# Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. > Supreme Court of the United States · June 24, 2010 · 561 U.S. 247 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435822 ## Case - **Full name:** MORRISON Et Al. v. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD. Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 24, 2010 - **Citations:** 561 U.S. 247; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 575; 76 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1330; 78 U.S.L.W. 4700; 130 S. Ct. 2869; 177 L. Ed. 2d 535; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5257 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Breyer - **Judges:** Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Ginsburg - **Cited by:** 1,176 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435822 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining “the focus of the Exchange Act is not upon the place where the deception originated, but upon purchases and sales of securities in the United States” and that “Section 10(b) does not punish deceptive conduct, but only deceptive conduct ‘in connection with the purcha… - explaining that “ ‘unless there is the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed’ to give a statute extraterritorial effect, ‘we must presume it is primarily concerned with domestic conditions[,]’” and finding that “there is no affirmative indication in the Excha… - holding that to determine whether a complaint alleges a claim within a statute’s domestic ambit, courts should consider if the alleged conduct in or contact with the United States is within the statute’s “focus,” meaning “the object[ ]” of the statute’s “solicitude” or what th… - holding that subject-matter jurisdiction “refers to a tribunal’s power to hear case,” not whether the “allegations the plaintiff makes entitle him to relief,” and that the extraterritoriality of a federal law is a merits, not a jurisdictional, issue (internal quotation marks o… - holding that Section 10(b) did not reach claims of securities fraud against “foreign and American defendants” based on largely extraterritorial conduct (emphasis added) ## Opinion text Justice Breyer, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 applies to fraud “in connection with” two categories of transactions: (1) “the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange” or (2) “the purchase or sale of . . . any security not so registered.” 15 U. S. C. §78j(b). In this case, the purchased securities are listed only on a few foreign exchanges, none of which has registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a “national securities exchange.” See § 78f. The first category therefore does not apply. Further, the relevant purchases of these unregistered securities took place entirely in Australia and involved only Australian investors. And in accordance with the presumption against extraterritoriality, I do not read the second category to include such transactions. Thus, while state law or other federal fraud statutes, see, e. g., 18 U. S. C. *274 §1341 (mail fraud), §1343 (wire fraud), may apply to the fraudulent activity alleged here to have occurred in the United States, I believe that § 10(b) does not. This case does not require us to consider other circumstances. To the extent the Court’s opinion is consistent with these views, I join it. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435822. Public record. Not legal advice.