O'Melveny & Myers LLP Newsletter
페이지 정보
작성일12-04-20 22:38관련링크
본문
SEC Report on the Supreme Court's Morrison Decision Sets the Stage for Congressional Action
(미국 증권거래위원회, 연방대법원의 Morrison 판결에 대한 보고서를 발표하여, 입법 조치를 제안)
O’Melveny & Myers 뉴스레터 2012년 4월 16일자
[요약]
미국 증권거래위원회 (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC)는 2012. 4. 11. 연방대법원이 2010년 10월 선고한 Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. 사건 판결이 국제 증권 사기 소송 사건에 미친 영향에 관하여 108쪽에 이르는 상세한 보고서를 발표였다. 이 보고서는 미국 의회가 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act를 제정할 때 SEC에 같은 주제에 관한 보고서 제출을 요청한 것에 따라서 제출되었다.
Morrison 판결 이전에 대부분의 연방법원들은 (1) 불법행위를 구성하는 행위의 상당 부분이 미국에서 일어난 경우 또는 (2) 외국에서 일어난 행위가 미국 내에서 상당한 손해를 미칠 것이라는 점을 예견할 수 있었던 경우에는 그 증권이 외국 증권이라고 하더라도 미국 1934년 증권거래법 (the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) Section 10(b)를 역외 적용하여 증권 사기 행위에 대한 집단소송을 미국 법원에 제기하는 것을 허용하는 입장을 취하였다. Morrison 판결 이후에는, 미국 증권거래소에 상장된 증권에 관한 청구 또는 미국 안에서 일어난 거래와 관련된 청구만 연방법인 증권거래법에 따른 소송을 제기할 수 있게 되었다.
Morrison 판결 직후에 미국 의회는 Dodd-Frank Act를 제정하면서 SEC와 미국 법무부에게 Morrison 판결 이전에 법원의 주류 입장이었던 행위지 및 효과지 기준설에 따라서 외국 증권에 대해서도 증권거래법을 집행할 권한을 허용함으로써 Morrison 판결을 일부 무력화시켰다. 하지만 개인이 제기하는 집단 민사 소송에 관해서는 미국 의회는 분명한 입장을 유보하고, SEC로 하여금 보고서를 제출하도록 요청하였었다.
이번 보고서에서 SEC는 의회의 요청에 따라 Morrison 판결의 내용과 그 영향에 관해 광범위한 분석을 하였다. 이 보고서에서 SEC는 Morrison 사건 심리 당시에 제출하였던 의견을 그대로 유지하고 있는데, 행위지 및 효과지 기준이 기본적인 기준이 되어야 한다고 주장하였다. SEC는 이 보고서에서 여러 가지 입법 제안도 내놓았다. 그 가운데는 Morrison 판결 이전의 행위지 및 효과지 기준설로 돌아가는 것부터 연방 대법원이 채택한 거래 기준설을 수정하는 것까지 여러 가지 가능한 입법안들이 포함되어 있다.
[전문]
SEC Report on the Supreme Court’s Morrison Decision and Commissioner Aguilar’s Dissent Set the Stage for Congress to Consider Legislation to Expand the Reach of US Securities Laws
April 16, 2012
Matthew W. Close, Jeffrey Kilduff, Bingna Guo, Katharine S. Mercer of O’Melveny and Myers LLP
On April 11, the SEC published a 106-page report examining cross-border securities fraud litigation since the June 2010 Supreme Court case, Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.[1], and legislative proposals to modify or reverse the Supreme Court’s decision.[2] The SEC report was requested by Congress when it passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.[3]
Before Morrison, most federal courts allowed securities fraud class action claims to be brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 if a sufficient level of conduct comprising the fraud occurred in the United States or if foreign conduct caused a foreseeable and substantial harm in the United States. After Morrison, only claims involving securities listed on US stock exchanges or involved in domestic transactions are viable under federal law.[4]
The Morrison decision generated substantial controversy and debate. By limiting the reach of US law, Morrison had a profound effect on international securities litigation. In what was probably the most dramatic outcome, the plaintiffs in Rosenbaum Partners, et al. v. Vivendi Universal, S.A., et al., who had won at trial and expected an estimated $9.3 billion in damages, had their claims all but dismissed after Morrison.[5]
Within a month of the ruling, Congress partially reversed Morrison in the Dodd-Frank Act by granting the SEC and Department of Justice authority to bring enforcement actions involving foreign securities using the pre-Morrison conduct and effects tests.[6] Congress refrained, however, from expressly authorizing the extra-territorial application of the Securities Exchange Act to private party claims involving securities traded outside the US. Instead, Congress requested the SEC’s study and views.[7]
Last week’s SEC report is an exhaustive analysis of Morrison and its aftermath. It summarizes pre- and post-Morrison law, as well as 72 public letters received in response to the Commission’s solicitation for public comment. The SEC also reiterated its view, originally expressed in its amicus brief in Morrison, that the conduct and effects test should be the governing standard so long as the plaintiff can show that its injury resulted directly from conduct within the US.[8] The SEC staff also identified a host of additional proposals for legislation, ranging from returning to the pre-Morrison conduct and effects test to simply modifying the transactional test adopted by the Supreme Court.
For SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar, the SEC report did not go far enough and represented a missed opportunity to urge specific Congressional legislation. Commissioner Aguilar took the unusual step of writing a strongly worded dissent.[9] Commissioner Aguilar has been outspoken and influential on international securities litigation issues in the past. Last year, during a speech discussing Chinese companies listed on US stock exchanges, Commissioner Aguilar posited that, “[w]hile the vast majority of these Chinese companies may be legitimate businesses, a growing number of them are proving to have significant accounting deficiencies or being vessels of outright fraud.”[10]
In his dissent last week, Commissioner Aguilar expressed his “strong disappointment” with the study and urged Congressional action.[11] He specifically criticized his own Commission’s report for (1) failing to explain that private securities fraud litigation is a vital complement to SEC actions and essential to investor protection, (2) overstating the international comity concerns associated with restoring investors’ rights to assert private claims under Section 10(b), (3) inaccurately portraying investor harm resulting from Morrison and failing to convey a sense of urgency as to the harm being suffered, and (4) providing as an option that Congress take no action at all.[12] Commissioner Aguilar’s call to action is almost certain to spur some members of Congress to propose legislation to modify or reverse the Morrison holding. There are powerful interests advocating for legislative change, including numerous public pension funds.
When Congress takes up these issues, it should do so recognizing that since Morrison was decided, US courts have seen a surge in securities cases involving foreign companies listed on US stock exchanges, particularly companies based in China. Experience with these transnational cases has shown that many of the concerns about applying US securities laws in the global financial market are real and substantial, particularly when US discovery norms are imposed. Congress also should consider recent securities litigation developments in Canada, Australia, and European Union member states where varying approaches are being implemented. These developments show that traditional assumptions about the perceived absence of remedies outside the US are outdated. Moreover, policymakers need to consider the extraterritorial application of US securities law, and resulting class action litigation, mindful of the recent multinational response to securities fraud claims.
Investors, directors and officers, and underwriters should watch developments on Capitol Hill closely during this election season as the debate over the Morrison decision and legislative responses to it is unlikely to go away.
