Source: http://euservice24.info/artikel/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4-%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8-16.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:11:23+00:00

Document:
The anti-fraud laws of the United States may be given extraterritorial reach whenever a predominantly foreign transaction has substantial effects within the United *262 States. See Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 405 F.2d 200 (2d Cir.), reh'g on other grounds,405 F.2d 215 (in banc), cert. denied,395 U.S. 906, 89 S.Ct. 1747, 23 L.Ed.2d 219 (1969) Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 402(1)(c) (1987) [hereinafter “Third Restatement”]. In determining whether certain effects qualify as “substantial,” courts have been reluctant to apply our laws to transactions that have only remote and indirect effects in the United States, since “it would be ... erroneous to assume that the legislature always means to go to the full extent permitted” by a literal reading of the anti-fraud laws. Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corp. v. Maxwell, 468 F.2d 1326, 1334 (2d Cir.1972). As Judge Friendly observed: “When, as here, a court is confronted with transactions that on any view are predominantly foreign, it must seek to determine whether Congress would have wished the precious resources of United States courts and law enforcement agencies to be devoted to them rather than leave the problem to foreign countries.” Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Inc., 519 F.2d 974, 985 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,423 U.S. 1018, 96 S.Ct. 453, 46 L.Ed.2d 389 (1975).
 In this case, the District Court should have asserted jurisdiction once it noted that Minorco knew that the British nominees were required by law to forward the tender offer documents to Gold Fields' shareholders and ADR depository banks in the United States. This “effect” (the transmittal of the documents by the nominees) was clearly a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct outside the territory of the United States. Third Restatesent, supra, § 402(1)(c).
 В данном случае Окружной суд должен был признать свою юрисдикцию, как только ему стало известно о том, что компания Минорко знала, что британские номинальные держатели должны были в соответствии с законом передать документы с предложением о покупке акций акционерам компании Голд Филдз и банкам-депозитариям американских депозитарных расписок в США. Настоящий "результат" (передача документов номинальными держателями) явно был прямым и предсказуемым результатом деятельности за пределами территории США. Третье издание Свода законов, цит. выше, § 402(1)(c).

References: v. 
 § 402
 v. 
 v. 
 § 402
 § 402