Morrison sought to push non-U.S. investors who traded non-U.S. securities on non-U.S. exchanges to forums outside of U.S. federal courts. Despite the decision, U.S. litigation continues to profoundly shape securities litigation globally, as demonstrated by recent cases involving BP and Petrobras. Often, the U.S. ADR suits sprint ahead of legal proceedings in the issuers' home countries, as practitioners there work with funders to "book build" while keeping an eye on how those U.S. cases play out.
Global investors are coming to the U.S. in greater numbers than ever to get involved in securities cases as lead plaintiffs or to opt-out and pursue direct actions. At the same time, U.S. lawyers are exporting their practices: setting-up offices and relationships in other countries, organizing and funding litigation worldwide, and/or attempting to resolve matters without practicing in local jurisdictions, using techniques like non-binding settlement efforts and Dutch Foundations.
Attend our webinar as Mike Lange, Securities Litigation Counsel at FRT, shares insights into:
How the U.S. system is shaping securities litigation globally
The Morrison decision and its impact
Global Securities Litigation: trends, challenges and opportunities
It’s been nearly eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court ring-fenced U.S. jurisdiction in the Morrison v. National Australian Bank (NAB) decision, but the maturation of global securities class action litigation has never been more rapid.
Institutions have started looking beyond securities to recovery opportunities in other areas touching their investments and operations. Beyond submitting settlement claims forms and opting out to pursue direct actions in US courts, institutions are now monitoring and considering securities litigation matters in other countries.