Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

MORRISON v. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

Docket No.: 08-1191
Certiorari Granted: Nov 30 2009
Argued: March 29, 2010
Decided: June 24, 2010

Topics:

Civil Procedure, Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, RICO, Securities Act of 1933, Securities Law, Sherman Act, Title VII, antitrust, patent

PartyNames: Robert Morrison, et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., et al.
Petitioner: Robert Morrison, et al.
Respondent: National Australia Bank Ltd., et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Citation: 547 F.3d 167

Robert Morrison, et al.
v.
National Australia Bank Ltd., et al.
Question Presented:

I. Whether the antifraud provisions of the United States securities laws extend to transnational frauds where: (a) the foreign-based parent company conducted substantial business in the United States, its American Depository Receipts were traded on the New York Stock Exchange and its financial statements were filed with the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC"); and (b) the claims arose from a massive accounting fraud perpetrated by American citizens at the parent company's Florida-based subsidiary and were merely reported from overseas in the parent company's financial statements. II. Whether this Court, which has never addressed the issue of whether subject matter jurisdiction may extend to claims involving transnational securities fraud, should set forth a policy to resolve the three-way conflict among the circuits (i.e., District of Columbia Circuit versus the Second, Fifth and Seventh Circuits versus the Third, Eighth and Ninth Circuits). III. Whether the Second Circuit should have adopted the SEC's proposed standard for determining the proper exercise of subject matter jurisdiction in transnational securities fraud cases, as set forth in the SEC's amicus brief submitted at the request of the Second Circuit, and whether the Second Circuit should have adopted the SEC's finding that subject matter jurisdiction exists here due to the "material and substantial conduct in furtherance of" the securities fraud that occurred in the United States.

Question:

1) Do anti-fraud provisions of the U.S. securities laws extend to transnational fraud? 2) Did the Second Circuit apply the appropriate standard for determining whether subject matter jurisdiction exists?

Note:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR TOOK NO PART

MORRISON v. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 29, 2010

Holding: affirmed
Vote: 8-0
Recused: J.,
Opinion By: Justice Antonin Scalia
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)