U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 2B— SECURITIES EXCHANGES

15 U.S.C. § 78dd

Foreign securities exchanges

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Unlawful transactions on foreign securities exchanges

It shall be unlawful for any broker or dealer, directly or indirectly, to make use of the mails or of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce for the purpose of effecting on an exchange not within or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, any transaction in any security the issuer of which is a resident of, or is organized under the laws of, or has its principal place of business in, a place within or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors or to prevent the evasion of this chapter.

(b) Business without the jurisdiction of the United States

The provisions of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder shall not apply to any person insofar as he transacts a business in securities without the jurisdiction of the United States, unless he transacts such business in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of this chapter.

(c) Rule of construction

No provision of this chapter that was added by the Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010, or any rule or regulation thereunder, shall apply to any person insofar as such person transacts a business in security-based swaps without the jurisdiction of the United States, unless such person transacts such business in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of this chapter that was added by the Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010. This subsection shall not be construed to limit the jurisdiction of the Commission under any provision of this chapter, as in effect prior to July 21, 2010.

(June 6, 1934, ch. 404, title I, § 30, 48 Stat. 904; Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, § 772(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1802.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this title”. See References in Text note set out under section 78a of this title.

The Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010, referred to in subsec. (c), is title VII of Pub. L. 111–203, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1641, which enacted chapter 109 (§ 8301 et seq.) of this title and enacted and amended numerous other sections and notes in the Code. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 8301 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

2010—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–203 added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the later of 360 days after July 21, 2010, or, to the extent a provision of subtitle B (§§ 761–774) of title VII of Pub. L. 111–203 requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provision of subtitle B, see section 774 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 77b of this title.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Securities and Exchange Commission, with certain exceptions, to Chairman of such Commission, see Reorg. Plan No. 10 of 1950, §§ 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1265, set out under section 78d of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1966–2022 · leading case: United States v. Ng Lap Seng, 934 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Ng Lap Seng, 934 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 18× “§§ 371 , 666, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd‐2, 78dd‐3, and of related money laundering, 18 U.”
United States v. Joel Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 78dd~2(h)(2)(A) (defining “foreign official” as “any officer or employee of a foreign government or any .”
United States v. Kozeny, 667 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2011). “After a jury trial, Bourke was convicted of conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78dd — 1 et seq., 18 U.S.C. § 371 , and the Travel Act, 18 U.”
Luis Mujica v. Airscan Inc., 771 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2014). “, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd–1, although the United States does not monitor or regulate all the behavior of its citizens, natural or corporate, 60 MUJICA V.”
United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2009). “15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd~I, 78dd-2; United States v.”
Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Grp., 729 F. Supp. 2d 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(a). And § 30(b) bars application of the statute to any securities transaction outside the jurisdiction of the United States unless it is done in violation of regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission issued to prevent evasions of the Exchange Act.”
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 631 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2010). “at 2882-83 (noting that while Section 30(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(b), can be interpreted to apply abroad, “the presumption against extraterritoriality operates to limit that provision to its terms”).”
Prime Int'l Trading Ltd. v. BP PLC, 937 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2019). “By contrast, as the Supreme Court noted in Morrison, other provisions in the securities laws, such as 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(a), “contain[] what [Sections 6(c)(1) and 9(a)(2)] lack[ ]: a clear statement of extraterritorial effect.”
Duha v. Agrium, Inc., 448 F.3d 867 (6th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “Duha’s Experience in Argentina Duha alleges that, while he was in Argentina, he discovered that ASP was engaging in shady record-keeping and business practices, including bribery in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd et seq. Duha reported relevant…”
Keller Found./case Fndn v. Joseph Tracy, 696 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(a). 10 . Although the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is named as the federal respondent, he supports Tracy’s appeal.”
United States v. Bodmer, 342 F. Supp. 2d 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). · cites it 2× “The Government alleges that Omega and Pharos Capital Management, as well as their affiliates and subsidiaries, constitute “domestic concerns,” as that term is defined in the FCPA of 1977, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd — 2(h)(1)(B). 3 The Government further alleges that in his capacity as a…”
Kauthar SDN BHD v. Sternberg, 149 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1998). “2d at 30 , § 30(b) states that the 1934 Act “shall not apply to any person insofar as he transacts a business in securities without the jurisdiction of the United States, unless he transacts such business in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may…”
Show all 60 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(a) — 6 cases
Prime Int'l Trading Ltd. v. BP PLC, 937 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2019). “By contrast, as the Supreme Court noted in Morrison, other provisions in the securities laws, such as 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(a), “contain[] what [Sections 6(c)(1) and 9(a)(2)] lack[ ]: a clear statement of extraterritorial effect.”
Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Grp., 729 F. Supp. 2d 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “See 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(a). And § 30(b) bars application of the statute to any securities transaction outside the jurisdiction of the United States unless it is done in violation of regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission issued to prevent evasions of the Exchange Act.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Ficeto, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
Keller Found./case Fndn v. Joseph Tracy, 696 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2012). “” 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(a). 10 . Although the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is named as the federal respondent, he supports Tracy’s appeal.”
Eur. Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 783 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2015).
— 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(b) — 29 cases
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 631 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2010). “at 2882-83 (noting that while Section 30(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(b), can be interpreted to apply abroad, “the presumption against extraterritoriality operates to limit that provision to its terms”).”
Kauthar SDN BHD v. Sternberg, 149 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1998). “2d at 30 , § 30(b) states that the 1934 Act “shall not apply to any person insofar as he transacts a business in securities without the jurisdiction of the United States, unless he transacts such business in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may…”
United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Nicholas A. Zahareas, Tuschner & Co. Inc., John M. Tuschner, Euroamerican Sec., S.A., 272 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir. 2001).
Arthur Lipper Corp. & Arthur Lipper, III, Petitioners, v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Respondent, 547 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1977).
Klaus Zoelsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co, 824 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
— 15 U.S.C. § 78dd(c) — 1 case
Sec. Indus. & Fin. Markets Ass'n v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 67 F. Supp. 3d 373 (D.D.C. 2014).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.