The New Development Of American Securities Law Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Accompanying with the international development of the security market and the enhancing dependence of the security markets among different countries, more and more security transactions are crossing the territorial borders, which injecting a flow of fresh vitality into a country’s market while increasing the risk of illegal security transactions. The United States, as the center of the world security market, is known for its strict market supervision. So when involved in the transnational security transactions, the United States is willing to take the position of the "world police". Accordingly, its federal courts are switching their roles to the "world adjudicators" too. The most powerful proof is that the federal courts, by establishing the judicial precedents system with "effect test" and "act test" at the core, continuously lower the threshold for the foreign security litigations entering into the federal courts and increasingly expand the scope of the courts’ extraterritorial jurisdiction. This helps the United State strengthening its supervision over its internal security market by the interference of the courts. However, the Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "Morrison") in2010, adjudicated by the Federal Supreme Courts, overruled the judicial precedents system for determining extraterritorial jurisdiction developed by the lower federal courts. In addition, the Morrison case also distinguished the jurisdiction matter and the law application matter. However, on the next day that the Court published the final ruling, the Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as "Dodd-Frank Act"), which modified the jurisdiction clause in Security Exchange Act of1934. The action of the Congress caused another discussion among the scholars and the practitioners about the influence of Morrison.This thesis is divided into five chapters to discuss the development of the US extraterritorial jurisdiction in the field of security law. Chapter I introduced the meanings of the phrase "extraterritorial jurisdiction" in the United States and discussed its theoretical and legislative foundation. In the American security law, extraterritorial jurisdiction has meanings of legislative jurisdiction, judicial jurisdiction and administrative jurisdiction, among which the subject matter jurisdiction of judicial jurisdiction is a key part. Chapter II mainly introduced the US extraterritorial jurisdiction system in security law based on "effect test","act test" and "effect-act test". Chapter Ⅲ gave a detailed introduction of the Morrison case and its judicial rulings, as well as the reformation and development it had upon the extraterritorial jurisdiction system. Chapter Ⅳ mainly introduced the influence that the Dodd-Frank Act had upon Morrison. In general, the Dodd-Frank Act did not deny the Supreme Court’s final ruling concerning the extraterritorial jurisdiction in Morrison. So the final ruling still has a binding force upon the lower federal courts. More importantly, the extraterritorial jurisdiction matter and the law application matter are formally distinguished from each other. Chapter Ⅴ introduced the legislative status of the security extraterritorial jurisdiction system in China, and made some suggestions based on the change of the US judicial practice. It is suggested that China should mainly focus on the following two aspects:on the one hand it should provide adequate legal remedy to the Chinese investors who facing security litigations in foreign markets, and on the other hand it should offer sufficient legal protection to the investors in its national security market, which helps increasing the attraction of the national market while maintaining its stability.