United States: Securities Law/Commodities Exchange Act (CEA) - The World In U.S. Courts: Summer-Fall 2018

Last Updated: December 6 2018
Article by   Orrick

Focus of Inquiry in Determining Whether Cross-Border Transaction Is Subject to US Securities Laws Should Be Formation of the Agreement To Buy Shares

Giunta v. Dingman, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, June 19, 2018

As relevant here, plaintiff Erik Gordon sued Dingman in New York, alleging that Dingman violated US securities laws in connection with his sale of shares in his purported holding company, OWH, which supposedly operated restaurants in the Bahamas. Dingman allegedly made various material misrepresentations about the transaction in New York. At issue was whether the transaction should be considered US "domestic," and thus within the scope of the US laws.

The Court of Appeals observed that the US securities laws generally have no extraterritorial application, and thus reach cross-border transactions only where securities are listed on a US exchange or the transaction can be characterized as "domestic." The latter condition exists for transactions in securities in which "(1) irrevocable liability is incurred in the US, or (2) title passes within the US." The shares of OWH are not publicly traded, so the question is whether the sale was a "domestic" transaction.

The Court of Appeals stated that "irrevocable liability" for a transaction could refer either to the seller's obligation to convey or the buyer's obligation to pay, and that both occurred in this instance in the US. The key allegation was that an oral contract was entered into between the parties while in New York. Dingman argued that the agreement did not establish "irrevocable" liability because it was subject to approval by Bahamian regulators. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, concluding that the irrevocability of the agreement as to the parties was controlling, and that the existence of other conditions that might undo the deal did not change the character of the transaction.

The Court of Appeals also found inapplicable the principle established by the Parkcentral case, in which "the facts may be so predominantly foreign as to render the application of section 10(b) impermissibly extraterritorial" even though the elements of a "domestic" transaction might otherwise be present. Dingman argued that was the case here, because he is a permanent resident of the Bahamas, the venture involved development and operation of businesses in the Bahamas, the corporate entities were all Bahamian, relevant evidence was in the Bahamas, and Bahamian regulations would ultimately control whether the deal would have gone through. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that substantial US contacts existed to prevent the transaction being characterized as essentially Bahamian, and indeed almost all the facts relating to the formation of the agreement—the relevant transaction for purposes of the extraterritoriality analysis—occurred in New York.

The Court of Appeals thus reversed a contrary decision by the District Court and returned the case to proceed to trial.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-US Executives Upheld Where They Each Signed US Securities Law Filings

In re Veon Ltd. Securities Litigation, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, August 30, 2018

This putative class action under the US securities laws was brought against Veon and four of its senior executives for their alleged roles in Veon having made allegedly false and misleading securities filings. Veon, whose securities were traded in the US, was incorporated in the Bahamas and had its principal place of business in The Netherlands. None of the executives resided in the US. As relevant here, they moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the Court could not assert personal jurisdiction over them.

The Court stated that asserting specific personal jurisdiction over a non-US defendant must satisfy the "minimum contacts" test of the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution, and because the securities laws authorize worldwide service of process, the test must focus on the defendant's contacts with the US as a whole, not merely with the forum State. Those contacts, in turn must be "actions by the defendant himself that create a substantial connection with the forum," and must give rise to the claim. The Court found this test satisfied by the plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants were senior executives of a multinational company who signed required SEC filings, meaning that they were targeting the US and understood the filings would be relied upon by US and other investors trading on US exchanges.

Due Process also requires that the assertion of jurisdiction be "reasonable." Where, as here, the "minimum contacts" test has been satisfied, the defendants must make a "compelling case" for the existence of other factors that might make the assertion of jurisdiction unreasonable. The Court noted that the reasonableness requirement is almost always satisfied in cases brought under federal statutes providing for nationwide service of process, as those statutes carry with them an expression of a strong federal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The defendants could make no such showing, with their arguments about the inconvenience of litigation in the US not rising to the required showing that defending themselves be "gravely difficult."

CEA Applies to Trades Cleared and Settled on Korean Exchange Because their Earlier "Matching" on the Globex Exchange in Illinois Established a Binding US Contract

Myun–uk Choi v. Tower Research Capital LLC, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, May 9, 2018

Plaintiffs, five Korean citizens, bought and sold futures contracts on the "night market" of the Korea Exchange, KRX. Although KRX is headquartered in Korea, orders placed at night are matched with a counterparty on the CME Globex electronic platform in Illinois. Trades so matched are then cleared and settled on the KRX when it opens for business the next day. The plaintiffs sued a New York-based options trader under the CEA, claiming that it had "manipulated" the market and caused the plaintiffs to lose money. The trial court had dismissed the action in part because it considered the case to seek an impermissible extraterritorial application of the CEA to transactions in Korea. The Court of Appeals in New York disagreed with the trial court's characterization of the facts, and vacated its decision.

