105
edits
Difference between revisions of "SEC Whistleblower Program"
→International Schemes and SEC Enforcement Actions
| Line 304: | Line 304: | ||
This is known as the “conduct-and-effects” test. Courts have applied this test for over 40 years notwithstanding the fact that the federal securities acts of 1933 and 1934 did not address the extraterritorial reach of the antifraud provisions of those statutes. On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd. that the lower courts were wrong to apply the conduct-and-effects test. Then, less than a month after the Morrison decision, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended the jurisdictional provisions of the federal securities acts to clearly indicate that the anti-fraud provisions apply extraterritorially when the statutory conduct-and-effects test is met. | This is known as the “conduct-and-effects” test. Courts have applied this test for over 40 years notwithstanding the fact that the federal securities acts of 1933 and 1934 did not address the extraterritorial reach of the antifraud provisions of those statutes. On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd. that the lower courts were wrong to apply the conduct-and-effects test. Then, less than a month after the Morrison decision, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended the jurisdictional provisions of the federal securities acts to clearly indicate that the anti-fraud provisions apply extraterritorially when the statutory conduct-and-effects test is met. | ||
=='''The Conduct-and-Effects Test'''== | |||
Through the [https://whistleblower-rewards-and-protections-wiki.zuckermanlaw.com/index.php/Whistleblower_Protection_Laws#Dodd-Frank_Act Dodd-Frank Act], Congress amended the federal securities laws to include the conduct-and-effects test: | |||
The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory shall have jurisdiction of an action or proceeding brought or instituted by the Commission or the United States alleging a violation of section 77q(a) of this title [Section 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act] involving: | |||
#conduct within the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of the violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors; or | |||
#conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States. See [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77v 15 U.S.C. § 77v(c)] | |||