuer on foreign exchanges, based on allegedly deceptive conduct that occurred in part in the United States?
Absent a clear, affirmative indication from Congress, federal statutes are presumed not to apply extraterritorially. Section 10(b) reaches only (1) transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges and (2) domestic transactions in other securities. Questions about the geographic scope of §10(b) go to the merits (failure to state a claim), not to subject-matter jurisdiction.
No. Section 10(b) does not apply extraterritorially to foreign-cubed claims based on purchases of a foreign issuer's shares on foreign exchanges, even if some deceptive conduct occurred in the United States. The federal courts had subject-matter jurisdiction, but the complaint failed to state a claim under §10(b). The judgment was affirmed.
1) Presumption against extraterritoriality: The Court began with the canonical presumption that federal statutes do not apply outside the United States absent a clear congressional directive. Section 10(b)'s text contains no such clear indication. References to instrumentalities of interstate commerce and national securities exchanges demonstrate domestic application, not global reach. 2) Statutory focus on transactions: Examining §10(b) and the Exchange Act as a whole, the Court identified the relevant statutory focus as the purchase or sale of securities, not the location of deceptive conduct. Because the focus is transactions, the statute's reach turns on where and on what exchange the transaction occurred, not on where preparatory or background conduct took place. 3) Rejection of the conduct-and-effects test: The Court criticized the lower courts' conduct-and-effects framework as atextual and unpredictable. It invited difficult line-drawing and created uncertainty for transnational markets. In its place, the Court adopted a bright-line transactional test: §10(b) applies only to (a) transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges and (b) domestic transactions in other securities. 4) Section 30 and structural arguments: Plaintiffs argued that other provisions of the Exchange Act, including §30, implied extraterritorial coverage for §10(b). The Court rejected this, reasoning that §30's tailored provisions say little about §10(b)'s general scope and fall short of the clear statement required to overcome the presumption. 5) Jurisdiction versus merits: The lower courts had treated extraterritorial reach as a jurisdictional question. The Supreme Court clarified that federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over §10(b) claims under §27 of the Exchange Act; whether the statute provides a cause of action for a particular set of facts is a merits inquiry. Thus, dismissal should be for failure to state a claim, not for lack of jurisdiction. 6) Application: Plaintiffs were foreign investors who purchased foreign-issued ordinary shares on foreign exchanges. Although some alleged misstatements and valuation manipulations occurred in Florida at HomeSide, the relevant transactions were not on a U.S. exchange and did not otherwise occur in the United States. Therefore, §10(b) did not apply. Concurrences: Justice Stevens (joined by Justice Ginsburg) concurred in the judgment, agreeing that the claims failed but cautioning against overreading the majority's test. Justice Breyer concurred in part and in the judgment, noting that even under a pragmatic approach there was insufficient U.S. connection. Justice Sotomayor did not participate.
Morrison provides a clear, administrable test for the geographic scope of §10(b), supplanting decades of lower-court conduct-and-effects jurisprudence. It has three enduring impacts. First, it substantially limits private transnational securities fraud suits, curbing forum shopping and exposure of foreign issuers to U.S. litigation for foreign trades. Second, it clarifies that extraterritoriality is a merits, not jurisdictional, question, influencing civil procedure and federal courts analysis. Third, Morrison's robust use of the presumption against extraterritoriality has influenced cases across subject areas, including the Alien Tort Statute and RICO. In response, Congress enacted Dodd-Frank Act §929P(b), expanding extraterritorial reach for SEC and DOJ enforcement if significant U.S. conduct or effects are shown, while leaving Morrison's limitations in place for private actions. Post-Morrison litigation has focused on defining a 'domestic transaction' (e.g., where irrevocable liability is incurred or title passes) and on how the rule applies to ADRs and derivative instruments. For law students, Morrison is essential for understanding statutory interpretation, federal common lawmaking limits, and the interaction between securities regulation and transnational commerce.
Foreign-cubed suits involve foreign plaintiffs suing foreign issuers over securities purchased on foreign exchanges. Morrison effectively bars such private §10(b) actions in U.S. courts absent a domestic securities transaction or listing on a U.S. exchange. The mere fact that some deceptive conduct occurred in the United States is not enough.
Morrison holds that §10(b) applies only to (1) transactions in securities listed on a domestic (U.S.) exchange and (2) domestic transactions in other securities. Courts assess domesticity by asking where the purchase or sale occurred, often focusing on where irrevocable liability was incurred or where title passed, not merely where deceptive conduct took place.
No. The Court clarified that federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over Exchange Act claims; extraterritorial application is a merits issue. Accordingly, dismissals should be for failure to state a claim, not for lack of jurisdiction.
In the Dodd-Frank Act, §929P(b) authorized the SEC and DOJ to bring enforcement actions involving significant U.S. conduct or effects, even for foreign transactions. Congress did not extend the same extraterritorial reach to private plaintiffs, so Morrison continues to govern private §10(b) suits.
Courts look to whether the specific transaction is domestic. Purchasing ADRs listed on a U.S. exchange typically satisfies Morrison. Unsponsored ADRs or OTC trades require fact-specific analysis of where irrevocable liability was incurred or title passed. Some circuits allow §10(b) claims for domestic OTC purchases if adequately linked to the issuer and the transaction is domestic; others are more restrictive.
Morrison anchors §10(b)'s reach in the place of the transaction rather than the place of the fraud. By applying the presumption against extraterritoriality and rejecting atextual multifactor balancing, the Court provided a sharper, more predictable bright line for transnational securities cases. The decision thus reshaped private securities litigation with immediate practical consequences for global issuers and investors.
At the same time, Morrison's reasoning extends beyond securities. It powerfully illustrates modern statutory interpretation, the limits of judicially crafted tests, and the distinction between merits and jurisdiction. For students and practitioners, the case is a touchstone for analyzing federal statutes' geographic scope and the design of stable, administrable rules in complex cross-border contexts.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →