Robert P. Bartlett et al., The Myth of Morrison: Securities Fraud Litigation Against Foreign Issuers, SSRN (2018)

We find that the description of Morrison as a “steamroller” substantially ending litigation against foreign issuers is a myth. Instead, we find that Morrison did not substantially change the type of litigation brought against foreign issuers, which both before and after Morrison focused on foreign issuers with a U.S. listing and substantial U.S. trading volume. While dismissal rates rose post-Morrison we find no evidence that this is related to the decision. Settlement amounts and attorneys’ fees actually rose post-Morrison.

VW Ruling – Morrison Not A Bar To Securities Claims Involving ADRs

These issues arose again the U.S. securities class action lawsuit that Volkswagen ADR investors filed against the company and related defendants based on allegations involving the company’s recent high-profile vehicle emissions scandal. The Volkswagen defendants argued in reliance on Morrison that the U.S. securities laws do not apply to the OTC transactions in the company’s ADRs. In an interesting January 4, 2017 opinion (here), Northern District of California Judge Charles R. Breyer held that the U.S. securities laws do indeed apply to over-the-counter transactions in the U.S. of Volkswagen’s sponsored Level 1 ADRs.

東芝との違い:Volkswagenでは、sponsored ADRだった。


 Morrison判決1 は,2010年6月24日の判決です。他方,金融規制改革法の成立は,2010年7月21日です。米国証券取引委員会は,同法929P条がMorrison判決を一部覆したとの立場を取っているようですが,それに否定的な意見があることを比較法学で紹介しました。

  1. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010). []