본문 바로가기
  • Home

A Study on the Offshore Application of Fraud Prevention Regulations on the US Federal Securities Law

  • Legal Theory & Practice Review
  • Abbr : LTPR
  • 2018, 6(2), pp.197-224
  • Publisher : The Korea Society for Legal Theory and Practice Inc.
  • Research Area : Social Science > Law

won, sang-chul 1

1용인송담대학교

Candidate

ABSTRACT

This article discusses how fraud prevention rules apply to actions and damages outside the United States if US investors or foreign investors (including Korean companies) file lawsuits in US courts based on fraud prevention regulations. I review the some problem regarding on that issues. The state will exercise its sovereignty within its territory, the most common being that of a person or thing existing within its territory, or a jurisdiction exercising jurisdiction on the grounds that certain acts are occurring within its territory. However, if the scope of activities of individuals and corporations is enlarged globally, it can not be dealt with only by domestic law. It is thought that many nations have come to have a common understanding about the necessity of applying the law appropriately for various activities beyond the border. Logically, all national jurisdiction exercises that do not rely on transcendence can be said to be an extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction, but it also fits the definition of transcendentism. In the external disclosure of third restatement of the US External Relations Act of 1986, cases where the jurisdiction can be exercised under the view of the substantiality of applying the US Securities Act have been specifically examined. In Korea, however, the debate about the application of the US antitrust law to the offshore area was centered, and the application of the anti-fraud regulations outside the country was not discussed. However, Morrison’s decision in 2010 is being discussed again. Therefore, I want to review the problem of offshore application of the anti-fraud regulation of the US Securities Law. At the present time, it is thought that collecting knowledge of securities law may be meaningful. In such a case, it is also said that it is an argument about the Morrison judgment.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.