Prior cases had established that the antifraud provisions of the principal US securities laws applied to (i) "transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges" and (ii) "domestic transactions in other securities," with the latter term including situations where "irrevocable liability is incurred or title passes within the United States." The Court of Appeals noted that the CEA is worded differently from the antifraud provisions, and accordingly the CEA may not include any test that depended on whether a security was traded on a "domestic exchange." Regardless, jurisdiction would still attach under the CEA if it involved application to a "domestic transaction," and the Court of Appeals thought the complaint made such an allegation "plausible." Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged not only that KRX night market trades bind the parties once they are "matched," but also that the "express view" of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which operates CME Globex, is that matches on the electronic platform "are essentially binding contracts" and that exchange members "are required to honor all bids or offers which have not been withdrawn from the market." The Court of Appeals found no basis to conclude that a trading party "may unilaterally revoke acceptance following matching on CME Globex." and thus in the "classic contractual sense" parties incur irrevocable liability on KRX night market trades at the moment of matching. In such case, the transactions would be deemed domestic and the CEA would apply.

Complaint Failed To Establish That Acquisitions of Stock in Swiss Entity and Promissory Note From Swiss National Were Acquired in US "Domestic" Transactions

Schentag v. Nebgen, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, June 21, 2018

Schentag is a holder of medical patents who entered into a business arrangement with Nebgen so he could obtain funding to commercialize his inventions. Schentag's New York company transferred his patents to a Swiss limited partnership, in exchange for which he received an ownership share and a promissory note. Schentag never received payment under the note and he alleged that the transaction was a fraud. He sued Nebgen in New York under the federal securities laws.

As relevant here, the Court noted that the US securities laws have no extraterritorial application, applying only to securities traded on a US exchange or transactions deemed US "domestic." This latter class of transactions was described by the Court as comprising transactions where "irrevocable liability" for a purchase or sale arises or "title passes" in the US. The Court found this test not to have been satisfied by bare allegations that certain meetings that led to the transaction took place in the US. It observed, for example, that the complaint failed to allege that Schentag "came to an agreement with Nebgen about the terms of the transaction" during the US meetings, including that Schentag there agreed to become a shareholder of the Swiss entity or that he would accept a promissory note in exchange for his intellectual property.

The Court also rejected Schentag's argument that the transaction was US "domestic" because his acquisition of and payment for the Swiss shares was paid for by funds wired his New York account, observing that transfers of money, alone, were inadequate to establish the location where a transaction occurred for purposes of the extraterritoriality analysis. For the foregoing reasons, Schentag's claims under the US securities laws were dismissed.

[Editor's Note: The Schentag case is also addressed in the Personal Jurisdiction/Forum non Conveniens section of this report.]

Court of Appeals Finds US Securities Laws Applicable to Trades in ADRs Because They Were Consummated in US

Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp., US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, July 17, 2018

Purchasers of American Depository Receipts (ADRs) of Toshiba Corporation of Japan lost money when Toshiba restated profits in connection with an accounting fraud. Various purchasers brought a putative class action against Toshiba and its executives in the US under the antifraud provision of the US Securities laws as well as a Japanese counterpart. The trial court dismissed the action as reflecting an impermissibly extraterritorial application of Section 10(b). In this opinion, the court of appeals reinstates the case.

Fraud claims under US securities law generally can proceed only with respect to securities registered on a US "exchange," or where that is not the case if the transaction in question took place in the US. The latter test is satisfied in either of two ways: (i) where "the purchaser incurred irrevocable liability within the US to take and pay for a security or the seller incurred irrevocable liability within the US to deliver a security, "or (ii) where "title" to the security passed from seller to buyer in the US.

The Court of Appeals first concluded that the Toshiba ADRs are "securities." It then expressed skepticism that the particular private market on which the ADRS traded (OTC Link) was an "exchange," but did not resolve the question because the transaction occurred in the US and so satisfied the alternative test for extraterritorial applicability. Specifically, the Court of Appeals noted that both the buyer and the institutions selling the ADRs were based in the US and thus consummation of the transactions must have been US domestic. Another case had declined to apply the securities laws to facts having little connection to the US even where transactions had occurred in the US, but the Court of Appeals did not consider it correctly decided. In any event, the other decision was distinguishable because, unlike the present action, it involved private contracts rather than ADRs, the contracts were traded outside the US and not tied to the value of the stock whose company was affected by fraud, and the defendant company was not alleged to have been aware of the contracts.

All of this said, the Court of Appeals found the complaint inadequate to allege a substantive violation and returned the case to the trial court so that the plaintiffs might seek to cure these defects.

RETURN TO Summer-Fall 2018 Edition

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
1 Oct 2019, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Orrick is proud to host the AIPN for its final breakfast meeting of 2019 for a session titled “Helping the World Gasify”. As natural gas production and use is very unevenly distributed throughout the world, often gas produced in association with crude oil is sold below cost or flared.

25 Nov 2019, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Lorraine McGowen will be speaking on the upcoming “Evaluating the Financial Health of an Entity” panel at the New York session of the Pocket MBA: Finance for Lawyers and Other Professionals program, hosted by the Practising Law Institute.

2 Dec 2019, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Evan Hollander will co-chair the Practising Law Institute’s annual Nuts and Bolts of Corporate Bankruptcy this year.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions