Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.
| Decision Date | 24 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-1191.,08-1191. |
| Citation | Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869, 177 L.Ed.2d 535 (2010) |
| Parties | Robert MORRISON, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Thomas A. Dubbs, for petitioners.
George T. Conway, III, for respondents.
Matthew D. Roberts, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting respondents.
Eric Seiler, Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, New York, NY, A. Graham Allen, Rogers Towers, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, George T. Conway, III, Counsel of Record, John F. Lynch, Carrie M. Reilly, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY, for Respondents.
Samuel Issacharoff, New York, NY, Thomas A. Dubbs, Counsel of Record, James W. Johnson, Richard W. Joffe, Barry M. Okun, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, for petitioners.
We decide whether
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
163 cases
-
CONSERVANCY of Sw. Fla. v. UNITED States FISH, Case No. 2:10-cv-106-FtM-SPC
...matter jurisdiction of the court. Subject matter jurisdiction relates to the court's power to adjudicate a case. Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2877 (2010); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237, 1243 (2010). Plaintiffs assert federal jurisdiction under 28 U......
-
Kaw Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, No. 06-934L
...not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained, reluctance to do so."Frankfurter, supra, at 535; see also Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S.Ct. 2869, 2880 (2010) (rather than courts' "divining what 'Congress would have wished' if it had had addressed the problem[, a] more na......
-
Kaw Nation of Oklahoma v. United States
...not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained, reluctance to do so."Frankfurter, supra, at 535; see also Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S.Ct. 2869, 2880 (2010) (rather than courts' "divining what 'Congress would have wished' if it had had addressed the problem[, a] more na......
-
Atiffi v. Kerry
...to bepart of defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2877 (2010) (Rule 12(b)(1) applies when the question is subject-matter jurisdiction, which "refers to a tribunal's power to ......
Get Started for Free
29 firm's commentaries
-
The Latham FPI Guide: Accessing the US Capital Markets From Outside the United States - 2019 Edition
...6-42; see also Exchange Act Section 28(a) (limiting recovery for damages in actions under the Exchange Act to actual damages). 32 130 S.Ct 2869, 2884 (2010). 33 See id. at 34 Id. at 2885. 35 See, e.g., In re Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Securities Litigation, 2013 WL 28053, at n.14 and *15......
-
Alternatives to Traditional Securities Offerings
...applicability of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in private rights of action. See Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010). In Morrison, the Court held that section 10(b) did not provide a cause of action for foreign plaintiffs who purchased securiti......
-
Is The United States A Shangri-La Of Class Action Litigation?
...also strongly argued against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Particularly, the Supreme Court held in Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bk., Ltd., 130 S.Ct. 2869 (2010) that foreign governments have the right to decide how to regulate their own securities markets. This respect for forei......
-
The Latham Global IPO Guide - 2021 Edition
...(limiting recovery for damages in actions under the Exchange Act to actual damages).37Liability Under the US Federal Securities Laws for Global IPOs32 130 S.Ct 2869, 2884 (2010).33 Securities Act Rule 405; see also Exchange Act Rule 12b-2.34 Federal Securities Litigation, p. 11-5.35 Id., pp......
Get Started for Free
28 books & journal articles
-
Aliens Among Us: Factors to Determine Whether Corporations Should Face Prosecution in U.S. Courts for their Actions Overseas
...26. See IIT v. Vencap, Ltd., 519 F.2d 1001, 1015 (2d Cir. 1975), abrogated on other grounds by Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010). 518 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 77 Commentators have suggested that the statute is rooted in the following federal powers: the grant of f......
-
Human Rights After Kiobel: Choice of Law and the Rise of Transnational Tort Litigation
...(discussing Kiobel's reliance on Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), in interpreting when claims touch and concern the territory of the United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption). But see Ahmed v. Magan, No. 2:10-cv-00342, 2013 WL 4479077,......
-
Overview of U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Law and its Analysis
...their own imaginations to the decisions of foreign institutions to justify their decisions”). 122. Cf., e.g. , Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2885-86 (2010) (referring to briefs from the governments of Australia, France, and the United Kingdom noting diferences with U.S.......
-
The future of human rights litigation after Kiobel.
...IV. (6) See infra Part V. (7) See infra Part VI. (8) 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013). (9) See infra Part VII. (10) See infra Part VIII. (11) 130 S. Ct 2869 (2010). (12) 542 U.S. 692 (13) This brief discussion of the demise of the ATS is taken substantially from my most recent article. See Roger P. A......
Get Started for Free